Talk:Halo: Reach/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandals

Anyone other than me see the "This Game is Fail" in the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.150.33 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

SPARTANs

It should be noted that the radio traffic in the trailer makes mention of at least two SPARTANs. Sierra(S)-320 and S-259. According to the book, The Fall of Reach, the initial SPARTAN-II class had 150 candidates, 75 of whom were chosen, and only 30 of whom survived intact enough to fight.

It is typically held that all of the numbers assigned to the children conscripted for this first class were below 150. Thus the presence of these other numbers raises a few questions, most notably, if these are in fact SPARTAN designators, are they from Class 2 or 3? If so, they may be young "recruits" who have not graduated from the program (regardless of the fact that they were never mentioned in the book series).

The remote possibility exists that they may be SPARTAN-IIIs. This is unlikely however since the presence of the SPARTAN-IIIs on Reach would have exposed their existence which ONI was trying to keep very quiet.

The problem regarding this speculation is that "Sierra" is a call sign and should not be generalised to Spartans only. It might be used by other units of the UNSC. Additionally, Dare, a character from Halo 3: ODST, call sign is S1, meaning that she could be called Sierra-1 but doesn't make her a Spartan.-5ub7ank^(7alk) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, the last speaker appears to refer to herself as a SPARTAN. She first identifies herself with callsign Sierra-259, then says you have SPARTANs on the ground, and ends with "We're not going anywhere."

Additionally, the Bungie guys have payed pretty close attention to current US military practices. Today, operators on a radio network will often identify themselves with name-number callsign combination, but these typically do not go above the number 7 or 8 . For instance, the commander of an element will often be 6 (e.g. Animal-6 Actual as opposed to Animal-6-Bravo to denote the radio transmitter operator who handles the majority of the commanders communications). That said, I will have to agree with the above poster that the likelihood of the speaker(s) being SPARTANs is pretty good. Exactly what kind of SPARTANs is the question, though. Tigey (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my previous comment. The following - The problem regarding this speculation is that "Sierra" is a call sign and should not be generalised to Spartans only. It might be used by other units of the UNSC. - is to show that Sierra-259/320 might be other UNSC units like Pelican designations (example: Echo-419) or soldier/marines.-5ub7ank^(7alk) 22:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

They are SPARTAN-IIs. After "Class-I" (the surviving Spartans originally selected) graduated, ONI kidnapped other children. These "Class-II" SPARTAN candidates were numbered from 150 upward, to at least 320. It is not known how many of these candidates were chosen. They were kidnapped in 2537 - taking eight years to train them before being augmented, the evidence being Yasmine in ILB-. If these were SPARTAN-IIIs, they would have used a tag like: G-107, or B-289. --OsirisV (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The second class of Spartan-IIs is uncanonical, it's only referenced in Left For Dead and Ilovebees, which are two unreliable sources. In Ghosts of Onyx it says that after the first class of Spartan-IIs, Colonel Ackerson had all funds pulled from the Spartan-II program hence there never being a second class. I rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.176.18 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Operating under the assumption that the Spartan-IIs' numbers are limited to below 150 because of their original starting number is logical, but errenous. Frankie explicitly shot down that theory on the Halo.bungie.org forums a couple years back. Peptuck (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Link? --DocumentN (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The only plausible link would be Halopedia's ILoveBees article.-5ub7ank^(7alk) 22:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I really doubt that Frankie edits Halopedia, and that's not halo.bungie.org anyway. --DocumentN (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's the only source which questions the canon status of ILB... and hbo rarely updates its Halo contents. I really doubt Frankie would even touch the subject, seeing that he has his hands full in Halo Legends.-5ub7ank^(7alk) 09:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is always the possibility of those two Spartans being SPARTAN-IIIs, but I think there might be a better chance of them being SPARTAN-IIs.--Rollersox (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a reliable source which clearly states that Sierra-259 is a SPARTAN-II Commando; copy and paste: "http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Sierra-259".

