FANDOM

Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the File:Humanreaper.jpg page.

Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- DRY (Talk) 05:03, 26 January 2010

"Exotic Dancer" Edit

If you want to be technical, all Miranda Lawson did was function as a private exotic dancer as well. She basically gave Shepard a glorified lapdance in the cutscene. There is no factual basis for referring to Chambers as a "private exotic dancer" which is why I removed it from the article. She has been described by the good folks at BioWare as a romance option, which trumps the "private exotic dancer" claim. If you disagree, however, please bring it up on the talk page for the article. As it stands, we're getting dangerously close to edit warring here. Thanks, SpartHawg948 10:47, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


There's no reason to remove the edit about Kelly being an exotic dancer, because 1) it's true and 2) that's her only role in her "romance". Also, the statement that a BioWare moderator made about her being a romance option was back in mid December. "Romancing" Kelly yields none of the gameplay changing events that romancing others does. As such, I will continue to edit the page with the proper information for the sake of setting the expectation of people who Wiki her.

If you feel compelled about leveling the playing field about Miranda being a private exotic dancer, then by all means, edit that page as well.

Shadowdragon00000 10:51, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel compelled to "level playing fields", I feel compelled to keep speculative nonsense that is contradicted by statements from BioWare out of the articles. We have no officially crossed into the field of edit warring (going by wikipedia's 3-revert rule, which we use as a basis here, as well). I have justified my reasoning for removing the content, you have failed to justify your adding of it. So, I'm going to have to ask you to either justify adding it, or stop. I am also obligated to warn you that edit warring is a blockable offense. Please keep this in mind. Regardless of what you think of the statements of a "BioWare moderator", he certainly speaks with more clout on the subject than you, and he is a valid source. SpartHawg948 10:57, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


If you feel the need to bring the attention of an admin to this issue, which you are not by the way, then do so. Keep in mind that I am merely posting facts based off gameplay events, as such, my edits are justified. If you feel the need to discuss whether or not factual events should be posted in a Wiki page, then perhaps you should be the one opening a discussion about it. Shadowdragon00000 11:00, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

You may want to do a quick fact-finding tour. Contrary to your last statement, I am, in fact, one of the three admins of this wiki. That is not a very hard piece of info to find out. Not at all. And again, an official source from BioWare states that she is a romance option. This trumps your opinion, as does the fact that you can engage in a romance subplot with her, whether or not it gets you the Paramour achievement. Bear in mind that Sha'ira is also considered a romance option, and she doesn't get you the achievement either. Again, please refrain from baseless edit warring. This will be the last warning I give (in my capacity as an admin). SpartHawg948 11:06, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is NOT about whether or not she's a romance option, but about her being a private exotic dancer. Not ONCE did I suggest that she's not a romance interest.

Get the facts straight, because to me it seems that you're simply having an "administrative power trip".Shadowdragon00000 11:10, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then find me the source that calls her a private exotic dancer. Please. Find it for me. By your standard, we need to edit pretty much all the options to state this, and it's pure speculative BS. Of course they don't show anything more, they couldn't make it explicit. I think that this message you receive in game speaks volumes though, doesn't it? SpartHawg948 11:13, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

You don't consider someone wearing a thong and shaking their junk in your face with a ludicrously low cut top to NOT be an exotic dancer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnX8QTVlluw

Shadowdragon00000 11:16, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

I may personally, but if an official source also calls her a romance option, I'm going with that. Especially when taken in concert with the message I linked to above. Regardless, whether or not I think she's an exotic dancer, stating so in an encyclopedic article without a shred of evidence is speculation. I guess any time any woman anywhere does a seductive striptease for their man/woman in their bedroom, they're exotic dancers now! How 'bout that! SpartHawg948 11:20, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Again, I find myself going back to my previous statement that I'm merely adding her role as a romance option and WHY she does not unlock the Paramour achievement, and how I never contradicted you about her being a romance option. Shadowdragon00000 11:22, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I bent over to your will and put the idea about including her role as a romance option up for debate on the talk page. Again, I see no reason as to why we cannot include the fact that she merely dances and cuddles with Shepard. Shadowdragon00000 11:28, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Because we don't know dancing and cuddling is all she does! That's why! Going by your logic, all Miranda does is unzip her suit, partially remove it, and then sit on Shepard. That's it! And as for Kelly, again, this would seem to suggest a bit more than just cuddling. All I'm saying is that there is no source for Kelly just being a "private exotic dancer" (again, are all women who do something like this for their lovers nothing more than exotic dancers) so why not just leave it like it is? It says she is a romance option (which is true) and that romancing her does not unlock Paramour (which is true) without calling her a "private exotic dancer (which is speculation). I honestly don't see why this is such a big deal. SpartHawg948 11:34, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

How about we carry this discussion over to the talk page, hm? =)

Shadowdragon00000 11:36, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Reaper Speculation Edit

Speculation does have to be substantiated, and this did not seem to be. For example, "Since the people are processed into an organic metal, it's probable that the synapses that store thoughts and memories are kept intact when liquefied." That statement is entirely contradictory. Synapses are physical structures within the brain. How is it in any way probable that they would be "kept intact when liquefied"? And "organic metal"? Metal is an inherently inorganic substance. Was this term ever used in-game, or is it also speculation? As for "one ship, one will, many minds", if the ships retain the individual personalities of those who were "infused" into them, shouldn't it be 'one ship, many wills"?. One ship, one will, many minds doesn't suggest individual thought processes are maintained at all. It suggests multiple processors. As for "Furthermore, Reapers seem to have an unlimited amount of knowledge at their disposal", please! This is demonstrably not the case. If it was, Saren wouldn't have had to go to all the effort of locating the Mu Relay! Sovereign would have told him where it is. Lastly, "it's possible that the victim's memories are transferred to the Reaper when their liquefied form is injected into the frame due to the fact that Reapers are sapient, self aware constructs and contain a multitude of A.I. programs." Sapient, self aware constructs with a multitude of AI programs? Doesn't that describe the geth as well? Hardly an indicator of retained personalities from organics, especially in light of the fact that assuming that all Reapers came about in the same way as the Human-Reaper is itself speculation. And that's about why Bastian964 was entirely justified in removing that section from the Reaper article. SpartHawg948 06:35, March 7, 2010 (UTC)




