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.

Page History
This new skin is ridiculous, and hard to understand. I know I'm probably not looking hard enough, but I went to check on an edit on the page about Humans and couldn't even find where to check the page history. Aside from going to the specific user's contributions page, how can I check the history of an edit? --Effectofthemassvariety 17:05, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already took care of the human page, but to check the history of articles, there is this very annoying drop down menu above the text. At the top of the article, just below the article's title, is this think that says "Edited ____ by ____", the ___ are filled with time and person respectively, and after that is an arrow. Hover your mouse over that and you see a small drop down of the latest contributors for the article and at the bottom is "View full history". Click on that to get the full history of the article. You can't do that to user space pages, including sandboxes, which is annoying and ridiculous in my opinion. I've left a message with the staff about it and asked they bring that back as we've had more than a few instances of vandalism on user space pages.
 * And yes the new skin is very annoying to say the least, but we're stuck with it. I'll keep most of my opinions about it to myself as we do have that language policy. However the staff didn't listen to much and they needed to. Lancer1289 17:11, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad you took care of that Human page. Those edits looked like complete speculation, and, if you read them, they don't even make sense. Thanks for the "tutorial." I don't like to complain about something that's not going to change cause it only makes it worse; However I'm not going to ignore the elephant in the room either, you know? Anywho, thanks again. --Effectofthemassvariety 17:29, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 17:30, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Community Thing
Wouldn't you know, I forgot the actual name of the thing I came to talk to you about. It's the thing on the main page. The community board thing... I dunno. Anyways, I was just reading the Community ____ and saw that it said "...drop one a line with one of the admins." I'm sure you can see why I brought it up, but I'll say it anyways: the first 'one' should be deleted so that it says "...drop a line with one of the admins." Just thought I'd bring it up. --Effectofthemassvariety 18:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Community Messages! That's what it is! How did I forget that? --Effectofthemassvariety 18:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's the Community Message, and that has gone unnoticed for about three months now as the last time was back in July. Anyway fixed. Lancer1289 18:53, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags
I would suggest someone (not me, cuz I'm dumb) create a spoil tag for the minor things in the ME Universe. This spoiler tag could be put at the top of any minor stories, or mini comics. That way we have one, but we don't have to continuously make new ones. --Effectofthemassvariety 16:12, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * However we have individual spoiler tags for all current ME books, comics, and games. I don't see why we should have anything different for Mass Effect: Incursion and Mass Effect: Inquisition, which currently don't have ones. I'd say drop a message with Commdor or Dammej and see about spoiler tags for the mini-comics. Creating a general one, to me, seems like just removing some individuality. Precedent says we have individaul tags for everything, and don't see why these two should be any exception. Lancer1289 16:36, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was only suggesting it because inquistion is such a miniature (not in content, but in length) addition, and I forsee other miniature additions to the universe. However an individual tag for these things would really make it feel nicer, so I say we do that. --Effectofthemassvariety 20:30, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already left Commdor a message about it, and he said that he should have something up tomorrow. Lancer1289 20:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Sounds good then. --Effectofthemassvariety 20:35, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Profile picture
How do I change my profile picture? I connected from facebook and I can't change the image!
 * You can change your profile picture under Special:Preferences, or at least that's how it works for me. Not sure about Facebook connect users however. Lancer1289 16:57, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect Spoiler Tag Quote
I noticed that we needed a quote on our Mass Effect spoiler tag, so I thought that I would try and save some work for someone else and add a quote to it myself. I have six selections up. Check them out on my Sandbox, and see if you like any of them. If you have any other quotes, then just say them. I'd like to see this tag up to par with the rest of them. --Effectofthemassvariety 17:02, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I've got a few.
 * "You've lost, you know that" - Saren
 * "You can't just ignore a rogue Spectre. I demand action." - Udina
 * "This mission just got a lot more complicated." - Anderson
 * I have a few more, but I need to check them. However I really like number 3. It really gives the overall view of ME doesn't it. Lancer1289 17:28, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, number 3 was one of my favorites too. It gives the overall view of both the game, and the hole series. I really like your third suggestion. It's kind of similar to the ME2 tag. I'll add these ones up, and we'll see what they look like. --Effectofthemassvariety 17:50, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

So 3 & 9 (The Anderson Quote) are, in my opinion, the best choices so far. I dropped a message with Spart too, so when he comes around he could make some suggestions. Eventually I think that we should eliminate some of the not so good ones and put it to a vote, if a vote seems needed. I have a class to get to in about 40 minutes, and I still have some errands to run, so I'll be leaving for a couple hours, probably. If you have any more suggestions, put them up. --Effectofthemassvariety 18:23, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I feel pretty bad about adding to the confusion. I felt like we were going to just implement one, then I thought, later on, that we should get input, and do a vote. However, since Commdor picked one already, maybe we should let it be(?) I like the quote more than the rest, so... I dunno. Discussion, no discussion, doesn't matter to me. --Effectofthemassvariety 21:25, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm no foul. Anyway I'll get something started later. I'm kind of in and out today. Lancer1289 21:38, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Actually, I started a discussion on Template talk: Spoilers (Mass Effect) so that's fine. It's pretty much a formality at this point, but whatever. --Effectofthemassvariety 21:49, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

