User talk:Lancer1289/Archive2

This page is the second archive of my talk page and the last one before I was made an admin here. If you leave a message here, I will not read it beause I consider all conversations on this page closed. If you want to bring up an issue again, just leave me a message on my talk page about it. Thanks.

I'm trying...
I'm trying to deal with the situation. I've been edit conflicted about 5 times now though, so it's a little difficult. SpartHawg948 06:16, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just trying to help. Anyway something tells me he might revert that too. Lancer1289 06:18, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It was just getting frustrating. You know how fun back-to-back-to-back edit conflicts can be. :) SpartHawg948 06:20, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my favorite still remains the one with Revan's Exile. I still get a laugh when I read over that section on your talk page. Lancer1289 06:22, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

That was a classic! I didn't even have to look, as soon as I saw you mention it above, I busted out laughing! :D SpartHawg948 06:24, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Slam
Have you ever used slam? It does not need to travel, even when Shepard is using it. That's what I'm trying to convey. Grandmasterka 03:28, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, because every time I have used slam, it has to travel and I have missed quite a few enemies doing so. Every power Shepard fires travels, and we have proven that multiple times with people in the past. This on is no exception. Lancer1289 03:30, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I use it all the time, and it doesn't need to travel. Maybe it's a platform difference? I play on the 360. Grandmasterka 03:32, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have both the PC and 360 version and it needs to travel on both. Lancer1289 03:33, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. I dunno then. Its instant effect is the main reason I choose it as a bonus power. Grandmasterka 03:35, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you downloaded any updates becuase that is the only reason I can think of. Lancer1289 03:37, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to randomly jump in here 3 days later and have nothing to do with the convo originally but seeing this discussion I just loaded up my Vanguard file and gave her Slam and it is indeed (in my PC version that is) instant effect as far as I can see as long as I can get the orange square edges to appear (I don't know how else to describe those sorry I'm kinda tired) the move hits regardless and instantly. Tomorrow I'll check my xbox version but I honestly don't see there being a difference. Draken-Korin 15:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to randomly jump in here 3 days later and have nothing to do with the convo originally but seeing this discussion I just loaded up my Vanguard file and gave her Slam and it is indeed (in my PC version that is) instant effect as far as I can see as long as I can get the orange square edges to appear (I don't know how else to describe those sorry I'm kinda tired) the move hits regardless and instantly. Tomorrow I'll check my xbox version but I honestly don't see there being a difference. Draken-Korin 15:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Adept Guide
It looks great. Enough said. But the notable talents bit, would it not be easier and nicer to read bullet-pointed or something equivalent? If there's a list of things, like talents or bonus talents, perhaps using a listing formatting would make it just that much better. Phylarion 15:06, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * However, I'm not done yet. I am formatting in sections and plan to overhaul all twelve guides over the course of the next week or so. Also I have wrote a style guide page for the class guides and with the approval, Spart has already given his go ahead, plan to add it to the style guide and then just copy-paste the new guides over the old ones. Lancer1289 15:11, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent policy regarding speculation
Hello, Sorta new here. I'm just curious why you would revert my edit on the citadel, deleting the "inspired by Babylon 5" trivia. This is blatant speculation. It could have been inspired by any number of books or television shows that have a similar premise. And unlike the other trivia there, this piece provides no evidence suggesting why this reference is more likely than any others. Why the inconsistent policy? Dammej 01:58, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the time, but apparenlty all the wiki sites were locked down.
 * In that case the trivia has been there for some time, since February 1, 2010 in this case, and it has been passed over by many users, including myself several times. In fact, an admin with a repuatation for striking down bad trivia, modified it to its present state. While I will admit, being the huge Scifi fan that I am, a station like that isn't unique however it was the unique role of Bablyon 5 that makes it trivia. In its universe, B5 was a center of commerse and politics, which also describes the Citadel because it is the political and economic center of the galaxy. Also B5 was one of the few stations mentioned in the Bablyon 5 universe and just like B5, the Citadel is a center of galactic policy and economics. Lancer1289 02:50, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I won't get worked up about an hour's difference.
 * But it's still inconsistent though. I'm trying to implement the wiki policy of "Be Bold." Time shouldn't matter in that case. If something is wrong, just because it's been wrong for a long time doesn't mean it needs to continue to be wrong. Theres's no reason to believe that BioWare was thinking of B5 when they came up with the citadel. All other pieces of trivia in that section are interesting on their own; even if the Citadel isn't inspired by them, they're interesting to learn about. A small quip about the Citadel possibly being inspired by B5 is not. Dammej 03:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget the governing council, made up of representatives from the most powerful races, that voted on matters and, while not having any direct power over the other races, nevertheless wielded considerable influence. After all, that's something else that B5 and the Citadel have in common. SpartHawg948 02:55, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had 50 minutes to come up with that block of text, and how did I forget that. How did I forget the Council. Lancer1289 02:56, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * If deleting it is out of the question, I think it could at the very least benefit from a rewrite to make it sound less like an advertisement for Babylon 5. Which is pretty much the only purpose it serves. I liked the show too, but this is a stretch... Dammej 03:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

However most of our tivia like that looks similar. Take this one from Nihlus Kryik's page: "Nihlus' name bears striking resemblance to Darth Nihilus, an antagonist in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, the Obsidian-developed sequel to one of Bioware's most well known games, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (KotOR). The facial markings upon Nihlus' face as well may be a reference to the Sith Lord, as he bore a white mask that hid the 'nothingness' of his face." Every time I read that, I have the urge to start up my Xbox and play KotOR or KotOR II. That example also sounds even more like an advertisement than the B5 one. Lancer1289 03:26, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I fail to see how "The idea of a space station which is the central hub for commerce and diplomacy for multiple species was possibly inspired by Babylon 5." sounds like an advertisement, or how it could be made to sound less so. It's more a summation of the similarities. SpartHawg948 03:29, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Spart, I saw the same thing, but I thought that example would show that most of our trivia like that sounds like an adverisement. Also I agree, I don't know how we could make it sound less like an advertisement. It is just stating facts, nothing more, nothing less. Lancer1289 03:32, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I chose my words poorly. I suppose it's not an advertisement for the show, but it's certainly not an interesting read. It says things about the citadel which have already been said in the article, and then mentions that this is the same as with B5. It might be true, but I don't feel that it adds anything to the article that hasn't already been discussed. Contrast this with the Nihlus example that you provided, which genuinely provides interesting facts that supplement the article. I'm going to try to rewrite the B5 trivia part since this issue seems to be immovable. Dammej 03:40, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to a little rewrite but just be careful about it. Lancer1289 03:56, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Or you already did. I have no objections to what it says now. However I won't object if it reverted because both look good and say the same things. Lancer1289 03:58, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent edit struck me as odd since it removed all discernible reason for the B5 mention. The bit as is could possibly be worded better, but that wasn't the way to go about it. SpartHawg948 04:00, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, how about we just leave it as is. Its worked since Februray, so something was done right. Lancer1289 04:03, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * All descernible reason? It said the same thing without implying that B5 was the inspiration for the Citadel, merely that they were the same. I feel it improved the way the trivia was mentioned. They might say the same thing, but my edit said so without implying that ME was inspired by B5. This has certainly not been acknowledged by the authors, so it goes against the speculation policy. What possible reason could there be to revert it?

Because possible references are trivia, similarities are not. There are lots of things that are similar in sci-fi genres. If we acknowledged all those, trivia sections would be enormous. In some rare instances, there are so many similarities that it can be reasonably said that there is a 'possible' or 'likely' reference or inspiration. These we do note. SpartHawg948 04:23, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, when I took a better second look, it did remove all possible references to B5. However Spart is right, there are possible references, as we acknowledge those, but without devconfirmation we say likely until we have it. He is also right because as I think Tullis said along these lines, "If we acknowledge all possible references, then the trivia sections would be as long as some articles." I really need to take a close look at things apparently. Lancer1289 04:31, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when just plain old similarities are included, that's when you get people adding 'trivia' about how the krogan are similar to Klingons, the asari are similar to Vulcans, and on and on and on ad infinitum. And that gets tiring real fast. SpartHawg948 04:34, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, why Spart did you have to bring up the krogan-Klingon thing. I don't know how many times I have removed something like that. But I have an even more frusterating one, Kasumi and G0-T0. I am getting tired of that one. Lancer1289 04:36, May 27, 2010 (UTC
 * You say this, and then the very next edit I see from you (Spart) leaves some trivia about the vorcha being SIMILAR to another species in star trek. This is exactly why I made this section. You're applying the policies inconsistently. In the case of the vorcha, it's ok for the vorcha to be similar to another race, while in this case it's not ok to merely state that the Citadel is similar to Babylon 5. This is inconsistent, and it bugs me. Which is it? Dammej 04:39, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * However that is valid because the Vorcha have quite a few things in common with the Jem'hadar. One: Short life spans, vorcha live for about 20 years, Jem'Hadar, the onldes we heard was 8. Two: vorcha use fighting to communicate and it is part of their culture, and the Jem'Hadar are bread to fight so it is a part of their culture too. Three: While we don't know how fast vorcha mature, though I can't see it being very long, Jem'Hadar can be fully grown in three days. So that one is valid and you are arguing that it is applied inconsistently, however it is very consistent. Lancer1289 04:43, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm arguing. I have no idea if the Vorcha are similar to this race or not. I don't watch star trek enough to comment on it. What I take issue with is the inconsistency in wording. Spart argues that it's not enough to say that the Citadel is similar to Babylon 5, while in another article, it's perfectly fine to say that the Vorcha are similar to this other race, without being inspired by them. I have conceeded the point that B5 does belong in the trivia section. What I'm disputing now is that it must remain as a "possible inspiration" and not merely "incredibly similar" like the Vorcha and this other race. I just want consistency. Dammej 04:49, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the Vorcha-Jem'Hadar link. The Jem'Hadar were genetically engineered and bred by the Dominion to serve as soldiers and were controlled through the kercel-white drug to insure their loyalty and obedience. The type of connection you're implying between the two races seems as weak as the Klingon-Krogan connection, in my opinion. --The Illusive Man 05:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the similarities that I pointed out above. While yes the Jem'Hadar were genetically engineered, they share quite a lot with the vorcha. The krogan-Klingon link was based on only one thing, their culture, not anything else. There is quite a lot in common apart from that but let's not get into a debate here about that. If we want to debate that, let's go to the Vorcha page. Lancer1289 05:09, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I barely payed any attention to the wording of the second trivia bit other than to see that the 'another' needed changed as the first Star Trek bit was being removed. This may come as a shock, but I (Spart) don't know all or see all. Sometimes I miss things and need to have them pointed out to fix them. My bad for not being omniscient. SpartHawg948 05:00, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok Spart, I missed it too when I modified the link. Lancer1289 05:02, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for the snark. I had assumed you were reviewing the entire section, not just searching for one link. Anyway, thanks for the lesson in the policy at any rate. Hopefully my contributions will be productive enough in the future to not get reverted immediately. ;) Dammej 05:10, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that is what we are all here for. Anyway at least ended civily, compated to a number of discussions that Spart and myself have gotten involved in the past. Lancer1289 05:14, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to be unduly snarky, just trying to get across the message that a little benefit of the doubt would be nice. After all, saying "You say this, and then the very next edit I see from you (Spart) leaves some trivia about the vorcha being SIMILAR to another species in star trek." is hardly being nice and polite either, is it? The clear implication there is that I had seen it and knowingly left it there, which was not the case. Thus, my exasperated response that I am not omniscient. SpartHawg948 05:27, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize, yes, that was a bit aggressive. I was just frustrated I guess. Perhaps sleep is needed... Anyway, sorry and thanks again. Thanks to this I (think) I have a clearer understanding of what constitutes acceptable speculation. Hoping to make productive edits in the future.
 * I think we can all understand frusteration, as both Spart and myslef have gotten to that point severla times in arguments. However again, at least this came to a civil end rather than a huge argument, unlike several other conversations. I am getting close to the point where I need to archive this page. Maybe I will, but that is a topic I need to sleep on. Lancer1289 05:45, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the club! I'm just about to start archive #3. And to Dammej, apology accepted, and I in turn apologize for my admittedly terse response. And I totally agree, Lancer, it's nice that this was resolved civilly. And I agree with you both that sleep does sound like an excellent idea. I may have to follow up on that one here in a bit! :) SpartHawg948 05:53, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Geth War Page
Regarding the incorrect casualty figure you insist in citing in the Geth War article: Millions upon millions means several lots of million such as tens of millions, or if you really insist a hundred million. It does not mean a million times a million. Just as 'thousands upon thousands' does not mean 1000x1000=1 million. Whilst I don't doubt your knowledge of the Mass Effect universe, I suggest you take some lessons in basic arithmetic before you lecture other people on the subject, something you clearly don't know anything about. 81.144.212.5 20:51, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing - If Tali had meant billions when she said "millions upon millions", she would have said billions instead. Pretty obvious when you think about it, but don't strain yourself. 81.144.212.5 20:56, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I can't do math, really. Because millions upon millions in context means well over a billion. Tali also admits that the quarians had colony worlds. We currenlty have around 6.5 billion people on this planet, and Earth in 2183 has 11.3 billion people, so if the quarians went from their homeworld and colonies, to 17 million people, then they killed well over a billion quarians. Also you need a lesson on our community guidelines about insulting other users. Lancer1289 21:02, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who you were arguing with or why he felt the need to insult you, but he's right. X upon Y means X plus Y, not X multiplied by Y. You're speculating that the casualty figure was closer to the billion mark based on incorrect knowledge English grammar. But speculation is one thing, assumptions are even worse; you're assuming that Quarian civilisation is comparable to Human civilisation, an assumption which I must say is false. You don't know how quickly Quarians mature, how long they live, or how extensively they had developed prior to the Geth War. On a final note, which I hope will illustrate my point, millions upon millions of people died in the Second World War, a total of 60 million to be precise; which I'm sure you'll agree is well below 1 billion. If I told you that millions upon millions of people died in WW2, would you assume that 40% of the Human race (2.5 billion people alive in 1940-50s) died in less than a decade? Whilst I don't think this guy should have insulted you, he is also correct in pointing out that if Tali had meant billions she would have said billions; clear statements are not made so that people like you can twist them to conform to their own assumptions. This site has some pretty strict guidelines about speculation, I'd like to think that registered users such as yourself are held to the same standards; unless of course being registered gains you privilege of being exempted from such guidelines, and a modicum of common sense. 79.67.166.156 20:59, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in here, but I believe the talk page that Lancer was referring to was the Talk page for the article itself. I happen to agree with you. Make your case there, please. Dammej 21:04, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) However you have to consider that the quarian homeworld and their colonies had to have well over a billion people. Earth in 2183 had 11.5 billion people, and Rakhana, the drell homeworld had 11 billion before the envrionmental disaster, so well over 5 billion on the quarian homeworld is a very educated guess. As to regesterd users being exempt, I am not nor is anyone else. You also have to take the information in context, which you clearly aren't becuase for any civilization reaching FTL flight, in all of scifi, their homworlds always have 7+ billion people. It is an educated guess, and in context, billions is much more appropiate. Lancer1289 21:08, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Armor page Merger
Do you know anything about the suggested merge of the Armor pages? I mean, the "suggestion box" thing at the top has been there for a REALLY long time. It's just kind of annoying to see it at the top every time. Can it be removed? I wasn't sure, so I thought you'd be a good person to turn to about this.--Effectofthemassvariety 06:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently there is a discussion about splitting ME and ME2 articles, however that discussion is almost mute because only one page is split. However I tend to agree that the merge tags are mute at this point, however I'll drop DRY and Spart a message saying that because only the Assignments page is split, let's just make it policy that we don't split pages like that. However again we need a policy on this. One page vs, well I don't know how many, it seems that policy has been made. Again I'll drop the admins a line and we'll see. Again I don't think that a split should be necessary, unless there is a need to split. Lancer1289 06:08, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Pictures in the lead section
Here's my rationale, FWIW. 1. I don't want to clutter small articles with pictures. Boxing the text in with images looks cramped, IMO. 2. Articles with InfoBoxes have pictures in the lead section, so clearly it's not completely "wrong looking" for images to be at the tops of articles. RobertM525 07:19, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just mainly on walkthough pages. I know we usually don't put them there. The rest I know we do, but not usually on the walkthoughs. Lancer1289 07:21, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Class Guide Logos
As I'm sure you've already seen, I just added a couple more logos to my sandbox page. Let me know what you think. It will literally take 5 minutes each to make the logos for the other classes, so once we hammer out a style that looks good, I can make the rest of them.