EDI said herself that Reapers are constructs of organic and inorganic material. The only substance that was being used to create the Human Reaper, as far as the player can confirm, is human genetic matter broken down into a liquid.
In terms of the Mu Relay, that happened after the Reapers went into hibernation and their plans foiled by the last of the protheans.
It's fully possible for memories to be transferred through various mediums. If you recall in the first Mass Effect, you came in contact with an Asari who has the racial memories of the protheans stored in her head...AKA the cypher. Not only that, but synapses are electric impulses between organic cells. Since Reapers are, again, a hybrid of organic and inorganic material, it's quite possible that the collective racial knowledge is transferred with the genetic material.
I know you don't like Speculation, Spart, but there are just some things that need to be read into and given some consideration before writing it off. BioWare left scattered puzzle pieces for us to put together, which is what makes the storyline to ME so interesting, because the puzzle pieces opens a wide array of doors, such as Reapers inheriting memories and knowledge from the species used to create them.
Shadowdragon00000
I love speculation! I speculate quite often! I just like it to be left out of articles unless it's actually backed up by something. Look at the Human-Reaper. There are tubes pumping orange liquefied people into the shell. Does this look similar in any way to the metal of the shell itself? No! As you yourself say, the Reapers combine organic and inorganic. Metal is part of that inorganic. As for the Mu Relay, I know it happened post Reaper-hibernation. I was just using it as an example of a case contradicting the claim that Reapers "have an unlimited amount of knowledge at their disposal". I fully realize that it's possible to gave memories transferred through various means. As you say, the Thorian transferred the Cipher to an asari (no caps for race names) but we've seen no evidence of that here, and evidence is a must for speculation to be allowed into articles. As for what a synapse is, refer to wikipedia:synapse: "a synapse is a structure that permits a neuron to pass an electrical or chemical signal to another cell." A structure, eh? There is no evidence backing this up, just supposition and contradictory statements. As such, it's 100% acceptable for a talk page or a forum, but not an article. SpartHawg948 07:12, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Listen to Chakwas's description as to what happened. She said that the colonists ( and crew if applicable ) were turned into grey goo. Also, when you're going through the seeker swarm, the exit of the tunnel is framed by a large forge with the tubes leading to it. It's safe to assume that the genetic material gets super heated so it's more malleable prior to being injected into the Human-Reaper, thus resulting in an orange tint.

Shadowdragon00000

Uh-huh. Grey human matter being superheated so that it's orange and malleable, eh? This still doesn't explain the human beings turned into metal part. Also, given that no mention whatsoever is made of heat, it's not safe to assume super-heating at all. At least, not for the purposes of an encyclopedic article, where there is no such thing as a "safe assumption". Again, assume all you want on talk pages and forums. Be my guest! And if you want, start every assumption with the phrase "this assumption is for you, SpartHawg". Really rub it in! That'll get my goat for sure! You would think though, that with superheated liquified humans, there'd be steam when the tubes were shattered... SpartHawg948 07:38, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

If it wasn't super heated and/or an organic metal, then why did Chackwas say they were turned into grey goo, yet the tubes contain orange goo which was seen quite coincidentally after passing what appeared to be some sort of furnace or forge?

Shadowdragon00000

I haven't the faintest idea, although when I saw those I didn't see anything that appeared to be a furnace or forge. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say perhaps some sort of anti-congealing agent was added. The liquid in the tubes didn't look anything like molten metal (and there still hasn't been any explanation given about how organic human material would be somehow alchemically transformed into inorganic metal), and again, there was absolutely no steam, heat waves, or any other indicator of high temperature. However, given that I have no idea and there is no supporting material for it either way, I keep this supposition out of the article entirely, as it has no place there. SpartHawg948 07:56, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

The human body contains quite a bit of elements found in metal, such as carbon and iron. If broken down to the most basic of elements, or the cells were separated in a manner which they could be divided or converged, it's theoretically possible to forge a metal from a human body as long as you could keep those metallic elements seperate. Perhaps this is something that's done by the swarms of nanites that cause the body to be broken down. You can see the forge/furnace at the end of the 2nd portion of the suicide mission here ( link ) which clearly depicts a mass of the genetic paste being mixed together, much like a forge.

Shadowdragon00000

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that it's possible to forge metal from a human body by separating out the metallic content (ie iron - carbon being a nonmetallic element) and then forging it? What would be the point then? You could just mine the metal directly. It in no way explains why humans and only humans were acceptable. And again, while there may be a structure that looks somewhat like a forge or furnace (I still don't see it), there is no indication of high temperatures. None. As there is no evidence for this, or for any of the other content removed, it's pure speculation that does not fit the requirements for it to be included in an article. SpartHawg948 08:16, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Following that same mindset, why use humans at all if they could just harvest the metal? Why are organics needed in the reproduction of reapers? Why did EDI speculate that a prothean Reaper had been attempted but failed? How do Reapers acquire knowledge of the race they assimilate without actually interacting with them? All these questions have a logical answer, most of which I have laid out and explained.

On a side note, there are four metals in the human body. Copper, zinc, iron, and manganese are all metallic compounds in an organic body. Also, a biometal is a term used to describe a "living machine", which is something that a Reaper clearly classifies as. Having said that, it's not as contradictory to have an organic metal as you claim it to be.

Shadowdragon00000

Yup, it still is. Biometal describes a living machine. Organic metal does not. "Organic metal" and "Biometal" are not synonymous, any more than silicon-based life-form and "organic rock" are. Bottom line, your "logical answer" doesn't have any solid, verifiable evidence that can be seen in-game. It's based on supposition. It's not been stated that organics are needed in the reproduction of Reapers. EDI stated that she had no way to ascertain if all Reapers were created in the same manner as the Human-Reaper or not. EDI speculated that a Prothean Reaper (both those race names do get caps) had been tried and failed. And where is it stated that the Reapers acquire the knowledge of assimilated races? I don't recall that coming up ever. So, seeing as there isn't any hard evidence, which is required for speculation to be included in articles, the material in question has no place in the article proper. Talk page? Yes. Forum? Yes. Article? No. SpartHawg948 08:38, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Speculation is nothing more than a conclusion based off of suppositions that can be justified one way or another. If there are facts behind speculation, then it is no longer speculation.

Shadowdragon00000

Agreed. And there aren't facts behind this one. Just assumptions and supposition. As I said, I'm all for speculation that meets the rather rigorous requirements and actually has cold hard fact to support it's conclusions. And this bit does not. SpartHawg948 08:46, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Meh.

