Mass Effect Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Mass Effect Wiki

This is the talk page for Padok Wiks.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.

Trivia[]

Regarding the trivia which was once removed due to the supposedly unverifiable Twitter account, just to point out that Patrick Weekes personal Twitter account (@patsquinade) states that @PatrickWeekes is his public work account. Further checking shows that other well known Bioware personalities (such as Casey and Chris) follows @PatrickWeekes from their own Twitter accounts. — Teugene (Talk) 20:44, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

And that is still an unconfirmed twitter account. This was true when it was first posted a month ago, and it is still true today. Just because someone follows another person's twitter, is not confirmtion that it is a valid account. We need confirmation and since we do not have it, the information will be removed. I do not understand why my edit summaries in this matter were ignored. Lancer1289 22:22, April 27, 2012 (UTC)
First of all, don't assume your edit summaries were ignored just because there's no direct reference to it. It is for this reason that I took the trouble to do some research and found solid information without even trying to be negatively dismissive of your prior edit (I even went lengths not to undo your edit from one of the articles because it would appear rude). Secondly, I admire your dedication in trying to adhere to a strict confirmation requirement for facts on this wiki. But if you had actually looked up at his tweets, there's would be no ounce of doubt that it is his account. Either that, or it's just an overzealousness to dismiss everything with "requiring confirmation" without fact checking yourself even when presented with solid evidence to prove it. In the same time, you had not provide actually provided solid reason to disprove it. So, here are some points for you in no particular order of importance.
1. Description of himself in his Twitter account: "Writer at EA BioWare. Sometimes talk like Mordin. Always aim poorly."
2. As I mentioned above, his Twitter account is followed by some top Bioware staffs like Casey, Chris, Mike Laidlaw, Mac Walters, etc. Ever wonder why would they even follow a fake Patrick Weekes? Hmm?
3. He posted obvious pictures of himself from his Twitter.[1]
4. In an unofficial interview with him and comments regarding the interview from his Twitter.[2]
  • An apology from the interviewer for misinterpreting his interview.[3]
  • His subsequent reply to the apology[4]
5. Plenty of tweets referring to his work at Bioware (listing only a few)[5][6]
6. Previously, a controversial post about the ending supposedly from Patrick's Penny Arcade account[7], which was proven to be a fake, and his own reply from Twitter regarding the issue.[8]
7. Chris Priestly tweeting to his wife (Karin Weekes - @bellecanto114) and Patrick's (humourous) reply[9]
  • And what about the numerous tweets from Karin referring to @patrickweekes as her husband?[10]
8. And how did we even confirm other Bioware Twitter accounts previously?
There. I went great lengths to dig up information just for you just so you wouldn't have any reasonable doubts. In fact, I'm even wondering why should I want to go through this hassle to prove a trivia of some minor characters. If you had known me from my prior edits, I do not recklessly add info without actually doing proper checking of the sources. If only if you had shown the respect to me by properly checking the initial sources that I had provided. Meanwhile, I'm willing to let the community to prove me very wrong here by scrutinizing the info I had provided. So please, go ahead and prove that I've got all this wrong, then I will let this slide. — Teugene (Talk) 16:37, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