I still say that the logo sans-border looks best, but I'm not really a graphic designer, so I don't know. Maybe you could try them out on your sandbox guides and see how they look? Dammej 20:00, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I won't save the adept guide for ME2, but I'll place each one and see what does look good. Lancer1289 20:03, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well after looking at all three, a header really don't look good because it pushes the text down. However after looking though it, is there anyway you can get the scanline without the border? I'll see what that looks like before making a final decision. Lancer1289 20:12, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Ok I got both in there, and I still think that the scanline image looks better. however I still want opinions. Lancer1289 20:37, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well right now they're both really crowding the TOC. Maybe try them with a smaller width? I'm thiking 500px or so. however small it needs to be so that the TOC isn't so tall. (on my screen anyway) Dammej 20:40, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just resized my screen, and I they're not crowding it anymore. But I imagine not many people are browsing at a very high resolution, so it might still be a good idea to size them down a little. Dammej 20:42, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the TOC is that tall because of two things, the amount of headings and subheadings in the article, and the wiki code displayes them all. So unfortunatly shrinking the pictures won't shorten the TOC. I can put them in seperate articles, yea I'll do that, give a second. Lancer1289 20:43, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Ok I have two seperate articles now, Adept Guide (Mass Effect 2), no scanline. Adept Guide (Mass Effect 2) 2, scanline image. To me the scanline image looks better, more professional. Lancer1289 20:48, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * edit conflict, from above That's not what I was talking about. To see what I meant, go to either page that you have, then shrink the browser window horizontally. When you start getting small enough, the TOC starts to get skinnier so that the image can still display next to it and fit in the window. In the process it gets really tall. Normally, I don't browse in full-screen mode, so this made the TOC really long and skinny. I can't be the only person that has a smaller browser window, so it would be prudent to resize it down. Dammej 20:52, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I see what you mean, however unfortunatly that deals with the wiki's base code. So that isn't something that we can modify like the sidebar or something that deals with this wiki in particular. The only other thing that I can do is just hide the TOC altogether. Lancer1289 20:56, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes I realize that, but if you were to size the images down (to say, 500px wide or so), the likelyhood that someone with a smaller-sized browser gets a squished TOC would be reduced. It's a usability thing. Dammej 20:58, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok shrunk them down, take another look. Again though, I still like the scanline image because it is more professional, however I still want your opinion. Lancer1289 21:09, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Right now the border with the scanline provides a nice closure to the image, so I'm leaning that way. But I think that, in either case, they could do with being taller. Maybe some class-appropriate image in the background would help them? Dammej 21:20, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. However I am curious, what to you mean by background images. The ME guides at the top just have the Codex image for the class, and in my opinion, that is all they need. However I am curious what you do mean by background images. Lancer1289 21:23, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well maybe it would be that simple. I'm just looking for something we could add to make the images taller. Perhaps if I placed the Codex image for the adept underneath what we already have, it would fill out the space more. I'm almost finished mocking up a photo so you can see what I mean. Dammej 21:28, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I certanly have no objections to that what so ever. Actually it would show a progression, ME to ME2, and eventually ME3. Nice idea. So about the images, we are then set on a scanline image at the top, followed by the Codex image below? That would do nicely. Lancer1289 21:31, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's not what i mean at all. In fact I'm certain that would be awful looking. Once I finish this image you'll understand. Dammej 21:34, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, just upload it your sandbox, and I'll think I'll understand then. Lancer1289 21:38, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Life interfered. I just uploaded it. Still not very happy with it, but it gives you an idea of what I'm thinking. I was hoping that it would fill out the vertical space next to the TOC better. But that's what I mean by "background image." something behind the logo itself. Dammej 22:10, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I can see what you mean, I'll plug it in and see what happens. Lancer1289 22:13, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I pluged it in, however I am still particial to the scanline image. It does help to fill the vertical space though. I'll drop Spart a line, and see what he thinks. It is nice to have another opinion. Lancer1289 22:17, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That TOC is just so huge that this image didn't even make a dent. As it is, I'd like either the original image or the scanline one better. Plus this image has a singularity right on his crotch. Dammej 22:20, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the scanline image for the professionality of it. However I dropped Spart a line and a third opinion would be good. I'll put up the other image, and again I'll see what Spart thinks. Lancer1289 22:24, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I made another one, check the sandbox. I like it a lot better, since it isn't as plain. Dammej 22:31, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea that does look a lot better, I'll put that one in. Lancer1289 22:32, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok it's in however I am still partical to the scanline alone. However let's see what Spart thinks. Lancer1289 22:34, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

You know what, I'll drop a few other users a line and get some opinions on the matter. What do you think about that? Lancer1289 22:38, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Style One Vs Style Two
This section is for voting on which style you think is better. Please leave a small comment and why you liked it better under the appropiate heading. This is just for voting, not a discussion at the moment. Any and all comments are welcome, but please remember that your comment is yours and this is NOT a discussion. Discussion will take place, if you wish to discuss it, after the votes are in, and in my sandbox on the appropiate page. I really don't want discussion right now to keep opinions unbiased. Thanks in advance. Whichever one is chosen, Dammej, the origial modifier of the new images, will be making them for the rest of the images. Lancer1289 23:39, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Style One
If you like style one better, then please leave a comment here and use a : for each new comment. Thanks.


 * Am a little confused here, I'm a newcomer (haha!). At least that's how I feel after being absent for 2 weeks. Are the images on the top half of the Sandbox page the Style One? If so, my vote goes there. With the picture placeholder having its own border, the borderless images catch my eyes instantly. There you go, if my vote still counts, that is. Braveangel 10:52, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Style Two
If you like style two better, then please leave a comment here and use a : for each new comment. Thanks.
 * I like style two better because it looks more professional. Lancer1289 23:11, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer Style Two, personally. SpartHawg948 23:50, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll toss my hat in for Style Two as well. Very nice. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:53, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote Style Two. It seems more crisp and refined than the one with the image of an adept edited in. Tophvision 00:22, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer Style Two as well. --DRY 00:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Style two is just a better overall look than style one, so I vote yes for this.MEffect Fan 00:31, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since this logo will most likely set a precedent for later page logos, I believe that, while Style One of the Adept looks interesting, I don't believe the other logos for other classes would look as good. So I'm switching over to Style Two. --Effectofthemassvariety 00:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Style 1 is too distracting, so I prefer style 2. Teugene 02:37, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a little redundant now but my vote goes for this style too. --The Illusive Man 04:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I Thank You All For your Votes and it seems that Style Two has been decided on. However Dammej has come up with some new images and I'd like to you all to take another look. Personally I think they are good so I will redirect you all to his talk page for his sandbox and I'll be dropping messages again. I'll be commenting there as well.