Going back to your statement in regards to EDI discussing the reproduction of Reapers, EDI stated that Reapers are sapient constructs and a hybrid of organic and inorganic material. EDI also stated that it's probable that Reapers absorb the essence of a species, utilizing it in their reproduction process. Check out my YouTube video, starting at 3:10, which explores the entire dialog tree on why it looks human. So yes, according to EDI, Reapers need organics in their reproduction process, and the apparent evidence that they absorb the essence of a race means that it's possible they acquire the ancestral knowledge of said race.

The only thing that EDI couldn't speculate on is the purpose of the Human-Reaper, as disclosed at 5:08.

Shadowdragon00000

I will concede that EDI says it's "probable" (not for certain, but probable) that Reapers absorb the "essence" (a maddeningly vague term coming from an AI) of a race as part of a means of reproduction. She does not, however, state that this is how all Reapers reproduce. And nowhere are memories mentioned. After all, your speculation was about memories being transferred. The closest there is to mention of memories being transferred is a mention of some "essence" possibly being transferred to the Reaper. This of course in no way acts as evidence for memory tranfer, either on an individual or a species-wide basis. SpartHawg948 09:07, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the essence of a race, if not their ancestral memories?

Did Shepard not acquire the essence of the protheans upon receiving their ancestral memories from the cypher in order to sort the message from the prothean beacon?

Shadowdragon00000

That question presupposes that all races have an inherent "ancestral memory", and that ancestral memories are anything at all like what was seen with the Protheans, which is simply not the case, at least not as we know it, the concept of ancestral memory still being rather theoretical. An ancestral (or more accurately, genetic) memory is part of the collective unconscious of a people, and consists of deeply ingrained information, acquired over a very long time, that is present with all individuals at the time of birth. Again, essence is a very vague term. Among other things, it can mean "the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.", or "something that exists, esp. a spiritual or immaterial entity." I personally view essence as something more intangible, like the soul. If it were something as simple as a genetic or cultural memory, it seems likely that EDI would have said so, especially given Shepard's prior experience with just that sort of thing. Instead, she chose "essence", a nebulous term, to say the least. Given that we don't know what "essence" she was referring to, it's not evidence that the memories of the luquified people are carried over to the Reaper. SpartHawg948 09:25, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should elaborate on your views of what an ancestral memory is. Last I recall, Shiala said verbatim "In order to understand the beacon, you must think like a prothean and know their history". The thorian also consumed dead protheans to acquire that knowledge, much like how humans were consumed ( or better yet, processed ) to make the Human-Reaper.

Again, while there's no direct factual evidence or closure that the memories may be transferred to the Human-Reaper, all the information and basic facts that I've laid to justify the speculation isn't something that can be easily denied, and logically points towards the conclusion in regards to Reapers having the ancestral memories of the race used to create it.

Shadowdragon00000

Ok, Shiala said that. And? Genetic memory and the history and experiences of a people are two totally different things. Genetic memory tells me what is and isn't safe to eat, not to stand in a fire, etc. It tells nothing of the Judeo-Christian concept of morality, or the basis of Athenian democracy, the system of checks and balances first introduced in Sparta, the teachings of the Dalai Lama, the significance of the Magna Carta, or any of the other historical events and concepts that are the "essence" of humanity. As you stated, there is no direct factual evidence to suggest that memories are transferred to Reapers. And the guidelines for speculation which you yourself cited in your comment to Bastian964 state that there must be evidence for speculation to be allowed. It's just that simple. SpartHawg948 09:47, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Does a trial by jury always have direct factual evidence for a criminal to be found guilty? No. Conclusions are made based off bits and pieces left here and there. Theories, theorems, and hypothesis are all found in similar manners. Your only argument in regards to the whole situation is that there's no direct evidence to support the speculation, which as I just mentioned, isn't necessary so long as it can be properly justified. I could very easily turn the table and ask you to bring evidence that disproves the suggested speculation, almost as easily as you can brick wall the theory by repeating yourself like a broken record. The difference? I've brought comprehensive information to the table that suggests what you otherwise claim to have no supporting evidence.

Shadowdragon00000

Well, it turns out that this wiki does not fall under the auspices of the criminal justice system. At least not the American system. We prefer a modified form of the Napoleonic code, ie "guilty until proven innocent". Information is speculative until proven otherwise with cold hard fact. No circumstantial evidence. My only argument in regards to the whole situation is to point to the clearly written site policy, a policy which, strangely enough, you yourself pointed to as support for allowing the speculation until it was demonstrated that said speculation in fact didn't meet the guidelines. You want to turn the tables and ask for me to prove my side? Easy. It is NEVER STATED AS FACT THAT REAPERS ABSORB THE MEMORIES (GENETIC OR INDIVIDUAL) OF THEIR VICTIMS. You "properly justify" your speculation with more assumptions and suppositions, and statements made in-game that are by their very nature not intended as fact. Using that standard, anything can be "properly justified". The difference between us is that I am following site policy, you aren't. I've already said multiple times that there is no reason you can't include this on the talk page or the forum. It just can't go in the article unless it meets standards, and it doesn't. End of discussion. SpartHawg948 10:10, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

What's the point in allowing speculation if it's justified by conclusive evidence? One thing that you seem to be missing is that speculation with conclusive evidence is no longer speculation, it's fact. I have plenty of supporting evidence to back up the speculation, because that's what speculation requires in order to exist. Not only that, but the speculation body that you removed almost 2 months after I had typed it up meets the requirements of the Style Guide.


Speculation is permitted in articles under the following circumstances:
  • It is clearly marked as being speculation, either under a “speculation” heading or with the sentence “some speculate that—” at the beginning of the paragraph.
  • There is evidence for this speculation. For example:
Incorrect: “Quarians once had fur, but after wearing environmental suits for hundreds of years this trait has died out.”
Correct: “Some speculate that if they join the Council, humans will have a major military role because they have a substantial fleet, well-trained army and adaptable military doctrine (see Systems Alliance).”

Do you see how the "Correct" example of evidence is not conclusive but supportive, like the evidence I'm bringing to the table? There's nothing that truly indicates that the humans will have a major military role, there's only supporting evidence based off of unrelated or partially unrelated information, much like the possibility of Reapers acquiring the knowledge of the race they assimilate. If there were conclusive evidence that humans were to play a major military role, then the evidence would be something like "The council wants humans as the primary military fleet because the fleets from other races have been decimated by the Reapers, and otherwise have been proven to be inept". See the difference? The "correct" example has assumptions, or otherwise supporting evidence. My example has conclusive evidence, which again, means that the speculation is no longer speculation due to the fact that it has cold hard evidence like how you demand it to be so.