Also, Sierra-320 is also a SPARTAN-II commando: "http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/SPARTAN-320". --Rollersox (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you read the first section of trivia in both articles? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I did...what's so interesting 'bout it?--Rollersox (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is "merely conjecture, as no official source has claimed that she is indeed a Spartan. Sierra-320 may be a Pelican dropship designation, though there is also no source supporting that theory either." That means it's not suitable to place on Wikipedia (which doesn't even really allow trivia sections). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Got a reply from Peptuck here; apparently he can't find it. --DocumentN (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the numbers going above 150: why? There were only 150 Spartan candidates. Why would they number above that? There may have been more numbered (possibly) for the second class, but they aren't Spartans. Quote from Ghosts of Onyx:

Ackerson stared at him a moment, then seemed to look through Kurt, past him. "I want you to train the next generation of Spartans."

Kurt blinked, taking in what Ackerson had just said, not quite understanding. "Sir, I was under the impression that Chief Petty Officer Mendez had been reassigned years ago to carry out that mission."

"The effort to train additional SPARTAN-IIs was postponed indefinitely by Dr. Catherine Halsey," Ackerson said. "There were other candidates within the gene pool, but they were out of synch with her age restriction protocols. And with the continuing war, her program funds were... diverted."

Kurt had always presumed other Spartans were being trained, that he and his fellows were the first in what would be a long line of Spartans. He'd never considered that they might be the first, and the last, of their kind.

Is that source enough for the opposite argument (that Spartan numbers only go up to 150)? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a venue for discussing improvements to the article subject, not a forum. Please take the speculation elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading through it again, I can't quite remember what about, but in my defence I thought we were trying to improve some part of the article. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, have you seen a lot of Spartan-IIs with numbers S-0xx. Seems for me, the numbers were random. Also, the initial batch of 150 candidates was restricted due to budget cuts to just 75, and besides, those Spartan-IIs who were not fit for duty after the modifications seem not to have a number. This makes numbers up to 033 only, and video games recall: Sierra-117, Sierra-042, Sierra-130 and many others. Nobody can prove anything from the Spartan's number, that for what they were used. "Big ONI secrets'. --79.139.167.138 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they were numbered, it's just that we haven't been told them, other than Fhajad-084. They received a number designation before being kidnapped.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifth or sixth game?

Discuss this here. I've seen clearly the game is being treated as, and referred to as an expansion. I would like to see where the developers, the publishers, or a different reliable source discredits this. I would then be appeased and drop this. Provide a reliable source. The Guy ^(edits) 20:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a standalone video game release. Period. Count up the number of standalone releases there have been, and you get 6. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Seven if you count the Halo 2 Multiplayer Map Pack, which has its own disk.-- OsirisV (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But that was only a bundle of otherwise available content. ODST has its own standalone multiplayer, one of the reasons Microsoft justified the full price of the game. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still an expansion, and clearly advertised as such. It's clear that the publishers intend it to be regarded as an expansion. I believe I had also asked for a source where Bungie or Microsoft states officially that this isn't intended as an expansion release. I can find you many sources where it says it is. Give me a source to the contrary, and again, I'll be appeased. As of now, you're using your own reason, which doesn't stand as a source, which you clearly expressed you had in your edit comment. The Guy ^(edits) 00:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft: "At the time [of Bungie's comments], the overall scope of Halo 3: ODST was not yet finalized, and since then, the project has grown increasingly more ambitious. We believe this stand-alone experience is much more than just an expansion. Halo 3: ODST provides a new campaign from the point of view of an entirely new character. Combine that with three new multiplayer maps, the entirely new cooperative mode called Firefight [shown below], and the complete Halo 3 multiplayer collection on a stand-alone disc, we feel this is a good value and tremendous addition to the Halo franchise."[1] See also:[2][3]; it's a standalone expansion, far different from a common expansion pack that requires the original game. It's another release, it counts as a game. This "it's not a game, it's an expansion" business is missing the point. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's all I asked for, a source to verify what you were saying. I never denied what you were saying, provided you could provide a source. All I asked for was a source. Now you have provided a source. Next time you would be better off doing that from the get-go. Anyways, thank you for the sources to verify what you were saying, they're much appreciated in comparison to driving an unsourced point. Thanks again. The Guy ^(edits) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a few questions: 1. It seems like you two are debating about Halo 3: ODST. Am I wrong? I also believe that a standalone expansion is an expansion none the less, and does not count as a seperate video game. Thus, by my count, Halo: Reach is only the fifth game in the series: Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Wars, and Halo: Reach. ODST is not a seperate game, and Halo: Chronicles is on indefinite hold. Belated sig.: Spartan S58 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is my opinion: Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo Wars, Halo 3: ODST, Halo: Reach, and then Halo: Chronicles. So in my count, I am beside the thought of that Halo: Reach is the sixth game in the Halo series. I'm not sure if I'm right, but my counting is usually correct.--Rollersox (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's how I did it except a) I think Chronicles is supposed to be three games and b) I didn't count it anyway because it was on hold. Personally, I'm not sure it'll ever come out until the mess about the movie is sorted. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