Not a god. Got it.
Hey, thanks for fixing my mistake. It did look scetchy when I looked at it, and I could've sworn it said god on there before. But anyways, I appreciate it. And, hey, I learned a new thing, and that's always good! :D --Effectofthemassvariety 07:34, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry went to sleep the second I finished adding the wikipedia links. Anyway glad to be of help. Lancer1289 16:24, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Unknown User
Hi Lancer. The deleted page was created by User:Xuebao2010. JoePlay ( talk ) 18:14, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, you were asking about Ose, haha. He is on the Spam Task Force team. They fight spam and vandalism across Wikia. JoePlay ( talk ) 19:04, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just wanted to leave a quick thank you for helping take care of this NiRv4n4 character. I was unaware that this was going on, as I was too busy stuffing my face with bratwurst, but fortunately you and a couple of other outstanding users were keeping an eye on things. Some of the people who wander through are just too much. And you seemed to be this guys favorite too, at least right up until he discovered my user page! So again, thanks for helping to take care of this punk kid with more free time than brains! :) SpartHawg948 00:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Class Guide images updated
Sorry about the delay, I've uploaded the new images. Try 'em out in the sandbox. I just replaced the previous images, so that should make it easier. Dammej 05:27, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I do think that those images are great, and to be honest, they look a lot better without the scanline. Maybe it was the background that did it. Anyway they look great, and thanks for all the hard work. They even look great in the class articles. Lancer1289 05:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Another ME2 class icon idea.
I was browsing through the Miranda Lawson article, and I noticed that the nifty template for her powers also includes a location for the "achievement" image. So I thought, hey, that looks really neat, why couldn't the class powers template include a similar spot for a class image? Might look odd, but I thought I'd bring it up. What do you think? Good? Stupid? Let me know. In the meantime, I'll probably try something like it in my sandbox, if I can figure out how. Dammej 08:06, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I was able to figure it out. Check it out at my sandbox. I think it looks neat, but I'm probably biased. Let me know what you think. Dammej 08:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry fell asleep, needed it. Anyway I'll probably just be taking the template information and updating the current template, then fixing the articles. Good work, and again I don't think anyone will object. Lancer1289 14:38, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ok I just updated the template, and after some experimentation, it really won't work with the ME powers, so I'd dodge that one. However they look great, and good work on them. Lancer1289 14:57, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what you changed in the template, apart from some image sizing. Regardless, changes to templates should be discussed publicly before implementation. --silverstrike 15:48, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Nice image. I find the table and image placement for ME and ME2 a little inconsistent in its implementation. Maybe if I could work something to make it consistent. Teugene 16:22, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry for the lack of discussion, but after looking at other pages, it just seemed more consistent with the other tmeplates on squadmate pages. While they had the various completion/loyalty images, I though the class image would just be the same. Again sorry for the lack of discussion, that one is on me. (Bashing head into wall), again my bad on that one. Lancer1289 16:54, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, I go to bed and this happens. Crazy. I just wanted to let you guys know that there need not be 4 seperate templates for what is essentially the same thing. Templates (at least on wikipedia) can use "if-else" logic and so forth to determine if they should display something or not. I can probably come up with a "global" powers/talents template that could easily accomodate all 4 uses (ME1 class/squadmate and ME2 class/squadmate). Dammej 17:28, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually in this case, four seperate templates are probably better because they can be modified easier than a global template if an issue comes up. So I'd have to say no on the global templates, and four templates makes much more sense, at least to me. Lancer1289 17:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just arguing from a "reusability" standpoint here. The main difference between the ME and the ME2 templates is the number of powers/talents that they can display. I'm just saying that making one template that can display an arbitrary number of talents/powers would be a "good thing" At least, that's what my computer science teachers always said. Dammej 17:37, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * However we still have at least one more game to account for. I am in computer science as well, have programming experience, and from what I have learned, sometimes having similar subs that peform similar actions are a good thing because they can become more specialized if necessary. Also if something goes wrong or a new issue comes up, then having four subs instead of two can help to quickly identify the problem and change/fix it if necessary. Also do remember that not every who edits here has programming experience and may not understand a more complicated template. So four in this case is much better, for ease of use, and to fix/modify new issues that arise. Lancer1289 17:41, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * You should really stop listening to your teachers if they said that. Having multiple subs that do mostly the same thing means that if you want to change some core piece of logic, then you need to change it -4 different times-, which is error prone and will bite you in the ass in the future. If you need to specialize something, then you write a function that does the specialized things later. You don't plan for it arbitrarily.
 * But as you said, not everyone on this wiki is a programmer, so I doubt they'd be able to change a more complicated template. Plus it's not like these templates are particularly difficult. Dammej 17:54, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I guess every teacher is different in that case. I am just saying what my teachers and professors told me, so again everyone, as I sure you know, has their own way of programming. Getting back on topic, the main reason for simplier, and in some cases more tempaltes, is to resolve that issue that not everyone who edits here could maybe understand a more complicated one. However let's not get into a discussion about programming a certain way, because as I sure you know as well, that discussion can go on for a while. Lancer1289 17:58, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your "people are stupid" argument has already convinced me that a template with if/else logic would be too complicated to understand for most people here. :) 4 templates it is... Dammej 18:00, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok based on your last comment, and please correct me if am wrong, but I think I may have accidently insulted you, which wasn't my intention. If I did so then I do appoligize, as it wasn't my intention to do so. Lancer1289 18:03, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not at all. Perhaps it's just my weird sense of humor. Was just saying that I had already agreed, hence my comment above about "not everyone on this wiki is a programmer, so I doubt they'd be able to change a more complicated template. Plus it's not like these templates are particularly difficult." No need to keep arguing, you sold me. Dammej 18:06, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I just wanted to clear that up. I really don't like it when I have an issue like that, espeically if I think I offended someone without realizing it, unresolved, it just keeps nagging at me. You don't have to respond if you don't want to, I just wanted to explain why I asked. Lancer1289 18:09, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment something about some things above but... I gave up after 3-4 edit conflicts.. :/ Teugene 18:11, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict x4): I didn't follow the entire discussion, but from what I understand, using four templates that do the exact same thing is a source of many inconsistencies. I suggest using one template with thorough documentation. --silverstrike 18:12, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * However it is the, "people may not understand it" argument. that comes up in my mind. While we may understand what the template does, how it works, and what to do with it, a user visiting for the first time, and making an edit on the template probably won't. Even with extensive documentation, as I have learned numerous times in my CIS classes, can still cause problems. Reading over the documentation about what and what not to do on a single tempalate, might just confuse people and lead to even more headaches as they make an edit and then we have to revert because it did something weird. Having four seperate templates makes for easier use of them and prevents any accidental mistakes when using just one. Lancer1289 18:17, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

&lt;-- Well, USING the template will be pretty straightforward. It will be editing the template which could cause problems. And if there's supposed to be much discussion before a template edit is made anyway, having an "expert" around to edit it would probably be required anyway. Dammej 18:20, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The usage of a parameter in the template won't make it complicated. I might agree if you need to use several or if the parameters are not obvious. You can also implement calling templates, the same as DRY made with the spoiler templates. That is, one template uses logic to determine the output and additional four that call the "base template", each passing the relevant parameter(s). That way, you only make changes to the base template.--silverstrike 18:27, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have no objections to something like that, however that goes beyond what I am familiary with. I can do simple templates, as I am still learning the coding of wikia, and while I do know a fair bit of HTML, that goes beyond what I can do. If you want to tackle that idea, then by all means. I do have to think however that the four templates as they are aren't bad as they serve their purpose, however that is my opinion on the matter. If you want to do something like that, I think that would be great.

Apology re: Talk:Asari
My apologies, Lancer, I was just trying to clean things up a little. I won't move anything around or try to consolidate, in future. Thanks for the clarification of the rules for Talk pages. --Danse CC 19:45, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, if I came over as overly sappish, it is just when I usually see this and it is intentional, and it results in an argument. So an attempt to clean up is a good change, however again sections are kept seperate, even if they have similar content, and deleting comments and/or moving them, unless they are yours, is a big no-no. Your welcome for the clarification on the rules, I really don't like seeing anyone banned over something they didn't know. Lancer1289 19:50, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's cool. I imagine you fellows put up with a lot of unreasonable nonsense. In retrospect, I totally understand why reorganizing Talk pages carries with it a lot of risk. I apologize for adding stress to your day. --Danse CC 20:04, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me this wasn't as stressful as some other edits to talk pages have been, or someone who just goes on a vandalsim spree. As for the unreasonable nonsence, it comes and goes, but there probably isn't as much here as some other larger wikis. Lancer1289 20:09, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Universal template
I'm pretty sure I got the "universal" template working correctly finally. Check out the sandbox page for uses with all of them. If need-be, I can prototype edits to the original templates which just pass the parameters on to this new "universal" template. That way the pages wouldn't have to change (too much, anyway), and they'd still all have a consistent styling. Let me know your thoughts. Dammej 20:13, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that this template is based on the in-use one, but there are way too many parameters when at least half of them are not necessary. I also think that the images should be hard-coded into the template (or support template) to limit the required parameter in each template call. --silverstrike 20:22, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we switch the discussion to User talk:Dammej/Sandbox/TestClassPage Personally I think it will work if it is good, but I'm not sure what you mean by hardcoding images. Lancer1289 20:25, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry, conflicted: I'm not sure what you mean. The maximum number of powers displayed is 8, and the minimum is 4. The template doesn't do any checking on powers 1-4, since no use-case has fewer than 4 powers... every power above 4 is completely optional. If the power is omitted, then it isn't displayed.
 * As for including the image as part of the template... perhaps templates like Template:TaliTalents, Template:TaliPowers, Template:AdeptTalents, Template:AdeptPowers, could be made which would contain all of the necessary parameters? Dammej 20:29, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok no offence to the two of you, but can we please shift this disucssion to either the template or the display page, which I have already started. It is more appropiate there than on my talk page. Lancer1289 20:31, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Already wrote my comment there... --silverstrike 20:39, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok Thanks, I just thought we should have this discussion in a more appropiate forum. If any offence was taken, then I appoligize. Lancer1289 20:44, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for resurrecting this discussion, I just wanted to drop a line saying that I think I have completed my universal powers template. If you'd check it out at User:Dammej/Sandbox/TestClassPage and give any comments/concerns/suggestions, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to get to work replacing things as soon as possible, so I'd appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Dammej 01:21, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ryncol
Demonstration of green-ness. Molten Scandium 16:58, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for uploading that. Lancer1289 17:02, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding...
Seriously? Why do you have such issue with my addition? Basically, what I am saying is that he is relatively lucky in that he his not incredibly crippled, but still suffers negative side effects. What is wrong with that? 64.222.96.29 01:32, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * See your talk page, and reletavly makes it seem like the side effects aren't that bad, which they are. Fortunatly alone is much better, and your are so far the only one with an issue with this, no one else has/had an issue. Lancer1289 01:35, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is no good reason at all. And relatively doesn't. It suggests that while he gets bad side effects, they are not as bad as other ones. Which fits perfectly with the context of the situation. 64.222.96.29 01:37, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Multi-Page Articles
I've made a template to accommodate multi-page articles (like Storyline) with a standard "series" navigation bar at the bottom of the relevant pages. I would appreciate any comments you may have on the idea and execution of the template. You can find the ongoing discussion at Mass Effect Wiki talk:Manual of Style/General. Thanks :) --silverstrike 01:01, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I was just looking it over, and it seem like a great idea. I'll be sure to voice my opinions there as well. I can see it working for a lot of articles here. Lancer1289 01:03, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

re: krogan trivia
i would totally understand if the trivia was overly long, but did you bother reading it at all before scrapping it altogether as not trivia? took me hours to compile the information and you just deleted it just like that? the least you can politely and courteously ask me to do is summarize it instead of scrapping it altogether right?