File Deletion Request
Lancer, I went ahead and added the Charon Relay screenshot as we discussed (under a more suitable file name). I'm now requesting that you delete two screenshots I uploaded, since (a) neither one is being used, and (b) they have annoying file names. The two files are: [deleted]. If it's not too much trouble. Thanks a lot! -/\-AnotherRho 02:46, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Had to take care of a few things first. Anyway I'll be glad to delete them, and then can you please remove the redlinks that will be left as a result. Thanks. Lancer1289 03:24, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you're the man. --AnotherRho
 * No problem. Happy to help. Lancer1289 03:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Turian Name Trivia
There are a fair amount of pages that give the nomenclature of the various Turian names in the trivia section. I'm wondering if these are really necessary if they aren't relevant to the characters in question. For instance, what does "seven" have to do with General Septimus? It doesn't have any relevance to the character beyond letting you know his name has a Latin root. I'd appreciate knowing your stance so I change tweak my edits accordingly. 71.245.7.251 23:03, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we do have an established pattern with turian, remember no caps, names. Turian culture is based on Roman culture, that's fact not speculation. We do have some patterns when it comes to naming with planets, and since we have that fact about Roman culture, I'd have to say that showing how it has a Latin root is relevant because it shows possbily where the name came from. Lancer1289 23:12, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, I believe it is enough that the turian article makes mention of the Roman connection. Tracing back the etymology every turian's (got it right this time ;)) name just to drive home that connection seems a bit excessive. 71.245.7.251 23:20, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem excessive to me, it merely provides interesting information. Lancer1289 23:25, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying that, since the turian article mentions a link to the Romans, we don't need any mention of the Latin-inspired names is like suggesting that, since the Codex lists what naming conventions the Alliance Navy uses, there is no reason to provide this information in other articles such as the Alliance Navy, SSV Normandy, SSV Hastings, and SSV Iwo Jima articles. The info is relevant to the articles in question, so there is really no reason not to include it. SpartHawg948 00:19, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about those. Oh well yet again I say something then someone else, almost always Spart, comes along and says it much better and with more information. Not that I'm complaining mind you. Lancer1289 02:14, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I am! What's the deal with this new message notification system? It sucks!!! :P SpartHawg948 02:44, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the notification system is very annoying. However as Wikia will say, "get used to it". To which I answer, "Why?" Lancer1289 02:51, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

RE: ME Wiki Spotlight Image
Wow, I hadn't seen/noticed that spotlight until I read your message. That looks nothing like anything from Mass Effect. When you have time, pick out an image you'd like to be used, and I'll pass it on to the person who made the spotlight and request that it be redone. JoePlay ( talk ) 16:03, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * When I talked to the person in charge of spotlights, I found out that a new one had already been made that does use an image from Mass Effect. It's currently showing up and has replaced the skeletons with guns image. It's not the image you linked me to (again, because this new one had already been made), but it looks good and is easily identifiable as ME. JoePlay ( talk ) 19:01, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Heads up
Just a quick heads up, while I'm thinking of it. I'm going to be at a conference tomorrow, and it's pretty much an all-day thing, so I probably won't be on too much. It's scheduled to run from 8am-5pm PST, and while I don't really have to stay the entire day, I think I'm going to, so I really won't be around till evening time. SpartHawg948 22:00, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then, thanks for the heads up and do enjoy the conference. Lancer1289 22:07, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'll try! There's going to be free lunch, so I'll sure as... heck... enjoy that! :P SpartHawg948 23:34, November 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anything free is always a plus. Lancer1289 00:13, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Klendagon & Dragon's Age
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/File:Moon.jpg

Just thought I'd point that out. Tanooki1432 03:44, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * And what of it. I've seen the moon many times during my Dragon Age playthoughs, and while there is some resemblence, again visual comparisons are not enough, and how many times do I have to say that. We need proof and an image isn't enough, in this case or any other. So this is speculaion. Lancer1289 04:14, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
I did not know the information was important what I read semed like random information that an unregistered contributer added. I should have read through it more carefully. It is just that I am used to deleting random stuff that unregistered contributers add and I though that might be it. I will make sure to check more carfully next time to avoid deleting important information on this wiki. Zoso159 Lead me, Follow me, Or get out of my way. 16:52, November 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but do check before removing valid information. Things may work differntly where you edit, but here we do a pretty good job of catching random information. And trust me that isn't random information. Lancer1289 17:03, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

But what about the Gamer Profile section? that was the only part I deleted and it had stuff I never heard of it. It was full of random stuff that is not even in the game. Here is some of the content I deleted:

Gamer profile for Infiltrait0rN7

Galaxy of Fantasy:

Most Used Character: John Smith, Level 612 Ardat-Yakshi Necromancer

Group Affiliation: N/A

Most Recent Boss Defeated: K'l'rh, Rachni Blood Wizard

Awards:

- Best Supporter/Healer (Event: Scourge of the Thresher Dragon)

- Best Unit Efficiency (Event: Return of the Cyber-Protheans)

- Winner (Event: Crystal Genophage Elimination Platinum)
 * No that information is in the game, is accurate, and gained from the Shadow Broker Dossiers. This dossiers are only accessible from the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC pack and only after it is completed. Those articles, like the Codex are copied directly from the game and contain all the information that it did. Also all of the dossiers were transcribed within a day of the Pack being released, and I can assure you that they all have been double checked, probably checked multiple times, and are accurate. Just because you haven't heard of something, or seen it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If you have a question about something, then either ask on the talk page or an admin. Also you didn't leave an edit summary so I assumed it was vandalism because it was removal of valid and accurate information. Again just because you haven't heard or seen something, doesn't mean that is valid, and accurate, information. Lancer1289 21:50, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

