User talk:Lancer1289

Welcome to My Talk Page. If you don't find an issue that you have brought up with me in the past, then please check my archives because I have moved a lot of it to there. However I ask you to NOT edit there, just drop me a new message to bring up the discussion again. To leave me a message, please click on the "Leave message" button above, rather than just editing the whole page. That way I know what to look for. Thanks.

Please do leave me a new message unless there is a conversation that is already in progress that you wish to comment on. If you have a question that has no bearing on a conversation that is under a heading, then please don't edit there. Just leave me a new message. For example, if you see a section called Help, but your question doesn't relate to what the conversation was about, then PLEASE don't edit in that section, just leave me a new message. The comments will be moved to the end and I'll create a new section for it.

About darn time...
Hey Lancer,

Been nearly two weeks since you last logged in. You feel you're behind the spat between yourself and Dammej? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:04, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense intended, but that is something that personal and I'd rather not discuss it. Lancer1289 21:38, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Sorry about that. I won't do it again, I promise!

D^=

CoffeeShopFrank 05:04, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the top of my talk page as I don't like cross page conversations. I do ask people to respond to any message I leave on their talk page to make things not only easy to follow, but reduce clutter. Lancer1289 05:10, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

C'mon
Dude, c'mon. That was a legit picture and I was working on the size. please leave it alone
 * No it wasn't as it is quite small, low quality, and a grainy image. Also see your talk page as you haven't answered a question I left. Lancer1289 21:02, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again...
I was just wondering about what I needed to do to delete my signature page since I plan to use a standard signature and therefore no longer need a custom signature page. I had left you a message on your talk page earlier on Saturday asking about having my signature page deleted, but since I haven't received a reply, I was just wondering if I need to do anything in order to have the page deleted. Again, I'm sorry to bother you about this, but I didn't know who else to ask since I'm still new to the Mass Effect Wiki. If you could please help me with this problem, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. BicycleCat ( talk ) 23:38, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you could have asked any of the other admins as I've been off for a week, but I can take care of that now. Lancer1289 02:53, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * He could have if he'd been aware that you were "off for a week". However, given that he's a brand new editor, and that none of us knew why you were gone, for how long, etc, (see User talk:SpartHawg948), perhaps cutting BicycleCat some slack is in order? SpartHawg948 06:02, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #1
Hi,

I'm Wikia staff and just editing blogs written by other Wikia staff with their permission.

Thanks for your inquiry.

Bchwood 20:29, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Edits
Hey I was just wondering if edits in the "Trivia" section can be deleted for speculation, as some of mine have. And they are substantial. Thanks!
 * (edit conflict) Trivia items can be deleted on that premise if it can't be supported with what they have listed. However you state that many of your edits have been reverted, yet this is your only edit here, so which edits in particular are you talking about? Lancer1289 06:41, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been a regular Mass Effect Wikia visitor for about a year now. I've never felt the need to create an account, so that's the reason for having only one edit. I just edited the Conrad Verner page in the trivia section. I thought it was pretty clever. I realise I mistakenly left out part of the title. I was just wondering why the rest of the post was deleted.
 * The Conrad Verner page hasn't been edited in about two days now, so I'm guessing you are referring to the edit to the Citadel: The Fan page. The post was removed for a good reason, it was name trivia, which by our standards, isn't trivia without support, and like visual comparisons, generally more than most trivia. The support cited was a stretch at best as it only takes part of the title, and is about a "crazed" fan. There are plenty of things about "crazed" fans of anything, and the plot of the movie also don't lend much, if any, support to it. This is just another case of name trivia, where something has the same name, but the connection is merely a coincidence. If you want to prove it, then I recommend going to the BioWare forums and getting devconfirmation on it as that is the more than likely only way it is going to get in. Lancer1289 07:01, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. Only one more thing, how will I know who to ask for confirmation?
 * You can ask directly for a dev to comment, sometimes it works, but in order for it to go in, you need a dev, someone who has a "BioWare" tag on their profile which shows up below their Avatar when they comment in the forums. Anyone else, and that isn't enough. Also note that this has to be independently verifiable, meaning that you get an email/private message and saying that you did means nothing as we can't see that and that isn't a source. It needs to be something we can see and that we can verify so a forum page is the only way in this case. Lancer1289 15:52, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

When to place the Inactive User category?
Hey Lancer,

Just wondering what the criteria is for categorizing a user as an inactive user? If the time since the last post is 60 days or more, for example, does that warrant me or any other user to edit a profile page with the inactive user category (and ONLY that), or are Admins the only ones authorized to do this? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 00:33, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is no established policy, probably because the category doesn’t exist, but there is a policy about categorizing user pages, as in we don't permit categories on user pages. The only circumstances anyone is permitted to edit the user page of another is to remove vandalism, or an admin can if they have left a message asking the user to remove something and they wait a week. So the answer to your question is no, you are not permitted to do that. If you wish to make a proposal about creating categories like this, then you know where to go. Lancer1289 00:56, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Auto-refresh 2
I've heard you know how to add an auto-refresh feature to special wiki activity page. If true, would you please tell me how to do so? I would love to enable it on the answers wiki. Mitranim 16:40, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delayed response, but I was working on something and wanted to finish it, I had to eat lunch, and finally I had to look up what you were looking for. What you need to do is copy the text below, don't hit edit, on the page or this section, just copy the code, and place it into your "MediWiki:Common.js" page. Just don't include the quotes when you are putting it in the search bar. If you do hit edit, don't include the and  tags.

/* * ADVANCED AJAX AUTO-REFRESHING ARTICLES */ var indicator = 'http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/dev/images/8/82/Facebook_throbber.gif'; if (!window.ajaxPages) ajaxPages = new Array("Special:RecentChanges","Special:WikiActivity"); if (!window.ajaxCallAgain) ajaxCallAgain = []; var ajaxTimer; var ajaxRefresh = 60000; var refreshText = 'Auto-Refresh'; if( typeof AjaxRCRefreshText == "string" ) { refreshText = AjaxRCRefreshText ; } var refreshHover = 'Click the box to enable auto-refreshing of the page'; if( typeof AjaxRCRefreshHoverText == "string" ) { refreshHover = AjaxRCRefreshHoverText; } var doRefresh = true; function setCookie(c_name,value,expiredays) { var exdate=new Date exdate.setDate(exdate.getDate+expiredays) document.cookie=c_name+ "=" +escape(value) + ((expiredays==null) ? "" : ";expires="+exdate.toGMTString) } function getCookie(c_name) { if (document.cookie.length>0) { c_start=document.cookie.indexOf(c_name + "=") if (c_start!=-1) { c_start=c_start + c_name.length+1 c_end=document.cookie.indexOf(";",c_start) if (c_end==-1) c_end=document.cookie.length return unescape(document.cookie.substring(c_start,c_end)) } } return "" } function preloadAJAXRL { ajaxRLCookie = (getCookie("ajaxload-"+wgPageName)=="on") ? true:false; appTo = ($("#WikiaPageHeader").length)?$("#WikiaPageHeader"):$(".firstHeading"); appTo.append(' ' + refreshText + ':   '); $("#ajaxLoadProgress").ajaxSend(function (event, xhr, settings){ if (location.href == settings.url) $(this).show; }).ajaxComplete (function (event, xhr, settings){ if (location.href == settings.url) {$(this).hide; for(i in ajaxCallAgain){ajaxCallAgain[i]};} }); $("#ajaxToggle").click(toggleAjaxReload); $("#ajaxToggle").attr("checked", ajaxRLCookie); if (getCookie("ajaxload-"+wgPageName)=="on") loadPageData; } function toggleAjaxReload { if ($("#ajaxToggle").attr("checked") == true) { setCookie("ajaxload-"+wgPageName, "on", 30); doRefresh = true; loadPageData; } else { setCookie("ajaxload-"+wgPageName, "off", 30); doRefresh = false; clearTimeout(ajaxTimer); } } function loadPageData { var cC = ($("#WikiaArticle").length)?"#WikiaArticle":"#bodyContent"; $(cC).load(location.href + " " + cC + " > *", function (data) { if (doRefresh) ajaxTimer = setTimeout("loadPageData;", ajaxRefresh); }); } $(function { for (x in ajaxPages) { if (wgPageName == ajaxPages[x] && $("#ajaxToggle").length==0) preloadAJAXRL; } });

I hope this helps. Lancer1289 18:07, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Worked like a charm, it did the thing instantly, both for wiki activity and recent changes. You have my gratitude, this will save a freakload of F5s. Thanks! ^_^ Mitranim 18:16, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. It was something that you will find easier as now you can just leave your computer open and work on something else, and just glace over every now and then. I do like the system because of that, no more button mashing. Lancer1289 18:19, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the whole reason for me. When you have a need to keep track of every edit, it's pretty much a necessity. Thanks again! Mitranim 18:24, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Perhaps I might stop by the answers site again and see what can be done. I did a while ago, but I haven't in a while. It's something to think about for me. Lancer1289 18:27, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again! The feature broke about a day ago in some browsers, and I see you updated the corresponding section of MediaWiki:Common.js, apparently to fix it. ^^ Wouldn't you mind telling me if there are any wiki-specific parts of the new code, or it can be just copy-pasted like the old one? Thanks! Mitranim 05:05, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit) Noticed a link to the source on DevWiki, I'll try to look it up there. ^^ Mitranim 05:13, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delayed response, but yes if you go to the dev wiki, Gunny updated the script due to a Wikia update. Just copy the new stuff and you should be fine. Lancer1289 05:30, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I've gone with the import feature with additional variables, and it indeed works. You should try it too, might save a hassle of rewriting the section if something breaks in the future! Mitranim 07:24, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well whatever you prefer in this case then. Lancer1289 17:23, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Quick note
Just a quick note: headers in forums and talk pages do not, strictly speaking, constitute "comments". For example, if I leave a comment on a talk page, under a headline I create, the comment is mine, but the headline isn't. If there is a spelling error or some such, it can be edited by someone else. I can cite precedent, if you like, most notably one from a while back on my talk page. So, for example, IP 74.240.16.119 did not violate cite policy by changing the improperly spelled headline reading "Heritics Revision" on Talk:Geth to the correctly spelled "Heretics Revision". Thanks, SpartHawg948 19:42, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I thought they did, but I guess not. I'll remove the comment then. Lancer1289 20:41, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

