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.

Citadel Assassins
I'm on a ME playthrough right now, in order to add infoboxes and grab a few achievements, and I made a point this time of talking to Barla Von and then going directly to Chora's Den. Guess who I ran into. If you've consistently not encountered them after speaking to Von, I'm not sure how I'm doing this. Arbiter099 18:31, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just did the same thing earlier today, went and talked to Barla, then went to Chora's den and nothing. Lancer1289 20:18, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * It might have something to do with recruiting Wrex first. I remember my first ever playthrough, I talked to Barla Von, but then talked to Harkin and recruited Garrus before recruiting Wrex. I did run into the Assassins. Tali&#39;s no.1 fan 20:25, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

write
thany how about you write it becuses it seem no one wants me to write anything at all bicuses of my work !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i don't quite inderstand what you are saying
 * See your talk page and respond there, per the message at the top of my talk page. Lancer1289 22:19, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

do it
than how about you write it and get all the credit while i get thron in a garbge truck for life

goodbye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--Deadmansspace147 22:26, May 7, 2011 (UTC) P.S. Go to thes sites there vary good : [] = american mcgee alice wikia

[] = american mcgee alice wikia
 * See your talk page as much as I hate doing this. Lancer1289 22:43, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

tell me what to write
if you are still consrnern about this howe about you give me more ideas about what to write, because every time i write something it allows get deleted.
 * If you would post your information/stories in the appropriate venues, i.e. blogs posts, forums, your user page, then it wouldn't get deleted. As for ideas, this is your project, so it's your thing and I have other things I need to worry about. Lancer1289 01:57, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

who made you kung
do you realy think that you can tell what t put on there web page or whatever you call, maby i show telll every one not to trust you at all.
 * And maybe you should read the Community Guidelines which state and I quote "any video uploaded to the site will be deleted". It's right there in the Guidelines. Just look for yourself. Lancer1289 01:32, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Also I guess a simple request of responding on your talk page is apparently not possible, which is what I ask at the top of my talk page and on yours as well. I stated that I don't like cross page conversations and for people who which to discuss something I left on their talk page to discuss it there and not here. Lancer1289 01:34, May 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) Lancer is enforcing the site policies as an admin. Other wikis may allow videos to be uploaded, but not this wiki. If I or another admin aside from Lancer had been available at the time when you uploaded your videos, we would have deleted them too. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:39, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Considering it is right there in the Guidelines, I really don't see what is so hard to understand. Lancer1289 01:43, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I note that nobody has answered your question yet. The answer is: I DID. I made Lancer an admin (not a "kung" though). If you'd like to discuss this decision with me, do so on my talk page. Thanks, SpartHawg948 05:33, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well technically Spart is the King (as Bureaucrat), and Lancer's the Regent (as he edits quite a bit more than Spart on a daily basis). Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:30, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Krogan Regeneration/immunity
For infobox purposes, is krogan regeneration before they die considered an ability? I've always thought of it as immunity. Or is it both that they regen their health and then activate immunity? Clearing this up would help me a lot. Arbiter099 17:41, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would probably have to say that is an ability and should be noted. Immunity is something separate and while both activate at the same time, I don't recall Immunity reviving someone when used by anyone else. Even krogan. Lancer1289 18:11, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * This was my suspicion, most krogan will activate both, but Fist's bouncer just regenerated without Immunity and it put the question in my brain. Thanks. Arbiter099 18:14, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

New background
Lancer, have you heard anything else about getting the new wiki background set up? Just wondering. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:10, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did say if I heard something, then I would post it, however I may contact JoePlay again later about it. Lancer1289 01:17, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's a problem with the coding's compatibility with the wiki program. It possibly loads correctly, but something in the Wiki's code may prevent the new background from being updated. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 02:52, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I'll contact JoePlay about it. Let's not specuate what could or couldn't be the problem here as I don't need that conversation on my talk page. Lancer1289 02:55, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you tried inputting the actual code to add the background to the wiki in the actual MediaWiki CSS page? From my experience, it's a lot more effective than using the Theme Designer if that's what you - or whoever tried to apply the background - used. Samsoniussig.png  (Talk)   (Requests)  03:24, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

sorry
this cerburas news is just for you and a few others i got mas at :