As the user who originally posted that trivia, I agree with Teugene. If Weekes' Twitter isn't considered "confirmed", then there's a lot of information sourced as coming from Casey Hudson's Twitter that would need to be removed out of principle. Mr. Mittens 16:55, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, hence point #8. — Teugene (Talk) 17:01, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
So using an unconfirmed account to confirm it is now valid? What? That doesn't make any one iota of sense. That is just faulty logic if I ever saw it. You have so far provided no evidence to say that is his twitter account. Using another unconfirmed twitter to confirm one is also not permitted. Anyone can create a twitter account, and anyone can say anything on it. There was a fight to allow Ms. Norman's when it initially came up and only after JakePT presented conclusive evidence was it allowed. Since then, all twitter accounts require independent confirmation from a valid source.
Every twitter account used currently has some form of independent confirmation from a trustworthy and reliable source. Casey's was from an interview from E3, IIRC, where he stated his account and said that he will reply to questions on it. A few of the other accounts come from BSN confirmation, and are backed up by interviews.
The very fact that you keep undoing these edits, even when I state multiple times that it is an unconfirmed account, tells me that you will continue to do so no matter what I say, so I don't even know why I'm posting this message because it will no nothing so I will say this anyway and leave unconfirmed information in the articles from an invalid source. We need independent confirmation that it is his account, nothing from twitter is considered valid from an unconfirmed account. The fact that Hudson follows it means nothing. Anyone can follow any twitter account, that doesn’t mean anything. Lancer1289 17:28, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
Did you even check the points mentioned? I highly doubt you even did. You did not even address all the points stated, choosing to loosely nitpick from 1 point in order to try and disprove it! I feel totally frustrated and disappointed especially for the amount of time I put in to find these information for you. — Teugene (Talk) 17:43, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
I did check everything, and what infuriates me is that you did not listen the three or four times I stated that it is an unconfirmed account, and we require confirmation. You did not provide it, and you still haven't. I actually addressed all the points in short because you kept sighting an unconfirmed account to confirm an unconfirmed account. However, since you want to go point by point, I will comply.
  1. Again, anyone on twitter can say anything. We've never accepted this as confirmation and never will.
  2. Anyone can follow any account on twitter for no reason. This is also not valid confirmation and never will be.
  3. Again, anyone can post just about anything on twitter, and using an unconfirmed account to confirm it is not valid.
  4. While it is BSN, it is sighting a forum site as its source. Forum and blog site have never been allowed as sources. Never.
  • Using a random account to site it, not confirmation.
  • Using unconfirmed account to confirm the same account. Not confirmation.
  1. Again, using an unconfirmed account to confirm it. Anyone can say anything on twitter.
  2. This is one where context is removed from the issue. The tweet form the still unconfirmed account could refer to anything. Not to mention the site it is initially being from is questionable, but might be allowed to stand. The response, could be anything, but again it s an unconfirmed account.
  3. Again anyone can do anything on twitter.
  4. Using more unconfirmed accounts to validate something. Not confirmation
  5. Addressed already in previous comment.
The fact is that twitter, and any other social media site for that matter, has a higher level of confirmation that is required before we can use it. As stated previously, there was a huge fight over allowing just one twitter account in the first place. It wasn't until Jake presented conclusive evidence from BSN, well its precursor, of Ms. Norman actually stating flat out "truffle is my twitter account", or something along those lines, was it allowed. Any other twitter account has had the same standard. We need independent confirmation, not from twitter, or if so, then stating it flat out, that an account belongs to this person. So far, you have yet to provide anything apart from tweets and a questionable site with a response that lacks context. If you can get some solid confirmation from a reliable and trustworthy source, then I will have no objection to it as it is both funny and interesting, however you have get it first. Lancer1289 18:00, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
Here's a better analogy, twitter is like IMDb, unacceptable without another, more reliable and trustworthy source. We don’t accept IMDb as a source by itself because of how it works, and twitter works much in the same way. Lancer1289 18:11, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'm totally amused and bemused. Context is all present in the points I've given, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. All the replies has been mostly "unconfirmed account" again instead of a proper rebuttal to prove otherwise, but whatever. Clearly we will not agree on this and I'm going to just leave it here, so feel free to remove it at your will. I'm not prepared to spend this much energy on a trivia again.
On a side note, I disagree with the IMDB as an unacceptable source as I consider them to be much more stringent with information passed to them, in comparison with the open nature of wiki. But that's a separate issue and let's save the discussions and arguments for another time eh?
Teugene (Talk) 03:52, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
Except in this circumstance, it is the only argument that is relevant and the only one that is needed. We do not under any circumstances accept information from an unconfirmed account. How many times must I say this before you get it? To date, you have yet to provide any evidence, which is not from a blog site or unconfirmed twitter accounts that it is his account. The precedent established by using Ms. Norman's twitter for a source is that for all social media sites is that we do not accept it without independent confirmation that is not from that specific site, or if it is, then it must be from a confirmed account. Whether it be twitter, facebook, or any other site. If we do not have independent confirmation, then it is not valid. Every account that is currently used has been verified via an independent, reliable, and trustworthy source. You have not presented one yet. I will, again have no problem with the trivia, but you need to get confirmation on the account, not keep presenting evidence from twitter. Evidence from twitter is irrelevant and cannot be used unless it is from a confirmed account.
Now, if no conclusive evidence can be provided by the end of the week, which is Saturday, then I will remove the trivia and will continue to remove it until a valid source is presented. If a valid source is presented in that time, then I will take no action as I feel that six days is more than enough time to find a valid source that is not from twitter. Lancer1289 14:36, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
I was about to tell you to just delete the trivia if you so wish now, since I doubt that I could get Bioware staffs to confirm anything anyway. Then by a stroke of luck or something, I've found this tweet from the official Mass Effect twitter. So there, that's your confirmation you need. — Teugene (Talk) 15:19, April 30, 2012 (UTC)
Using one confirmed twitter account to confirm another. Acceptable. Lancer1289 18:51, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Personality[]

"Padok Wiks is slightly less inclined to violence than Mordin. During Priority: Sur'Kesh, where Mordin has to electrocute one of the staff into agreeing to release the specimen despite the protocol against doing so during lockdown, Padok Wiks will solve the same problem by merely pointing a gun at the staff member's head."

In my book, this makes Padok more violent than Mordin. Mordin jolted the guy, but didn't hurt him. Padok was ready to kill him. I think it would be better to fold this distinction between the two salarians into the main section about Padok and not call it out in its own section as an example of Wiks's allegedly less-violent personality, because I think, if anything, it proves the opposite. 108.83.227.168 03:33, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Krogan / Gollum (from Lord Of The Rings) reference[]

When when talking with Padok Wiks, then choosing "Krogan Females" - just before meeting Mordin, he says something which reminds me of what Gandalf tells Frodo when Frodo says "It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill [Gollum] when he had the chance".. kinda like "..tells me that the Krogans yet have some part to play, for good or ill before this is over"

No cure[]

Is it worth mentioning that he's probably involved either way? Though Wrex doesn't name him if you make the deal with the Dalatrass Wrex has a recording of the conversation and says Mordin wasn't his only mole in STG so he's likely referring to Wiks. 50.177.204.53 19:25, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

nope. speculation. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 23:59, January 14, 2017 (UTC)
Advertisement