hi from Technobliterator
Hiya, it's Technobliterator. You may remember me, as the one who proposed templates adding. Well I just popped in to say that I haven't forgotten about the wiki or the proposal. I think as a way to put the idea forward, I'll go about it in a different way; would a Special:Chat meeting be any good? Also, I'd still like to improve the articles any way I can, I feel bad for yet editing the wiki much.--Technobliterator 17:36, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think the problem was the topic wasn't focused enough, or specific enough, to get people interested. For an example, there is currently a discussion to overhaul the Cluster Templates, and that is quite specific. If you have a proposal, then don't get us wrong, we're all ears, but again I do personally think the problem was it was just a general topic, one that didn't have a lot of focus. What you need to identify is something specific, and then work on it as that seems to be how things generally get done. Broad topics usually die out as there really isn't anything specific, which I can point to another two examples, the Forum:Updating the ME2 Enemy info box, a forum used to update the infoboxes you see on the enemies from Mass Effect 2, and Forum:Infobox for Mass Effect enemies, which was used to create the current infobox for Mass Effect enemies. Don't feel bad about not editing, we all have days where we don't, but again, if you find something specific then make a proposal, which again I think was the problem last time, not specific enough. Lancer1289 18:48, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well my issue is that to be specific, I'd have to create the infoboxes in the first place to show exactly what I meant. Without access to MediaWiki pages, I'm not able to create them on this wiki to show. Do you have any alternatives? And well, I've just achieved sysop rights on SporeWiki, which is the reason I haven't yet been able to properly contribute to the wiki, although with this idea I'm hoping to do that.-Technobliterator 21:52, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe create a box on that site, and then just link it here. It's just again, you need to be specific as the previous attempt was way to broad and tried to do to many things at once, not to mention the lack of visual examples probably didn't help. Again I can suggest that you perhaps create them at the spore wiki, or maybe even set up a test wiki, I think asking the staff about that wouldn't be a bad idea, and then just provide the links. Lancer1289 23:16, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, I'd be better off doing that. Should I make an entirely new forum containing the new visual example? I think first I'll just stick with doing a character infobox, and with that in place we'd already have the meta-templates, with the next step being where to go from there with the meta-template. After that, I'd go on to one for the navbox. Does that sound like a good way of doing things, with more specification?--Technobliterator 23:20, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * You might encounter problems with the words "meta-template". That caused a lot of confusion last time, I still believe it does, I don't remotely understand it, and the same goes to a lot of other people as well. That really needs to be explained better and perhaps you can get more support for it because again, it is a very confusing topic. If you want to overhaul the Character template, then my recommendation is to just expand on what is already there, and avoid the meta-template, because it probably was one of the main reason that interest was lost because it wasn't explained very well, and the system you proposed for changing every template on the wiki didn't go over very well either for that reason. If you can find a way to explain it better, then that can only help you case, but people generally don't go for things if they don't know what is going on, and especially when something is proposed to replace something, and it can't be explained very well.
 * You keep trying to push the meta-templates, without explaining them well, or giving a good example of it. If you can again find a good way of expalining it, or finding a good example, or at least one abotu ten times better than the ones you previously linked and demonstrated, would be a good idea because as soon as you start talking about it, you might lose a lot of people right there as the concept isn't explained. Again I would just recommend expanding on the current template as you will probably get a lot less fuss over it.
 * As to a new forum, that would probably be best, but wait on creating it until you have something to propose. And some helpful advice on that front, don't put the forum, and then start working on it, as that is generally how things die around here, and quickly I might add. I would also recommend making a sandbox page for the example, then linking that for two reasons; one, that is how things have worked in the past; and two, because that way it falls under the user space protection policy, which means that no one but you can edit it, unless you give others permission to do so, which is probably a good thing. Lancer1289 23:38, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I don't really know how to explain meta-template besides that it's a template for a template. So if I have Template:Infobox, and I make Template:Infobox character, then Template:Infobox character will be using the contents of Template:Infobox. Some examples: w:c:spore:Template:Infobox & w:c:spore:Template:Infobox creature. This allows for consistency & ease in creating new templates. If I implemented it here, I could overhaul the existing infoboxes to use the meta-templates, if even agreed it proved better than the original system. I'm not sure how better to explain it. Sadly, the meta-templates we use on SporeWiki make it so easy I actually struggle with editing templates which don't use a meta-templates. :P
 * I'll get something to propose as soon as I can, and I'll await your reply here. If you say that it's good, then I'll put it forward in a new forum.--Technobliterator 09:58, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I must have overlooked this earlier, apologies. Anyway I do again think that trying to propose Mega-Templates again will cause a lot of hang-ups, especially when you are proposing overhauling everything, which would require a separate proposal altogether. Whether intentional or not, that implies a time consuming process and not everyone was for that, and I doubt they will be this time around. We have templates that do work, and work well, and the thought of replacing them, with something that may not work as well, is something of a catching issue. Right now I would again advice you to just work with what is already in the template and expand on it and don't bring in a meta-template as it will more than likely again cause problems as it again can't be explained very well. I'm not trying to make this difficult, I'm just rereading everything in the previous forum, and there wasn't a lot of support because it couldn't be explained very well, and right now, just working with the current system is probably the bets thing as it will prevent problems and people not supporting it because it will overall imply a new standard, that in all honesty may not work well here. Not to mention infobox is a very broad term and not specific enough for people here. So just to say it again, just stick with what is there, expand on that, and unless you can explain the meta-templates better, just leave it out. Actually, it probably would be best to leave it out all together for now as you are proposing overhauling every template, which would require a lot of work, and a completely separate proposal. Just work on and expand on the character template and leave out the meta-template as it could cause you more problems than it would solve. Lancer1289 00:06, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Ok, so I'll work on a new version of the character template with what we currently have. I see what you're getting at; it was probably much too soon to propose overhauling every template. Hmm... if I later propose usage of the meta-template afterwards, shall I call it a Base Template, and not claim to overhaul everything so soon? I think that'd be better. Anyway, I'll propose it on a forum soon as I get round to it, using a link to a sub page of my userpage for a sandbox of it, as a new character infobox. I'll then introduce the base template. Does that sound good with you?--Technobliterator 19:00, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think changing the name will do anything as you again have to explain what you are doing and it won't take long for people to draw the connection. If you propose anywhere in that forum to overhaul every template, or even more than the character one, then you will not get any support. Overhauling every template will require a separate proposal and, more than likely, a lot of separate proposals. Just working with what we have is a good idea, and it will more than likely get you more support, and if you really want to keep pushing the meta-templates, then that is up to you, but I don't think you get very far. Lancer1289 16:06, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, I still think pushing meta-templates is a good idea, however. I'll make the character tempalte with what we already have first, thoguh. Can you send me a message on my talk page in a day or two to remind me to come here and work on my new version of the character infobox?--Technobliterator 17:19, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember, but I seem to have a selective memory at times. Lancer1289 17:38, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Redlink Guideline Clarification
I looked for our guideline regarding removal of red-links in pages but could not find anything in the Mass Effect Wiki:Community Guidelines or Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style (although the latter should not mention it) and could not find anything regarding this issue. The policy forum post only apply to pages in user space - so what is the guideline regarding red-links in the Main namespace talk pages? --silverstrike 12:41, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * It actually applies to anywhere on the site, "Administrators of the wiki will be allowed to remove all red links (wanted links: categories, files, pages, templates) from user pages, talk pages, and wherever else any red link may appear across the wiki." However as the policy says, only admins, meaning Spart, myself, Commdor, and JakePT, may actually remove the links. You cannot remove the links as you are not an admin. If there are any further questions, I'll try to answer them. Lancer1289 15:50, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I understood the part about the admin status from the forum post, but wasn't sure to what the rules apply - someone should update the guideline page to include this. --silverstrike 16:18, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Red-links in talk pages
Hey Lancer, I was just going through Special:WantedPages and Special:WantedFiles and noticed that most of the red-links listed are from talk pages or user space. I wanted to notify the users, but the issue is that after the week has passed, I still don't have the right permission to remove the links.

So, I thought about listing the relevant pages that have red-links in them in a somewhat orginized way to help track them. Now, I didn't know if I should open a new topic on the projects forum or just leave them on a random admin talk page.

The table list the pages where the red-link is found and the link itself. If you think that such a table is a good idea, then I'll continue to update it (currently it only lists the wanted files) and add a column for date when the user was notified (when applicable).

So, What do you think? And should I move this to another more appropriate place? --silverstrike 17:58, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well first I would like this table off my talk page, as I really don't need this here. As to a page in the projects forum, considering only four people can do this, I personally think that is inappropriate and wouldn't accomplish much as it could give people the wrong impression. As to who to contact instead, I would suggest Commdor as he is the one who initially opened the forum on the issue, has pushed for this issue in the past, and has been more proactive with this in the past. I really don't care about this issue as there are so few wanted anything, in terms of red links, that it is a low priority for me. Again, I would suggest contacting Commdor about this given his experience in this issue and the fact he is the one who pushed for it. Lancer1289 18:25, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying sooner, I just didn't really know how to take your response - it seemed a little harsh (to put it lightly) and uncalled for, but I'll take it as me reading too much into it. I commented out the table and will remove it shortly after (and if) I find a better location for it. --silverstrike 20:03, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are reading too much into it. I had a list on my talk page, that I didn't even know what I was supposed to do with. Not to mention, I really didn't want it here as it would have no doubt just gotten larger and smaller over time, and I would have had to be dealing with it on a constant basis, until eventually, I would have said to take it somewhere else. That is not something I remotely wanted to deal with, the annoying "You have a new message" popup every 10 minutes with this. I would suggest a sandbox for making the list, and then talk to Commdor about it since he is the one who was proposed the policy. Lancer1289 16:12, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the table to the wiki sandbox and I'll talk with Commdor about dealing with it. --silverstrike 17:10, July 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Lancer1289 17:11, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect how exactly?
RE: Arc Projector