If you're going to deny users the freedom of placing speculation even when it meets the premeditated criteria.

Shadowdragon00000

For the last time... stating that it is "probable" that the "essence" of a species is transferred into a Reaper in no way constitutes evidence of any sort that memories, be they shared genetic/cultural memories or individual memories, from those being liquified and processed into a Reaper are retained inside that Reaper. Stating that humanity would likely have a major military role in the Council due to a large, well trained and adaptable military is in no way synonymous to stating that memories of people processed to create a Reaper may be retained within that Reaper because the "essence" of the species is "probably" transferredf into the Reaper. So no, your speculation does not meet the premeditated criteria. You claim that speculation when backed by fact is not speculation. But our example is backed by fact, and was still speculative when it was written. Fancy that. There is a direct correlation between a power having a large, well trained military and that power assuming a military rile when accepted into an organization. There is not a correlation between "the essence of a species is probably absorbed into the Reaper" and "the victim's memories are transferred to the Reaper when their liquefied form is injected into the frame". The point in only allowing speculation backed by fact is this: This is an encyclopedia. It's not a forum. We present fact, not supposition. We allow some speculation, but only that which meets very stringent requirements. Yours does not. Now, if EDI said it was "probable" that the "shared genetic memory" of a species was absorbed into the Reaper, or that the "essence, similar to the Prothean cipher you (Shepard) encountered on Feros" was what was absorbed, that'd be evidence. But the "essence"? No way. You don't have supporting evidence, you have supporting supposition and probabilities and assumptions. That does not cut it. SpartHawg948 11:18, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
One additional note- as for "Not only that, but the speculation body that you removed almost 2 months after I had typed it up meets the requirements of the Style Guide.", you overlook the fact that while it may have been originally added 35 days ago (hardly "nearly 2 months", nut I digress), it was quickly removed (by another user) and only re-added about a week ago. So, rather than having been there for two months before that big bad jerk SpartHawg was mean enough to remove it, it was put up, removed as speculation 3 days later, was gone for 23 days, was then re-added, then removed again as speculation by a second user one week later, re-added later that same day and then removed a third time by a third user as speculation very soon thereafter. So it seems I'm not the only one thinking this is speculation. SpartHawg948 11:37, March 7, 2010 (UTC)


Your "correct" example is still suppositive and merely assumes a role of significance. Want to know why? Because all the elements that are listed as fact do not contribute to a military playing any significant, or insignificant role. Take a look at the Russians or Chinese. They both have a substantial military force that's well trained and adaptable, and yet they play a very minor military role in many positions. If you took a look at the meaning of the word "speculation", you would know that speculation is a theory formed by conjecture


spec·u·la·tion    (spěk'yə-lā'shən)  [1]

n.

b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.


Shadowdragon00000

Incorrect sir. The Russians and Chinese play very minor military roles in organizations that do not involve mutual defense and security as their objectives. The United Nations is not a military organization. Organizations like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and Collective Security Treaty Organisation are groups for which mutual defense is an objective (much like the Citadel Council), and in those groups the Russians and Chinese are the dominant military players, due to their large, well trained and adaptable forces. Any other poorly executed examples for me to shoot down? And I have taken a look at the definition of speculation. Oh well. I guess it doesn't mesh with our standard. Too bad for the dictionary. SpartHawg948 11:52, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

If the actual definition of the word doesn't mesh with the standard of an "encyclopedia", then you might as well go out and say that speculation isn't permitted at all. That would be much easier for everyone, rather than trying to argue opinions over a word that means nothing more than a formulated opinion in it's own right.

There's nothing more I can honestly say. It's obvious you've brick walled valid speculation simply because you're short sighted and don't agree with it, even after you claim to know the meaning of speculation despite displaying a very poor and almost illiterate practice of the word.

Shadowdragon00000

Sticks and stones, my friend, sticks and stones. Although I would remind you to watch comments like "you're short sighted" and claiming that another user displays "a very poor and almost illiterate practice" of anything, as rude or insulting language towards other users will get you banned with the quickness. My usage of "speculation" is at least as good as your usage of "evidence" (ie inferring that the essence of a species must automatically be referring to the memories of individual members of that species), but I never called you short sighted or questioned your word comprehension. SpartHawg948 12:04, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not rude, just condescending. Also, if you're going to nitpick, your usage of "speculation" seems to entail 100% factual evidence, despite "speculation" meaning nothing more than conclusions based off of supposition, which is what you labeled my statements as. Hence the reason behind me pointing out that your practice of the word is poor and almost illiterate ( hence, almost ), as well as the fact that you're contradicting not only yourself, but the very meaning of the word you're trying to skew to your perspectives. Furthermore, the "essence" example is a poor example because it's not meant to be taken out of context, much like how you're doing. Instead, it's meant to work together with other supporting bits of evidence, which again, is what's required for speculation to exist.

Shadowdragon00000

Oh no! I've been condescended to! How will I ever go on? Life just isn't worth living now that some editor who's been here for all of a month and some change and made 113 whole edits (with 30 of them being to actual articles, even!) was condescending. Rude or condescending, either way, it's not tolerated towards other users. If you don't like how things are done around here, feel free to take your theories elsewhere. I'm sure this site will survive... somehow. It managed just fine in the 33 months before you came along. SpartHawg948 12:22, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've been here longer than I have. It still doesn't change the fact that my theory has plenty of supporting evidence that falls in the style guide, and is even justified as proper speculation as per the meaning of the word. While I know you won't grasp the point I'm trying to make since you obviously believe you're correct in thinking I have no actual evidence, but I'll go ahead and lay it out for you.


Theory 1 - Despite not knowing the exact details of the construction methods, human colonists are apparently processed into an organic metal or biometal.

Fact - The human body contains various elements of metallic compounds.
Fact 2 - See theory 2's fact and theory 4's fact 1 and 2.

Theory 2 - The liquid that results from human colonists is super heated prior to being injected into the Human-Reaper

Fact - The liquid is initially grey, but is later turned orange. Furthermore, the orange liquid gives off a bright glow and radiance that is not unlike heated metal.

Theory 3 - Memories or knowledge from the human race is transferred to the Reaper upon acquiring the liquefied humans.

Fact - A memory is made up of a collection of synapses, which uses chemicals such as acetylcholine or dopamine, that transmit nerve impulses across a synapse to a postsynaptic element, such as another nerve or cell.
Fact 2 - A nerve impulse is interpreted by modern science as electrical discharges and read by machines.
Fact 3 - Computers can copy data by use of electronic components.
Fact 4 - Reapers are viewed upon as sapient machines and have the capacity to store information.