Moodydork 18:29, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * See your talk page. There is almost no relation and it is a huge stretch. That isn't enough for trivia. Lancer1289 18:37, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) The scrapping was justified as the whole longish trivia was really unnecessarily long. Either you put up a short description and link it to an external source. Besides, some features of "Daroth" aren't not the same as krogan and some are coincidental.
 * On a side note, how is Lancer being rude to you in his undo summary? Teugene 18:41, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to figure out that myself Teugene. Also I left a lengthy responce on his talk page. I have read the book and I see a few passing similarities. The Klingons have more in common with the krogan than the Daroth do. And last time I checked, we don't allow Klingon trivia either. As much as I would like to see it. Oh well, that is the decision and I will abide by it. Lancer1289 18:44, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, now I have to sit in a very long line for the next 2+ hours, not enjoyable. So carry on without me, and if the trivia is readded, then can someone please get DRY or Spart on it. Again there isn't enough to justify a connection, all of the "features" are coincidental or too common for a clear reference. Lancer1289 18:47, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * well you see, i got a rude shock after seeing a post of 573 words disappearing within seconds of posting. upon further checking i found this. (Undo revision 119859 by Moodydork (talk)overly long trivia, and not trivia, also no images unless they relate to ME for a good reason). I can totally understand point 1 and 3, but i just felt like i got a tight slap at the 2nd point. maybe i'm not a very well read person, so i can't relate to other species who happen to have similar traits, like the Elites or Krogans, but the part about the Daroth which i felt was similar was their 200-degree vision, and the fact they had 2 hearts and 2 pairs of lungs, their 7 feet stature, and their thick hide which makes them tough SOBs to kill. you mentioned in My Talk to justify the scrapping later that "The race you described, appears more common to the Elites from the Halo Series". From my understanding, at least based on their info on Wikipedia i just checked, the Daroth do not valu integrity and honour in their foes, and the Elite do not have redundant organs like the Daroth or Krogans. The Daroth are not shamed at getting hurt unlike the Elites. And you mentioned Klingons. Sure they're all warrior races, but again, does the Klingon have 200-degree and above field of vision? Thick hides? Redundant organs? Feel free to argue your points.
 * Moodydork 00:22, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * You are pointing out many things that are very common in scifi. They appear more similar to the Elites than the krogan. Also the Krogan have a 240-degree vision arc, not 200. While the Sangheili don't have redundent organs, and the krogan do, that is a feature that is all to common in scifi to be a connection. Their warrior culture has much more in common with Klingons, than the Daroth. While they do not value honor the same as the Klingons, they have more things in common with them then the Daroth. The krogan head also has more in common with Klingons because of the forehead ridges, the Daroth look more like the Elites. The "similarities" are very common in scifi and because of that, the krogan article is one of the few articles without a trivia section becuase there are way to many simlilarties in scifi to compare them to. Lancer1289 00:41, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd find it, Klingons also have redundent organs, just like the krogan. I didn't put this in my original post because I couldn't find it. Lancer1289 01:08, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Quick note in regards to Moodydork's last post: Lancer points out similarities to many other alien races, including Klingons. You ask if Klingons possess, among other things, redundant organs. They do. Klingons are considered noteworthy in the Star Trek universe for their organ redundancy, featuring, among other things, three lungs, two livers, an eight-chambered heart, multiple stomachs, and redundant neural functions. The point remains, there seem to be just about as many similarities between krogan and Daroth as there are between krogan and several other species from several other sci-fi genres, and may differences as well. Similarities between Daroth and krogan are no more noteworthy than similarities between krogan and Klingons, Gorn, Barabels, Ssi-Ruuvi, Sangheili, and many, many other sci-fi races. I think that was the point Lancer was really driving at here. SpartHawg948 01:10, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd sure like to point out at the Ssi-Ruuvi are not in anyway similar to the Daroth or Krogan apart from the only fact they're reptillian in nature, but i'm not gonna pursue this matter any further.
 * You say jump, I say how high. You say kiss a turian, I ask which cheek. So whatever you say, bub. =)
 * Moodydork 01:36, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are in no way similar if you choose to overlook the facts that, like the krogan and the Daroth, the Ssi-Ruuk (I was incorrect in pluralizing it as Ssi-Ruuvi, turns out that is the language, not the race) are physically massive (6 ft+ and well over 750lbs) and very physically hardy (able to shrug off blaster fire with nothing more than minor burns to show for it). So yeah, if you overlook size and physical hardiness, you are correct. Nothing similar other than being reptiles. SpartHawg948 01:54, June 7, 2010 (UTC) yeah that's a good point there. thanks for clearing all this up guys. hope i didn't thread on anyone's toes really. a little new info and i think i could take take over the world or something lol. figure of speech of course. cheers mates.
 * Oh, and wide-set eyes. It's not explicitly specified what their (the Ssi-Ruuk) field of vision is, but given the placement of their eyes, it would likely be very similar to that of a krogan. SpartHawg948 02:01, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Moodydork 02:26, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Creation of a community board
Just wanted to check with you again regarding the CommunityBoard idea I initially brought up on DRY talk page. Have you had a chance to look at it yet? --silverstrike 09:26, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry fell asleep and the idea slipped my mind Silverstrike. I'll take a look in about a hour. Lancer1289 17:04, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Samara
I don't know where to leave this but... we don't know if Samara's mate was asari or alien. The only information we have is that her daughters are Ardat-Yakshi.
 * She says that the condition occures in purebloods, which says that she mated with another asari. "Maybe that is the stigma against asari exclusive parings." That is what she says. Also the talk page of Samara's article is a much more appropiate place. Lancer1289 20:06, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * One could say I overheard this discussion. If I recall correctly, the condition can occur in any asari offspring, but is much more likely to occur in purebloods. --FoxtrotZero 21:22, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Fixing Broken Links
Hey, Lancer? First, I want to apologize for being troublesome recently. I wanted to get involved, and started off on the wrong foot. I heard you're having a bad weekend (or, more accurately, read it out of your own comment) and want to aplogize for being more-than-likely detrimental. I can understand that having to deal with people such as how I was coming on can be a little troublesome. However, whenever you have the time, if you could please place  tags around your usage of 'Kowlonn Class' here and here, it would be very appreciated. I'm doing what I can to clean up these areas that wouldn't see attention otherwise. Thanks. --FoxtrotZero 21:21, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and done, I also want to apologize for my attitude. My weekend just hasn't gone any way I planned. The AC died on my car, my desktop acted up and corrupted a 9 page paper that is due on Thursday, at least that was the only thing it corrupted, and my second summer class starts tomorrow, so I had to fight traffic to get my book earlier today. I really wish people would learn how to drive. Anyway just be aware that some of those links are from users who haven't been here in years in some cases. Lancer1289 21:26, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Advance apology for edit conflict. Anyway come of those links are also created via templates, cleanup, delete, etc. Those links are supposed to be there to give direction to users. Just wanted to inform you of that. Lancer1289 21:29, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. You, err, seem to have done it again, though. Talk:Kowloon_Class. While i've embraced this task (because nobody else seems to want to do it, which means a field of my own to work), i'm also doing it just because its there to do. That is to say, while I wait for my copy of Mass Effect 2 to arrive (damn you UPS, not operating on weekends!) I find myself with nothing better to do. If there are any specific tasks that you feel my efforts could be better focused towards, by all means, please drop by my talk page. --FoxtrotZero 21:31, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I fixed it, anyway I just dropped you another message on your talk page that just summed up my previous comments. Again good luck with that. All fix another one before you ask about it. Lancer1289 21:37, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting to have to call you on it again, but it turns out you've been the only one doing this... Talk:Athabasca_Class when you get around to it, please. --FoxtrotZero 21:47, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. If you do find anymore then again don't hesitate to drop me another message under this heading. Also Tullis hasn't been around really since January, so that one may take a while. Lancer1289 21:49, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I checked the Activity Page, and theres nothing since May or so. Would it be appropriate to ask you to make the modifications requested there? I believe you have the qualifications, and its a technicality, not a modification of actual post content. This is, in fact, only really a concern where its Tullis's post - To the extent of my knowledge, there shouldn't be anything inhibiting you fixing the posts by... the other guy. I never bothered remembering the name. But anyway, if you can take care of that, i'd apprectiate it. Also, would you prefer that, whenever I need help in this endeavour, I defer to you, or should I see if there are other moderators who would be willing to asist? --FoxtrotZero 21:58, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly I don't have the qualifications, I am only a senior editor, as we call them, and not an admin. A better person would be SpartHawg948 or DRY. Also Spart just left you a message about it, so asking them would be better. Lancer1289 22:03, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I was just snapped at on my talk page for trying to be helpful, I'm not so sure those requests will be forthcoming. SpartHawg948 22:21, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that would be an accidental matter, and you can review my explanation of it on your Talk Page if you would like. --FoxtrotZero 22:38, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

WELL THEN WHY DON'T YOU ADD A TRIVIA SECTION THEN!!!!!
Don't be an ass just cause it doesn't "belong" there, make a trivia area and PUT IT THERE!!!!!!!!!!Reptile117 01:15, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Watch the language, chief. We do have a policy against that. And the info you keep adding has been added and removed several times. I believe that if you actually take two minutes to look at the talk page for that article, you should be able to read all about it. SpartHawg948 01:15, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) It isn't trivia beacuse mentioning that Keith David provided other voice acting, is obvious and not trivia. See our style guide, and look at the trivia section. Also watch your language, we have guidelines for behavior here. Lancer1289 01:18, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Favor
Hey there, I'm hoping you can help me out with a little fact checking. First, do you have access to a copy of Mass Effect and a file you can load to check what Avina says? -- Commdor (Talk) 01:26, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on what game, and where on the Citadel. However I do have many saves on the Citadel, so what do you need. Lancer1289 01:27, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the first ME. I need to know exactly what Avina says about the year the volus were given an embassy on the Citadel. I'd do it myself, but I'm separated from my own copy by about 100 miles. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:32, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok that was easy, had a save just off Eden Prime, currently 25th playthough. Anyway Avina gives the date as "2,384 Galactic Standard Years ago". Of course that is before 2183. For comparision purposes humans were 19 galactic standard years before 2183. Hope that helps. Lancer1289 01:39, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now to do some mental math. The fate of a certain statement on the article Volus hangs in the balance. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:45, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No need, given the variation of the galactic standard year, the exactly should be changed to approximately 200 BCE. I figured that is what you were going after, so I ran the calculations as well. Lancer1289 01:47, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue arose while scanning through the Timeline. There, it says the volus got their embassy in 300 BCE. I realized the "300" is only right if the whole Timeline is in Galactic Standard (i.e. if 2183 CE = 2683 GS, then 2683 GS - 2384 GS = 300 GS approx., and 300 GS = 200 BCE). It's the Timeline I have to correct, not Volus. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:54, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, I guess I was off. Under those circumstances I guess the timeline is wrong there. Anyway happy to be of help. Lancer1289 01:57, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. :) -- Commdor (Talk) 02:00, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any time. Lancer1289 02:01, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Request to Fix Broken Links
Hello. I am attempting to embark upon a project of clearing broken links from the Mass Effect Wikia. It is, however, against MEwiki rules for me to modify another user's posts on Talk Pages, and Wiki Staff have asked me to call upon the post creators to fix the error. If you have recieved this message, it is because you are the creator of a post that now contains a broken link. You can find out where these broken links are here, as well as what to do about it. It would be greatly appreciated if you could remedy the situation. I apologize if this message appears impersonal, but it was to be recieved by multiple people. Thanks again. --FoxtrotZero 02:13, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

In responce to your inability to change the text link; are you sure theres no way around this? Could you possibly use to make it appear just the same? I'm pretty sure the message is conveyed by the text being red, not by the fact that it is clickable - we don't make excessive use of text coloration on the wiki.--FoxtrotZero 02:26, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Cross Wiki Spammer
Hi Lancer. Good job catching the spamming across multiple wikis. Emailing (or using the form on Special:Contact) is the best way to report this type of problem, so well done there, too. Thanks for looking out for the wiki. JoePlay ( talk ) 16:25, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

RE: New forum problem
I looked at the code for the template and the new forum, and I couldn't find anything that was a mistake. So I'm as confused as you. I know there are some real wiki wizards that help people on the Community Forum, so I would recommend asking for help there. I bet someone has already had this problem before and figured out how to fix it. JoePlay ( talk ) 23:38, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Normandy Class On News
Hi sorry for leaving this on your talk page but I just heard a news report (one of Emily Wongs) that states that the alliance raided Batarian space using a Normandy stealth class frigate with a team of N7 marines its the first time I've heard this report I was going to add a sentance about it on the Normandy page (is that the right place? should something be on alliance and Batarian pages I aint really sure new here thought id ask about that kind of stuff?) but my internet is crashing every time im trying to edit and on a lot of pages so I thought id bring it to your attention. If this is already on the wiki my bad Ive missed it thanks :) (it was during a non-imported save)78.86.241.5 21:38, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is quite alright, that is what we are all here for. Anyway I just took a look at the SSV Normandy page, and the information you were going to add is already there, in the trivia section of the article. So you probably didn't miss it, just overlooked it when you were scolling though the page. It is the third bullet point in the trivia section. Also that news report comes up during an imported or non-imported game. Anyway happy to be of help. Lancer1289 21:45, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you not sure how I overlooked it, tired I guess anyway thanks for helping. 78.86.241.5 22:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to be of help. Lancer1289 22:10, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to be of help. Lancer1289 22:10, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Major Nelson
Major Nelson is this guy. I should hope that the Director of Programming for XBL could be taken at his word! No offense intended here. Just letting you know. :) Dammej 01:12, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, Spart just said the same thing on his talk page, it is always nice to know who these people are though. Againt thanks to the both of you for filling me in. I think I'll bash my head against a wall a couple hundred times. Apparenlty I really need to look around a little more. Lancer1289 01:14, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why obvious?
I mean you burnt up in the atmosphere, and you can change your class from the previous game and no-one seems to care ("Oh we brought you back to life, by the way you've forgoten how to use an assault rifle but can can now use biotics") so in it's greatly that obvious that gender cannot be changed after all in that stage anything about your character could be changed. - RASICTalk 00:56, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree. Some people might not know you can't change gender between games. I certainly don't see the HARM in the edit. Dammej 01:00, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok let me do this right, I am still trying to figure out what that says, and without hitting the enter key this time. The reason gender isn't listed is because you can't change the name and most of the background choices, so it is also impled that gender can't be changed. However since I seem to be in the minority here, I'll put it back in, just in a different place. Lancer1289 01:11, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