How exactly is listing Cerberus as a manufacturer incorrect? when it states in the E-mail from the Illusive Man that: "Our operatives waged a highly successful battle against a geth scouting party and credited their success to a new advanced electrical attack device that we finally let them take out of the lab." (which is enough evidence that it was Cerberus that developed and manufactured the weapon)
 * No it isn't as that indicates that they did research on it, but it doesn't say they developed and manufacture the weapon. They could have gotten the plans from elsewhere and then adapted it, but that still doesn't remotely mean they are the manufacturer. Bottom line, there is no concrete proof that Cerberus designed and built the weapon. Lancer1289 06:04, July 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks for clearing that up. :)
 * Yes, it does mean that Cerberus is the manufacturer. Weapons that are one-of-a-kind, which it is HEAVILY IMPLIED that the Arc Projector is unique, are not built in factories; they're built in R&D labs. Such labs are what the Illusive Man is referring to.SlayerEGO1342 14:32, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * And once again you show up. I'm beyond now thinking this is a coincidence as this has happened way too many times. I think you regularly patrol my edits, then voice your opinions against me for whatever reason. You always show up in instances like this, and like I said, this has happened too often to be a coincidence or random acts of chance. I really think you have it out for me for whatever reason and until you are right, you won't give up, which you aren't in this case, yet again. I was acutally thinking as I went to bed last night, will he show up, and low and behold, you are here.
 * As to the issue again, "heavily implied" doesn't mean manufactured. Where's your beyond a reasonable doubt that Cerberus manufactures the weapon, developed the weapon, or anything else? Again, bottom line, there is no concrete proof, and you saying what you are, will not change that. If you want it to say Cerberus, then go and get some proof, because you don't have it. And no amount of leaving messages saying "heavily implied" will change that. Either get proof, or stop arguing it because site policy is that it has to be stated beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is still doubt in this case. Lancer1289 18:41, July 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * "...has to be stated beyond a reasonable doubt." In all honesty, the point I'm trying to make here is that your doubt is unreasonable. SlayerEGO1342 19:14, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * No your proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt. I will not argue this any further, you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and until you get that, this will go nowhere as there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. So either go and get that proof, or stop leaving message which just continue to point out you don't have proof. Lancer1289 19:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't reasonable doubt count as proof? SlayerEGO1342 19:22, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are portions of the email which imply that the Arc Projector may be unique, but there are other portions implying production on some scale, which would mean it isn't unique. And while you are correct that unique weapons are often built in the R&D labs, once production on any sort of scale takes place, it's usually done somewhere other than the lab. And from what we've seen, Cerberus seems to favor outsourcing its weapons. Anywho, there is, to be sure, absolutely nothing in the in-game material confirming that Cerberus is the manufacturer of the Arc Projector. For all we know, the R&D lab that produced it could be a lab at Cord-Hislop Aerospace or some other Cerberus-affiliated corporation, as opposed to Cerberus itself. SpartHawg948 19:23, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * As for why reasonable doubt doesn't count as proof, that should be a no-brainer. If there is reasonable cause to doubt the truthfulness of something, it isn't proof. It's pretty much the entire basis of trial-by-jury. SpartHawg948 19:25, July 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, SpartHawg, that was very helpful. I only doubted that Cerberus wasn't the manufacturer because it DID, seemingly as a prototype/one-of-a-kind weapon, come from Cerberus. I say it's on its own in this world because the Illusive Man never uses plurals in describing it. SlayerEGO1342 19:28, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #2
Noveria: Peak 15 Article

Sorry about that I was trying to make a link for Alestia Iallis for Noveria: Peak 15, but i didn't already see that there was a link for her and i forgot to take that one off.
 * Yet again, my simple request at the top of the page, where the edit button and the "leave message" button are, gets ignored again. Lancer1289 02:50, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion: you can create a clearly seen link (or a button) on top of the page that will function as the "leave message" button. something like: . --silverstrike 20:43, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * You could have just left the code and I could have looked at it in preview to see if I liked it. I don't need an example of something when the code is here. As to the suggestion, maybe, but I don't even like how it looks and I removed the example as again, I could have just looked at it in preview and decide if I liked it or not. Lancer1289 15:59, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Pinnacle Station: Convoy, Pulse Rifle X
Just to let you know, i think (at least) the PC version may be bugged in regards to Pulse Rifle X (assuming that in the Xbox version Pulse Rifle X looks like a geth rifle and has no upgrade slots) Because in my game of ME1 (With BDTS and Pinnacle Station installed nothing else) the Geth Armory Pulse Rifle X looks like this: Pulse Rifle X Pic Hope this helps :) --203.219.138.147 06:13, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Jutland the "only major naval engagement"?
Just throwing in my two cents here... I've never heard of the Battle of Jutland being described as the only major naval engagement of WWI. It was the largest, to be sure, and it was the only "full-scale" battle involving battleships from both sides, but there were many major naval battles in WWI. One of my all-time favorites was the first major naval battle of the war, the Battle of Coronel, in which the German East Asia Squadron mauled a British fleet, sinking two armored cruises and killing over 1,500 men. There's also the Battle of Dover Strait (60 ships total), the Battle of Dogger Bank (a major clash between German and British battlecruisers, 73 ships total), the Battle of the Falkland Islands (the aforementioned German East Asia Squadron being completely wiped out by a British fleet), the Battle of Moon Sound (an oft-overlooked battle between the Germans and Russians), the Scarborough Raid, and a major though unnamed action fought on 19 August, 1916 between 29 battleships, six battlecruisers, and various escorts of the Royal Navy, and 18 battleships, two battlecruisers, and escorts of the High Seas Fleet.

Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is that, as any student of WWI at sea can tell you, there were many major naval battles. The only way Jutland is the only major battle of the war is if we set the definition of "major" incredibly high. If we do so, there's probably not more than one or two naval battles of WWII that would be "major", but we know that's not the case. For further information, I'd highly suggest Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany, and the Winning of the Great War at Sea by Robert K. Massie, augmented by The Central Powers in the Adriatic, 1914-1918: War in a Narrow Sea by Charles W. Koburger, Jr. SpartHawg948 07:14, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Addendum - not trying to come off as cross or uber-crazy or anything, it's just that naval warfare, particularly in the period from approximately 1800-1918 is a big fascination of mine. In addition to the aforementioned books, I've got several others detailing the War of 1812, buildups in the UK, Germany, and the Austro-Hungarian navies pre-1914, etc. And I do tend to get kinda passionate about some of these hobbies of mine! :P SpartHawg948 07:52, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the Battle of Jutland was effectively the defining naval battle of the First World War. It was also the only time in the war that a full-scale battle between battleships ever occurred. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 11:55, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * That may very well be, but "the defining naval battle of the First World War" and "the only major naval engagement of the First World War" are two totally different statements. One is true, the other isn't. There were many major naval engagements of the First World War. For example, imagine if I were to call the Battle of Midway "the only major naval engagement of the Second World War." It clearly wasn't. It was just as clearly the defining naval battle of the Second World War, but those are two entirely different statements which are not synonymous. I'm not calling into question Jutland's strategic importance, merely the inaccurate statement that it was the only "major naval engagement" of the war, a war in which there were several major naval engagements. SpartHawg948 20:41, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

what the hell¡¡¡¡
why did you erase the lazarus cell info i had find... i mean ... it wasnt fake info
 * First watch your language. Second, it is already mentioned in a much more appropriate place, i.e. the Normandy SR-2. Every person on that ship is a member of the cell, and the only members of the cell, so why have the exact same list in two separate locations? On top of that, where is it more relevant? I'd say the SR-2 article considering it lists the people that are in the ship and it even mentions that it is the headquarters of the Lazarus Cell. There is absolutely no reason to have the exact same list in two locations, when it is already mentioned, and in a very relevant place. Not to mention it was horribly formatted and had other isseus. Lancer1289 21:28, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

well, maybe i was wrong man but you could at least send me a message telling me what was wrong about the info so i could try to correct it
 * And we have edit summaries that serve that purpose just fine. If we left a message every time this happened, then we would be leaving nothing but messages, and that is just unnecessary work when we already have something that functions just fine. And don't leave a new message for every edit, just continue the conversation. Lancer1289 21:42, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

i'll check them, just ... be nice with the new one
 * Didn't I just ask you to not leave a new message every time you reply? This doesn't help with organization. Just hit the edit button on the section containing this conversation and just edit there, don't leave a new message for every reply. Lancer1289 21:49, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

ok dude...

BIG question
hey lancer, i just make an account and i really want to know how many alliance ships were destroyed in the battle of the citadel if you decided to save the council( as i did)
 * There are eight confirmed ships, Alliance Cruisers, that were destroyed and are listed on the Alliance Navy page. The ones with the "Participant in the Battle of the Citadel (2183)" next to their names. Also don't change that to destroyed as canon states the Council decision is left up to the player. Had to say that. As to the number of other ships, it is not known, but there are plenty of other ships that we see destroyed. I guess the answer is eight Alliance Cruisers, plus an undisclosed number of other ships. Lancer1289 22:35, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man...i had that doubt since i ended the first game but... it also makes me thing about the total number of ships that are going to fight the reapers in ME3 because if you thing about it, in ME2 they say that the arcturus fleet (the fleet that fougth the soveraign) was almost completely destroyed and as long as i know, theres another fleet guarding the earth. BUT... i mean, with the reaper attack on earth, im supposing that the fleet that was protecting the earth was also destroyed...so...the alliance is out of ships or what.