Theory 4 - Humans are the main ingredient in the construction of a Reaper.

Fact - EDI calculated that Reapers are constructs of organic and inorganic material.
Fact 2 - EDI also calculated that millions of more humans would be required to complete the Reaper.
Fact 3 - See theory 1.


Short of a Reaper outright saying that they assimilate memories, you would agree with the theory if the Human-Reaper spoke and said something like ( for example ) "I really enjoyed that night with Kaiden". But then, it wouldn't be a theory/speculation anymore, because it would obviously be disclosing that it has Lilith's memories. And again, you may as well change the Style Guide to say that speculation isn't permitted at all since all it apparently takes is one or two people to say disagree with the theory, despite the theory having supporting evidence.

Shadowdragon00000

Edit warring Edit

I know this likely won't do any good, but please be advised that you are perilously close to violating a couple of site policies which carry the penalty of banning, namely insulting other users (such as calling me a dog, and telling me to use my brain, the implication being that I hadn't been prior, and that you were the only one who had been), and edit warring. As I stated, we have dev statements (aka the ultimate canon) confirming that dialogue is an iffy source, as in many cases people are making snap calls or quick comments without all the information. Furthermore, said dev confirmed that in these cases, when dialogue and fact collide, fact wins. Since Chakwas made a quick visual observation, nothing more, and since no definition of 'paste' meshes with what we see, it's inaccurate. End of story.

Again, based on past experience, I don't expect that this will accomplish anything, but as an admin it is my job to at least make some effort to inform you of the rules and such, and try to steer you away from actions that will result in a ban. Please, I beg of you, prove me wrong this time. SpartHawg948 07:31, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


I would take the time to prove you wrong, but as you have a tendency to throw up a brick wall in light of factual and supporting evidence simply because it doesn't cater to your tastes ( my last post on Removal of Reaper Speculation being a PRIME example ), I'm not even going to try.

Shadowdragon00000

Insult my intelligence all you want, call me ignorant and unwilling to see reason (although I note you were the one who declined to even look at the dev statements I cited as evidence). I'm a big boy, I can take it, and I've been called worse by better, as the saying goes. Just please take my advice to heart. SpartHawg948 07:37, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'll take your advice if you take mine. My advice is - if you want to look like a credible mod/admin, then take the time to correct -all- users instead of a select few which you have a history with. Like I mentioned before, if you care about this wiki as much as you claim you do, then you would correct everyone on the things you're correcting me on. Yet, you don't care, which is apparent due to the fact that related articles still have yet to be corrected on the things you've corrected me on.
Shadowdragon00000

I do correct all users. I've had some less than pleasant encounters with editors I think very highly of. Don't believe me? Ask Lancer1289 or JakePT. Both of them have found themselves the recipients of 'nastygrams' from me after violating site policies. If you take even a cursory look at my admin activities you'd know I'm not the vindictive monster you paint me as. I do, after all, do plenty around here when you aren't editing. I don't just put on the admin hat for you. Again, this isn't me vs you, as in my eyes you and your edits are no more special or noteworthy than those of any other editor. As for your second point, I already asked once for a list of articles that need amended (look at the Talk:Kelly Chambers page), as you seem to have more of an idea which ones need it at the moment. Again, there's three admins and 1,701 articles, and right now the other two admins are on hiatuses of various lengths, so it's really only just me for 1,701 articles. I can't be everywhere and see everything. SpartHawg948 07:45, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


For such an awesomely 1337 user such as yourself, I doubt you need the help of this lowly editor who apparently has no viable insight towards the game that I've beaten numerous times over and acquired all achievements to, much less heavily edited, modded, and discussed feverishly with countless people with on the BioWare forums, including but not pertaining to BioWare reps. Nope, I don't think you'd need my help at all. Your god like admin powers should be more than enough. I mean, it shouldn't be hard for someone like you to click on article hotlinks, press CTRL+F, and search for a keyword to nuke just because you don't agree with it, factual or not, right?
Shadowdragon00000

And there you have it. I acknowledge a valid point you make, and then, pointing out yet again that I am not omnipotent or godlike or omnipresent (far from your portrayal of me as 'god like' and whatnot), ask for a bit of assistance in taking care of this, you snub me. You have, quite frankly, shown your true colors. Rather than take the chance to help improve the wiki, you carry out some pathetic personal grudge. Can't say I'm surprised. I do wonder though, how is it that beating the game multiple times and having all the achievements makes you an expert, but not me? I can boast the same. As for debating on forums, big deal. The only people on forums whose opinions carry weight are the BioWare devs, and not to boast, but my inbox and outbox are rather full of communications with these very same devs. Whatever. I asked you to assist with this, and you responded as you did, leaving the community with a pretty good indicator of who was willing to extend the olive branch and try to move on productively, and who wasn't. I tried, and at the end of the day, that's all that matters. SpartHawg948 07:57, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


Oh please, you and I know that you're more in for this Wiki to paint the picture that you want to, despite what's implied or even disclosed in the very game you're referencing from. Numerous times have I brought valid facts from the game as supporting evidence, only to be shot down by no one but yourself. Do you honestly expect me to help you improve this site by directing you to sections to nuke that just happen to coincide with what I've been posting, when you don't even permit me to improve it by adding insight to the specifics?
Shadowdragon00000