You right I should double check before making any edits from now on. Zoso159 Lead me, Follow me, Or get out of my way. 00:03, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see now that there was no harm intended, but double checking, especially when doubt never hurts. Lancer1289 00:07, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Legion page.
Sir, I have discovered that you have found it necessary to revise my revision. I observe that you have cited policy ("we talk first, then change,") but have yourself failed to comply with it. You revision was not pre-empted with a message to me, or the creation of a discussion on the talk page. I do not wish to malign you with any spurious accusations, but this seems most hypocritical to me. I ask that you undo your latest revision and commence discourse on the talk page, which I have already facilitated by creating a pertinent topic. By no means do I intend to spark an edit war over this, but it seems deeply unfair that you see it as your right to revert my edits without discussing them. With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards; faithfully yours so long as this machine is his, TheEnigmaticMan 23:02, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is your job. Any edit can get reverted, then if the person who made the initial edit has a problem with it, then it is their job to bring it up on the talk page. As such I am perfectly within my rights, and it was you that violated policy with the undo before any discussion. Since you have a problem with the undo, which is within policy, it is again your job, not mine, to bring it up on the talk page first, not revert then bring it up. As such, per policy, I will not revert my edit until after a discussion has concluded per the policy regarding this.
 * Also this applies in life. If you did something one way, then someone does it differently, would you then undo what they did, then go and talk to them about it? Well I don't know about you, but everyone I know wouldn't because that is seen as both disrespectful and rude no matter who they are. Whether they be a professor, boss, family member, or a friend. That is the basis of the policy. Lancer1289 23:11, November 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * If that is the site's policy then I apologise for any violation on my part. However, it is obvious that your revision was indiscriminate in that it was universal. It is not grammatically correct to use the word "raising" to describe the motion of Legion's "eyebrows". I can only conclude that you paid little heed to the majority of the edit.
 * Your analogy is incorrect. If I did something differently, and then somebody else undid it all, then I am not at fault; they are. In your analogy, I am the person who has had his work undone. Mine was the addition, not the subtraction.
 * However, I can see that you are resolved and that your mind is set. It is not my place to convince you otherwise, and I am aware of the fact that users with many edits almost always have their way. As such, whatever reason I can muster will shrink away in the face of your cankerous supremacy. While I anticipate your desire to defend yourself, know that I shall make no further revision to the Legion page, regardless of the outcome.
 * If this be a house which tolerates poor grammar, then it is senseless for one to fight it.
 * With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards; faithfully yours so long as this machine is his,
 * TheEnigmaticMan 23:24, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just chirping in, but to be frank, your the one who comes off as pompus. Your simply argueing because you didn't get your way and violated policy. However, I have no room to speak, seeing is I was merely intriuged by this discussion.99.60.184.154 01:16, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well just got back from a concert with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and now to attend to this which I couldn't before I left.
 * Pompous really isn't a word that I would use, arrogant would be a more appropriate term. Your edit gets undone, then you revert the undo, before bringing it up on the talk page. That's against policy. If you have a problem with it, then bring it up before you undo as you said in your edit summary that you were sure we should come to an agreement. Now wouldn't the logical course of action be to bring up a discussion first, before undoing an edit, and one made by an admin at that? And then implement it after the discussion has concluded? Doesn't that make more sense.
 * As to always getting my way, well that usually does happen on wikis because the people who have a lot of edits, generally, note this isn't always the case, know what they are talking about. Being an editor with a lot of edits means, in the grand scheme of things, nothing. Even admins have the same voting power as regular users, however they can break a tie provided they voted. Also I haven't always gotten my way, there are more than a few occasions where I haven't, and yet I didn't argue it or insult others when I lost. I presented my ideas in a calm and orderly fashion, then no matter the decision, I accepted it, again whether I agreed with it or not. As an admin I have to set an example for others to follow and not getting angry over something small, is one of those things.
 * As for the user who "[has] no room to speak", I welcome opinions, whether they agree with me or not. Frankly I've had some fascinating discussions here before and someone coming in, even late to the party, sometimes can catch things that others miss. Or point out a new opinion that also be considered. Lancer1289 05:28, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: For someone who passes himself off as a gentleman, you don't act like it given your comments. Just saying... Lancer1289 05:30, November 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir,
 * If it be the case that my actions contravened local policy, then I can only apologise. You know of my position on that policy, that it be an illogical and ridiculous affair, but the salient issue is that formerly addressed; the violation of said. I can understand your position; in do I stride and in a display of most profound conceit proceed to ignore your laws and the cite them for my own purposes.
 * I feel that the impression I have made here is an inauspicious one to say the least; for that, again most sincere apologies. I can when riled be a most arrogant and detestable beast, wholly impervious to reason or pleading. My behaviour was unpardonable and I can scarcely remember it without abhorrence. As such it is fitting that I plead your gracious pardon, fully sensible of the disparity betwixt said and my deserving of it.
 * You are quite right in condemning my ungentlemanly behaviour, for it was such that it was not befitting my character.
 * With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards; faithfully yours so long as this machine is his,
 * TheEnigmaticMan 01:52, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree with the policy, then it is your right to not like it, but that is no reason to go and break further policies, especially ones on language. Frankly you come across as arrogant with your actions, based on your comments and actions. While it is again your right to dislike policy, I dislike a number of things myself, but that doesn't give me the right to break more of them. And frankly using more formal language to argue your points doesn't win any points with me. When people start talking like that, they come across as arrogant because they think speaking in such formal tones gives them authority over others. While that may not have been your intent, that is what this says to me. Frankly unless I'm in a debate, or giving a more formal speech, I never hear, or speak, any kind of language like that. Using big words and formal English never wins anyone any points with me, no matter the intent. Lancer1289 15:57, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * What miserable drones and fiends has this site nourished that a man might not apologise for actions he has acknowledged to be abhorrent without further chastisement and insult? Not satisfied with forcing me to admit error, you proceed to insult my wordsmanship. Comprehend that my purpose here is not to "score points" with you sir; in fact I knew nothing of you existence until you had already made an enemy of me.