== King Tutankhamun exhibit to visit Serrice == Wednesday, May 11th, 2011 After a long negotiation process with the Confederacy of North Africa, the Galactic history museum of Serrice will be exhibiting the best example of the ancient Egyptian civilization of Earth. The exhibit will run for two (Earth Standard) months and will include the bust of Nefertiti, a replica of the burial chamber, and the burial mask of King Tut himself. Belana Torei, head of the museum, had this to say: “We are very honored to finally be allowed to showcase this wonderful example of human history in our home.” The opening ceremony will be attended by many VIPs including Matriarch Denlaya and CNA President Atef Sedki. This will be the first time the exhibit has ever left it’s home planet.
 * And I have to ask why is this here? I really don't need this on my talk page as I can go to the site myself and read it myself. I really don't need this on my talk page. Lancer1289 22:00, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

hard work
i worked so hared on finding thos videos and you delted them, this is what people do to me thay make funn of my work and destroy it just like you just did.
 * I am not making fun of your work, I'm enforcing site policy, which you continually ignore, despite I don't know how many messages. We don't allow non-canon information in articles, we don't permit videos, and we don't permit any depictions of Shepard, except in specific, and listed, circumstances. I would seriously suggest that you read the Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style and the Mass Effect Wiki:Community Guidelines as there are several things in there that you have continually ignored and been reminded about several times. If you keep violating site policy like you do, then it will lead to further action. Lancer1289 22:19, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

??????????????????
what do you mean by The Real Lancer?
 * Seriously? I left an answer and why can't you keep a conversation on one page. See User talk:Commdor for my answer as it hasn't changed and I couldn't have been more explicit. Lancer1289 20:35, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

answers
1. i am only trying to help this site

2 is it okay to uplod videos to my peronal page?
 * See your talk page as I will not have a cross page conversation. Lancer1289 20:29, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

