User talk:JakePT

Archive Template
Since I saw you experimenting with the archive template, I was wondering if you just copied the code directly from the Archive-box template and if you did, can I assume that you are trying to get it to work? Lancer1289 09:07, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Kinda, just trying to get it to look right, then if anyone likes, I'll fix whatever I break. JakePT 09:09, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the Archive box on my talk page where it is divided up with the two archives I maintain with some additional parameters. I initally considered using that format divided by bullet points, but I figured I should use dates so people know which archive is which. Fell free to take a look. Lancer1289 09:19, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
Were the quote from Christina Norman from a verifiable source, it would be acceptable. It isn't. It's from Twitter, which is no more acceptable than Facebook. If you wish the info to be re-added, please locate a better source. SpartHawg948 22:23, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why isn't a verifiable source? 1up seems to think it is. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3178497 Also, her account on the old official Mass Effect forums identifies it as her account. http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=683748&forum=144 (about half way down).JakePT 22:28, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * See, providing all the information would have been nice before just going off and undoing edits and calling it the most ridiculous thing I'd ever done. I'm still pretty wary of accepting Twitter though. I don't suppose there's any way of asking her to do what she has done in the past, and comment on it on the wiki instead of Twitter? SpartHawg948 22:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't think it was controversial. I just assumed there wasn't much doubt it was her (hence the 'ridiculous' comments etc.). I'll be upfront more in the future. JakePT 22:33, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was pretty unclear. After all, my entire point (which I stated more then once) was that the problem with Twitter was lack of independent verification. A simple presentation of the official forum post would have cleared that all up. It's much easier to see the big picture when you have all the information, after all. SpartHawg948 22:37, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Table Changes
Just out of curiousity, when was this overhaul agreed to? I'm all for consistency, but things like this need to be discussed first before anything is done. Personally I liked what was on the Submachine Guns and Heavy Pistols page compared to the tables, but that's my opinion. Again I'm really curioius when theis was agreed to becuase the SMGs and Heavy Pistols had one thing, while Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, and Shotguns had a competely different thing, so when was the discusssion about where a uniform table was agreed to and what would be in it? Lancer1289 15:36, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have been debating whether or not to revert it becuase while the information added was consistent, the table imo looks worse becuase you have smaller text and I'm absolutly certain that people would have liked to weigh in on this first. Major changes need to be discussed before implementation, as with any project. Lancer1289 15:58, August 5, 2010 (UTC)