 * By the furies, it seems an act of insurmountable hubris to continue with a patronizing education in local policy rather than to accept a genuine apology.
 * While an apology for my intransigence has already been made, in this I shall tender none. My speech is the product of circumstance and not an affectation designed to impress you. I might as easily take offence at your unwillingness to use formal language when speaking to me, a stranger (indeed, it seems inappropriate to address you as a friend, given our poor rapport and mutual ignorance).
 * With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards; faithfully yours so long as this machine is his.
 * TheEnigmaticMan 17:00, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is the policy to bring something up on a talk page if you have a problem with it as that usually how it works in life. You violated policy, one you have a problem with, and then when informed about it, you then proceed to violate another few clauses of policy.
 * As to insulting your wordmanship, I didn't have that intent but the reason I don't either like or like to use that language, is because it is hard for others to understand who don't know what you are saying. I use the "common tongue", as I think that's how you would call it, because not only do more people understand it, more people can respect someone using it. If you address someone so formally, then the only thing that comes out is usually two things. 1. You, whether you intend it or not, come across as arrogant and even if you are someone with some authority, like myself as an administrator, then you can actually discourage people from editing or from having a productive time here becuase they thing that formal language has to be used all the time, and that isn't the case. The second option, is that the person can respect you, but I've noticed that happens very rarely. Usually people who talk like that come across as both arrogant and superior because they don't talk in terms that you can't understand, or can't understand without thinking about it.
 * I respect anyone addressing me as a friend, whether or not they actually are or they are someone who we haven't seen eye to eye. Actually I'll respect them more because even if they disagree with me constantly, they still address me like someone who wants to resolve something, rather than someone addressing me in a formal tone. When the more formal language comes up, unless it is called for, that usually irritates me because now others who many read the conversation, or choose to come in later, may not understand anything, or everything, which is even worse because it usually leads misunderstandings and then even more words to describe the other words.
 * Also I don't consider you an enemy, there are a few people who I do, but no one who is here now. You claim to be my enemy, yet I don't consider you that.
 * Finally, never did I say that I accepted or rejected your apology. This is the first case where someone apologized, and when I didn't address it directly, they assumed that I didn't accept it. I did, but I assumed that because I didn't address it, you'd assume that I didn't. Seriously this is the first case of this. Lancer1289 19:43, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * As to your blasted policies in all their loathsome abundance, I have in my view broken but one, for which trespass I have made an unaccepted apology. Having read you policy on language, I discovered that "There is some leeway in Talk pages and in discussion between users", regarding obscenities. This is pertinent despite the fact that the word was not contextually offensive. I do not tailor my speech to entertain cretins; if somebody is incapable of comprehending the concept that a word may have more than one meaning, then that is a situation in which he must dwell, not I.
 * I care nothing for what you extrapolate from my speech. I do, however, find such presumption as " the "common tongue", as I think that's how you would call it, " to be shockingly offensive. To compound the matter, I have already stated that my language appears here as it naturally flows; it is not artifice. You have in ignoring this claim branded me a liar. I held some stock of respect for the semblance of courtesy you showed before that. Now it has all but evaporated in the face of so grave and mortifying a slander.
 * You, sir are not my friend, thus I shall not address you as such. Protocol demands that in correspondence betwixt two mutually ignorant parties, formal language must be used. I am not even aware of your name, and you think I would address you as I would my closest comrade? That is something I am not prepared to do. Try to comprehend that in my eyes presuming familiarity with a stranger is an extremely offensive thing to do.
 * You may not consider yourself my enemy, but such is the level of insult that has been directed at me as leaves me no choice but to consider you mine. You have implied that I am a liar; that I am verbose and arrogant. You have refused to address me properly as I have you and still you expect me to consider you a friend. I can only express utter incredulity.
 * As to the apology, do you honestly believe that you can by making no mention of it imply that it has been accepted? As far as I am concerned, it has not been. This only increases the magnitude of insult that I have been forced to endure during this correspondence.
 * With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards; faithfully yours so long as this machine is his,
 * TheEnigmaticMan 22:10, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * See... that's the thing. You have to read all the rules. Not just some of them. if you consult the section entitled "Banning", you will note the following item listed as grounds for banning, no exceptions: "Crude or offensive language". I would also point out that the following: "I do not tailor my speech to entertain cretins;" is itself borderline. You don't call anyone a cretin directly, but the implication is there nonetheless.
 * As for the implication that you are "arrogant", I must confess that, while I tend to try and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and try not to develop strong notions based on very little information, your conduct on this wiki certainly hasn't helped dispel the notion that you may be arrogant. There is only one person who can dispel the notion that you are arrogant, and it isn't Lancer or I. SpartHawg948 22:26, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honorable SpartHawg948,
 * I have quoted one rule in my defense. You have done likewise. Thus far we are equal.
 * I do not use crude language. I use language that accurately describes my sentiments. I do not consider "cretin" to be obscene, and neither do you. If I am mistaken in this, then that seems a rather poor reflection of your maturity. My conduct on this wiki has in my eyes been exemplary, considering the insults I have endured. If I am wrong, I apologise. If I am insulted, I am wounded. When pricked, I bleed and when slandered I defend myself. My language has been nothing other than befitted. I have observed all protocol in my correspondence with Lancer1289 and yourself. To a point this conduct was reciprocated, but seemingly no longer on the part of aforesaid. My statements have been misconstrued, made to be false and my language insulted also.
 * With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards, faithfully yours so long as this machine is to him,
 * TheEnigmaticMan 22:44, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have each quoted one rule in our defense. However, the "Banning" section, it must be pointed out, is the be-all and end-all as far as rules go. If it's listed in banning, that's that. As such, I am afraid that this "equality" you perceive simply does not exist. And it must be pointed out that, in matters of arbitration when it comes to the rules, the ultimate decision lies with site administration. Currently, that would be Lancer, as the only active admin, and myself, as the only site Bureaucrat.
 * You are correct that cretin is not obscene. It is, however, insulting. And "Insulting other users" is also listed as grounds for banning. I for one don't recall insulting you. If I have, please direct me to the offending behavior, and I will of course apologize. Nor have I slandered you. As such, I would appreciate it if maybe you can avoid calling me a cretin, or implying that I am a cretin. That really isn't a big request, is it? To ask you not to insult me? Or anyone? SpartHawg948 22:59, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honorable SpartHawg948,