so i can only upload videos to my user page but not on the artical  all of you have writen, i that it
 * Again see your talk page as the answer is there as this is incorrect. Lancer1289 20:33, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Aiya! This is getting crazy here! I'll spell it out briefly, try to help. NO you cannot upload videos for use anywhere. Not in articles, and not on your user page. You can, however, embed videos on your user page. This way, you still get the videos, but they aren't uploaded. It's a win-win. SpartHawg948 20:37, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Undoing edit
I'm not sure why you undid my edit? I was just killing the redirecting links. I know it wasn't the most necessary of edits, but was there another reason? I'm really new to this wiki though... I want to edit but I don't know where to start. does the wiki have a todo list? Or is there any coding work that I could do (navboxes, infoboxes etc-my expertise)?--Technobliterator 22:31, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is because you did add unnecessary aliases to the article, which are unnecessary. Everything you modified already goes to the correct articles, and we don't need aliases that do the exact same thing, just with more code. It is just unnecessary. There are cases where it is, but in those kind of links, it just isn't. If you do look around, we don't have those types of links, and if we do, when they are discovered, they are quickly removed. Mass Effect Fields accomplishes the exact same thing as mass effect fields, and just unnecessary. If we don't need unnecessary code in an article, then we don't do it. The MediaWiki code is smart enough to recognize the first as accomplishing the second and making adjustments for capitalization. So instead of ignoring that, we just use it to accomplish the same thing with less code.
 * As to a to do list, there really isn't one as really the only thing we need to keep on top of is new Mass Effect 3 information. The only real to do list is the Clean up category.
 * As to coding, there also really isn't anything that isn't already done. There really much I can offer on that point apart from look around, see if anything is missing, or if anything doesn’t conform to the MoS, and fix it. I really can't pull anything else off the top of my head. If you have any more questions, then please ask. Lancer1289 22:41, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am aware of what you described, I have worked on multiple wikis before, it's just that mass effect fields will link the reader to a redirect. It's just my perfectionism really. I don't think redirect "Mass effect field" to "Mass Effect Field" is necessary, not currently. If I searched "mass effect field" in the search engine, it'd take me straight to Mass Effect Field, if it weren't for that redirect. You could perhaps test this out to confirm it? As deleting redirects is a tedious edit, you could probably get a bot to do that (I have one, or you could ask for wikia staff).
 * I'll check out the articles requiring cleanup, but one thing I've noticed with coding; correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see navboxes or infoboxes on the wiki. An example is my own work here- my work on another wiki (I created the infoboxes and filled them in, as well as created the navbox). If you're interested, I could help out with adding that to the wiki, and each of the wiki's pages? As well as the edit with form thing? Besdes this, I'm impressed; the wikis I am admin at and edit at nearly always have stubs and missing information.--Technobliterator 22:56, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * We do utilize navboxes and infoboxes. We do keep our infoboxes brief (see Saren Arterius for an example) - this is by design. As for navboxes, we have many. See Mass Effect for the series navbox, Garrus Vakarian for some of the character ones, M-490 Blackstorm for weapons and downloadable content navboxes, etc. As for the ones you linked, honestly, I found it a bit disorienting. It was (in my opinion, I'm sure you feel differently) a garish eyesore that caused quite a case of information overload. I mean, the entire intro to the article is wedged into a tiny little space between two infoboxes at the top. There's barely room for more than two or three words per line. SpartHawg948 23:07, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed we do have infoboxes and navboxes and a few examples of the navs have been pointed out. But we also utilize infoboxes on weapon pages, see the Blackstorm page above, enemy pages (Blue Suns Trooper), armor pages (N7 Armor), and you could argue armor and weapon page from ME (Hahne-Kedar). We do have them, but we tend to keep them in the background.
 * As to your work, I'm also trying not to offend, but that just isn't feasible or IMO practical. There is just way to much information squashed when it can be fleshed out in more eye appealing ways, which is what we do currently. That info box is nice, but that wouldn't work for something here or for that matter something that I would want to see here. It crowds the information and distracts from the article's content.
 * As to the links, again it really just isn't necessary when it already does the work for us. We have redirects for multiple reasons, and as stated every one that you modified on that page is not something we have a redirect for, or at least I don't think so, but rather one that the MediaWiki software does for us. We generally don't delete redirects unless they really don't serve a purpose and frankly those are ones that are somewhat used often, that is if they are actual redirects and not ones that the MediaWiki software does for us. And now I quote a phrase that has worked well here, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Lancer1289 00:00, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call. I forgot about those infoboxes. Funny story though... it appears that one of our favorite detractors is keeping tabs on our dear wiki. Soon after this exchange began, Technobliterator (love the user name, btw) received a message informing him that this wiki is the wrong one because "the admins there are unreasonable, self-sentric, self-righteous hypocrites" and because we are apparently more fond of our policies than we are of Mass Effect itself, which is odd. I mean, if we cared about policies, wouldn't we start our own wiki where we could hand out admin positions to our friends like candy and handwrite the policies, rather than working our way up through the ranks to the top positions, and using democratic processes to determine policy? Anywho, this does seem to indicate a new low. First, they refuse to speak to us despite numerous attempts at outreach, to the point that I've agreed to host all discussions here on my talk page, and one of our Senior Editors has even gone there to try and talk. They do this because they claim we are unwilling to talk to them. Now they actively resort to poaching. Poor guys... Anywho, I hope Technobliterator stays with us, as he seems genuinely interested in improving the wiki, but I won't stoop to Zulu's level. People can make their own decisions. There's no need to go snooping around looking for people to poach, or warring for editors on their talk pages. SpartHawg948 00:09, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow I really don't know what to say about that. I'm am still willing, and always have been to work out this issue and I did ask if there are any more questions, which I'd be happy to answer. I'd also be happy to take suggestions about things and hopefully explain what we do here and why we do it that way. That is why I'm here.
 * As to the message, that is indeed a new low, and if that is where he's going, then all that wiki will be is just a bunch of messages and no real work will get done unless we do it here first, and then they just copy it. If they have to resort to poaching, then that just shows how desperate he is to keep his wiki open and people adding content. Lancer1289 00:16, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh don't you worry about him, I've dealt with many people who are exactly the same on my own wiki; just kids who shouldn't even be editing 'oh wow you deleted my page i dont care if we already have one i will smash your wiki!!!!'. Yeah I see what you mean squashing two infoboxes right next to each other, that isn't something that normally happens. As for keeping them brief, that's why my designs are collapsible navboxes and infoboxes. Sorry but I didn't notice these infoboxes or navboxes, as there are so few. Perhaps I can create a couple more? Also here would possibly be a better example of my work- this one. There's actually a lot of complex work (especially on taxonomy, and 'edit with form'). But yeah I'd really like to help you guys out. BTW I know my name is Technobliterator... but I'm female ;) My brother was the original creator of the account. As for the links I edited? They all did have redirects, otherwise I wouldn't have edited. Yeah I see what you mean in that it was pointless, but I'm a bit of a perfectionist.--Technobliterator 09:01, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You're correct though that we have relatively few infoboxes and whatnot, and most of the ones we do have are brief (although I do think the infoboxes for enemies, such as the Blue Suns Centurion, are pretty sweet-looking). As for more infoboxes, did you have anything in particular you were thinking of creating some for? I'm not saying yes or no, just that (and perhaps this is just a lack of imagination on my part) I can't really see anything that needs it at present. If there is something you think would work though, I'm all ears. If you have some specific ideas, or if you get some 'prototypes' ready or whatever, I'd also recommend starting a new thread on the Projects Forum. SpartHawg948 09:18, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed if there is something that appears to be misssing, then just whip something up and the community will give input on it. That's generally how things work with the project forum. If something can be improved, then I'm all all ears as well. Lancer1289 17:23, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Rogue AI
Where in the game does additional dialog unlock if you complete this side quest? I've only been able to find one mention which I was able to get without doing the sidequest, which is why I removed it. It would've been a lot more helpful if you were more specific instead of just saying that "dialog happens".--24.255.171.169 20:15, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is additional dialogue during the initial boarding of the Normandy and during later conversations with Miranda. This information has been confirmed multiple times by different people and is why the information is valid, correct, and stays in the article. Lancer1289 20:17, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, just to be sure, I played up to EDI's first appearance without importing a save, and like I thought, Miranda still mentions Hannibal if you order EDI shut down.