It would have been easier to put that on my talk page so I knew you responded but what I'm getting at is this: you can change your characters appaerance in any way; nose, hair, etc. so gender could be a viable option to change for your character, however it is not. - RASICTalk 01:12, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok now that I know what you were trying to say, I put it back in just in a better place next to first name. However I absolutly hate when people do that, have a conversation across two talk pages, it just gets annoying. I prefere one talk page, rather than two. Everybody is different, you like that, I don't, and frankly I hate doing that. Lancer1289 01:14, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, I prefer that as well, but I've gotten used to doing it across the two or don't get a reply for a while, also I assume what put you off the most was my joke: "Oh we brought you back to life, by the way you've forgoten how to use an assault rifle but can can now use biotics", that was just pointing out in ME1 you could have been a soldier but in ME2 you could change to be an Adept but no-one realy seems to care (no different dialogue). - RASICTalk 01:23, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't see that as a joke, so maybe that is why I was confused. But you do have a point, so I put it back in. Lancer1289 01:25, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Rank Capitalization
Lancer - does MEWiki have a specific style with regard to capitalization? I'm used to writing (and editing) in the Associated Press style, which doesn't capitalize rank unless it's used with a name, e.g., Executor Pallin. PhoenixBlue 03:42, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no specific clause on capitalizaion, but in this case, becuase it refers to a rank and a specific person as well, forgot that in my edit summery, it should be capitalized. I.e. Execuctor refers to the head of C-Sec. Lancer1289 03:48, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry hit enter, we do capitalize ranks. Lancer1289 03:51, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Engineer Guide
Please take a look at my sandbox. I've tried to combine your structure with my wording. Any comment is welcome. Braveangel 10:57, June 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologize for double posting. My connection sucks. So I hit Save Page twice because I got disconnected midway. Braveangel 11:00, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'll remove the double post then, my talk page my rules, however there are still quite a few holes in your guide. I won't list them all but if you look at the Adept Guide for ME2 that I have already finished, it doesn't fall in line with it. I'll be more than happy to reference and pull information from the guide you reworte, if that is ok, when I work on rewriting the ME2 Engineer guide, but if you look at the style guide page, it just isn't in line with what SPart has already agreed to. I hope you don't take this as a personal insult, I have had that happen in the past, but I'll be happy to include any of the work that you have done into the final version. With your permission of course. As to incorperating the info from my revision, it still isn't complete yet, not inline with the standards, so I need to finish it. Lancer1289 18:02, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's okay. Was trying to help, anyway. Being an editor means giving contributions. There are of course disputes over what's best (and what's canon, for that matter, haha). But I'll leave this restructuring to you. Just wanted to tell you that I think Engineers are the battlefield controllers (much in-line with the traditional RPG's mages with incapacitating spells, such as DA:O's Crushing Prison). And, as such, the Guide should revolve around this role. Braveangel 03:50, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, let's not repeat the "let's apply canon where none exists" argument. I do see the point of a battlefield controller, and after looking though your guide I think I will be able to pull some info out of it. No need to let that go to waste. I do see the parallel between engineers and mages, so maybe that would be a good thing to put into the overview. I'll just have to look though the resouces I have and see what comes out. Thanks for letting me pull info by the way, as again, no need to let good work go to waste. Lancer1289 03:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your engineer guide and I must say I was impressed. Just a small question: what about combat guide: What should be in the section? I do think that the guide should mention some solid things on using drones, for it IS the signature power of the engineers. The combat guide should mention how to use it to full advantage. Braveangel 06:22, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look at it tomorrow. Judging by when you log on and when you edit, and please correct me if I am wrong but I am assuming you live somewhere in Europe? Well I live in the States, near Chicago, and currenlty it is 01:30, so I need to just finish what I am working on for tomorrow then catch some sleep. Lancer1289 06:26, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sir, I live in South East Asia. Sometimes I log in on my lunch break (or stealing some work hours when the boss is not around, haha!), or at home after work hours. :) Keep up the good work, man. Braveangel 06:36, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I guess I was wrong, thanks for correcting me. Anyway I am just finishing up what I am working on and then going to bed. Enjoy your day. Lancer1289 06:37, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I forgot about you! :P
I also wanted to extend a thank you to you as well. Wow, that sentence sounded professional! :P There I was, wading through horrendously boring City Council notes and video, I flip over to the wiki for a sec, and see what had been going on. Thankfully, a couple of outstanding editors had seen the shenanigans and taken care of them for me! Anywho, for that, for the ceaseless recent change patrolling, for the overhauls of major sections and articles... in short, for everything, you have my sincere and heartfelt thanks and appreciation. Awww... think I'm starting to tear up! :) SpartHawg948 07:50, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Mordin Solus
Considering it is the second game stopping bug I encountered within three hours of playing this game, I think it should be mentioned. Since it was a brand new Xbox 360, and copy of Mass Effect 2. Mictlantecuhtli 10:12, June 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about consoles. I'm a PC player through and through. But bugs should be confirmed by developers. This is a brand new case, and without credible corroboration, should not be mentioned in the pages proper. If I may offer you any advice, I would say that you bring this issue to socialbioware, the official bioware social forum. You may find confirmation there, or not. Braveangel 15:56, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave a few reasons on the Normandy talk page, but I'll repeat them here as well, just so you don't have to flip there as well. Taking Braveangel's suggestion of going to the forums is probably the best idea I can think of for confirmation on this bug. The other reasons is probably becuase your game is unpatched. I don't know how many patches there are currently, I think only 2 at this point for the 360, but I could be wrong, but those have fixed a lot of small problems. The patch that was installed on your 360 when you put in the disk was for the console itself and not the game. So the best things I can suggest is to go to the forums, and hook up to Live to update your game, as this has probably been fixed. I have never encountered this myself, 18 playthoughs, so I think the forums here are the best way to go. If you have any questions, just drop another message. Lancer1289 16:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Headquotes?
Forgive my ignorance, but where does it say that changes to headquotes should be discussed before they're changed? As long as they're accurate and related to the article at hand, I see no reason why the headquote shouldn't be a flexible and changing part of an article. Much as the front page should (ideally) change often enough to entice visitors to visit different parts of the site, a changing headquote can breathe new life into an article.

Now I understand that edit wars about whether a headquote is appropriate or not could take place, but is a group discussion really needed to preclude this sort of problem? Perhaps if a limit of "no more than X head quote changes per month" or something, but a group discussion before -every single change- seems a bit extreme to me. Dammej 07:08, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well most changes like that are at least discussed before hand to get some opinions. Some people may like one quote over the other and having a discussion about it is the best way to go about it. Because the headquote is the first thing a user sees, changing it suddenly may result in people adding in other quotes or reverting back to the original. It may seem bureaucratic, but still having a nice, civil, discussion the matter is usually the best way to go about things like this.
 * No, there doesn't need to be a discussion over every change, the talk pages would be way to long, but again since the headquote is the first thing anyone sees on the page, it is best to discuss changing something like that before doing it. Lancer1289 07:17, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think that would ever be an issue with something like a headquote, but you've been here much longer so I'll defer to your judgement. Is there an article somewhere that I could read which gives guidance on which changes I should or should not ask for group consensus before making it, or is this just supposed to be judgement call? Dammej 07:23, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * There really isn't an article or page for that, this one is one of those judgement calls. Usually a major change, as this would be classified, requires some discussion about whether it is good or not. Major changes usually fall under the umbrella of content in the article, or if a section is added then deleted, in some cases multiple times, or vice versa in that case. Headquotes are usually a one time deal, as they are generally accepted, but a change of that caliber is one of those things to get some input on.
 * Overall for bringing up something that needs group consensus, make a judgement call, and if it doesn't get reverted, or modified extensivly, then it was probably ok. If it does then bring it up and get some input. Again a judgement call is probably the best thing, but most changes need not be discussed. Does this help or did I ramble too much? Lancer1289 07:35, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you're getting at, yes. I still maintain that a headquote is not a "major" change in most cases. In this instance, the only person reverting was you, and you never did say that you were reverting because you didn't agree with the change, only that it was unnecessary, as you didn't see that the quote was changing.


 * If I made a headquote change, and someone reverted it because they didn't agree with the change, then I'd certainly bring it up on the talk page, no doubt about it. But I -do not- see the need to preemptively say "hey guys I wanna change the headquote to this, like it?", get input, and then make the change X days later. Its far less obtrusive to simply make the change. If it gets reverted, -then- the discussion can happen. Unless the headquote has been bouncing back and forth for a long time, I see no reason why there needs to be consensus before the headquote changes in the article. Dammej 07:45, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in my defense I didn't see the change at first until you pointed it out, but I still would have reverted because while I do like that quote, and enjoy hearing it, I believe the current one does describe TIM better than the diplomacy one. He seems like someone who will push humanity's interests at any cost. He is very Machavellian in his way of handling things, the ends justify the means, which I disagree with, but the current one describes that better than the diplomatic one. I appoligize if I stepped on a few toes here. Lancer1289 07:52, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * No toes hurt, don't worry. :) Just so that it's clear: Discussion on talk page should occur before a change to the headquote, or only after there appears to be opposition to the change (as in a revert)? Dammej 07:59, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea to bring it up before hand, even if you have to wait for it to be implemented, it is better to get some input before acting. It seem like the whole measure twice, cut once sort of thing. Well it made sence in my head anyway. Lancer1289 08:06, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still disagree. Hope you don't mind if I seek another opinion. (Guess I should have asked beforehand. Sorry about that.) Dammej 08:13, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I fell asleep right after my last post, just a quick recommendation, don't fall asleep at a wooden desk, you will regret it. Anyway I still wouldn't have objected to a second opinion, and after the conversation on Spart's talk page, I guess I was in the wrong here. I still would have reverted in this case on the grounds mentioned on the talk page however. So I guess I worked up everything for nothing. Great I step on a few toes, stir up something that shouldn't have been, and make myself look like an idoit. Well no one is perfect, but I really need to stop being so cautious sometimes. Lancer1289 15:49, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Illusive man quote
How does one do/get the required discussion for a headquote change?
 * Drop a new message on the Talk:Illusive Man page. Head to the page and click new message at the top. A good subject heading would be Headquote Change. Lancer1289 07:18, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Settle an arguement.
Lancer, if you look at the Overlord talk page, you will see a disscusion about Joker's comment on removing EDI's locks and "unleashing the Overlord". Could you end that, by telling people what you saw and heard in the DLC. Thanks. MEffect Fan 18:37, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, if I could. I am more concered wiht getting the walkthoughs up right now, so when I complete the pack, I'll be sure to drop a line there. However walkthoughs come first, as I have a reputation for getting them up fast. See my Archive for that one. I had Kasumi's walkthough up the day it came out, so I really want to get these up. Again I'll be sure to drop a line once I have them up and have played through the pack. Hope you understand, but I also want these up becuase I have a three hour block of TV that I watch on Tuesdays, Hell's Kitchen, Deadliest Catch, and Deadliest Warrior, so I need to get these up by 19:00 CST. As it is 13:44 CST, I need to get moving. Again I'll drop a line after I'm done to settle that argument. Lancer1289 18:43, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, its just a pointless argument to me. Thanks in advance. MEffect Fan 18:46, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Overlord
No problem. I'll work out what kinks I spot, although I have yet to beat Overlord myself. I had to stop a couple hours ago and get to a doctor's appointment before my head kerploded from sinus pressure. Wouldn't you know it, the day I finish classes and get set free for the summer, I get some virus/throat and ear infection. Oh well. Anyway, once I get a few more things in order here, I'll get back to playing. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:29, June 15, 2010 (UTC) Also, is it just me, or was Prometheus Station super-odd? The outside was kind of cool, you get to see the scale of a larger geth ship (cruiser or dreadnought do you think?), but the inside was like some strange half-nightmare. It certainly didn't help that the first thing you see is a live geth floating in a shield bubble; I kept waiting for it to jump down and attack. Above all, the creepy distorted music in the water-filled corridor was my favorite part, gave it a sci-fi horror film feel. I think the geth ship had an even more ominous feel than the Heretic Station. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:11, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Curse database lockdowns, anyway as soon as Hell's Kitchen is over, I'll be replaying the missions to double check everything. Lancer1289 01:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Righto. I know the mission summary totals for the Atlas Station mission are correct, but I'm iffy about the totals for the other three missions. Aside from that, we only need the renegade Atlas Station debrief message, and the corresponding renegade post-mission e-mail on the Normandy. You get all that, and I think we're set (may make an article about the VI, though, it is the antagonist of the DLC; can't decide if it should be under "David Archer", "Rogue VI", or if both deserve separate articles).
 * Agreed on the Prometheus station part. When I did one of my edits there, my summery mentioned is was creepy, definetly the sci-fi horror feel. It was even more creepy than the Heretic Station.
 * As to the articles, David Archer is a must, but Rogue VI should be incorperated into that. My reasoning is because he became the Rogue VI, and before it was just an ordinary VI and David was normal, under the circumstances, so David Archer, and a seperate section for the Rogue VI. Lancer1289 01:17, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. I'll either get to that later today or tomorrow. Going to take a break from this stuff for a bit. Between all this and whatever disease I've got nibbling my innards, I'm exhausted. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:20, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Overlord gameplay length
Hola! Figured that you will be among the first to play Overlord. Just wondering what is the gameplay length for the new DLC. Trying to figure out the estimate amount of time I need to play ALL the DLCs in one go in the future. Yes I haven't had the time to play the DLCs yet :( Teugene 02:54, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see because I was also writing the walkthroughs at the same time, that took some time. However in total it is give or take about 2 1/2 to 3 hours of game play. Everything makes it well worth the cost of the pack. I just wish it had taken shorter to play it becuase I was also writing the walkthroughs at the same time. Overall again about 3 hours, give or take. Lancer1289 03:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. Three hours, plus Kasumi and the Firewalker.. I think I need half a day to play those! Darn, I'm missing all the good stuffs (and staying clear from those pages because of spoilers)! Teugene 03:52, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea you will need about half a day alright. Kasumi's mission is about 1 1/2 to 2 hours, Firewalker overall is about 1 1/2 to 2 as well, and Overlord runs around 3, so about half a day is about right. Have fun. Lancer1289 03:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Template
Trust me, I know about that. But I'm kind of meticulous in these articles, although it really isn't needed, it looks nicer when your editing, and it is really unneeded text behind the scenes. In the future I'll be doing more grammar and spelling edits, my Liara edits were really just take it or leave it. The Yoshiman 97 20:12, June 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, that's settled. By the way, do you guys want a Lilith page, about the girl who got liquified, or a Diana page, the mother of Nef? The Yoshiman 97 20:23, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry want to move this to one talk page. I really don't like cross page converstions.
 * To be honest there isn't enough information on either them to justify an article. Diana can be easily incorperated into the Nef article, and Lilith really only has two, very brief appearences. One if you decide to no go through the Omega-4 Relay fast enough. There just isn't enough to justify full articles. Lilith is mentioned in the proper places, as is Diana. Lancer1289 20:29, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for being patient. The Yoshiman 97 23:09, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, always happy to help. Lancer1289 23:31, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Self-links
What is the purpose of intentionally using self-links in an article? It's my understanding that the self-link feature only exists to keep one from accidentally creating a link from a page back to itself. In fact, wikipedia recommends -not- using self links to make the article name bold in the first paragraph of an article: wikipedia:Help:Self link. I know this isn't wikipedia, so the policy could be different here, but I'm just curious what the motivation behind intentionally self-linking an article is. Dammej 23:00, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Wikia is completly seperate from Wikipedia, and while some formats are the same between the two, they are two completley seperate entities.
 * To be honest, I really don't know when it started, but the accepted standard is to self link the first mention of the article's name. I don't know why the reason is, but if I had to guess, it is just a way of avoiding using the ' and it looks nicer. However DRY would probably be the person to ask on that as he is usually the one who self links articles. I have accepted it because each and every wiki has its own policies and this is one that appears to be one of those unspoken ones here. Again to get the full reason, and not my random guessing and rambling, contact DRY. Lancer1289 23:39, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll do that. Thanks! Dammej 23:41, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, as you would just get more guesswork from me. Lancer1289 23:43, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Voice actor list for ME2
Just got the list for the voice actors for ME2, could use a hand http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/2139663Shadowhawk27 23:48, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from posting any info from that list that is not independently verifiable through at least one legitimate source. By that I mean, a post by a BioWare developer, an article in a legit magazine, the in-game credits, etc. Personal sites of VAs will be acceptable, however, IMDB will not. That list was posted by some random user (near as I can tell) who does not work for BioWare in any capacity, and as such, is not a valid source. SpartHawg948 23:56, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to go with Spart on this one. However after taking just a brief look at the post, the original author does say that the credits update with DLC. So if you want to use the credits then please put that in you edit summary when you post the information. I can't stand to watch the credits, as much as I praise the developers, actors, etc, for making the game, after the first three playthoughs, any game I play for that matter, and I'm on number 19 right now, so I can't be of much help here. If you can make a video of the credits, post it, say on YouTube, then pull all the voice actors off that, then I think we can all live with that. I think? Lancer1289 00:01, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i am doing the best i can to get some of the others that voices other charictors in the Mass Effect saga beside the ones we DO know off hand. Shadowhawk27 00:07, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with that, but again use the credits for the actors and then post them saying that is where you got the info. That is all. Lancer1289 00:12, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, back to the old drawing board for me :( Shadowhawk27 00:18, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its the whole where did you get the info thing. If you say the credits, then it is a valid source. IMDb isn't really reliable for something like this, and since I am guessing you play PC, it is easy to roll the credits, make a video of them, then just copy the informaiton. Just say something like, "Adding Voice actor. Source is form the in-game credits", when you post the actor's name. Or something like that. Even if you play on the 360, just roll them on the TV, record them, then you can pause and play as needed. VHS tapes still have their uses. Lancer1289 00:23, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I rather get it from People who have the true source of the game itself and valid as Sparthawg948 stated to me. Oh and FYI: I play PC Shadowhawk27 00:27, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrigh then. I'm pretty sure if you e-mail BioWare, they will send you a copy of the list. Or they will say just look through the credits. Anyway good luck with that. Lancer1289 00:31, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments RE: ME2 Enemies template
Hey, I'm working on making a common "Enemies" footer for pages which have enemies that appear in Mass Effect 2. This type of footer is seen on many game wikis. The one I'm trying to emulate in particular is the one on the fallout wiki, e.g., the footer seen at the bottom of this article. Ideally, this footer would be collapsible (especially since it is so large), but I'm not quite sure how I'd accomplish this yet. If you could take a look at the template in my sandbox, and leave any comments/suggestions/criticism you have at the talk page there, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Dammej 02:07, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Overlord - Planet Scanning Question
Does the Overlord addon make planet scanning faster and the search area wider?
 * It does, however I think the update for that came out on May 17, but BioWare I think either did it wrong, or until I downloaded Overlord it didn't kick in. Well that happened with me. Either way, the scanner is larger, faster, and it can now scan a planet in one to two minues. Take the old scanner and put it on steroids, and this the new one is what you got. So yes it is much faster and the I think triple or at least double what it was. Lancer1289 22:51, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