 * It is a rather ridiculous notion that one rule can by virtue of its position negate another rule which explicitly contradicts it.
 * My references regarded Lancer. Your own behaviour has been exemplary. His has not.
 * I have not called you a cretin, nor have I implied that you were such. I quite simply stated that I speak to people with the presumption that they are intelligent; that I do not treat people like idiots.
 * With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards, faithfully yours so long as this machine is to him,
 * TheEnigmaticMan 23:12, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * One rules does not negate the other, as the Language policy does not explicitly contradict the Banning policy. Your interpretation of the Language policy and what it means is what is overridden by the Banning policy. The exception afforded in the Language policy is for language like that used when you seemingly branded other users cretins. It has since come to light that this was apparently a generalized comment not directed at others. As such, this use of insulting language (as I feel fairly confident that you agree that "cretin" is an insulting term) is protected under the language policy, and you are not eligible to be banned for it. Vulgar language is not protected, as becomes clear if we look at the item in question in its entirety, not one portion taken out of context. "Offensive language, either toward other editors or in articles, is not tolerated. There is some leeway in Talk pages and in discussion between users". Crude language and vulgarity are not protected. SpartHawg948 23:21, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * First as to the language. The bottom line is that there is leeway on talk pages, but that does not' include obscenities. The language we ask for is either “G” rated, as per the MMPA, or not at all. Language with any obscenities has absolutely no place here as it can be taken as offensive, so it is your job to tailor your speech to be acceptable to everyone. Or as you call them, to the cretins, which is offensive no matter how you put it. This is not my view on the word, but the word cretin means: “person considered to be extremely stupid” “a person afflicted with cretinism” which is a condition of severely stunted mental or physical growth, “a stupid, obtuse, or mentally defective person.” That is already borderline offensive, if you had read all of the rules like Spart stated above. Those are clearly covered in the banning section as it does insult other users because you are not calling them educated. As for others interpreting your comments as offensive, take a moment and read your comments from the perspective of an outsider. What may not seem offensive to you, no matter how you use it, it may seem offensive to someone else.
 * ”I have already stated that my language appears here as it naturally flows; it is not artifice.” Where exactly did you say that, because I have read, and reread this conversation and can’t find where you state that. To expand on that, how have I ignored this claim if you ever made it? I haven’t found one instance in which you make this claim so don’t put words in my mouth by saying that I ignored it and subsequently called you a liar. Prove where you stated this and then I’ll retract my statement and apologize, but I can’t find where you did so. I believe this is misinterpretation of my statements.
 * As to the language, I stand by what I said. I really don’t care how people talk to me, but I do indeed despise more formal tones. They are both off-putting for someone entering a conversation, they make the language much harder to understand and by extension the meaning of the words, and usually results in misinterpretations and people having to look up words in order to participate in a discussion. I prefer language that everyone can understand because it makes reading and understanding something much, much easier to understand. I’ve had people who are arguing with me, but use the same type of language that I do, because that is the language you would use in talking with someone when you have a disagreement. Formal tones turn many people off because not many people can understand it without having to read it a number of times.
 * Again how have I implied that you are a liar because I really want to see where I stated this. As to your arrogance, given your actions, I agree with Spart that you have defiantly come off as such. Frankly I hate to use formal tones as it again makes a conversation harder to read and understand. I talk like this when I’m talking to my professors, and yet none of them seem to mind that. I see people who are arguing resorting to more formal tones as a step backwards because then you have to interpret what they are saying, and that can lead to misinterpretations of what is actually being said. I prefer to converse as I would normally because it not only makes things easier to understand, but easier for others who also may have opinions, to jump in. If all they see is formal language, it can be a turn off because they might think they have to talk like that in order to join the conversation. Not exactly the type of thing you want on a wiki were everyone is welcome to edit/contribute.
 * Finally as to the apology, yes that is how is usually happens. I have many, many times where someone apologizes, then I go on without addressing it, and they don’t say a thing about it because they know that I accepted it. Seriously this is the first occasion that I’ve had where I have not directly addressed it and they take it as I didn’t. I stated that I accepted you apology for violating site policy, and if you can’t accept that, then that is on you.
 * Again certain is insulting language and has no place here. Either keep it “G” rated, or it has no place here. Crude language is also again something that falls under the “keep it “G” rated”. If you wouldn’t see it on a children’s show or in a children’s movie, then it has no place here. And I'm certain cretin isn't "G" rated.
 * As you can interpret my comments differently than I would, or someone else., it is easy to misread comments, and therefore intentions. Again I have stated that it was not my intent to befit your language, I said that I don’t like that language and if that somehow insulted you, then I do apologize for that because that wasn’t my intent. Whenever I see this type of language in the normal conversation setting, it is an immediate turn-off for me because not only do I see it has harder for others to understand, but it sometimes gives me a headache because I have to read it carefully in order to understand it correctly.
 * However I again ask you to address what I asked in my second paragraph. I stated that I don’t like formal tones, and then I will respect someone much more for not using them, than someone using them for the reasons that I stated above. Again find where exactly I have offended you on purpose, and I’ll apologize, if I haven’t already. Lancer1289 23:26, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honorable Lancer1289,
 * Regarding your insistence that I have not defended my diction herein, I quote the following; "My speech is the product of circumstance and not an affectation designed to impress you". That is quite unambiguous. A search of the word "affectation" will confirm its location on the page.
 * I believe the above adequately addresses the bulk of your writings. The prevailing issue, however, is that of my use of the word "cretin". If you believe that it equates to a weak supposal of fellow editors' education, then you may have a point. Basic second level education includes a subject known as "English". Every word I have used thus far is part of that venerable language. Therefore anybody of decent education should understand what I write. If they cannot, then I will on request compress my sentiments into such a medium as pleases whomever asked, but I have in writing so formally avoided patronizing the community. If I had entered it believing everybody to be of lesser intelligence to myself, then I would have been arrogant indeed. That I did not is a mark of respect. I fail to see how assuming that everybody here is intelligent can be interpreted as an insult, providing that supposal is correct.