He's right, Halo: Chronicles doesn't count, it's on indefinite hold. Since the consensus seems to be that ODST counts as the fifth game, then Reach is the sixth.Spartan S58 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we all simply agree that it's the fifth halo game developed by bungie with it's own campaign, although there is no confirmation of a campaign I don't believe it would take this long to develope a multiplayer only game and just as well bungie has always significantly cared about offline experience for those who don't have the means to sign up for XBL.96.3.141.210 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to list this as fifth game, seeing as everybody wants it over with :/--Rollersox (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't anybody stopped to realize we would need a reference for either outcome? It's ridiculous. All of your arguments are irrelevant; personal opinions. This is relevant: "At the time [of Bungie's comments], the overall scope of Halo 3: ODST was not yet finalized, and since then, the project has grown increasingly more ambitious. We believe this stand-alone experience is much more than just an expansion. Halo 3: ODST provides a new campaign from the point of view of an entirely new character. Combine that with three new multiplayer maps, the entirely new cooperative mode called Firefight [shown below], and the complete Halo 3 multiplayer collection on a stand-alone disc, we feel this is a good value and tremendous addition to the Halo franchise." but it still doesn't say "Halo Reach is the fifth (or sixth) game in the franchise." I will be removing any statements of this sort unless somebody can present a reference that specifically clarifies this issue. The Guy ^(edits) 23:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any sources, but I just think that Halo: Reach is either the fifth, or more likely, sixth game in the Halo trilogy.--Rollersox (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We need a source to help us count, now? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We need a source so that our counting doesn't constitute original research. Everything in an article has to be verified by a reliable source, as I'm sure you know; even "little facts" that could easily be managed personally. It's pedantic, but it's necessary. The Guy ^(edits) 05:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I hadn't realised that the things we needed citations for extended as far as that. I knew from a previous thing that we need citations for even generally known facts, but I hadn't realised that we also needed them for what game in the series something is. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't fuss so much, but seeing as this very little and insignificant fact is garnering more dispute and discussion than suits it, we need a source. Better to stick with policy in this situation, since counting isn't working for everyone. The Guy ^(edits) 19:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I was losing a mild bit of faith in humanity. I'm a proofreader. It's my job to be a picky git. But this seemed a bit excessive. Nice to know there is a reason for it. :P --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying to find source...I think I might have a fairly bad one, so I'm not going to show it up here, but it's okay.--Rollersox (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

During development, the game grew in scope to that of a full-sized game.Tolito, Stephen (2009-09-08). "How And Why Halo 3: ODST Was Made In 14 Months". Kotaku. Retrieved 2009-09-21. straight from the odst page, there now can ya'll shut up and just count it as the 6th halo game.

Sign your posts and be polite. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Halo: Reach is the fourth official campaign-focused game made by Bungie. ODST utilises Halo 3's title, thus should not included in the list; it is a full-game/expansion in a sense. Halo Wars is made by Ensemble and not by Bungie, thus should not included in the list. Thus,

1. Halo: Combat Evolved
2. Halo 2
3. Halo 3
   1. Halo 3: ODST
4. Halo: Reach

Toodles!-5ub7ank^(7alk) 10:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ODST is now considered a full game, whatever the title says. Also, the question was what number Halo game is it, not what number Halo game made by Bungie. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Trailers

In the article it states that there will be space combat that is shown in a trailer. Is there a reference or source for this?