I wasn't sure, so I posted a topic on the talk page of SFT, asking for confirmation. Several months pass by and I check it again, and no one answered. So, as far as I've been able to find out, the information is incorrect and I remove it. To be polite, I post an edit summary, and it's my hope that if I am incorrect, the person who puts it back in will at least offer an additional explanation. That didn't happen. So I ask you where the information is, and instead of giving me a source, because it's sure as hell not on the talk page of either Save File Transer or on the Rogue AI talk page, you pretty much just tell me to shut up believe anything you tell me. Is this how you treat everyone who wants to edit the wiki?--24.255.171.169 21:02, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * ^Pretty much. SlayerEGO1342 21:10, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Seriously is the language and false accusations necessary? I never told you to shut up so don't put words in my mouth as that is just flat out rude.
 * Just because something is posted on a talk page doesn't always mean it will get a response. Sometimes topics are ignored because the facts are present, or they are simply overlooked. Posting something on a talk page and not getting a response is not justification for removing information, not in the slightest. Since you are arguing for the removal of information, it is on you to provide the validation for its removal. There is additional dialogue apart from that one instance and again it is on you to provide the validation and justification for removal.
 * And no this isn't how we treat everyone, but I reply in a calm manner to a comment, then you in this case, proceed to put false accusations in my mouth, along with breaking our langauge policy, that isn't exactly the mature and proper way to go about it, is it? If you wish to continue this conversation, then please do so in a mature manner as I've been nothing but polite to you, and I expect the same in return.
 * And SlayerEGO, I again find it odd, and very suspicious, that you show up at this very instance and you also need to get your facts straight, because they aren't. Lancer1289 21:15, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * You find it suspicious that I chose to come home at 2 in the afternoon and go on the internet? SlayerEGO1342 21:26, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * No I find it suspicious that you just showed up at this very moment to make a comment that only served to inflame a situation and that can be proven as false. Lancer1289 21:36, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't suspicious. I agree with the wikia contributor. For someone who incessantly undoes edits for lacking "base", it's very hypocritical of you to not provide evidence for your actions. Why not just give the editor the information he's asking for instead of hiding behind "site policy" (or whatever justification you're about to give me)? SlayerEGO1342 21:39, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * You commented on this thread minutes after the unregistered user, and both of you clearly don't like Lancer. I'm not saying you're directly linked with the unregistered user or that I'm of the same mind as Lancer in this case, but I can see Lancer's reasoning. Alternating between an account and an IP is a fairly common tactic to try and discredit other users. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:44, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't he just see that my IP address isn't the same? SlayerEGO1342 21:45, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Except that is the point. Site policy says that someone wishing a change to the article, whether it be to add information, or remove it, must provide evidence to support their claims or nothing is done, i.e. the status quo is kept. It isn't hypocritical, it is perfectly in site with site policy and I can site numerous examples of this. The evidence in this case must come from him, as the only thing I can provide is non specific evidence as I don't currently have an import without playing that assignment. I do have however, had a number of conversations with people on this issue and they have stated that there is some dialogue that is different if a save either isn't imported, or this assignment isn't completed.
 * And if this is going in the direction that it is continuing to go in, then this debate will end up going nowhere. And it also serves to distract from the point of the conversation.
 * And No I don't have the ability to see your IP address. Lancer1289 21:48, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually just re-read the beginning of this thread, and I can honestly say I have no idea why the OP made his second comment. Seems to me like your first response was the information he was asking for. Huh. SlayerEGO1342 21:51, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) @SlayerEGO - Nope. That's the CheckUser right, which admins don't have. The circumstances under which CheckUser can be requested are also restricted. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:56, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Interesting, I never really looked at that. Sometimes a second set of eyes does help. Anyway I think he was also looking for evidence in the form of a video or something, but I also seem to recall something else. Somewhat different dialogue with EDI during one of the conversations in the cockpit, and after the Collector Ambush. Those I'm a bit more sketchy about, but I do know that one of the dialogue options after the Collector Ambush is different. Slight difference, but enough. Lancer1289 21:58, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Vandal
This guy just broke the Language policy --Legionwrex 22:50, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I got it. Lancer1289 23:22, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