 * I concede the point on rules to you, however. As the site administrator, it is logical to defer to your judgment in such matters. However, I must point out that the phrase "Offensive language, either toward other editors or in articles, is not tolerated. There is some leeway in Talk pages and in discussion between users" is somewhat ambiguous; if the leeway does not refer to offensive language, then to what does it refer?
 * And a brief note on your reaction to my diction. I find your revulsion towards formal language to be a wearisome business. It is your right to dislike it, but your verbosity in expressing that dislike somewhat contradicts your point. In other words, should my language be too good for your liking; "you've made your point so often as to render is obsolete".
 * With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards, faithfully yours so long as this machine is to him,
 * TheEnigmaticMan 17:56, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * So you did state it before, but you used different wording and in a different context. And how you presented it was a little rude considering that I stated quite clearly that I had no idea where you expressed it before.
 * You claim that anyone with a decent education should be able to understand what you write. However that is a lot of speculation on your part. Everyone has a different education and not everyone may have come across those words, or they may not know their meaning, which again leads to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. If you would look at any of the conversations on this site, and I believe I've read most of them, this is the first time I've seen this type of language used. Assuming that everyone is intelligent is not an unreasonable assumption, a very reasonable one actually, but assuming that everyone knows every single word in the English language, then know how to use them appropriately, understand them, know exactly how you use them, and what know what context they are being used in, is very unreasonable. Especially when words are being used that don't come up very often. Guessing how words are used by someone may not know what they mean, or what they mean in the context they are used, frequently leads to misunderstanding or someone misinterpreting what is being said.
 * Cretin is offensive no matter how you use it. In the way you used it offends everyone here because look how you used it. "I do not tailor my speech to entertain cretins; if somebody is incapable of comprehending the concept that a word may have more than one meaning, then that is a situation in which he must dwell, not I." Because they may not understand what exactly you are saying, or maybe what you are saying in context, then they are not as educated as yourself, and as such don't have a decent education or are one of those things I listed in a few definitions of the word I listed above, none of which are positive. Nor are any of the other places that I've looked for a definition of the word. The word is violating the Banning clause of the Community Guidelines. You may not have directly applied to anyone here, but the implication is there as Spart explained earlier.
 * The Language policy about leeway does not apply to words that are considered offensive or crude and something that you wouldn't hear in normal conversation. My interpretation of the leeway applies to words that may accidently come up during arguments, that may be crude/inappropriate like four letter words beginning with "c" and "d" and "s", but it does not exclude anything under the Language or Banning policies, which includes words that insult other users, which is exactly this case with the word "cretin". Words that might accidently slip out during an argument, that wouldn’t normally be heard, is another way I could express this. I know Spart has his own opinion on this, but again anything that isn't "G" rated, isn't appropriate and you will be called on it, and if it continues, then you will face punishments for it.
 * Finally, how does expressing my point on my dislike of formal language contradict my point. I stated in many different ways why I don't like it and I fail to see how expressing them, even multiple times, contradicts my point. It doesn't render my point obsolete, I just expressed why I don't like it and you can read why above. And I don't know where that quote came from, but it wasn't from anywhere on this wiki. Lancer1289 18:46, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honorable Lancer1289,
 * My my, quite the Polonius aren't we? Now, as to your receipt of my rebuttal; it is not in the form promised. I expected no apology, so I am not so shocked as I should be, but the manner in which you reacted to your fallacious declaration (that I had not defended my diction) being rebuked was not becoming of a gentleman. Do you seriously believe that "different wording" is a legitimate defense on your part? As to the context, it is of little relevance. Saying that my diction is "not artifice" equates to it not being "an affectation" regardless of contextual barriers. I credit this mistake to your deploring of prose, of course. I cannot be blamed for presentation; you had professed to having read our discourse in its entirety, so I could not factor your ignorance into my reply (indeed, said was the very effect of the matter).
 * Regardless of the education of others, I have had a rather good one. I do not intend to waste it by speaking in a form so dull, flat and unprofitable as you demand. I make no apology in this regard, nor shall I brook further insult. Videlicet; I am not to be vilified for speaking well. As to "words... that don't come up very often", to what medium are you referring? Do the people no longer read? If not then that is their loss. Guessing what words mean is inexcusable for somebody who is sitting before the world's largest dictionary - the internet.
 * Nobody has yet attested to being incapable of understanding what I say. Thus it is impossible to state that I have implied cretinism on anybody's part. I can only reasonably conclude that you are entertaining a willful ignorance in persisting to accuse me of slandering the community.
 * Your next section leaves me rather confused. If the leeway does not apply to obscenities (videlicet swear words), then what can it possibly apply to? What other forms of language are so prohibited as to warrant leeway? You go on to talk about "words that may accidently come up during arguments, that may be crude/inappropriate like four letter words beginning with "c" and "d" and "s"", but what are those words (excepting carp, duck and sink) besides obscenities? It is a rare thing that a man might contradict himself in the same paragraph (for which adoption; many thanks).
 * You have defeated your point thus: you claim that my verbosity (speaking in terms too long and complex) is your abhorrence, but have said it so many times as to render yourself guilty. Perhaps I should begin to speak in aphorisms and clichés?
 * With all attendant respect and the warmest of regards, faithfully yours so long as this machine is to him,
 * TheEnigmaticMan 19:55, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already explained to you what the "leeway" in question applies to. If you have any confusion about it, I suggest you go back and re-read my answer. It's right here in this very thread, in my post timestamped 23:21, November 15, 2010 (UTC). I can't honestly see why you would keep demanding an explanation for a rule that has already been explained to you right here on this very page, unless your intent is to extract a somewhat different interpretation from Lancer than the one I have given, and to use this to drive a proverbial rail between us or some such, allowing you to declare the rule null and void, and yourself stainless in all this. Unless there is some other reason you want another explanation for the rule that has already been explained? SpartHawg948 21:29, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now you’ve completely lost me because now I have no idea what you are talking about in that first sentence with the relation to Hamlet. Of course it’s been a while since I read it.