You believe what you want to believe, pal. It's a free country. And if you want to dodge my questions, and to believe that some vague dialogue from a character who was making a very cursory observation about something she had no way of really knowing instead of believing the word of a developer and the English language itself, you go right on ahead. Just don't imply that you have special insight into it because you've beaten the game multiple times, which is hardly unique on this site, or have all the achievements, which is also hardly unique, or because you post on the forums, again hardly unique. See a pattern here? Did I honestly expect you to help improve this site? Yes. But, as you flat-out said just above this, improving this wiki is not your goal. That's fine with me right up until the time that you vandalize, speculate and engage in edit wars over speculation, or otherwise violate site policy. Do any of these things and you'll be hearing from me. Until then (as I'm sure it's a matter of when, not if), I'm done. This thread has led me to conclude you aren't worth my time or effort. SpartHawg948 08:19, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what you may or may not believe, I was at one point interested in improving this Wiki. Heck, I've even taken the time to take high quality screenshots of the game for the single purpose of uploading them to this site. But that interest was ultimately killed by none other than you Spart, for denying me the privilege of posting my own findings on this site simply out of your own personal values. That may change in the future, but that depends entirely on none other than you. The day you actually decide to take your valuable time to listen to what I have to say, and actually give it some consideration, is the day I'll go back to improving this site for the sake of improving it. But the simple fact that you're denying evidence that was even clearly stated in the game, speaks louder than what you claim of yourself. Shadowdragon00000
Shadow, I think you need to calm down! Spart is using the same rules he uses with everyone else. The fact that you're making this into a personal thing is just ridiculous. I'm sure he's far too busy to hold petty grudges, regardless of what you thing. Regarding the article, and the "Paste" thing: A quote isn't automatically canon. The characters are written to appear human. Humans use approximations, and guesses, and all sorts of observations when talking to one another. Just because they're in a dialogue scene doesn't make it 100% true. You need to listen to reason, and be cooperative if you want to be here. We all have to do it, and you're no exception!--Effectofthemassvariety 08:23, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah Bro, just calm down. I have had some of my edits taken off but I have not complained. Spart and Lancer are just trying to keep all the useless info of the site or page of choice. As for your edit on the Chambers page, i do not have an opinon on that. Just take the edits with quiet dignty.MEffect Fan 08:31, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, no, sorry...but I don't think I'll be coming back here. I don't feel like having to defend what I say every time I try to help, just to get shot down by someone who simply can't wrap his head around the facts. Shadowdragon00000
Wow, you really need to have a little more dignity, rather than whine about everything. Have you no pride? If you decide not to contribute to the wiki anymore, which you've made clear is not your main priority for being here, then that's fine. The fact that you think you're so important that Spart has nothing else to think about but how to screw you over tells volumes about your ego and sense of self-importance. --Effectofthemassvariety 08:44, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
How about the fact that Spart is dismissing, failing to address, or completely ignoring factual evidence brought to the table? Does that raise any red flags? I've said it a few times now, but no one's seemed to pick up on it. The only time anyone addresses anything of mine is to nuke it. As an example, I still haven't heard back from him in regards to the carefully laid out Theory/Fact table I posted back in March, which multiple people have been inclined to agree that it accurately supports the "speculation" that was nuked by, you guessed it, Spart. Shadowdragon00000
You are implying that Spart has a personal vendetta against you. You honestly believe that an administrator -someone who spends much of his own time on this wiki, someone who is a fan of Mass Effect, who cares about keeping this wiki as informative, and factual, and truthful as possible- is going to take "nuke" viable, factual info just to stick it to you? No! That's not right! --Effectofthemassvariety 09:10, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
See, there we go again, no one taking the time to address factual information used as supporting evidence. Instead, they rant on about the same redundant thing, circumventing the real issue. Shadowdragon00000
Look, wouldn't it be more objective and accurate to say "Kelly being liquefied into what Chakwas described as paste"? Because frankly speaking, it does not looks like paste to me but that's my opinion and I'm speculating, and so is Dr Chakwas. While it is not clear what exactly the composition of the said material, it is certain that Chakwas did say what she said. Then, my description earlier would be less contentious compared to saying that the material IS paste. Teugene 09:25, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
Despite my better judgement, I went ahead and copied what was in your quotes, Teugene. Thanks for actually taking the time to consider the issue and find a compromise. Shadowdragon00000
Odd. I say it would be fine to leave in provided that it was stated that 'according to Chakwas it's paste', and I get shot down and accused of carrying a grudge. Another editor proposes exactly the same thing and now it's kosher. Who is it who is supposed to be carrying the grudge again? When I propose it, it's unreasonable. When Teugene proposes it, it's compromise. Methinks the scent of hypocrisy is in the air. SpartHawg948 09:38, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I would still be interested in hearing someone's opinion towards the above section in regards to the Reaper "Speculation" Shadowdragon00000
Really? You constantly accuse me of treating you especially badly because of some purported personal grudge I have against you, then when hard, documented proof surfaces that it is in fact you who is letting your dislike of me color your judgments (refusing to accept an idea when I propose it but being fine with it a short time later when someone else does is pretty damning evidence), all you can respond with is 'Meh'! Hypocrite doesn't begin to cover it. What a piece of work. SpartHawg948 09:47, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
You're not doing a whole lot for your own self image either, especially considering you're an admin. I've directed you, as well as various others, numerous times to the Theory/Fact sheet that you still have yet to address months later, and you -still- continue failing to address it, which is one of the points I've been trying to make this whole time - Your failure to acknowledge relevant facts and supporting evidence. Shadowdragon00000 10:23, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome Shadowdragon but I was only, somewhat, reiterating Spart's statement. Frankly, this argument it's getting out of hand for something that can be fixed with a little solution and compromise. And Shadowdragon, I had been shot down before by Spart a few times, so it's not only you. Please don't take this personally. This is a community effort and we can all work issues some other way without getting into these kind of arguments. Teugene 09:50, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Shadowdragon, no one here is holding any grudge or deep seeded hatred against you. We all edit, we all get taken down sometimes. But everyone has to admit, we are running out of interesting stuff to put on the pages. I mean four months since Mass Effect 2 came out, we pretty much have everything about the two games sown on this wiki.MEffect Fan 10:02, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Being taken down isn't the problem. The problem is other people failing to -listen- to the evidence I bring to the table. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there's been numerous times that I bring valid supporting evidence to the table just for others to ignore it. Again, for the umpteenth time, no one here has even taken the time to reply to the laid out Theory/Fact sheet, which I had taken the time to type up specifically for Spart, who -still- refuses to acknowledge it or even imply that he's taken the time to read it. Shadowdragon00000 10:36, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. It's nothing personal Shadow, you just need to realize you can't always get what you want, and refusing to cooperate, or compromise will get you nowhere fast.--Effectofthemassvariety 10:09, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, there are plenty of things to do actually. Among others, many planet scanning resources info are still missing (I believe it's one of the most tedious things to do), walkthroughs and some pages could use some good pictures and cleanups, just to name a few. There's always something to improve in this wikia, not just Kelly and Reaper's articles. ;)