More Legion Stuff, and Melee Attacks
What about the Reaper IFF quest article? It mentions losing Legion as a team member, but alot of new players might not realize that means losing the second geth shield upgrade for the squad, the bonus power of Geth Shield Boost and the achievements. Should I make a brief note there (or a Pro/Con section of some sort)? That's really the only contributing factors to keeping Legion (as the game gives you quite a few snipers as it is and on subsequent playthroughs the shield upgrade becomes the only contributing factor since you get to start with geth shield boost on a new playthrough if you want it). Looking over the Geth Shield Boost article itself also brings up a point I am curious about, does the weapon damage bonus apply to melee attacks as well (curious about this with items like stabilizer gauntlets, etc also)? Nowhere have I found the base damage for melee attacks (yet people have figured out the base damage for the other weapons). It seems an unexplored area of the game though in theory you could get +190-210% melee damage.

Strength Boost Pads: +25% Melee Damage Bonus

Heavy Muscle Weave: +25% Melee Damage Bonus

Heavy Bone Weave: +50% Melee Damage Protection (does this apply to only health damage, or shields also?)

Heightened Adrenaline Rush: +140% Melee(?) Damage Bonus

Improved Geth Shield Boost: +10% Melee(?) Damage Bonus, +75% Shield Strength

Stabilizer Gauntlets: +5% Melee(?) Damage Bonus

Recon Hood: +5% Melee(?) Damage Bonus

Mictlantecuhtli 17:29, June 23, 2010 (UTC) Ok let's address each issue.
 * Reaper IFF: Making just a note saying that you do loose out on the second upgrade isn't worth noting becuase the upgrade only affects Legion, not the squad. The upgrade itself only affect geth squad members, so mentioning it is mute. THe tech upgardes affedt if Shepard is using it but the Geth Shield upgrade only affects Legion.
 * Weapon Damage Upgrades: As to the weapon damage upgrades, it only affects the weapons and not melee attacks. Melee attacks only have two upgrades, the Strength Boost Pads, and the Heavy Muscle Weave.
 * Damage Bonuses: Damage bonuses affect damage overall, from weapons or melee attacks, but weapon upgrades or if it says weapon damage, those only affect the guns.
 * Heavy Bone Weave: As to the Heavy Bone Weave, that only seems to apply to health, I am not sure about sheilds, as I usually don't let enemies get that close. But every time they do after I get the upgrade, my shields drain just as fast, while my health takes longer.
 * If I missed anything or I wan't clear enough then drop me another message. Lancer1289 18:12, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the base damage for melee attacks? I'll make a note of the +50% melee damage protection "(only effects health damage)" or something similar, since it's not clear without paying attention to the hits. When it comes to husks, I prefer to lead them around and get them seperated into small groups then bash them to death since melee attacks do have a brief stun effect when they are used and you can keep an enemy stunlocked with them. Where would I need to put in melee attack information, any specific article, etc? I want the base damage so I can calculate the total damage from a bash(with upgrades/adrenaline rush)/shotgun combo at close range, also do melee attacks have any type of bonus damage (they seem to do similar damage to armor as they do to health)? Mictlantecuhtli 18:33, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you are one of those math types that likes to break things down. I like that in RTS games but not calculating weapon damages in FPSs or RPGs. Anyway again I'll divide up the issues.
 * Base Melee Damage: I think base damage stays the same for melee attacks and is only upgraded with the Heavy Muscle Weave, but I'm not sure on that. If you want to check feel free, but I am not becuase again I don't like doing that stuff with RPGs.
 * Health Damage: The note would be a good idea under the appropiate section.
 * Melee Attacks: The Husk article would be the best place for that as it deals with those specific enemies.
 * Melee Bonus Damage: I don't think melee attacks have any bonuses against differet types of defenses, but I could be wrong. I have always noticed them doing the same amount of damage, via the bars, to each defense, armor, shields/barriers, and health. So I'd have to agree with you and say they do equal damage.
 * Again any more questions, just keep the thread going. Lancer1289 18:42, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, well ME2 is my first ME game and I havent even completed my second playthrough (restarted as a soldier, since the offensive biotic/tech powers seemed to become a bit obsolete on harder difficulties) I figured you might have a guess on the base damage. I know that on Normal difficulty Husks can only take 1-3 hits with just the Heavy Muscle Weave (1-2 shots with the Katana depending on pellet spread), but I have no idea what type of hps they might have unarmored. Also is there any bonus damage against husks by hitting their legs or is it just that the spread pattern when aimed at the legs has a greater number of pellets hit the husk (since aiming low on them seems to be more effective than head/torso shots)? Also Dominate destroys husks according to the article for it (Dominate), and mentions it will control Abominations normally but doesn't say if a controlled abomination will still explode if controlled.Mictlantecuhtli 19:02, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the spread pattern has more to do with that. Once a husks legs are gone, it dies, so aming for the legs would be a great idea. Melee attacks hit, well I really don't know, but even if they are targeted low, I still think they hit the chest. Dominate does kill husks right away and amoinations will explode if they get to close to enemies. Anyway I again don't like calculating that kind of stuff in RPGs so if you do, then have fun with that. Lancer1289 19:17, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * One last thing, I havent tried the Avalanche on Hardcore or Insanity but on Normal I have not seen any type of splash damage from the projectile if fired at Shephards feet. Is that specific to the Avalanche, or all heavy weapons (does difficulty make a difference)? Mictlantecuhtli 20:02, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so this doesn't get to far over. Anyway I really don't like using the Avalance altogether, but the spalsh damage from all the heavy weapons seems to be mute when shot near Shepard's feet, except the Cain, don't try it. It is more noticable with the Avalanche than any of the others because you expect the splash damage. I don't thing difficutly is an issue, but I don't know for certain. I just have personal experiences and my experience is that all heavy weapons are bad at close quarters and the spalsh damage seems to disapper. Again those are my experiences so take them as you will. Lancer1289 20:13, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok just tested in-game (Insanity), and the Avalanche doesn't cause splash damage at all when fired near the group (regardless of proximity to Shepards feet) and if fired at a squad member you can ricochet the shot off of them and around objects if they are positioned properly to cause the correct angle of flight. I will add this to it's article and my melee husk tactic. Mictlantecuhtli 20:21, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then sounds good. Lancer1289 20:25, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

ME/ME2 DLC
Lance, just wanna bring up something to you and see what you think. Currently, DLC in ME2 has its own page which contains description or plot then linking to any new missions/assignments walkthroughs. Eg. Overlord > Overlord (assignment), or Kasumi - Stolen Memory > Kasumi: Stealing Memory. However, the DLC of ME, specifically Bring Down the Sky (not sure about Pinnacle), its walkthrough page is currently included alongside the Pinnacle Station walkthrough under the Downloadable Content Guides page, which isn't consistent with the format we have now. Even ironic is in the Walkthroughs page, there's a link to the aforementioned DLC Guide page, but not to any ME2 walkthroughs, although there are links to the walkthroughs from the Assignment page. So here a quick rough idea of a proposed edit:


 * Option 1: Update the Downloadable Content Guides by moving the existing walkthroughs into their own pages, leaving only a short summary like what we have in the ME/ME2 guides. Also, include links to ME2 DLCs walkthroughs.
 * Option 2: Get rid of the Downloadable Content Guides page, instead, add the links into their corresponding ME/ME2 guide pages, with a DLC subsection.
 * Option 3: Same as Option 1, but instead of including ME2 DLC walkthrough links, create a new page called Download Content Guides (ME2) and place short summaries and links to ME2 DLC walkthroughs in it. Include the new page at the Walkthroughs page as well.

I'm more in favour of option 2. Reason being that in option 2, there's no need for additional redundant pages like in Option 1/3. If it's not possible, my next choice will lean towards option 1. I know you would have much more time than me to ponder about it and also because you had written most of the walkthroughs, so I figure you'll have the time to check and/or rewrite the ME DLC walkthrough.