Look... i dont know if im rigth about that other fleet but if im rigth, that leaves an AWFUL scenario for earth.
 * If you wish to discuss that, then I would recommend a blog post or a forum page as that is the kind of conversation that tends to spark interest, and I really don't want to host that on my talk page. Lancer1289 23:09, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Character Infobox
It seems your selective memory failed you. :P Anyway, I'll have a go at making a new infobox character as a sub page of my userpage, bt it wouldn't nearly be as good as if I had the meta-template.--Technobliterator 09:18, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Al right I've done it: User:Technobliterator/Character. Shall I put this forward in a forum?--Technobliterator 09:46, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I thought there was something I forgot about. Anyway if you feel it is ready, then take it to the Projects forum. If you feel it needs more work, then wait. Lancer1289 15:51, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

wow...you put the same image
how original
 * No it is a higher quality image. Lancer1289 02:38, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

sure...HQ
 * And the point of this comment was what exactly? Lancer1289 02:49, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #3
--Haloone 14:41, July 22, 2011 (UTC)Hey Lancer1289,I was wondering if there was a Morality guide for romances. If not, i think it would be a great suggestion.Haloone 14:41, July 22, 2011 (UTC)Haloone
 * What exactly do you mean, we already have morality guides for both games, so I'm not seeing what you are getting at here? And can't anyone leave a new message anymore? Lancer1289 16:03, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Just for the hell of it...
If you need help with anything, let me know. I have heavy wiki experience, as I'm an admin (although very inactive) of the Metroid Wiki of NIWA (separate from Wikia, which we've made fun of more than once :/). I've recently become very interested in ME2 on PS3, starting my fourth playthrough today. Thanks. TheSuperZeldaMan 05:12, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a lot of the bases covered, but if you poke around and find something, then you won't find anyone objecting. However I do ask that you refrain from profanity here. We just don't have a need for it in civilized conversation. Lancer1289 16:01, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Pausing the Language Policy vote
As I jumped the gun a bit on the voting, effectively skipping the Discussion phase, would you mind pausing the vote on my Language Policy proposal, so that the changes could be discussed?
 * I have already given my opinion. I'm fine with either option. Lancer1289 20:18, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be so kind as to provide a yes or no answer here. It'd be nice if we could avoid the forum getting bogged down unnecessarily, and having everyone offer their opinion on a pause at the forum itself would do that. As such, it's vastly preferable that everyone simply reply to Arbington's messages on their own talk pages. This also saves people (such as Arbington and myself) the effort of having to wade through entire paragraphs of responses looking for one little word. Thanks, SpartHawg948 21:55, July 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok then, a pause sounds like a good idea then. And since you stated that I shouldn't post in the forum as well, I won't. Lancer1289 00:39, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

A little trick
Hello again! I need a bit of help with wiki management, and it would be great if you happened to know the answer. ^_^ I want to add a div section with a login prompt to the right of the main page, and to the right of every "question" page (see any random). I also want it to only be visible to anonymous users. The problem is, 1) I don't know how to make it visible to anons only, and 2) I have no idea how to change the standard page template, or whatever it's called, to add this section to existing pages. I wasn't able to find this information yet, please drop a word if you happen to know the how it's done. Mitranim 10:51, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend going to the staff at Community Central with this as I really have no idea what you want to do or how to do it. Lancer1289 14:34, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect Wiki scavenger hunt
Hi! I'd like to let you know that Wikia would like to put a (new and improved) scavenger hunt game up on Mass Effect wiki. To see what it's all about, you can check out this presentation of one done for Avengers. We'd also like to hear your feedback on the feature once it's up and running. The game looks fun, so I hope you're up for it too. :) Ausir(talk) 22:01, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

mass effect 3
mass effect 3 is the fippin best
 * Um, ok, this is here why exactly? Lancer1289 04:00, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I want to delete my blog post
I apologize for bothering you, but I need help deleting my blog post. Thank You in advance.Ser Derek of Highever 21:02, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I took care of it, Lancer. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:11, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

my fault.
Sorry, I was putting my signature & my hand slipped and added that. I thought it was already there so I left it. --Slowrider7 19:07, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok then, but I do ask people to do one thing at the top of my talk page. If I left you a message, then respond on your talk page as I hate cross page conversations. Lancer1289 19:38, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Bringing the Hammer...Head...Down
I recently learned that when driving the Hammerhead if you fly up and bring the vehicle down on the head of an enemy (Geth Trooper, Colossus, it doesn't matter), it one shots the enemy. Is this worthy of being in the article? Feel free to try it out yourself. Just get some speed up, fly up, look down, and try to come down right on the enemy's head. With the Hammerhead. Yes, I know, the puns are awful. Tanooki1432 05:10, August 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Puns aside, I'm, not really sure where to put this to be honest. Putting it in the main Hammerhead article is out of the question as it just doens't fit in the article given how it is written. You perhaps could insert it into articles where appropriate, walkthroughs articles of course, but again, I'm really going to say no on the main article given how it is written. Lancer1289 16:24, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Human-Reaper Larva
Hi there. I was just wondering why there isn't a separate page for the Human-Reaper Larva battle, after The Long Walk guide page you get linked back to the end of the Mass Effect 2 Guide page. Why is that? Sorry if this is a waste of time question but I'm curious if it's for some reason other than no one has gotten around to it yet. Drakios 04:52, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we use the in-game journal entries for walkthrough articles, and since the final battle doesn't have journal entry, it is covered in the walkthrough. Not to mention we also have tactics for it on the larva's main page. I'd also oppose another article as it doesn't fit with how we do things with walkthroughs. It's not that no one has gotten around to it, it just wouldn't fit with how we do things. Any further tactics should be added to either page as appropriate. Lancer1289 05:00, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why there are not tactics for each individual class? Like on the Shadow Broker page. Drakios 00:52, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * On which page are you talking about, the Human-Reaper page, or the Mass Effect 2 Guide page? As to the former, probably because it wasn't formatted that way, but it could be if class specific tactics were added. As to the latter, that's a different issue and they would have to be worked into the article differently. Lancer1289 01:14, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Human-Reaper page, I understand why they wouldn't be on the guide page. So it just hasn't been done yet then. Okay, thanks. Drakios 01:56, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comments above about that. It's not that it hasn't been done, it's that it doesn't fit anywhere except on the main guide page. There is no journal entry for the last battle and because of that, any information on it has to be incorporated into the main guide which is how we handle things like this. The page wouldn't be a journal entry page, like every other one and that creates a problem. I checked this out several times and there aren't any exceptions to this, nor should there be. The final battle should be covered in the main guide where it presently is, not in a separate article because that isn't how we handle walkthrough articles here. Lancer1289 02:09, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * So if someone wanted to add higher difficulty class-specific tactics they would add them where? In your above comment you said it could be reformatted for class specific tactics, at least that's how I interpreted what you said. Now I'm interpreting it as if they were to be added it should be to the guide page. Drakios 02:12, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * And your above comment was confusing as it sounded like you were going to make an article, which would have been a problem. If there is a class specific strategy, then that does go onto the HR page, but more general things about the fight can go on either page. Lancer1289 02:42, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay excellent, I plan to add some because currently it is insufficient; especially because the Shadow Broker has his own section for class-specific tactics, and the Human-Reaper is the game's final boss. Thank you for the information. Drakios 02:56, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Permission
Hello

I'm administrator Polish Mass Effect wiki and I have one question. Can I copy and use template PowerTable?.

Yours faithfully Fifok 15:31, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't see a problem with it, just remember to site where you got it from per Wikia's policy on things like this. Might I also suggest the import/export feature. Lancer1289 18:07, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :)Fifok 15:34, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 17:37, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

A quick wikia-related question...
''Have the administrators of MEWiki ever contemplated activating the "Chat" wikia tool through Wikia Labs? Just a little question from a casual user.''--DeadDATA 04:01, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, we've never even talked about it. Lancer1289 04:10, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well, just thought it was something interesting to bring to someones attention.--DeadDATA 05:27, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Undone
Hello. I'm not sure why you removed the modification I made. Could you be a lill more explicit please? Hunter789 21:49, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe my edit summary was quite clear, journal entries, the first line of any text in a walkthrough article, are verbatim from the game. No modifications, no alterations. Lancer1289 21:55, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you might want to review all assignments just to make sure... (N7: Endangered Research Station, N7: Archeological Dig Site, ...). It might be nice to fix the info instead of just removing it. Hunter789 22:35, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are inconsistent with the entries from the game, then they need to be fixed, but if they are word-for-word out of the journal, then nothing should be done. So I don't see what you are asking as they have all been checked a number of times already. Lancer1289 22:43, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it seems some have been forgotten. And where is specified on the N7: MSV Estevanico that the planet is the second of the system? Hunter789 00:23, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Um the first seven words of the article, "A scan of the second planet Zanethu". We don't need to restate what is already stated. And which ones have been forgotten exactly? Lancer1289 00:25, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

(Resetting indentation) N7: Endangered Research Station. But I've fixed it. And the other I mentioned previously has also the planet order in the first paragraph. I'm quite sure it shouldn't be there per the standards, but I have no way to make sure. Ok for my other question. Hunter789 00:30, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, if it is part of the journal entry, then it stays, if it isn't, then it goes. It's that simple. Lancer1289 00:40, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Halo
come over to arby 'n the chief wiki, if needs alot of work and the show is great!
 * And why was I the only one to get this message and what is it about exactly? Lancer1289 00:15, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Beacuse your the best editor in this wiki that I know and i belive that you would like it --Blazingswords 04:37, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * While I appriciate the comment, and I'm sure that others will challenge it, I know nothing about what you are talking about and don't have a large enough interest in it to do anything about it. Lancer1289 05:04, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Warden Kuril Edit
Not to be mean, but you said that it's mostly likely wrong, can you prove it please?
 * Because I've seen turian Blue Suns Troopers weilding assault rifles. Therefore it is incorrect. Lancer1289 17:16, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

But were they Turians or Humans?
 * Read my last comment. Lancer1289 17:29, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Were they in cut-scenes or ingame that's what I meant.
 * Both. Lancer1289 17:31, August 14, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the chat.

Language policy
As per his request, I would like to respond to Lancer's questions one by one. Let me also state that I make every attempt, in real life, to avoid cursing and rarely do. I find it uncalled for and vulgar but I do not enforce my opinion on others as it is there prerogative.

Profanity draws attention to comments and adds emphasis. It is also just another word choice. Frankly, it is the right of an individual to speak freely barring any libel.
 * Why do you have to use profanity at all?

Literal response:NO.
 * Are you compensating for something?

Subjective response: This question is, in my opinion, rude and not constructive to the argument.

That is entirely subjective. Do I use that language in this manner? No, for the above reasons. However, I would have no qualms with doing so if I didn't refrain from using profanity in general. I must also state that this question is not relevant. Is my mother the wiki? Is my boss the wiki? Is my girlfriend the wiki? NO. An apple is an apple. An orange is an orange. Applying the rules of the wiki to my personal life, and vice versa, is nonsensical. I do not cite where I gain facts in real life and I do not state religious issues, just an example of a non-relevant topic, on the wiki.
 * Would you use that language in a conversation say with your boss/teacher/professor/spouse/parents/etc.?