User colours
I noticed you were trying out user specific colours and it didn't work. It is because wikia did not insert a "title" subtag in the HTML. All you need to do is to adjust the CSS a little. Instead of using a[title="User:SpartHawg948"]', try a[href="/wiki/User:SpartHawg948"]. See the difference? — Teugene (Talk) 03:26, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually what I was trying to do was make it appear on a different page. The results of Forum:User Colors on Recent Changes is already working and has been for a few days now. Lancer1289 03:30, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * It has eh? Because I don't see any thing changed from here. :/ — Teugene (Talk) 03:36, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I haven't had any complains and it seems to be working for everyone else so I'm not sure what your situation is regarding it. Lancer1289 03:40, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're referring to the user colours on the Recent Pages or the Forums? It's not showing any thing different for Chrome and Firefox. By using the browser source debugging, I see no visible CSS user colour implementation in either pages. — Teugene (Talk) 03:48, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just went on Chrome and Firefox and I saw that everything is the exact same as if I'm on IE. I see the color differences so I'm thinking this problem is isolated to you. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but at the same time I was logged out and I still saw it. Lancer1289 03:55, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can also see the colors on Firefox. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's really odd. You see, I checked with all the browsers I have installed (Chrome, FF, IE, Opera), logged in or otherwise, and I also checked from my mobile. I see no specific colour changes anywhere. — Teugene (Talk) 04:22, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it has to be something that is wrong with your computer or something. On a hunch I tried copy pasting your CSS code into mine, and I have to say I'm not liking that, and I still saw the colors. Lancer1289 04:29, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I have to get back home and have a look again. I don't recall seeing anything last night and it can't be a coincidence if it's not visible on more than 2 devices. — Teugene (Talk) 05:21, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say I would classify that as a coincidence, but you have to admit, it is odd. Lancer1289 05:24, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I tested the same as above at home and... nada. There's nothing different. — Teugene (Talk) 17:40, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I have no explanation except that it is something that you are going. Lancer1289 17:44, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