 * As to the apology, yes I did say I’d retract, and I didn’t, so I do apologize for that, and for not addressing it.However yes I do believe that different wording and context is a very legit defense. Here is how you used it the first time: “My speech is the product of circumstance and not an affectation designed to impress you.” And the second time: “I have already stated that my language appears here as it naturally flows; it is not artifice.” Now compare those two, specifically the phrases “[m]y speech is the product of circumstance” and “my language appears here as it naturally flows”. Circumstance referred to this specific circumstance, which is this conversation, which you stated clearly that is how we “should” be talking given how we aren’t acquainted. Then you state that your language is not in fact a product of circumstance, but as you talk naturally. Those two don’t mean the same thing, so both wording and context are extremely important. And given how you used the first one, it isn’t that hard, given all of your other comments, to misinterpret that statement and come to the same conclusion. As to your statement about how they mean the same thing, how was I supposed to know that you meant that you speaking like you are means this is how you talk normally from your comments?
 * ”Regardless of the education of others, I have had a rather good one. I do not intend to waste it by speaking in a form so full, flat and unprofitable…” Wow that is rather arrogant isn’t it and now you have insulted my wordmanship by saying that. You stated that you won’t give an apology so I actually can take that as a direct insult. I talk here like I would normally, and saying that I speak in a “dull, flat and unprofitable [form]” again insults me and by unprofitable, I can interpret that as a direct insult the education I’ve received and to all of the teachers and professors that I’ve had over the years. I don’t demand that you talk that way, I merely pointed out why I don’t use those words, and don’t like the wording as it commonly leads to misinterpretations about what words mean in context. I actually had to look up what “videlicet” meant, which leads to my next point.
 * Using words that do not come up very often, that is in books, textbooks, the internet, normal speech, etc. causes people to waste time looking up words, and then if they have multiple definitions, they have to guess how the word is being used and that again leads to misinterpretation. If I’m having a conversation, I don’t want to have to look up words, or carry a dictionary around to understand what is being said. Talking using words that you think or know that your opposite will have to look up, is arrogant. Normal people, or at least anyone I’ve meet, don’t want to have to look up words during a conversation or ask their opposite to explain them. It is excusable if they look up what a word means, and then guess incorrectly on how it is used because they have either never seen it before, or have seen it only a handful of times. I’m pretty sure people still read, but some of the words you have used thus far I have either never seen before, or only a handful of times.
 * As to your third point, you have now actually called me a cretin because I had to look up a word that you used, and then proceed to guess how it is used. You stated that you will not tone down your words and that anyone should be able to understand what you are saying, and then if they do not, then they at fault for having a lack of education and if they don’t know how they are used, then they are also at fault for having a lack of education. By saying that you won’t tailor your speech to entertain cretins then you are insulting anyone, i.e. calling them a cretin, who has to look up a word you use, or guess what a word mean in the context in which it is used. I’m almost certain that others reading this have had to look up words, and then guess how they are used, so you called them cretins as well. While many of the definitions are similar, similar =/= the same.
 * As to the language, I thought I was clear, but I guess not. Obscenities are not permitted, unless it is a direct quote like we have on Jack’s page. People have been banned for using obscenities on talk pages before, and I’m positive it will happen again. I did not contradict myself, you are putting words in my mouth that I did, which is very insulting I might add. I had no idea that you would have guess wrong about what words I meant as carp, duck, and sink aren’t inappropriate/crude in any way. You know perfectly well what three words I’m talking about, and if you don’t, then perhaps I actually need to break the policy and list them. The policy is that if it isn’t “G” rated by the MPAA, then it isn’t allowed. Obscenities are not permitted as they aren’t “G” rated, and frankly they have no place in conversation and again by my interpretation is those aren’t covered by the “leeway” policy. Words like the ones I linked earlier are what I considered covered, as I hear those words slip during arguments, but the bottom line is that obscenities are not permitted on talk pages as they are crude/inappropriate language. Again I didn’t contradict myself, I stated quite clearly what I said, but apparently I wasn’t clear enough.
 * Finally how do I render myself guilty? This is something I’d like to know. Lancer1289 22:04, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Mass Effect Galaxy
Mass Effect Galaxy is part of the Mass Effect series. Being a spin-off doesn't change this. It's not a part of the trilogy, but it is as much a part of the series as are the books and comics. It is, after all, listed in the Series footer template, and under the Mass Effect Series tab on the navigation menu. Denying that it is part of the series is equivalent to saying that both the Nav Bar and the Series footer, as well as many other items on this wiki, are flat-out wrong. SpartHawg948 23:39, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that does have a point, but I was looking at it from the perspecitve of the main series. However after reading your edit summary and looking through the history, Jacob was only listed for about 11 minutes before it was removed by Teugene on April 16. Now I might have missed something, but that is the only instance I could find where Jacob was listed. Lancer1289 00:43, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it's been listed elsewhere. May have been the Jacob page, where it also seems to have been removed. Regardless, it's valid information, and valid information should not be judged on the basis of how long it was in the article before being erroneously removed. Additionally, there really is no such thing as the "main series". There's the series, and then there is the trilogy, which is part of the series. "Main series" is a concept that really doesn't exist here, which is why we have a series template with a subsection for the "Main Trilogy", and not a series template and a "Main Series" template or some such. SpartHawg948 00:50, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to judge the information based on how long it was there, I was just saying that I saw your edit summary, looked thorugh the history, and that was the only point where I saw it listed on Joker's page. It may have been on Jacob's page as well, and judging by thi I might have removed that as well. However you do have a point, it is still part of the series. However again, I just commented on your edit summary, not harm intended. 00:54, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Title
Obviously, you contribute a lot to this wiki, but you don't own it and you aren't right 100% of the time. If I experience something during gameplay and report it and you decide to start an undo war for your power trip, that is immature.
 * No and see your talk page for a response. Bugs are tricky things and you aren't always right 100% of the time. Lancer1289 03:26, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Skepsis Trivia
Please explain why you deleted my trivia entry from the page of the Skepsis system. Deteugma 03:43, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because: A) It's already there, and B) It's already there in the proper location. That'd be my guess, anyways. SpartHawg948 03:46, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) Now that I've had it happen, I hate the new edit conflict notification system. Now back to the matter at hand. +   +
 * First because that is not now we handle trivia for System pages, see the MoS on system pages for that. Second, because we already have it mentioned in the appropiate place. Lancer1289 03:51, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The etymology that's there currently is pretty poor: it doesn't mean "thought" and can't be plural. Deteugma 03:48, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