If they are on this page, they are most likely looking for something to do with Mass Effect. Both games use strong language -- thank Jack in ME2 for about 70% of that. If they are willing to endure profanity in one occurrence it makes no sense that they should be offended otherwise.
 * Did anyone ever consider that people can be offended by just having the words on the page?

Cool is subjective. A hypothetical case of peer pressure is so far in the hypothetical that it can not be used to plan actively. If you will forgive an engineering analogy: That's like not designing a house for being in a thousand year flood basin. We call all speculate on the reaction of people, but speculation cannot be admissible evidence.
 * That it could turn people away if they constantly see profanity in every discussion because it could imply that we are harsh or that everyone has to use it to feel "cool"?

I've seen plenty of inflammation here to suggest that the addition of mild profanity would harm little. If a person wishes to be inflammatory, profanity is just a very small tool they might use. Lets not "throw out the baby with the bathwater".
 * Did anyone ever consider that the word in of it self might inflame the discussion?

Like the above, that is a hazard of online speech. Profanity is not necessary to have people be insulted. It would be the exact same as it currently is.
 * Did anyone also consider that someone could misinterpret the comment and take it as an insult?

My own points:
 * As we are on the internet, we should assume that those using it are of the age of majority. Thus the argument that children might read this -- I STRONGLY and vocally oppose the use of profanity in front of children -- should not be regarded.  Again, these games are "M" rated and I would not allow a young child of mine to play them or access this wiki.  That is a parent's domain and this wiki is no one's parent -- hopefully.


 * I'm doing my best not single out Lancer. I have had a single encounter with him in the past and sincerely apologized.  I am just addressing the real concerns his side holds.  I respect the position they hold, I simply disagree.


 * I think this wiki should present a welcoming environment. I also believe that this wiki should be a place of frank and open discussion.  There is a balance of the two that must constantly be maintained.  Ad hominem attacks would still not be tolerated but the prevention of reasonable -- non- directed -- profanity is just as offensive as rampant cursing.  We must protect reasonable free speech from both those who would abuse it and those who would remove it.  I feel that the current policy errs on the side of removing it.


 * It is my personal opinion that the words H€lL, @$$, and d₳ℳ₦ be allowed. As well as $h*t.

Please know that I respect the interest that everyone has espoused here and I firmly believe that even those who I do not agree with are sincerely doing what they believe best for the wiki. I just also happen to think they are wrong :] -- Scuba.steve.esq 04:04, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Impersonator
I have not spent much time on this Wiki so I wouldn't know of any dicussions. As I was looking through the Block logs, the reasoon for being blocked was impersantion so I'll take your word for it and assume it wasn't you. -Dudebot121256 18:21, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Image Policy
I just wondered if you have a link to your Image policy as I can't seem to find it? --  N7  &#91; T &#124; C &#93; 10:01, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see this has already been answered. Lancer1289 12:35, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Suicide mission edit
I still don't understand why you reverted my edit. What other confirmation do you need? --Spybot64 15:55, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Devconfirmation would be nice to start with. That kind of information need more than just that to be in the article. Currently there is dev information in the article when it comes to the list of how squadmates die. That is from an interview with Gameinformer in a 2010 issue, can't remember the month offhand. That is not confirmation and nor will it be, information like that needs more than what you provided, especially given what it covered and the standard that is already there when it comes to information like that. Lancer1289 16:31, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * How come players' experiments don't count as a confirmation? Most of the walkthroughs and guides that are here have been written based on gamers' experience. In the link I've provided, Ecael did almost 80 tests to create that list. Why shouldn't it be taken seriously? Everybody's game uses the same mechanics, doesn't it?--Spybot64 19:25, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * If this was any other walkthrough or any other piece of information, you wouldn't be getting an argument. However, this isn't the case. We are dealing with very specific information, and information that cannot be added without devconfirmation in this case. The number of tests doesn’t matter as for all I know, they are making it up. Because of what the information is, a specific list of what squadmates are preferred by the seeker swarms, and given that we already have devconfimation for another piece of info, the order which squadmates die, the same standard should apply. This information is extremely hard to test, and harder to confirm. There are 132 possible squad combinations and even with 80 tests, there is no way they were all tested. I'm going to have to insist that a dev comment on this and either confirm or give us the actual list of how this works out because of what I have already pointed out. Again if this was any other piece of information, then it wouldn't be as big of a deal. Lancer1289 19:43, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * May I know how have you come up with number 132? If we assume that Samara and Morinth have different priorities on the list (they do), we've got 13 squadmembers which means 13*12/2 = 78 unique combinations. Coincidentally that's exactly the number of tests performed. Spybot64 17:08, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend checking your math again. You have twelve squadmates and you can only take two, so you have 12*11, because you can't pick the same squadmate twice. For example, you can pick Kasumi, then you can pick any of the other eleven squadmates. I'm not including Morinth for this, but even if I did, I'm not even remotely sure why you are dividing by two as you just cut out half of your results. Even if there is something incorrect, I'm not even remotely willing to accept that without devconfirmation due to the nature of what is being discussed and possibly picking squadmates in different orders plays a part. This is something that requires devconfirmation and until that is presented, it will not be allowed. No matter how many tests are performed and just saying, we have no way of authenticate that to begin with. Lancer1289 17:25, August 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * My math is correct. I'm dividing by two because team Zaeed/Kasumi is the same as team Kasumi/Zaeed. And no, picking squadmates in different order doesn't affect anything. You're basically thinking that those tests performed by a member of the Bioware community may have been intentionally falsified for some unknown reason? Well, I'm afraid that's ridiculous.
 * What would you say if I demanded a proof of your alleged devconfirmation? Where can I find that interview? Why hasn't it been listed in the references? So far, I've been left to simply believing in your word while if I had used a similar argument, it definitely wouldn't have passed.--Spybot64 00:07, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot rule out the fact that picking squadmates in a different order wouldn't effect anything. You have no proof that it doesn’t nor can you discount it. The one thing I cannot stand is people putting words in my mouth and you just did. I never said that they were false, I'm merely pushing for devconfirmation given what the information covers and the standard already set.
 * If you demanded proof, then I could find it. However, if you would read above, I stated that it was from an interview that Gameinformer did with BioWare. And after some digging, I found the article online. Here's where the information comes from. Anyone who was around at the time read the article and it was never removed because of that fact. In addition, there is embedded text in the article reflecting this. Lancer1289 00:20, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * If picking squadmates in different order played part, you would expect that a person doing 78 tests would have noticed any irregularities. They've dedicated more than one thread to finding out everything there is about the suicide mission. They've even determined the order in which squadmates pull Shepard onto Normandy in the final cutscene! But fine, whatever.
 * That is a nice flowchart you've given me by the way. I'm not going to ask why hasn't it been already added to references if it's supposed to be the ultimate proof (and adding references to articles is probably the best way to raise their standard I believe), nor am I going to ask if a link to an internet magazine that claims to have made an interview with Bioware passes for high standard evidence here.