A) Signs your posts. B) Could you... err... point out the problem you're having? All I can see is "The trailer shows the colony Reach under attack by Covenant battleships orbiting the planet." That's it. Nothing about space combat whatsoever. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, found it in the history. Signing your posts gives a timestamp to work with. Regardless, it got taken out by an edit. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this article closed?--Rollersox (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 04:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant "is thread finished with?" Yes, yes it is. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

343 Takeover?

Will they be as bad as 989? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.186.142 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you gibbering about? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 09:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This IP is asking if 343 Industries will be bad at adding new content to the Halo universe. My response: No, their Director is Frank O'Connor, formerly a key senior Bungie employee who made many contributions as "Content Manager", backed up by a quote from him:

"I'm content manager, which really means, spare monkey. That means I do everything from writing the manual, helping marketing with materials, running the website and going on trips to incredible places, to shoveling pimp turds out of Marty's recording booth. Seriously. Pimps are way worse than cart horses."

In the hands of a former Bungie employee, I don't think 343 will "skrew up", as many Forums have been thinking.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I got that part. It was the 989 thing that confused me. Who the heck are they? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, having discovered the page, I now change my question. What the heck do those guys have to do with Microsoft? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

He used "as bad as".... WP:POV! He is asking directly, if 343 Industries will be considered by him "as bad as" 989... Of course, we aren't him so thus he must be fairly stupid to tell him what he thinks...-- OsirisV (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, they haven't done anything yet, so how the heck would anyone know? Although, the Bungie comment doesn't make sense when you consider that two of BioWare's former employees churned out garbage recently. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

989 is the company that took over the twisted metal series from 3-4. it was similar to 343 because it was a division of SCEA created to develope games for the ps and windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.141.210 (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's nothing to do with 343, is it? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize the fact that this talk page is not a discussion forum and should only be used for discussion regarding the editing of this article. Please do not continue this discussion here. Thanks. Bye. The Guy ^(edits) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In my defence and in the defence of OsirisV, we were discouraging the talk. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well in discouraging the talk, you both became the only talkers (and were trying to verify various unrelated facts with each other). It's fine, though. I won't write you up or anything. Not that that's possible. Just don't let it happen again. The Guy ^(edits) 22:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, I've reread it now. Sorry. Thread Status: Closed --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What happened?

There's a bucnh of swtuff missing from the article now. I can't remember everything, but there's nothing on there now about this being Bungie's last Halo game or what there doing with it. 164.107.91.200 (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Media question

Can you really determine the media type of a game that has not even been produced on disc what so ever? Lets keep this article accurate with information that is available. The xbox 360 has been capable of playing standard dvd media and dvd dual layer media games. it even has recently been able to play 360 games thru download on xbox live. maybe it will be best to remove the media type until there is a verifiable reference or until the game is released. 65.191.25.169 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Krazycev 13 ^{other crap} 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to further the discussion slightly, There is a wii game called World of Goo. It was released thru online download of the wii shop channel. Originally the Game was to be released as onto wii optical disc like a normal game, but for whatever reason, was not. So let us not judge something that did not have appearence yet unless it is from a reliable site. 65.191.25.169 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Leaked" screenshots