On a side note, I actually stumbled upon the inconsistency above through Terra Nova page, which itself is inconsistent with other planet pages. Remember when I cleaned out those massive "plots" from the ME planets, instead, linking the "plot" to the walkthroughs you did? I was about to do the same but remembered that the location of BDTS assignments is not on Terra Nova but on the Asteroid X57. So I'm just wondering if the "Plot" section should be removed or merged into "Additional Info" to bring it inline with the other ME/ME2 planet articles.

Phew, that's I had in mind. Hopefully I get my thoughts out clearly enough. It's late and I'm totally worn out and about to doze off!

P/S: Congrats on the USA going through the Quarters. It was a thrilling high-stake match along with the England-Slovenia game! Teugene 17:57, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * While I was leaving this message, I see you had reverted my edit. I had good reason for it, trying to keep the image and section inline with article like Illium. Looks neater that way. Since you had also removed the "plot" subsection, my previous point above is moot, so you can ignore that. Teugene 18:02, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes option two would be a better idea as it is more inline with what we have now. However I'd have to bring that up with Spart first as we'd have to delete the page altogether. Moving it into an appropiate article for its assignment name, Bring Down the Sky (assignment) would be much more inline with current standards. As to the Pinnacle Station content, that would be better moved to Pinnacle Station: Combat Missions, as that is the journal entry, I think, need to check that. Gettting rid of that page would be more inline with current standards, however I'd have to bring that up with Spart first.
 * As to football, soccer to me, I didn't see the match as I was in class at the time, but I will watch a replay they show here later tonight, nor did I see the England-Slovenia match. However I heard about the goal getting called back, so I want ot know what it was for this time as during the Slovenia match, the ref never gave a reason for the call and there were more Slovenia players holding US players, so as I understand football rules, that is a penelty for each infraction, or a goal if the ball went in. I am still trying to understand that call, as BOTH teams said it was a goal. This is the first time the US has gotten into the tournament since 1930, so I am looking forward to see how far they can go. Lancer1289 18:21, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, this definitely need an admin approval. You would probably be the best person to make those changes as you have the time.
 * And yeah forgot it's 'soccer' to you guys, and I was mistaken about the quarter-finals which is actually supposed to be the top-16. And topping the table with that! Such a dramatic winner! Infraction in the penalty box are usually given leniency as there will always be alot of players cramping in an area, hence a lot of body contact, unless it is an blatant foul. This US "disallowed" goal was a call for offside. Looks pretty darn close to me, but IMO, I believe it was not an offside, although I thought otherwise until the slow-mo replay. Teugene 18:39, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dropped Spart a line so we will just have to wait and see what happens.
 * As to the World Cup, I saw a Slovenia player focing an US player offsides, and unless I am misunderstaning the rules, and correct me if I am, but when that happens, it isn't offsides because it was forced. Anyway the ref never gave a reason for the call so I think that is what really set off many Americans, including myself. I saw the slow-mo as well, and I didn't see an offsides, well a legit one anyway, but I may be bias. Also what angers me is the Slovenia coach said he didn't see an offsides either, nor did anyone else for that matter, so I am still trying to figure that out, and I don't think I will. If you are talking about the called back goal in the Algeria match, I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment on that one. Lancer1289 19:03, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * This all sounds pretty good, just don't forget while making your changes to ensure it's reflected on the Walkthroughs page, as the DLC guide in question is one of three pages linked to there with nice big pretty buttons. Also, I haven't been watching the World Cup this year precisely because I knew the U.S. was going to get hosed just like they did last time. Honestly, I think it's because we're getting to the point where our team could actually win, so the powers that be have to stop it. Which is why we get the corrupt refs who make B.S. calls and cost us the game, then afterwords get reprimanded, but only when its too late to reverse their rulings. SpartHawg948 19:49, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to reflect that. Well then, I'll start working on that then, moving, creating, and reformatting articles. Lancer1289 19:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the left column menu needs to be updated to reflect the change. It has a link to the deleted page. Teugene 04:21, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Right-o I'll drop Spart a line about that. I'll also ask him to update the comics with Incursion while I am at it. Lancer1289 04:25, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! It's nice now and... wait, what did you say? New ME comic?? Must. get. it! Teugene 04:30, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now I think it is only online and we have a link to it on the Mass Effect: Incursion page. It's short, only 8 pages, but it is interesting none the less. As to if it will be released, I have no idea. Lancer1289 04:35, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that is done and yet another productive conversation. Lancer1289 04:50, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Miranda
When your relationship with Miranda becomes at risk with Jack, when you side with Jack and Miranda forgives you is there still a possiblity in having a relationship with her?
 * Nope, if you side with Jack, then the relationship ends. The same thing applies if you were romancing Jack and side with Miranda. I don't know about Tali and if you side with Legion, but I know that if you side agaisnt your romance option, then you loose the romance. Lancer1289 13:19, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding ME1 Unique Dialogue
Lancer,

You removed a couple lines of Tali unique dialog I added earlier today, claiming there were "generic dialog". Would you mind please explaining to me what you mean by "generic dialog"? Are you saying Wrex will say the quarians had an embassy on the Citadel but were later expelled if you talk to him on the Presidium or what exactly? I honestly don't think I added any generic lines there. They are all exclusive to Tali, as they are all about the quarians and their history. What am I missing here? Fiery Phoenix 14:54, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * When I wrote up the style guide for the dialogue pages, and then posted it with approval, I had to deal with the lines that are repeated in the game. I followed the principal we use for the ME2 Talk to Squadmate section. The lines that are supposed to go in there are lines that can't be repeated in the same walkthough, like when you talk to your squadmates at the Relay Monument or the Krogan Monument. These are lines that can't be repeated and that is the principal that I followed and was agreed to. Lancer1289 15:00, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

That's right. But talking to Tali on Ilos and at the Embassies isn't considered unique dialog? Because both of these lines can't be repeated in the game nor can they be spoken by someone other than Tali. I know exactly what you mean by "lines that are repeated in the game", and trust me, those two aren't. Fiery Phoenix 15:03, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they can be repeated. When I have talked to Tali anywhere on the Presidium, she can say the "my people used to have an embassy here" line. Also the one on Ilos can be repeated as well. Perhaps you haven't talked to her enough or you were in combat to much on Ilos, but both of those lines can be repeated. Believe me I have played the game over 25 times through and I have heard both of those lines repeated on both of those locations multiple times. Lancer1289 15:08, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, forget I said anything. It doesn't really make sense for such lines to be repeated, though, does it? You'd think they're only spoken once, as they should be.

Anyway, sorry and thanks for your time. I also added the line about what she says after speaking with Vigil, but by mistake I put it under Talk To Squadmate. Fiery Phoenix 15:15, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to appoligize, you had a question and you asked, there is nothing wrong with that. I have always held to the standard that if you don't understand something, or you don't understand why something was done, then ask.
 * As to the repeats, I'm pretty sure that is why they don't come back in ME2, and I do agree that they should only be repeated once, but BioWare did it for a reason. What reason I'd say that they wanted to make it interesting, but I can only guess.
 * As to the Ilos dialogue, it just a minor placement, so no worries. Lancer1289 15:21, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Why do you always delete every contribution I make?
Your not the owner of the wiki, what gives you the right to delete everything I write!?
 * Add something valid, and it can stay. You are also not the owner of the wiki, after all, and what some fans call the Illusive Man is irrelevant to an article written from an in-universe P.O.V. SpartHawg948 05:39, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but I asked Lancer. Also, when did I say I own the wiki?
 * And he is an admin, I complely agree. I left a message on your talk page about in game perspective. Also anyone can fell free to comment on something like this. Lancer1289 05:42, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but I asked Lancer. Also, when did I say I own the wiki?
 * And he is an admin, I complely agree. I left a message on your talk page about in game perspective. Also anyone can fell free to comment on something like this. Lancer1289 05:42, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I answered. I didn't realize that you also owned this talk page. SpartHawg948 05:43, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be sorry that you answered, as this is MY talk page, and therefore I make the rules here, Spart you are welcome to comment here. I wish some people would be civil about things and not delete other user's comments however. Lancer1289 05:47, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Such uncivilized behavior. You'd expect that somewhere like Iran, Libya, or North Korea, but not here in these United States. Oh well. And btw, I know how you feel about the whole chronological order/OCD thing. I'm the same way. SpartHawg948 05:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, now I need to fix some other things this guy changed. He changed some hidden code that was typed by other users, and as I am a stickler for keeping things as people typed them, I have to dig through the page to fix some of those things. Lancer1289 05:57, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, I really wish people could be civil about these things and go and remove people's comments, and do things that they consider relevent and yet people who have been around longer, who know policies, and make this place better for all, revert them and then they complain. Even when you tell them why, they still complain and then violate policy. I really wish people could be civil, but as I have been proven time and time again, while most people can be, the people who aren't are the quickest to get to you. Lancer1289 06:07, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Wow there are a lot more enemies than I thought. I think some are still even missing from the template. Anyway, thanks for the help getting it on all those pages. :P Dammej 00:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Think nothing of it, I see someone doing something like that, I'll lend a hand. I think you managed to get them all, but a double check might not be a bad idea. Now all that remains is to create a template for the various ME enemies. That should be eaiser because there are fewer enemies.
 * Also take a peek at the Talk:Overlord: Atlas Station page, I think your new idea deserves implementation, but I think we should wait to see what others think. Lancer1289 00:33, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Morality guide "simplification"
Could you explain why my edit is not a simple simplification of the tree (your diff)? It would only seem necessary to provide the tree setup when options differ depending on the choice of words. It is obvious from the tree itself (as well as from a simultaneous playthrough) that the first choice has no bearing on the wording or point values of subsequent choices, and should therefore use "plus" in between, as with the others. Or are those trees different in some other non-obvious way?

Also, your comment seems to suggest that this is not the first reversion like this, but I could not find the link. I expect the circumstances were the same, though. 99.54.148.140 08:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Di gama")
 * As I explained on your talk page, they are set up that way for a reason. They are a guide for someone to follow a conversation though to the end. The starting dialogue option does differ somewhat what comes up, mainly in the paragon and renegade points options. So you removing those items doesn't "simplify" it, it removes valid content.
 * As to my comment about stop doing it, it was because you had done it before. You won't find a link because it doesn't exist. Lancer1289 18:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Here is a comparison: As you can see, if you choose "Interesting idea" you get 2 Paragon, and if you choose "Is that what you think" you get 2 Renegade, but you still get the same choices ("You still think it's me"/"You're delusional") afterwords regardless of the first choice. This means that a full tree is unnecessary (and would get exponentially large with the number of questions), and can be confusing if overdone. Here's another example which already exists in the guide (I didn't do this one):

Note that the one on the left is the one in the guide. As you can see, rather than copy information over twice, we use "plus" to indicate that subsequent options do not rely on the first question. Please explain to me how these situations are different (that one may be simplified, while the other must be expanded). Note, of course, that I apply this principle twice in the first example to eliminate the four-fold duplication.