 * Please, look at what I've found in the suicide mission guide, part Collector Base: The Long Walk, paragraph Fire-team Leader: Note that Miranda will not die here even if disloyal. I agree with this statement, it is a well-known fact and on casual difficulty it takes entire 5 minutes to test it (ONE, only ONE test is needed). I understand that you share this thought as whoever added that sentence there, you didn't object. Now just look at that gameinformer's flowchart and please reconsider your idea of a solid evidence. I don't know who really created that flowchart and how "down the chain" he was, but it appears it is flawed and not even remotely can be considered decisive. What do you think?
 * "[N]or am I going to ask if a link to an internet magazine that claims to have made an interview with Bioware passes for high standard evidence here". What?! I really don't know what else to say for that statement. Given Gameinformer's reputation about their interviews, we have absolutely no reason to doubt it. Clearly you don't know anything about the magazine. Gameinformer, FYI, is not a pure internet magazine. They publish a print version every month, I know I'm looking at a stack of mine right now. What you claim is ridiculous. We have absolutely no reason to not trust the interview, and IIRC, some devs even commented on the article on the BioWare forums talking about it. It's fact, and there is nothing that is going to change that. It is a perfectly valid source and where a lot of information we already have about Mass Effect 3 is coming from. I would suggest that the next time you throw a statement like that around, do some research on the source first and also do some research on how things are done around here.
 * As to your statement in the first paragraph, I will again state that if you do not have devconfirmation, then given the nature it covers, it will be removed without a source. Also as I look over the article again, it states this. "Barrier falls. One of the members in your current battle party dies, determined randomly. (Emphasis added.) Because I hadn't looked at this article in a few months, and see how much information we did get, and based on that statement, I am now requiring devconfirmation before the information is added. You say it is flawed, yet this is the best information, and not to mentioned, devconfirmed in this instance, for information about the mission. Unless the devs say something else, it is fact and that isn't going to change. It lists the order characters die in for each section, armor test, barrier test, and weapon test. It also offers a lot of information about the Suicide Mission, and until the devs come around correcting it, or saying that something else about it is accurate, then it stays the way it is. I had forgotten how much information there was in this article. Again either get devconfirmation on that, or it will stay out given the nature of what it covers.
 * As to your last paragraph, or at least the first part of it, I will state what I stated above. "If this was any other...piece of information, you wouldn't be getting an argument" and that is what that falls under. That information was added, and while I probably overlooked it at the time, it was determined by a few others that it was accurate and that is why it stayed. Information like that, which need I mention is about 5000x easier to test and not subject to other factors, is added all the time, and yet nothing is done because of that. I never tested it myself, but given what I eventually did find about it, and a few other things, I don't have a reason to doubt it.
 * As to the last part of your last paragraph, I will again state, that given the nature of the information, the information we already have from a devconfirmed source, and what the information covers, this is a case where a dev needs to comment on it and say that it is 100% accurate. You claim this isn't solid evidence, and yet it is. It is proven to be accurate every time and people who remove things, don't realize what they are removing and every time they are proven to be incorrect. Say for instance the most common one, removing Legion or Kasumi from the tech specialist slot because they died. In every instance where that has been removed and undone, I've left a message about it. And every time I've gotten a response from the person who removed it, they state that they didn't have an ideal second squad leader and after they tried it again with an ideal SSL, they found that their specialist didn't die. So your claims appear to be invalid.
 * I again and for the final time will state that given the nature of the information, what it covers, and the standard already set, either get devconfirmation saying that it is 100% accurate, or it will be removed. And until that devconfirmation is provided, I am not going to argue this issue further because the standard will not change given what is already in the article, and it comes straight from the devs themselves, and everything else I've stated above about what is being added. Lancer1289 17:08, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, what you've demonstrated in the first part of your post is argumentum ad verecundiam - an anrgument from authority. Gameinformer may be even the main source of the country's intelligence agency and even that doesn't grant it the patent for truth. I looked over the article and saw no interview (just a mention of it) only a flawed flowchart. No more, no less. And my apologies that I didn't search Bioware forums for any dev posts concerning that interview (which is also a claim without any evidence, just sayin'). I sure have no idea of how things are done around here (getting one), but I ask again why hadn't this ultimate evidence been already added to the references. That is a sincere concern. And by the way, there is also absolutely no reason to distrust people that rigorously performed 78 tests and posted their results. Is there? (Picking squadmates in the different order doesn't affect the results. If it did, he would have noticed it because of the number of the tests performed. That is a completely reasonable assumption.)
 * Seondly, I absolutely don't comprehend the point you're trying to make in the rest of the text. You say gameinformer's flowchart is definitely a solid evidence. Flowchart says, fire-team-leading Miranda dies if disloyal. I say (some other people too), Miranda doesn't die if disloyal. You say, OK. Mildly said that's a goddamn giant contradiction. You claim you have no reason to doubt it (why?) yet you've never tested it. I have no reason to doubt the seeker swarm death list either and I've even randomly tested it. And why exactly do you believe that it is 5000x easier to test it?! You argue that picking squadmates in different order may play part during the seeker-swarm walk while it doesn't in any other instance of the entire suicide mission and at the same time you say (imply) that the fate of the second fire-team leader isn't affected by anything while just few moments before, the fate of the tech expert hangs on correctly picked first fire-team leader. Where did this thought come from? Please enlighten, because right now I'm more than baffled.
 * First of all, there is absolutely no need for language like "goddamn". It violates the language policy and has no place here so do watch your language in the future because further instances will not be tolerated.
 * Second you do realize that we do have devconfirmation on another piece of information covering a very high level topic on the suicide mission, which is the Gameinformer article. You do not have that, and even the evidence presented is shaky at best. Your sentence of "Gameinformer may be even the main source of the country's intelligence agency and even that doesn't grant it the patent for truth", shows me something. It shows me that you are willing to dismiss anything and everything if it doesn't help or support you and are willing to trash the reputation of something you don't know or have researched. However as of yet, you have yet to provide a logical, objective, and factual reason for us not to trust the article. Adding to that, Gameinformer's reputation of providing accurate, reliable, and trustworthy information is a lot better than someone posting something on a forum by its very nature, unless they are a dev on what is being discussed. Which in this case is someone who works at BioWare and on Mass Effect. If you are going to make a gaming magazine, and you print a lot of articles that aren't truthful or are full of nonsense information, then you are going to go out of business quickly as no one would read it and word spreads quickly.
 * "And by the way, there is also absolutely no reason to distrust people that rigorously performed 78 tests and posted their results. Is there?" In addition to what I've already said, actually yes there is. There was only one trial done, and usually testing requires multiple trials to confirm information, or at least that’s what every science class since the first grade has taught me. Even if that was done, the information isn't reliable, even if I did it myself. I do not know the person who came up with that well enough to say that they are telling the truth, lying, or even just made the whole thing up. That said, the information isn't sourced and without it, the information will not go into the article. I will not trash their reputation because I do not know how accurate they are/have been, but I will point out problems that could arise if the information is taken as fact, which by its nature in a case such as this, can't be. In addition, I do know is that people can experiment all they want, but if someone comes up with another solution, then what of everything they did? You can hopefully see the issue that entails, which is why we have the standard we do.
 * Also complicating the matter is that you dismiss everything about the squadmate picking order. You have, as of yet, provide a valid and logical reason for us to ignore it apart from "you would expect that a person doing 78 tests would have noticed any irregularities". You do realize that we are all human, and we all miss things. No one is perfect and small things, even large things, especially when it is done continuously for a long stretch of time, can, and sometimes does, get overlooked. I have a few stories about science experiments and acid, wood and nails, and even walking down a hallway, to share, but that's a different matter. We are human, and by our very nature, we can and will overlook things, big and small, or maybe even dismiss them as something that isn't worth noting. Yet that could be a crucial piece of information that gets left out, and there are plenty of examples in history where that can be demonstrated, usually with disastrous results. There are plenty of instances in Mass Effect 2, and even Mass Effect, or any video game for that matter, where picking squadmates/party members in a certain order affects dialogue, their positioning in cutscenes and during gameplay, and even what other NPC do and how they react. The fact is you cannot rule it out, and you have yet to provide a reason to do so anyway. There are many issues that run counter to what you say, and I think you are so focused on trying to get your information in, you are ignoring the problems in your own argument. If something contradicts or complicates your argument, you try and brush it aside or ignore it and redirect focus onto something else.
 * You claim that it is without evidence, yet I can also claim that your entire thing is without evidence. Your source is someone on a forum, who’s reputation no one really knows, and no hard evidence they did the research. On the other hand, the source used is one that can be trusted, has been proven correct in multiple instances, and is a highly reputable source for gaming information and getting interviews with developers of multiple games for exclusives like this. You see the need for this information being devcondirmed, and if a dev said it was the order, then you wouldn't be getting an argument. Yet you don't have it and without it, the information is unconfirmed and will be removed. For the absolute last time, given the nature of the information, devconfirmation is a requirement, not a request given that we have another very critical piece of information that is devconfirmed, the other must be as well. If you want to call that arguing from authority, fine, but the fact remains that the information, given the nature of the it as a critical piece of information on a high value topic, needs to be devconfirmed to make it in. So again the option is to get a dev to say that is the order and that it is correct, or incorrect and provide the real order because as I stated already "I am not going to argue this issue further because the standard will not change given what is already in the article". This will be my absolute last comment on this issue until devconfirmation is provided. I have already stated why it is required, given the nature of the information, what it pertains to, and the standard that is already in the article, and that will not change. Lancer1289 00:05, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Personal experimentation isn't proof. Period. For example, depending upon the order you choose your squad, the dialogue options change. This can be seen easily in both Samara's loyalty mission and Lair of the Shadow Broker, but it can be argued that it is the amount of time spent with each squad member that is the deciding factor and not how they are picked. I could run experiments to prove or disprove one theory or the other to reach a conclusion, and then be completely contradicted when a dev comes out and says that the dialogue spoken there is chosen randomly. Even though I may have proof otherwise, it wouldn't matter; devconfirmation is the standard of proof. If you don't get devconfirmation or information from an excepted media source, you have no proof by the standards of this wiki. That's all there is to it. This has always been site policy and will likely always be site policy.--Captainhu 23:42, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

Css edits
Hey, hope i'm not crowding your Recent Changes with my css edits. I've been a ME player since the first game, but haven't done any edits here. I however visit for information. :) Again sorry if i'm crowding this wikis RC. -- Vatsa Gentek  16:48, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Three edits aren't that bad, and I'd honestly consider 10 still ok. Anything over that starts to get a bit annoying and especially when someone makes 20-odd edits to a page in a very short span of time. Not saying that you did it, but it has been known to happen. The preview button does exist for a reason, but unfortunately some people don't realize it exists. It also happens when there is a particularly active blog, forum page, or talk page. But there isn't much that can be done about that usually. Lancer1289 16:52, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Understandable, but a Css requires a purge to view changes, preview doesn't help much. Anyway, thanks for understanding. -- Vatsa Gentek  17:24, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did know that, but I was referring to the fact that on normal articles there is a preview button, and generally people don't use it. I'm sure we're all guilty of it at some point, but whenever large amounts of edits happen on articles, it's often because they don't use it. Lancer1289 17:27, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Asari assistant
Thanks for helping my edit, i've decided to remove stubs of articles that can not be expanded upon such as the enemies pages, but I have one question, what is the format for the adversary table on enemies that have no powers, i put in a ? for now but I doubt that is what is meant to be used.--Paladin cross 15:53, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Doing something like that isn't difficult and just looking around the wiki at similar pages and using the preview button would have been able to solve that problem. As to the question, or what I think is the question as I have one very long run on sentence here and no question marks to notate a question in the comment above, if there are no talents listed, powers are not in Mass Effect, then that is because no talents are known and it should be left blank. Lancer1289 15:58, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #4
Thank you for the welcome, but my edits aren't "sticking".
 * And you are who exactly? The IP that left this message has never edited here before. Lancer1289 17:56, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #5
Hello, is there a problem with my edit? I had to look all over the web to verify that these are cosmetic changes only. No one else should have to waste their money based on Bioware's description. Please let me know.

Mark
 * Sigh, I guess no one can read my simple message at the top, nor can anyone click the "New Message" button. If you had read my edit summaries then you would have seen that it is unnecessary to have that in the article. There is no reason to add it, or for that matter keep it in the article. Need I also mention that any DLC is optional and that "[n]o one else should have to waste their money" is a highly subjective statement. Lancer1289 19:39, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I have clicked the new button several times, and for some reason it kept bringing me here. Why is this mention of these only being 'cosmetic changes' unnecessary? From Bioware description and the description here in the Wiki, it seems as if it would be adding armor to Grunt, Tali, and Miranda. It does no such thing. The DLC descriptions for add-ons for Shephard's armor does bring stat bonuses. These don't; they are cosmetic changes only. If that isn't said in this Wiki, I don't know where else it should be said. Thanks.
 * The names of the packs say it all, "Alternate Appearance Packs". Nowhere in any description does it state that it adds anything to the characters apart from changing their Appearance, again hence the name. And I'm not even sure how you are getting that impression. We do not need to be redundant here and state things which are already stated. Lancer1289 19:56, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

"... You can start by encasing him in 100 kilos of bullet-resistant plating!...Tali’s envirosuit gets an upgrade, armoring her delicate torso and projecting a heads-up-display on the inside of her visor...Miranda shows her colors with the “do not touch” palette of Cerberus armor.