Rather than risk starting an edit war, I'm bringing this here. One editor added in info about the supposed "leaked" screenshots that hit the Net recently. Another editor, User:David Fuchs, reverted the change, stating that "we are not a news site or publisher of speculation; those screenshots have not been confirmed." I put them back in, saying "Since when do screenshots have to be confirmed for us to have them in the article? It's a notable story with a reliable source behind it." Now David has taken it back out, saying "we're not a crystal ball, and common sense dictates our use of sources." I, for one, cannot see how putting in info about the screenshots is crystal balling. We're not saying they are screenshots; we're not analyzing them saying what we think they might mean (which would also breach WP:OR) and we're not skipping ahead and saying if they are real or fake. And for another thing, this thing about "use of sources." Since when is Joystiq (or IGN or Kotaku or any other similar site that posted the story) not a reliable source? Even if they do end up being faked, it's a notable news story that should be in the article. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I originally reverted it as a lot of it was speculation of the Bungie Weekly Update. I don't mind including the info but it needs to be better written.Mikerooney (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article because we don't know if the screenshots are actually from Reach. They could be well-made fakes, much like how there were fake screenshots circulated for Halo 2 and 3. Reliable sources commenting on the fact that there are possible screenshots is still not noteworthy and still unverifiable original research, albeit published in reliable sources. Just because the publisher meets WP:RS doesn't mean we add it in; for example, we don't use figures by VGChartz because they are unreliable; even if they are cited in reliable sources, that doesn't change the unreliability of the information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but I think the difference there is with VGChartz we'd be trying to pass off the figures as real. With this we wouldn't be trying to say "Hey, these are from Reach." We would simply say "A set of screenshots, allegedly from Reach, were leaked so and so." As long as we state that they are alleged to be from Reach but we don't say "A set of screenshots from Reach were leaked" I think it would be okay. Anakinjmt (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bungie has acknowledged the leak, no? There's your verification if so. --Teancum (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that they've actually acknowledged the leak. Last I heard, they only gave the typical "We don't comment on rumors" and "We will neither confirm nor deny anything." But I could have missed something. Whether or not that constitutes "acknowledging" anything is up for debate. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Their Weekly update mentioned it - "Light housekeeping this week. Stay out of the kitchen. Floor's wet." Referring in a cryptic way to the leak. ODSW 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You sure about that? That is cryptic, and while the idea of the floor being "wet" does make one think of a "leak" that just seems a little TOO cryptic to be usable in the article. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Premiere

I added info about its premiere on 12/12 in the lead. If anyone feels it'd be better somewhere else, feel free to change.Mikerooney (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The game premiered with a teaser trailer at E3 of this year. The sentence should probably be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.162.65 (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

E3 was an announcement, not a premiere. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Info being taking away from this page...

Since the game has been announced, Bungie have given away a bit of info on it. It wasen't clear at first if the game was a prequel or a sequel, but Bungie has revealed that on their official site that it is a prequel, yet it's not up on this page. Also, it tells nothing about the story, which we already know a lot about, with references to Reach's destruction in the games and the books. So why isn't this information on this Wikipedia page? If I try to fix it, someone just removes it even if I give links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Towlierocks (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I second this question. There was a plot section a while ago. What the heck happened to it? One day it was there, the next, gone. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

New Vandal?

216.19.122.116 has continued to remove portions of perfectly legitimate information from the article. He has been reverted twice now, and he's done it a third time. I've asked him here to at least explain his changes and he has not done so. Suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashren2001 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both IPs have been reported to AIV and I've requested semi-protection for the page. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick assistance. I'm newish to editing Wikipedia, but that information was fairly relevant. Don't know why he's reverting this of all things though. Dashren2001 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

He claims it's not relevant when he vandalised my userpage. Two other editors disagree with him and he hasn't explained himself at all. That gives me no sympathy whatsoever for him. You'll have to deal with his latest one now. I accidentally broke the 3RR when I wasn't paying attention. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

How the hell is it not relevant? It's a game depicting the exact thing the novel was written about, and the teaser trailer is nearly a lifted scene from the book. If he was in here defending his position that would be another story, but what the heck. Do I keep reverting or wait for an admin/op? Dashren2001 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert, tell him to come here in the edit summary. It is relevant. In fact, I'm going to go back into the page history and find the old plot section. No reason was ever given for it's deletion that I've seen. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like he's stopped for now. Keeping an eye on the page, though. Thanks again.Dashren2001 (talk)

(edit conflict) He's compromising now? Where? I've merged the old plot section with the new. Come on, Bungie. Give us details so we can stop having to mess around with this section... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. Very clean merge, thank you again. Dashren2001 (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not the IP, I must inform. I merely have this article on my watchlist.-- OsirisV (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that, noticed it a little too late. Dashren2001 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Took me a few moments to work out what you two were talking about. xD --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)