I'm done Edit

I originally came here with an honest intent to expand the amount of information on this Wiki. I've uploaded a few pictures and contributed a bit of information towards various pages. But I find it difficult to stay motivated while being singled out by a power hungry admin, SpartHawg948. He may claim that he doesn't have anything against me, but I can't help but see red flags popping up whenever he instantly removes any edits I happen to make. Most of the time, the bodies of information would have been up for months, and he would have been visibly active on the relevant page, but it's not until I change the wording does the entire body get removed instead of simply being undone. Some of the time he would claim it's unwarranted speculation ( even though there's been instances where it's not speculation even in the slightest ) despite said information having been up months prior, in plain view, and quite probably looked upon by his very own eyes on more than one occasion. He would then mandate that there be supporting evidence to back up said "speculation", which is fine by me. But even more red flags pop up when he does not address the factual information posted. It seems to be easier for him to call me a villain than it is for him to even address the supporting evidence that I had laid out specifically for him. And yet, there's other users besides myself that just so happen to be posting similar topics with similar information, which he never bothers to remove, which raises yet even more red flags. It seems to me that his intent is to craft this Wiki into -his- ideal image by denying people the privilege of actually uploading certain factual and relevant information, which apparently conflict with his personal values . So, without further adieu, I congragulate you on your victory Spart. You've made it painfully obvious that I'm not welcome here, so I'll take my leave and continue contributing on other Wiki pages that honors complete factual and relevant information, which I'm actually welcome at. Shadowdragon00000 14:46, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well, you caught me. You figured out my diabolical master scheme to use all my powers for the sole purpose of driving you out. Victory is at hand! All of my compatriots and collaborators, rejoice! Now let's all go to our secret 'Bring Down Shadowdragon00000' meeting and figure out what to do next. Seriously? You seriously think that in the grand scheme of things you are important enough to warrant that much of my attention? Wow! How do you get through doors? Your head must be enormous! Let me ask you one question: If I was really so damn determined to see you gone, why did I not simply ban you? Explain that one to me. Explain to me why, when I could simply have banned you for being in violation of site policy, I instead actually warned you and asked you to please stop, as I didn't want to have to ban you? Does that jive with your whole 'Evil Conspiracy Masterminded by SpartHawg948' theory? Whatever. Your delusions of grandeur have gone on well past the point of any relevance. It's just plain ludicrous now. Go or stay, I don't care, just please, if you do stay, follow the rules of the site. It's not hard. I already explained why some things stay up for months, then when a new edit brings them to light, they get removed. For every 567 articles (not counting talk pages, blogs, forum pages, user pages and user talk pages) there's one admin. We miss things. We're human. If at times this makes some raving whack-job think there's a wiki-wide conspiracy to destroy him, well, I guess shit happens. So see you around, or not. I don't care anymore. I tried to compromise and conciliate, and you spurned my peace offer, so I'm done. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. SpartHawg948 16:47, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
Pretty it up as much as you like, Spart. Despite all your attempts at making yourself look as if you're in the right and me being in the wrong, one thing still remains constant ( which is something I've been asking you to do numerous times ) - Your failure to address facts brought to the table as supporting evidence in regards to bits of information that you personally don't value. You've flat out ignored the facts I've brought more times than I have fingers on my hand. How many times have I asked you to address the Theory/Fact sheet I posted back in March? Honestly, more times than I care to count, which is far more than your level of care at actually addressing what members of this commu...dictatorship have to offer. Shadowdragon00000 22:00, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Want me to address it? Here goes. It's a house of cards. Most of your 'facts' are assumptions based on cursory visual observations, or are assuming that modern-day processes and technologies are the same as those used by the Reapers. In addition, you could sail a battleship through the faults in your logic. Let's see...