212.219.207.42
This IP seems to be on a recent spate of vandalism. (Sorry, I don't speak Teddie dance. User:THOMASNATOR)) 09:55, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm not sure what that second part was supposed to say, but it was dealt with by another admin. Lancer1289 16:49, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Blogs
It's strange, but whenever I click on a blog, it always appears out of date. Comments are missing, and even the "Recent Changes" box will show old changes that have long fallen off the list. I'll see that someone has added a comment to the blog, but when I click on it, the page appears old. Any reason for this? I use Chrome, by the way. Tanooki1432 00:28, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure but is this every time or only recently because every blog I've clicked on recently has been up do date? Lancer1289 00:36, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it might be something with Chrome... I've tested it on another browser and it worked just fine. Tanooki1432 00:37, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I'm on IE almost all the time and only seems to glitch like that when everyone else is having a problem. Personally if Chrome was better I'd use it, but currently there are some things IE does that Chrome doesn't yet. Lancer1289 00:43, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I've had this problem before as well, and I use Firefox. Hasn't happened in a while though. Nobody knows why this happens? Arbington 00:52, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems to have that answer. Cache updating seems to be the common explanation however. Lancer1289 01:23, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Want to hear something funny? I've only been having this problem since the New Look was implemented. Wasn't that just Wikia's greatest move ever? Heh. Arbington 03:11, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we all have our complains about it, and mine are quite numerous. They should have gone about that the correct way, i.e. listening to people, and oh I don't know, actually doing something about it. They are still getting complains about the fixed width. But that is an interesting notion...hmm questions. Lancer1289 03:17, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler confusion
Hi Lancer, you undid one of my edits about Chief Weyrloc Guld for spoilers (Revision as of 07:27, May 24, 2011). I rewrote the third paragraph of that article and moved it above the spoiler tag, thinking it would be ok. What is it about that paragraph that makes it a spoiler? I'm a little confused there. --CasualGamer 09:08, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * First the edit removed some information that was relevant. There was also information in there that is only learned over the course of the game, so it is spoiler information. In addition, there was a restatement of the exact same information in there. Lancer1289 14:43, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
Dear Sir or Madam, Your kind greetings are well received and reciprocated. Would I be correct to suppose that you are the site's resident paladin and champion? That is to say, the greater part of the recent edits were made by you, and your name appears on a great many talk pages. Regards, I,   E   • Wouldst thou speak? 00:47, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the greeting is just an automaited message system keyed to the last admin/b'crat/staff member who edited. As to the site's paladin/champion, I can't say I've been called that, but I'm one of the admins here. Lancer1289
 * Dear Sir or Madam,
 * I suspected as much. It seemed rather odd to be thanked for a contribution to a talk page, but I know of no such system on Wikipedia (we have a welcoming committee), so I thought it best to thank you.
 * Regards,
 * I,   E   • Wouldst thou speak? 00:55, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * It does it for anything actually. Uploading a picture, main article edit, talk page edit, etc. And you don't have to the "Dear Sir or Madam" every new message, we aren't nearly that formal here. Lancer1289 00:57, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * My dear Sir or Madam,
 * The greeting that precedes the body of my correspondence, while felicitous, also makes it much easier for me to discern where the messages to and fro end and begin. I find it can be mildly irritating to construe the origin of large bodies of indistinguishable text.
 * Regards,
 * I,   E   • Wouldst thou speak? 01:06, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Lancer1289 01:09, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * Well, I'm sorry I have so evidently wasted your time. Forgive my intrusion; it was kindly meant.
 * Regards,
 * I,   E   • Wouldst thou speak? 01:14, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't wasted my time and I do know the intent. I just tried to communityate that we aren't that formal here, but if that is something that you do, then that's fine, but I'm just saying you will find a lot of talk pages where people don't do that and where you will get large bodies of text. Nothing more. Lancer1289 01:16, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir,
 * Je vois.
 * Regards,
 * I,   E   • Wouldst thou speak? 01:25, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Commander Shepard
Lancer, you are now engaging in an edit war. Even admins must abide by the rules of this wiki and community. As yourself have said, if you disagree with an edit, take it to the talk page. Training and proficiency are different things, as documented on several pages of this wiki. It's obvious that someone else felt the need for documentation, and while I agree that their terminology wasn't quite right, it is correct to differentiate between the two levels of weapon skills in relation to the class abilities. In short, if you have a problem with the edit, take it to the talk page. --Snicker 23:14, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite examples of the "several pages of this wiki"? I'll happily try and sort this mess out, but I need to know what precedent you're citing, not just that unnamed "several pages" back this up. SpartHawg948 23:19, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No actually it is not an edit war yet, and the fault would be on you as you are changing the page, not me. You have again brought this on yourself. If you have a problem with an undo, then it is not my responsibility to take it to the talk page, rather it is you since you are advocating the change. And since you would have gone three times with another undo, the fault would be on you, not me. So I will state it again just for clarity, if you have a problem with an undo, then it is up to you to take it to the talk page, not me. If you had one another undo, then you, not me, would have been edit warring. So please do get your facts straight on this issue.
 * As to the issue, in that context they mean the exact same thing. If you look at any other page, i.e. Soldier, Engineer, Adept, Infiltrator, and Vanguard, training and proficiency are interchanged, only on the Sentinel page is different for whatever reason. Hence why the page is worded the way it is. The page is currently worded accurately and there is no need to change it. Lancer1289 23:22, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Lancer, I didn't want to invoke the "three strikes" rule, which is why I stopped, but to answer SpartHawg, if you'll look, every class except Sentinel uses the phrase "specialist training" relating to the weapons that they may train in. The game manual has similar terminology, using the phrase "can train with" on the weapons page, in regards to what classes can train in what weapons. Only the Sentinel wiki page here on the Mass Effect wiki uses the term "proficient" to indicate that they get any bonuses to pistol at all. As near as I can tell, the word does not appear anywhere in the game, nor the game manual (nor even anywhere else in the wiki), but it is a good word to indicate that the Sentinel is not completely impotent with the pistol (they do get some bonuses, after all - just no advanced training). I saw the word on the Sentinel page and thought it described the circumstances far better than some long drawn out explanation of how they don't get training, but get some minor bonuses.