PS: I'm not an idiot. Treat others with respect. 99.54.148.140 01:04, June 28, 2010 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Di gama")
 * I would like to know when I called you an idiot because I can't find where. It's not on my talk page, or yours, or my edit summaries. Maybe before you start throwing around accusations of me being disrespectful, you should get your facts straight.
 * I have explained why your edits removed valid content. In the second case there is reason that is like that is because there isn't a specific case like the top one. The top one is set up like that so the whole course of the conversation can be followed. Your version cuts out when an else case is used and the results of that, and that is why that case is like that.
 * Different cases call for different ways of presenting the information. The bottom case doesn't require expansion because it is cut and dry. The top case has a unique statement that if removed from context, in this case where it comes up, people who are reading it may not understand it. There are cases where the long version is preferred and when it is better to just cut it down. The top is a version of the former, and the bottom, the latter.
 * I haven't been disrespectful as I have explained why your edits removed valid content and I would like to know that if you are interpreting it as disrespectful in which case that wasn't my intent. But if you are going to throw accusations around, tell me where I called you a specific name. Lancer1289 01:19, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Precisely who has said a single disrespectful word to you? You demand others treat you with respect, but starting an edit war over the morality guide because you think you can do it better is hardly respectful. PhoenixBlue 01:15, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I would like to know. On a side note, despite you commented before I did, I didn't get an edit conflict. Weird. I checked everywhere and I couldn't find where I called him a name like that. So yes I'd liek to know as well. Lancer1289 01:21, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the subject at hand: That way is indeed simpler, and contains all pertinent information. If the guy wants to change it, I say go for it. Dammej 01:23, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, it removes the else case form the conversation, where it occurs and what results after it. Sometimes the longer version is better, as it is in this case. If the "No, we can't." wasn't in there, I'd agree. However, since it does present itself as an else case, and at a specific point in the conversation, the longer version coveres what happens if the option is taken. Soemimes the shorter version, if the conversation is cut and dry, is much better for presenting the information. Becuase this conversation has that else case, the longer version is better. Lancer1289 01:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, maybe I'm just missing something obvious here, but... what else case? He has the long conversation copied word-for-word above, and shorter version precisely describes it. You answer one thing paragon or renegade, then the next thing as paragon or renegade. Then, if you're saying "No, we can't," you get another paragon or renegade choice. That's what the long version says, that's what the short version says. Nothing is missing. What do you see that I don't? Dammej 01:38, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

The else case if saying "No, we can't" saying that at a specific point in the conversation merits the long version. Because the else case stears the converstion in a different way, the long version would be a better option here becuase of that. The longer version in this case presents the information clearer than the simplifed version, even if it is longer, which is sometimes better. You may see the shorter version as clearer, but I don't as the information isn't as clear. Because the line is a single option rather than an uppper or lower option, putting maybe like what I have below might be better.
 * 2 for saying "Interesting idea."
 * 2 for saying "Is that what you think?"
 * plus

That says the same thing to me as the other didn't version didn't. Lancer1289 02:19, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 for saying "You still think it's me?"
 * If saying "No, we can't."
 * 2 for saying "I met some of your workers."
 * 2 for saying "You're pathetic."
 * 2 for saying "You're delusional."
 * If saying "No, we can't."
 * 2 for saying "I met some of your workers."
 * 2 for saying "You're pathetic."
 * I think I understand what you're pointing out now. It's not that the shorter version doesn't show an else case (The else case has absolutely nothing), It's that with the short version, you wouldn't be able to tell that things after it are not the else case? So if the conversation were:


 * If saying "No, we can't."
 * 2 for saying "I met some of your workers."
 * 2 for saying "You're pathetic."
 * Else
 * 2 hypothetical convo choice
 * 2 second hypothetical convo choice
 * plus


 * Conversation continues...
 * Then the short version would be ok? Dammej 02:48, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed that is exaclty what I tried, and failed miserably, to point out. If there wan't that "No, we can't" then the short version would be much better than the overly long thing that is there currently. Lancer1289 02:53, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * About the respect thing: I just felt that you were not letting me defend my edits ("they are set up that way for a reason"). It's no big deal, if we can get to the point. I still don't quite understand your distinction with the "No we can't" and the else-case. The way I see it, if any choice has no bearing on later choices, than it can be separated with "plus". If we can agree that the version in your comment is also OK (does not misrepresent anything), than we can instead compare that to my "simplified" version from the original comment. I'm not entirely sure what happens if you don't choose "No we can't", but the guide would imply that no moral choices lie on that path. Note that I keep that part in my version, too, since it can't be simplified. If the lack of an else-case bothers you, you can always put it in. It's just that we omit non-moral convo options if they are not necessary (as compared to "No we can't", which is necessary due to other moral choices down the line). I will find the whole conversation for you, if you like. 99.187.187.64 06:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Di gama")
 * I am still waiting for you to say where I called you an idoit becuase you have stated that I called you that and I can't find where.
 * As to talking about edits, that is what talk pages are for. If an issue like this comes up, the we all discuss it first on that respective article's talk page. You did have a chance to defend you edits and claiming that you didn't is false. I gave reasons why I reverted and you still added it and without further reasons why. If you disagreed then you should have either brought it up earlier or on the article's talk page.
 * As to the version that is up now, the else case is that if you don't choose that particular conversation option after the other two, then you don't get access to those choices. However if you don't choose it then you don't get anything. The indentations are to show that, if there were other paragon and renegade options then another issue would have come up, which is highlated above, somewhere in one of Dammej's comments. The way it is now shows that if you take that option you have access ot a final set of options, where as if you don't then you don't get access to another dialoge choice. That format is present in the guide and is where I modified it from.
 * As to finding the conversation I have found several videos of it and played it myself now 19 times through, so I do know what it is said. Lancer1289 06:55, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care about who called who what; I said already it's irrelevant. I understand what you are saying, but the simplified version also indicates that not choosing "no we can't" does not allow access to the moral choices, so there's no misrepresentation. Also, if you know, could you share so I don't have to play the whole game again to get to that conversation? 99.187.187.64 07:18, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I found a video that covers the conversation: I am still trying to figure out what you are saying. Because both say the same thing and if you are going to argue simantics then that can be argued until the cows come home. The video is of the conversation so unless you are going to argue over simantics then I consider this matter closed. Lancer1289 14:15, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversation Only
 * Wait. If you agree with me that both forms contain the same information, then why are we having this conversation, and more importantly, why are you reverting my edits? If we are in agreement that it does NOT "remove valid content", then we can stop arguing and I will put my edits back. 99.36.52.215 23:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * No both forms do not contain the same information. The article has been updated with a modified version that says the same thing but in a different format that is used elsewhere in the guide. You edit/version did not say the same thing as it does now. Your edit still removed valid content and it has been modified to be relevant and use a format that is already used in the guide. I took a format that is already used and that version is now in the guide. So I still consider this conversation closed becuase the issue has been resolved with a different version that is used above, in the mess somewhere. Again this issue has been resolved so I don't see the point in arguing further. Lancer1289 00:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Zombie categories
I noticed that Human-Reaper had the once-deleted Category:Reapers re-added to it, and tried to remove it before realizing that the category was probably automatically added by the enemies infobox now on the page. Since I'm fairly inept at template-ery, do you know how to fix it so that Category:Reapers isn't added to the page? Otherwise we'll have to re-create the category ourselves or let it float around wanted and hope no one creates it. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I was just looking at that myself, and reminding a use why EDI isn't related to EDI of Stealth. You got to the reversion just before I did. Anyway it is in the AdversariesME2 tempalte that auto assigns cateogries based on race. Because the Reaper's categeory was already deleted, I'll have to mess around with the template to try and get it removed. There are only three Reapers at present, I think we will see more once ME3 comes out, and maybe the category will be revived, but for now, it is dead and I'll take a look and see about getting it removed. Lancer1289 18:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow that was easier than I thought it would be. Got to love the (nowiki) tags. All I did was stick them around the Reaper in race, and it worked. Lancer1289 18:51, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I see the problem. Hold on, I'll change the template to fix it. Dammej 18:55, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't change the template. It serves a funciton and this is the only exception to that rule. The auto assigning serves a purpose on the rest of the enemies, it is just this one that is odd. I have removed the Reaper from the race category to solve this problem. If you want to fix the template to have it say if a category exists then I see no objection, but for now I have just removed the Repaer form the race category from the tempalte. Lancer1289 18:59, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just made it not categorize reapers automatically. Everything else still works. Relax. :) Dammej 19:00, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I had no idea what you were going to do, so that explains the long comment. Anyway I need to look at that article again becuase I think it needs to be reformatted. Lancer1289 19:03, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Trivia...
Just trying to help a brother out since Tullis said that these kinds of things are not trivia. Seeing as how I'm currently playing through the game again I figured I'd read through the articles of the areas I'm currently in and edit anything needing fixing. I'm a big fan of Starship Troopers too and I can see the parallels between the two. I never played Starcraft and I get a lot of flak from my friends because of it. Everyone laughed when I asked what a zerg was because I didn't know... &mdash;ArmeniusLOD 05:03, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I would have laughed as well, no offence indended of course. With the people I talk to, everyone has at least heard of, or played StarCraft. It is a great RTS and even after 12 years now, I still see it on store shelves. In fact I saw it earlier today at Best Buy. Personally, if a game has been on the shelf for 10 years, then I think there are reasons why. I have found the game to be playable on any PC system, even Windows 7, so I would recommend picking up a copy, if they sell them where you are. If you don't like RTS games, I think you should still have fun with it, but considering it is only $20 for the BattleChest, which includes the original game, the expansion, and guides for both games, it might just be worth picking up a copy. If you are in to the RTS genre that is. Lancer1289 05:16, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I never actually played any RTS, I guess because they didn't interest me much when I was younger. I think that that has been ingrained in my brain now and I avoid them.  I know it's a lot more simplified, but I did enjoy Halo Wars when I tried that.  I've also watched some of my friends play Supreme Commander, which looked like a lot of fun.  I'll probably bite and try Starcraft eventually since the sequel currently has my interest piqued.  &mdash;ArmeniusLOD 05:24, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Picking up the original, especially with StarCraft, is probably a good idea. There will probably be quite a few plot holes that you won't understand if you haven't played the original. Since it hasen't come out yet, I don't know what will be explained and what won't, but I can be reasonably sure that you will miss a few things. Lancer1289 05:27, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Just following the rules.

The Codex title may be all caps, but the word isn't. I'm following the Style Guide for this wiki, not the codex. While the codex obviously uses capitals, the text clearly shows it isn't considered a proper noun, so this wiki should treat it as such.

I don't see why following the style guide needs discussion, since we don't open up a conversation on the talk page of an article every time someone needs to change Geth to geth. JakePT 07:36, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, the Mass Effect Wiki Style Guide in no way contradicts the General Style Guide, so you can't use that excuse. Codex entries need to be reproduced exactly, I understand that, and the article for the AI Codex entry would be capitalised the same way, but I wasn't editing the codex entries. I say again, the Codex does not indicate, in any way, that Mass Effect considered 'effect' 'field' or 'intelligence' to be proper nouns.JakePT 07:41, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you would look at the top of that section it says:


 * That does not mean that we will move articles without discussion. Those articles had no reason to be moved as that is again a generalized style guide, not the one that is tailored for this wiki. We have other articles that aren't names that have two capital words and I see no reason for moving them. Just becuase something appears wrong, and not using the style guide that is tailored for this wiki, and going aginst the Codex, doesn't mean it is. Just because something isn't contradicted in our style guide, dosn't give you free will to move things around. Lancer1289 07:44, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the Style Guide there then? Because apparently we don't follow it at all. The tailored style guide does not set down rules for article capitalisation, does that mean we don't have any? Also, it doesn't contradict the codex! The Codex headers weren't written for this wiki, and don't conform to our style guides. What does matter is whether or not the codex considers titles or words proper nouns. Read the codex and you'll see Mass Effect Fields referred to as 'mass effect fields'. Clearly the codex doesn't consider the term proper nouns, so when writing an article about them (and not reproducing the codex entry), following the style guide means the title should be 'Mass effect fields'.


 * I am not contradicting the codex, and I'm not contradicting the style guide, tailored or otherwise. In fact I'm following the only rule on the issue we have on the wiki, which is pretty plainly stated.


 * PS:Dark energy, Gene therapy, Dark space, Dragon's teeth, Seeker swarms, Red sand, Tech proximity mine. Just to name a few.
 * JakePT 07:53, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still that does not warrnent an immediate move. If you have an issue then suggest a move then bring it up on the talk page first. You were already asked not to move articles by Tullis already. If you think it is a problem then suggest it first, just don't go moving things around. Admins are really the only ones who move things like that and even then usually with a discussion first. Lancer1289 07:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Edits
Was just trying to keep it consistent with the rest of the site. I got the impression that people didn't realize for whatever reason about the indentations?? Which usually make sense to do when you're talking about the same subject. TheFedExPope 18:59, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still that is considered vanalism as it is modification of other users comments. While I can plainly see that it was just a formatting thing, and becuase yes some people don't know what the indentations are for, it is still their comments. I can tell it was in good faith, if someone can't then they need to be hit over the head with a 2x4, but even if it is like that, please don't modifiy things like that. Lancer1289 20:11, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

72.193.122.5 was my old page
I can clear my own talk page, right? Pyro721 07:02, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes you most definetly can, however I didn't know that was you. Just a quick recommendation, if you want to remove that, then log out, clear the page, then log back in. It helps to prevent things like this. Lancer1289 07:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Ah, thank you for refining my edit to Miranda Lawson's bio. That was my first edit ever, so I wasn't quite sure how to go about it. Once again, thanks!
 * No problem, always happy to lend a hand. Lancer1289 02:06, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Analogue for AdversariesME2?
The conversation at Talk:Enemies got me thinking. We don't currently have a "quick info" box for mass effect enemies like we do with ME2 (namely, the AdversariesME2 template). Is this something that people would want or would find useful? It'd at least make the pages for enemies that are in both ME and ME2 look more... complete, I guess? Something I'm thinking about. Was looking for other opinions. :) Dammej 03:16, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've often wondered about why we don't have a box for ME1 enemies. I would indeed find it useful. Arbington 03:23, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry had to step out for a minute, but yes I'd have to agree on that point. It would be a great idea. As to why is hasen't been created, a) no one thought of it and b) no one probably thought about it until now. To be honest we could just mod the current ME2 template, just withough the armor and barriers. There are a few other things we could add, but that is a discussion for another time. Lancer1289 03:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)