"Skepsi" (Σκέψη) isn't a Greek worda, and the letter eta (η) is never transcribed with the letter i. Deteugma 03:50, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * After an admittedly cursory examination, I can find at least one institute of higher learning (The University of Kent, in the United Kingdom), which would disagree. SpartHawg948 03:52, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And this isn't the place to argue this. May I recommend the Talk:Skepsis page where this is more appropiate. Please.
 * And to Spart's comment, nice discovery. Lancer1289 03:54, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ditto for Professor Paul Cartledge, the A.G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture at Cambridge, if his book I Symvoli tis Arhkaias Spartis stin Politiki Skepsi kai Praktiki (The Contribution of Ancient Sparta to Political Thought and Practice) is any indicator. SpartHawg948 03:55, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

RE: The Asari/Culture revision
Hi Lancer1289, my memory failed me and I deleted a relevant encounter on the Citadel with a similar one that occurs on Illium. Though they are similar, I re-inserted the one I deleted and added the second feeling that it captures an emotional aspect of the topic not cited. Thanks, I have been using wikias for a long time, it will be fun to contribute more!

MASHDEFECT
 * Yeah the only thing I have is that we don't need to list everything, especially dialogue. We really don't encourage dialogue in articles, unless it is necessary, and I really don't think that it belonged there. As to the second example, that was really an outright guess. I quote: "The salarian is obviously insecure and saddened about being 35 (the life-span of his species averages around 40) and having a seemingly immortal wife and child." That is what we call an opinion, do you know for an absolute fact that the salarian is insecure or saddened? He may be depressed or just talking a look back on his short life. As to the second bit, after the parenthesis, that is also an opinionated statement. Neither of those really have a place in the articles as they are presented from an encyclopedic POV. As for the stuff inside the parenthesis, that really didn't have a lot of relevance in the article. Lancer1289 06:33, November 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I agreed with your edit, I'm not vain. That encounter on Illium is quite depressing. A youtube capture has comments that state that it made allot of people tear up. I've been looking at the work you've put into all of this; it is much appreciated. I'll keep the editing guidelines in mind going forward. Thanks. MASHDEFECT 06:44, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, any other questions, don't hesitate to ask. Lancer1289 06:45, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Neural Shock from ME talents in the Tech article
Hi Lancer, I removed Neural Shock because my understanding of the ME section of the Tech article was that it was a list of talent "trees", not of the powers that you get from investing in the talent trees. Since Neural Shock is the Medicine-derived power, it seemed inappropriate to list it there. Please let me know if I've misunderstood anything. Rtl42 07:01, November 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well considering what is on the page, and the Neural Shock link goes to the Power for ME2, it does seem kind of inappropiate to list it on that page. Also none of the other abilities like Shield Boost or Overload are listed, and when looking at it a second time, it either needs to be all or nothing, and listing the trees is more appropiate. Looks like I need to do some adjustments. Lancer1289 13:35, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
Lancer I recieved your message and I read the manualand it was not in violation due to the fact that one of the key examples in the manual talked about spelling it armor and armour in the same article being wrong. I chose to change armour to armor to keep consistency with the manual.
 * The problem is that they weren't in the same sentence and the example in the manual does not apply to this situation. The situation described is one where it specifically says "Human Armor", which uses American spelling, and saying armor in general. This is not the case here, it was referring to armor in general, so armor and armour are both acceptable. Also since you wanted to discuss it, you should have responded on your page, rather than leave me a message, in the wrong section and not using the "Leave Message" feature. Lancer1289 03:22, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

CDN
Looks like FridgeRaider forgot to do the next CDN, so I took the opportunity to improvise and attempt to redeem my good name. After fiddling with my TV's brightness and contrast settings, I got it to where I could recognize most of the words in the CDN; the result of that is the above transcript (I have literally nothing else to do right now). However, unfamiliar words, specifically the name of the quarian captain in the report, remained unreadable. I'm giving you what I transcribed so that you can double-check it and add the quarian's name to it. If it's correct, it'll save you a few minutes of manual copying. And I'm going back to my apartment on Sunday for sure, so things should be back to normal then. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:49, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry catching up from what I missed. I just got back from a concert by the TSO and my hearing is still a little off, and probably will be for a while. I'll get to it in about 10 minutes so double check. Oh and take a guess who the TSO is. Lancer1289 06:06, November 27, 2010 (UTC)