Perhaps it would be better to go back to the original edit by the anonymous user, which states that they don't get any training at all, since that would be accurate per the game manual and the game itself?

Lancer, I know you're an admin here, and I see all the good work you do, but once in a while, you might want to stop editing every single other user's edit and just consider for a moment if the person was editing in good faith. Just because you don't agree with something does not make it wrong. I assume that code of conduct does also apply to admins, otherwise, we can just stop this discussion, and I'll be happy to leave. If it does, however, I would recommend using the talk page more often and fewer snarky comments. More flies with honey than vinegar, and all that.

I appreciate the quality of this wiki, and want to see it continue to get better, but I don't want to continue getting into flamewars with you. --Snicker 00:29, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * First note that I do consider every edit, I don't just undo randomly or because I don't like it. We do have sort of rule that if something says the same thing, then by definition it is unnecessary rewording, and in that context, in the terminology it is used, then it is saying the same thing. Going back to the original edit files in the face of canon information. Using that edit, it states that Sentinels don't receive training in anything, and can't use any weapon effectively. Which, as we all know, is completely false. The current wording is fine and there is no need to change it.
 * And yes the rules apply to use as well, but again, I do consider every edit, and I don't just undo because I like to. At the same time, and for the third time I'm stating it on this page, and in this very thread for that matter, if someone has a problem with an undo, it is their job to take it to the talk page, not the person who makes the undo. That is how things work here, not restoring the edit, and then taking it to the talk page. If there is a problem with the undo, then it is the job of the person who has a problem with the undo to take it to the talk page, not the person who makes the undo. It is also not proper to undo the undo and then ask for discussion because that it not how things work here. I'm more than willing to talk things out, but when the rules aren't followed, then I can't really discuss anything can I? Lancer1289 01:00, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Just my two cents here, and sticking strictly to the issue of the wording: Consistency is obviously a good thing, and I'm all for it whenever possible. It's possible here. The issue then becomes a matter of training vs proficiency, and here it seems that proficiency (and proficient) is the superior choice. Using the term training implies that it is possible to train into something you don't already have training in. And this is misleading. Garrus can't, for example, train into using heavy weapons, nor can a soldier train into using SMGs. As such, I do think that Snicker's edit was justified. As such, I intend to put on my B-Crat hat and get that change taken care of. If there is still disagreement as to this decision, any and all who disagree can bring it back up for discussion on the relevant talk page, and we'll get it squared away there. SpartHawg948 04:02, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