Mark
 * And this serves what purpose exactly? The red links also don't help. Lancer1289 20:07, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to show that the description describes an upgrade of the armor. I fixed the internal references. Sorry...editing from a PS/2 keyboard using a USB converter that isn't working well.
 * And how does it describe that? I again point to the description of the packs. Alternate APPEARANCE Pack. There is little room for interpretation there or really in the description I might add. Lancer1289 20:49, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that way as an editor, but to me it was not clear, and I had to find the answer "off-wiki."

The first listed external link doesn't work either. And I can't remotely see how that isn't clear. The pack's name describes exactly and precisely what it does.

Mark
 * And I can't remotely see how that isn't clear. The pack's name describes exactly and precisely what it does. Lancer1289 21:14, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

...and the description is misleading. If you can't see how the armor is projected as an upgrade (especially for a brand new user/player that comes here for the final word on ME2), well, thanks for the welcome.
 * I again can't see how anything is misleading given what the name of the pack is. Even if it didn't have that name, I still can't see how it is misleading. Lancer1289 23:08, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, I'm going to try to clarify for him. He's saying that the official description of the Appearance Packs suggest that these paid-for new armors actually upgrade the characters' armors. He then quoted the official descriptions to indicate this suggestion. The key words in his quotations are "bullet-resistant plating", armor "upgrade", and "armor": all being words which suggest a substantial change.

He is then clearly implying that, even though the name has the word "Appearance", nevertheless "appearance" does not, by itself, exclude "substance". Whether it is a "mere appearance" or a "substantial" appearance can be satisfied by a description. In this case, he's pointing out that the description suggests not a merely apparent change, but a substantial change. Frankly, he's clearly correct: his quotes prove his point. -- AnotherRho 02:45, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm still not seeing it, especially added to the fact how armor works in Mass Effect 2. Now if this was Mass Effect, I could definatly see it, but in Mass Effect 2, not as much, even with the descriptions. I can't see it it. They aren't deceving and it doens't belong in the article. Lancer1289 03:37, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Well Lancer, not everyone is as smart as you are; surely there are some players (some of whom are inexperienced in life, let alone the game) out there who will read the descriptions attributing "upgrades" and "bullet-resistant plating" to the "armors" of your squad mates, and they will then think that perhaps these "Appearance Packs" provide these substantial changes (add on the facts that they cost extra money, and that, as you say, there is precedent in the franchise for improving your allies' armors). In fact, we know there are people who are "deceived" by the literal meanings of "bullet-resistant" and "upgrade" into thinking that such improvements are what they're paying for. Regardless, why does your failure to understand how someone could be misled by the literal meanings of such words, justify your heavy-handed edit-undoing? The addition of 3 or 4 words clarifying the DLC was not harmful, and could be helpful. -- AnotherRho 03:57, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not heavy handed, despite what you seem to believe. I merely undid and then the discussion which I don't see as heavy handed. There is no reason to include it in the article and your argument just pushes me further that way. Also where did I say there is precedent for improving your allies' armor? I don't remember saying that anywhere, and there is no precedent to improving your allies' armor with DLC packs. Shepard's armor, yes, but not anyone else's. In addition, here's the description from the BioWare site, "The Alternate Appearance Pack #2 features new outfits for your favorite squad members, including Tali, Miranda, and Grunt." "The Alternate Appearance Pack #1 features new outfits for your favorite squad members, including Garrus, Thane, and Subject Zero." Note the word "outfits". The descriptions are from the Xbox Marketplace as they are more descriptive.
 * Also can you justify your heavy-handed wording. "One regular has recently been in an edit war with a new editor on this issue", "[w]ell Lancer, not everyone is as smart as you are". I was frankly insulted by the second one as it didn't remotely come off as a compliment, rather an insult. It did sound a lot like you were talking down to me. As to the first one, I cannot seem to remember an edit war. A few undoes, than a discussion, but I don't remember an edit war, so classifing it as something it wasn't is extremely misleading and gives an incorrect view of what actually happened. Lancer1289 04:24, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, I've just been reading through this conversation and want you to notice something. When you wrote this

"And I can't remotely see how that isn't clear. The pack's name describes exactly and precisely what it does."

and eventually follow up with this

"I have to say I'm still not seeing it, especially added to the fact how armor works in Mass Effect 2. Now if this was Mass Effect, I could definatly see it, but in Mass Effect 2, not as much, even with the descriptions. I can't see it it. They aren't deceving and it doens't belong in the article.", the new editor you were speaking with might have heard this

"The title is obvious. If you can't see that, you are stupid.  We don't clarify for the stupid here."

I know that's not what you meant, but that is how you sound to me and perhaps, correct me if I'm wrong fellas, to Mark and AnotherRho as well. You may say you can't control how your words are interpreted but in my opinion,you could have certainly made a better effort toward polite respect in this instance. In fact, I would categorize your tone in this thread as borderline condescending, and in that light your indignation towards AnotherRho's comments rings hollow. Keep in mind due to the nature of our limited communication on the internet we sometime have to extend courtesy beyond the norm to be understood properly. If I were the one who had posed this perfectly reasonable question to you, I would have felt disrespected by your response, and on the web as in the real world, you are only entitled to receive the respect you are willing to give.--Captainhu 08:04, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #6
Any particular reason you took out that last bit of triva from the geth armory page?
 * If you had read my edit summary, then you would have seen your answer. Lancer1289 18:48, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

We can do this all day, or you can explain to me the problem.

Weapons Data
Lancer, could you point me to where the developers have confirmed that such-and-such a weapon does X base damage, and fires at Y rounds per minute? --AnotherRho 02:16, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can find them. Lancer1289 02:29, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know where the page is wherein Christina Norman and Eric F. discuss various attributes of the weapons and powers (that's where we get the damage multipliers): namely, [| here].  --AnotherRho 03:12, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

My Talk Page
I've closed the conversation on my talk page. I won't add line breaks or tabs to user comments ever again. I don't see the point of that rule but I don't have to see the point in order to abide by it. If you had just asked, I would have been happy to comply. I still think barking at new users is unnecessary. Brianbreed 13:44, August 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * PS, I'm sorry for losing my temper. Please forgive my rude behavior. Brianbreed 19:40, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, apology accepted. Lancer1289 21:02, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Idle question..
Why 1920 x 1080 instead of the standard 1920 by 1200 that you'd had up? Noticing it's chopping the image when going through and looking at the preview, even after a forced refresh, least on previews and thumbnails. 1080 tends to be for a 1650 by 1080 resolution scaling. Looks a bit messed up in that regard and scaling. Which is weird cause I saw your previous version being the original 1920 x 1200 that's on the main site for ME. o.O--Aryn2382 06:16, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to do with the display resolution and display on a page. Becuase of how images are displayed here, the second one fits not only with more images on the site, it will end up displaying better. As to the preview, it can take several days for the servers to display it properly. Lancer1289 11:57, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yar. I can see that now, it was, well. Buggery strange, hadn't seen it do that before with the cutting off like that. >< Ahwell. Good to know. Hell, noticed my original upload popped in at 1920 by 1080 somehow. XD --Aryn2382 12:00, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Incinerate and Overload Links
Thank you for putting the links on the pages, I forgot how to do them.

Mass Effect 1 Cheats Mods
I was wondering if you knew how to get extra talent points for your squad members in Mass Effect 1. I saw your PC cheats link and it only has a cheat for Shepard to get extra talent points. If you don't know then, do you know anyone who is good at this? Thank you.
 * I'm probably the last person to ask on this subject as I don't mod my games like that and the only reason I use the console is to get access to weapons and armor, and even that is rare. I would suggest asking on the talk page, and it's just Mass Effect. I can't stand people calling it Mass Effect 1 and the same applies to any series. Lancer1289 00:54, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Just Mass Effect then, i'll try the talk page. Thanks.

Blog that needs deleting.
Will you delete this blog for me,[]. Thanks.--Legionwrex 04:51, September 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I beat you to it Lancer. I don't know why I'm up at this hour anyway. :P -- Commdor (Talk) 05:35, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's alright. I fell asleep last night at my computer taking care of something and woke up with Rock Band on my TV. Apparently I forgot to also forgot to shut off my Xbox. Lancer1289 12:27, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Heavy Armor: Vandalism
When I went on the page it hadn't been fixed yet so I changed it back from what some random person left behind. I'm sorry I didn't see your edit but I didn't vandalise the page, honest.
 * Seriously, can no one read the statement I have at the top of my talk page? I ask people to not respond to a message I left on their talk page here. And it was fixed, all vandalism was removed. Lancer1289 14:09, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * It was I who corrected your edit. Just ensure that the next time a situation like this comes up, make sure that the action you're wishing to take is the clear one, as well as ensuring that the content being reverted will lead back to the original text. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 14:11, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #7
you know i am right about the omni-tools so change it back.
 * So where's the proof you are right then? Lancer1289 05:30, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You're not right. Lancer is. Non-physical objects being utilized via advanced technologies to form solid or impermeable objects is a common occurrence in sci-fi. Force fields, anyone? Deflector shields? The Forerunner light bridges in Halo? I could go on, but I think I've made my point. SpartHawg948 05:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Holodecks in Star Trek and how they function. Sorry had to mention that and I want one. Lancer1289 05:35, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good one, too. I mean, in First Contact, Picard killed a guy with holographic bullets. But, since those aren't physical objects, it must not make sense, apparently... :P SpartHawg948 05:38, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Safety Protocols...that's always a love-hate relationship in Star Trek. And I have to say, First Contact is one of my favorite movies. I just wish they made a move around Voyager or DS9. Lancer1289 05:41, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