  • Theory One- that humans are processed into biometal. Fact one- humans contain many metallic compounds. True. But the holes in the logic exist. Why use humans to get metal rather than just mining for it? And why target only humans? The mineral amounts would be minuscule. Fact 2- isn't a fact, but a 'see subsection ___' statement.
  • Theory Two- The human liquid is superheated. 'Fact'- The liquid is initally gray but is later orange. It also glows, much like molten metal. This is an example of the false cause fallacy. You assume that the only possible explanation for the color shift is super-heating, excluding the possibility of other explanations, such as additives. Additionally, other elements that would be present with super-heated metal suddenly released from a confined space are missing- no steam, no dark patches indicative of the cooling that would rapidly occur on the surface, etc.
  • Theory three- memories from the liquefied humans are transferred to the Reaper. Fact one- about synapses. Fails to include the fact that synapses are physical structures within the brain that transfer the neural impulses, and that, in the event of liquification, the synapses would be destroyed. Fact 2- about computers reading neural impulses. True. but the impulses have to come from somewhere and be transferred somehow. This is where the physical synapses come into play. Fact 3- Computers can copy data... Yes, but they have to copy it from somewhere. If the synapses were liquified, where are they transferred from? Fact 4- On the nature of Reapers- fails to cover how the data would be transferred from the liquid that used to by synapse and brain matter, as memories are stored in the brain, and no amount of electricity can replicate memories without the brain or a computer equivalent, and the brain was already liquefied, wasn't it?
  • Theory 4- Humans are the main component in the construction of a Reaper.- Yes, humans are the main element in the construction of ONE Reaper, not all of them. You are assuming that there is a uniform construction process, which, given the apparent method of using different races for each Reaper, is unlikely. Facts 1 and 2- EDI's comments. These are indisputable. Fact 3- Fact three says refer to theory one. I shouldn't have to explain why using a theory that itself uses elements of Fact 4 as supporting evidence (see Theory One, Fact 2) as a fact to support Fact 4 is wrong. That's just bad science. Using facts from one theory to support another theory, which is then used as evidence to support the first theory. Bad, bad, bad science. And there, I addressed your precious sheet. Happy? SpartHawg948 22:52, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the superheating, which you enjoy dismissing. Hot objects only put out steam or heat vapors when they either cool off or heat up. Play through the first room of the suicide mission, ya know, the one where a member had to go through the ventilation shafts. Then notice where the ventilation shafts end, which is right under a chamber that has liquefied human mass in it that has steam/heat vapors coming from it. Those are two large pieces to the puzzle, pieces that you keep asking for. Also, in regards to the memory transferring and humans being refined into a biometal - I ask the same thing you ask me, why use humans in the first place if they could simply build it out of conventional metals? But then I'll go a step further and ask - Why target the people specifically responsible for Sovereign's destruction for use in the construction of the Human-Reaper? It's unlikely that machines need genetic material to function. It's more likely that their goals are the acquisition of experiences and knowledge. Why else would Harbinger want Shepard either alive or his/her body intact, let alone target colonies that has Shepard's former team members in an attempt to abduct them? Shadowdragon00000 23:04, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
However there are a lot of tubes and we don't know if the heat is from other means. Every things you have said is nothing but speculation, which isn't allowed without some form of backup. As to the human thing you have nothing but specualtion to back up your arguments, which makes them contradictions in themsleves. Also when it comes to the superheating, Spart is right because you dismiss any othyer theory about the color. You are hell bent on saying that it is just because it is passing through a forge or seomthing similar, and you take offense to any other theory. As to the steam thing, we don't know if that is from the processing of humans, or from another funciton of the Collector Base. There are a lot of tubes, and something tells me that they all aren't just for taking the liquified humans to the Reaper construction room. Finally as to the Reapers' motivations for wanting humans, we can only speculate as to what they want and why they are trageting humans and Shepard's former associates, or why they want Shepard alive for that matter. Lancer1289 00:08, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: This is the exact same thing that you pulled with the Reaper ariticle and the insanly long arguement between Spart and yourself about it. You accused Spart removing your specualation and he pointed out that three other users removed it every time it was added. In fact it was removed on February 1st, then you readded it on February 27th. Then it was removed again on March 6, then readded by you, then finally removed by Spart later that same day leading to the conversation above.
Before you respond here, please take a look at The Yoshiman 97's comments on the Talk:Kelly Chambers page. You argue over the simplest things and you are arguing from the same platform. You have no basis in facts and you offer nothing but wild speculation to articles. You also dismiss any other theory that isn't your's. So who is the power hungry person, someone who take some time to evaluate someone else's opinion, or someone who dismisses anything else apart from their theories and their ideas. From everything I have read, you seem to think that you are always right and that everyone else is wrong and doesn't know anything. You argue over trivial things that are usually resolved in a few lines on a talk page and the matter usually is dead. however you like to make an issue out of something trivial and you argue your point even if you are proven wrong by people who know more, have been here longer, and in the case of Spart, have superiority over you. If you want to keep editing here, then follow the rules, learn to accept that you can be wrong, accept that you don't know everything, and don't argue every time something gets removed that you added. Spart has reverted all of us at one time or another and I have recieved one "nastygram" from him as well, so he doesn't have it out for you. You just want to think he is, becuase you something to argue about. He is really neutral in arguments and listens to everyone, so your argument that he doesn't is mute. Lancer1289 00:53, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
You ask why the Reapers target people specifically responsible for Sovereign's destruction to be used in the Human-Reaper. This is, of course, speculation. At no point is it stated that they intend to integrate Shepard into the Human-Reaper. As for why they target worlds Shepard and companions (past and current are on), well, they don't just target them. We only see them targeting these worlds because of the plot being focused on Shepard. Don't forget all the colonists who were taken. Surely they can't all have contributed to the destruction of Sovereign? And what of the many colonies besides the ones you visit in-game that were harvested? Remember Ferris Fields and New Canton? Also, I notice you failed to mention the bit about using circular logic, and being called on it (ie using 'facts' from Theory 4 to support Theory 1, then citing Theory 1 as a fact that supports Theory 4). Given how you constantly harp on these supposed facts, and all the good points you allegedly make, it probably is best to try and bury that little embarrassment. SpartHawg948 01:32, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Instead of flat out dismissing everything as speculation, why not think outside the box and connect the dots to paint the whole picture? Things happen to make more sense when you broaden your spectrum, instead of rejecting everything that's intertwined. Shadowdragon00000 01:39, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
THe flaw in your arugment is that a few small facts don't paint the whole picutre. You keep adding speculation when you don't, or for that matter we don't, know much about it. We can only speculate on what will happen, and until we have some solid proof, we can't add it. You are arguing that we need to borden our specturm, however we do that and specualtion galore will be inserted. This is about facts, to which you have provided none. Apart from the paste being from Chakwas's POV, which is a good addition. Lancer1289 01:49, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yup. 'Broaden your spectrum and connect the dots' tends to be synonymous with 'speculate' or 'make things up on a whim'. And again, fully 1/2 of your theories were based on circular logic. Circular logic is a formal fallacy, which automatically renders an argument invalid, and if an argument is invalid it is also, by default, unsound. You need to come up with theories that aren't forced to use other unproven theories as supporting 'facts'. Then maybe they will be taken seriously. SpartHawg948 01:53, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
Shadowdragon dude, what is your deal? seriously you seem to be a bit of a jerk, calm down bro and dont add speculation to things, unless it is substantiated by overwhelming facts ralok 08:12, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Human-Reaper Edit

Then what are Reapers made of? Styrofoam? The superstructure is very obviously some type of metal. Now if I were to say that Reapers are made of a titanium alloy, that would be speculation. But it's perfectly safe to say that metal of some kind is involved in a Reaper's construction, it's evident from looking at them. But that's not the issue.
The issue is the image caption that you altered implied that Reapers are made entirely of organic material. There was nothing wrong with the previous wording of the caption which only said that the Human-Reaper is made partially of organic material. It didn't say there was metal. It simply acknowledged that organic material cannot be the sole substance used to make a Reaper. How is that speculation? It's a valid statement, and I don't believe there was any reason to alter it the way you did. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:12, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Truthfully, it could be made from any number of substances. For all we know, it could be made out of a shell, fiber, or even plastic. By saying "It looks like metal, thus it must be metal" would be the same thing as saying "Chakwas said the colonists were turned into a paste", which is something Spart deemed to be speculation. The edit you undid from me merely said nothing more than "The incomplete Human-Reaper made from liquefied humans". The lack of mention does not confirm nor deny the existance of other materials. Shadowdragon00000 01:19, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
Then what is the purpose of removing "partially" from the clause? It has the same effect, and is clearer. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Because the term "partial" is nothing more than speculation based off one's own perceptions at this point. Shadowdragon00000 01:25, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Before this spirals out of control, let's look at the caption itself. "The incomplete Human-Reaper made partially of liquefied colonists". Where is the mention of metal in that caption, which is the whole point of this argument. There is no mention of metal, and it stats facts. We know the Human-Reaper is partially made of liqudfied colonists, and I don't see a problem in stating facts. Lancer1289 01:27, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion on Commdor's talk page, as my reply to your statement ( Lancer ) is the same reply I sent to SpartHawg on Commdor's page. Shadowdragon00000 01:28, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Talk Pages Edit

Talk pages are not for discussing things that could have happened, what ifs, or things of that nature. They are there to discuss improvements to the articles, reorganization of articles, or for addressing problems with article structure. They are not there for what you put there. That is not the point of talk pages and that kind of information belongs either in a blog or a forum post. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:29, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.