The difference here is the purpose of omni-tool's as apposed to a bridge.remember that omni-tools function in a way similar to laser alarms or laser keyboards and that with LASER sensors that register what buttons the user wanted to hit to activate a certain actions.Trying to stabbing someone with an omni-tool is like trying to stab someone with light from a FLASH LIGHT.Now i am pretty sure i have made my point,but how about you just go ahead and read the article again. Some guy 9/4/11 1:49 p.m. sorry i dont have a talk page since i dont have an account.
 * Incorrect. An omni-tool serves much more uses than you what you say. It can actually manufacture things, like Tech proximity mines, and convert standard Heavy Weapon ammo for the M-920 Cain. An omni-tool is a multi-use function which has holographic displays and numerous other devices and one of them could be this new feature. So it isn't trying to stab someone with the light from a flashlight, more like trying to stab someone with the blade attached to that flashlight, similar to a Swiss Army Knife and all the things it has. Which in this case, includes a flashlight. An omni-tool is much more than a display, it can again do a lot more than you give it credit. And by not acknowledging that, you are dismissing all of the evidence against you.
 * There are plenty of examples where holograms can kill. For another example, what about the holograms from Dead Money, the Fallout: New Vegas add on. Just because something is a hologram, doesn't mean it can't kill or do damage. Also need I mention that it is BioWare's game and what they say goes. If they say an omni-tool can have a blade, then it can and it doens't have to make sense. Although again, they do have a lot of backup with other scifi TV series, movies, games, and whatnot. So you aren't right in this case, you have a lot of evidence against you, and two pieces which I just presented, blow your theory of how omni-tools work out of the water.
 * Finally, you do have a talk page which is linked to the IP address you are editing from. Lancer1289 06:15, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) You're not giving BioWare the chance to explain omni-blades. We're still six months away from ME3. If ME3 fails to provide any answers, then your criticism may possibly be warranted. As it is, you're making an uninformed assumption that omni-blades are irreconcilable with the ME universe. -- Commdor (Talk) 06:17, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You may actually want to re-read the article yourself. Your interpretation of how omni-tools work is pure speculation not supported by any fact. Your characterization of omni-tools (saying that "Trying to stabbing someone with an omni-tool is like trying to stab someone with light from a FLASH LIGHT") is also dead wrong. In fact, the article itself shows that omni-tools are more than just simple flashlights. Among other things, omni-tools contain "minifacturing" fabrication technology, allowing the wearer to "rapidly assemble small three-dimensional objects from common, reusable industrial plastics, ceramics, and light alloys." This capability, mentioned in the first game, clearly demonstrates that omni-tools are capable of acting in a physical manner and interacting with physical objects. There is literally nothing backing your edit other than speculation. As such, you have yet to make a valid point. SpartHawg948 06:18, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Omni-tools have a hard light construct similar to the Forerunner bridges in Halo, just as Spart said. As they themselves are small super powerful computers that when activated simulate a gauntlet of sorts in which physical interaction can be made. Holograms (and your wildly erroneous "lasers") are soft-light constructs. The interaction with the tool turns them into hard-light constructs. . That's how they are able to be typed on, create fire balls, super cold projectiles, and if you look at the Sentinel class, form armor. As retcon and changes happen often in the ME universe, and the sudden appearance of omni-blades, it is not impossible that this is a new development in omni-tool tech. Also it is not hard for people to misinterpret what a hologram is and that in of itself could explain the previous misconception of what an omni-tool is. Please don't tell the admins they are wrong and please don't tell the community are wrong when no where does it EVER state that omni-tools work like lasers. They are a physical object. I don't see why everyone has a problem with the blades considering it works just like Sentinel Tech Armor.--Xaero Dumort 06:29, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a great point Xaero, what about the Tech Armor huh? I think that will be hard to explain away. Lancer1289 06:35, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

now we are at that strange point where omni-tool's dont make any sense since it says its a plastics and light alloys that can turn into 3dimensional objects which show the same screens you can find in lots of other places and even walk through(mordrins loyalty mission), but apparently there also physical like kinetic barriers.so if we put this all together omni-tools are magic.

Or have an advanced enough projector to regulate between soft and hard light constructs. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp. I also direct you to Clarke's Third Law - Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.--Xaero Dumort 07:05, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

^^No idea what you are trying to say, but in general, no we don't really understand how omni-tools work. If we did, trust me, I'd be wearing one right now. We do know it can modify real materials, manufacture real materials, generate barriers capable of blocking solid material, scan objects, communicate wirelessly with electronic devices, and has a holographic haptic interface. All of these features have been consistent throughout all ME media and are also consistent with the existence of omni-blades.--Captainhu 07:11, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

read it, look at it,and then tell me they actually make sense.since i do realize now im only partially wrong since they use sensors,they are physical,they look like any other screen,there made of platics,light alloys etc.,they can be a physical object yet there a screen which we know are NOT physical objects.what it would seem is omni-tools are the worst written item in the whole m.e. universe and there magic there is no other way that something can defy so many rules at once and not be magic.
 * Except there is no magic, Mass Effect is a fictional universe and what BioWare says happens in that universe happens. You often cannot apply modern science to scifi as there are things that don't make sense if you try that. And once again Xaero brings up another point, just because you don't understand something doesn’t mean that it is magic or, for that matter, you can apply modern science as they are understood to it. It doesn't have to make sense to any of us, if BioWare says it does this, then it does that as it is their universe and they decide what occurs in it. They could make Shepard have the ability to transform into a giant bear if they wanted and not explain it, and despite the fact it makes no sense, it is still there and in that universe it makes sense.
 * Even then omni-tools make sense in what they do and as stated there is evidence to support what they do from other scifi. Even in the Mass Effect universe, there is a lot of evidence to support what omni-tools do and they make sense.
 * The bottom line here is that you are readin gtoo much into the issue. What is this now the third issue in three or four days where people read too much into issues? Lancer1289 07:25, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

really put all of the stuff that it says and that we know by playing the game,then lets see id its not something that contradicts itself.also if it has a kinetic barrier then thats then that makes as much sense as an ipad with a bullet proof screen,but to reiterate kinetic barriers do what now?...that right they stop things from getting through to what there covering so if its a physical screen (kinetic barrier)then 1 it would stop the users finger from using it,2. why would the omni-tools own screen be made out of armor?you have to belive me when i say omni-tools make as much sense as a murdering pretending to be a cop but only to solve crimes.
 * (edit conflict) Quick question: Am I the only one here who, upon reading the unregistered user's comments concerning "magic" (namely "what it would seem is omni-tools are the worst written item in the whole m.e. universe and there magic there is no other way that something can defy so many rules at once and not be magic"), immediately thought of Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law? For those unfamiliar, Clarke's Third Law states that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." That's what it seems like here. The technology is obviously advanced. It's certainly no more advanced than many other aspects of sci-fi tech that we accept, and that some accept as more plausible, and not less (transporters spring to mind), yet here omni-tools are dismissed as magic. They clearly aren't, which leads me to conclude that the anon's last comment is Clarke's Third Law in action. SpartHawg948 07:39, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Silly me... just saw Xaero's comment, so obviously I wasn't the only one reminded of Clarke's Third Law. :P
 * And to the anonymous editor, no one has to believe you. Your last comment was nearly unintelligible, particularly the last sentence. I can't make out the point you're trying to make, and the iPad analogy is just... weird and ill-suited. Maybe rephrase your point? Because right now, I can't make heads nor tails of it. SpartHawg948 07:43, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

ok its not magic it just runs on contradicting computer systems with an abundance of redundant systems and just pointless systems that only make less sense for it to functions at all.
 * What about it is contradictory, and what about it makes no sense? And, for that matter, since when is redundancy a bad thing? In field equipment (and omni-tools are military field equipment), redundancy is a desirable trait. SpartHawg948 07:49, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

no what fuck it im wrong this bioware shit has hit me hard and its 4:12 here and i need sleep thanks for giving me something to do why i listened to smudboy on the jewtube *cough* i mean youtube.
 * Fair enough. Just please mind the language in the future. This wiki does have a policy against profanity and offensive language. SpartHawg948 08:33, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

^^Not only are you guilty of numerous physics fails but your parting shot is a bit of random antisemitism? This wiki attracts all kinds. Not always a good thing.--Captainhu 08:41, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly he also fails to understand how kinetic barriers work in game. Kinetic barriers work on a velocity principle. It's why you can stab someone who has an active kinetic barrier, but can't shoot them. Distance also plays a factor. Please for the love of Buddha, understand the lore before you try to use it to back up your incredibly flawed argument.--Xaero Dumort 08:50, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Along with a few other things that they don't seem to get. I fell asleep after my last comment, so I'm reading what I missed. And after reading everything, I really don’t have a comment as its all been said. Lancer1289 15:50, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

ok im back and it and after checking with more people the omni-tool's codex entry (its the same in both games.)does not say weather its just a screen that can be passed through or a kinetic barrier esque materiel so really the whole omni-tool blade iks just a result of poor writing about what the device is exactly so we are both wrong and right at the same time.
 * Look you are reading to much into the issue. This is a fictional universe where anything can happen. If BioWare says that an omni-tool can have a blade, than it has a blade. Your opinion about whether or not it is poor writing is irrelevant. And anyway, the omni-tool has a lot more support for that than you think, or for that matter, what you are willing to give credit for. We aren't both right and wrong, we are right in the fact that you cannot apply modern anything to a fictional universe, see what I said before about Shepard transforming into a bear, and it's BioWare's universe and what they say goes. What about that don't you get? It doesn't have to make sense. Lancer1289 17:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Really, anonymous editor? Your last comment basically said "There's no evidence for what I said, but it doesn't explicitly confirm what you said either. So I'm going to assume that it means what I want. We're both right and wrong at the same time." To reiterate, there is absolutely nothing suggesting that any part of what you said is correct, other than your repeated assurance that it must be. There is nothing to indicate that this is the result of "poor writing", other than that you keep saying so. As has been demonstrated multiple times by multiple editors, omni-tools have already been shown to be capable of exerting a physical force on objects around them. It has also been demonstrated multiple times by multiple editors that, within the ME universe, there are non-physical objects that, through neither magic nor bad writing, but through technology that can be easily and readily grasped, can have a physical impact on the world around them. The omni-blade appears to be no different than any of these, yet you still persist in making bold and baseless assertions without so much as a shred of evidence. Not one shred. Please, if there's nothing to support this inane theory, just drop it and save everyone some time. SpartHawg948 19:07, September 4, 2011 (UTC)