What did I do?
I don't remember putting anything offensive down on that page. I was on that page I'll admit but the most offensive word that I can think of that I said was "crap" and that's basically the only word I said that could be even remotely offensive. And I didn't even say crap in an offensive way, so please tell me why I should look at the language policy.
 * I'm also somewhat confused. I can't find anything violating site policy in RiftJargon's last comment. In fact, I find it uproariously entertaining. Crap, as far as I know, has not been deemed unacceptable. Even per the G-Rating from the MPAA that we tend to use as a bench-mark, crap is perfectly fine. SpartHawg948 20:37, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever then, just forget it. Although there are about 20 different ways that could have been phrased. Lancer1289 20:40, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Vanguard guide edits
Hello. I did some edits to the Vanguard guide from IP 91.123.31.24 (didn't bother logging in at the time) and noticed your later revisions. Point about preserving the content taken; however, there's still a lot of useless info which I'm going to clean up. Just so you know. It horrified me when I read this guide before doing a Vanguard playthrough, and now I've got a perspective to improve the article. I hope we won't engage in a conflict over this. Mitranim 18:09, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note, there is a wall of text to follow.
 * Yeah, the problem is on each section I left edit summaries as to what I did. The SMG section was fine as is, there was no need to spread out a decent paragraph into three, extremely small ones. You literally cut swaths of valuable and relevant information from the Heavy Pistols section that amounted to a good paragraph. Barrier, some things good others bad, no real complains there. And finally the Warp Ammo section went from being neutral, to extremely biased. Remember that not everyone plays like you do and while "recommended" is a good term, "highly recommended" is exceptionally biased. The guides are to be written from a neutral perspective where relevant information about using the power, and relevant strategies are to be presented, from multiple different viewpoints. Rewriting/deleting swaths of information because you didn't find it relevant isn't really a good idea as while something presented may not have worked for you, it may work for someone else.
 * The biggest problems were the Warp Ammo and Heavy Pistols sections, and I'll discuss the former first. You completely removed the statement about evolving Jack's Warp Ammo to max, and I honestly can't see why that was removed. That could be extremely relevant to someone who wants the power, but doesn't want to have it as a bonus power. I also don't see why the sentence starting with "On the other hand" was removed either. There was a lot of information that was good, but at the same time, valuable and good alternatives were completely removed from the section. Again the purpose of the guides is to present all the powers, some good bonus ones, and from a somewhat neutral perspective. Obviously we can't be entirely neutral, but it is nice to try. Also the words "highly recommended" were also something that really added a lot of bias to the power, especially when a viable and good alternate strategy for getting it was completely removed.
 * As to the Heavy Pistol Section, again you just completely removed swaths of information, and honestly from the other edits, it looks like you removed information that you didn't find valuable. Again not a good idea. An entire section about armor damage was removed and I’m still trying to figure out why you did that. Without the Kasumi DLC pack, you don't get the Locust, so the information is still relevant as neither the Tempest or the Shuriken do any damage against armor . Again the majority of the information that you deleted seemed to be things that either you didn't like, or that didn't work for you. Again, that is just what it appears to be. What may not have worked for you, could work for someone else, or there is relevant information there.
 * I will again say that these guides have to as neutral as possible and present a lot of information. What may not work for you or what may not be relevant to you, may work or be relevant to someone else. Information there doesn't get added piecemeal, and you are free to add additional information, but again deleting huge swaths of information, you removed over 9,000 bytes from the article actually, isn't really good thing especially when you try to rewrite based solely on your experiences. We don't support guides like "Vanguard Guide by (insert name here)", and if you feel that you have to create one, then you are free to do so in the Forums or in a blog post, but rewriting the guide to reflect just one person's experience just doesn't work very well as information that others could find relevant, or strategies that work for them could just be outright deleted because either you didn't try them, you didn't like them, they didn't work for you, or any number of reasons. Again we can't be perfectly neutral, but we do have to present the most neutral perspective as possible and include all information and strategies that could work. Something you did words for you, great add it, but don't delete information that is there based solely on the fact that you didn't find it relevant or (insert reason here).
 * You stated above that there is a lot of useless info, and while I may just reiterate what was in my last paragraph, I feel that I have to. The information may be useless/irrelevant/whatever to you, but to someone else who comes here, they may find it relevant/useful/whatever. Again these guides have to present a neutral perspective describing how best to use the power/talent/weapon system/weapon, not based solely on one person's experience. If you have something that worked for you, then add it, but again, just because something didn't work for you, or you find information to be "useless", doesn't mean that someone else won't find it useful. Again, based on what you did, it seems that you "rewrote" it to reflect only your experiences, or what you found useful, and anything that you didn't, you removed. Information is usually put into those guides when it has been useful and we have to try and reflect all of that, why do you think the Charge section of that article is so long? Information is there because someone found it relevant and added it, and just because it didn't work for you, or you find the information "useless", I actually can't find one useless fact in that guide, doesn't mean it should be deleted. They are general guides, if you want to write a guide based on your experiences with the class, then I have given you the proper locations to do that. And just to say this, if it is created in the mainspace, then it will be deleted instantly as mainspace misuse per that clause in the Community Guidelines.
 * I know that was a wall of text to read, and was probably one of my longest response ever, but if you have any questions, just ask and I'll try to answer them as best I can. And hopefully not with a wall of text. Lancer1289 20:25, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

New User
Hi Lancer, just wanted to say hi and thank you for the great work on this page. I've been providing minor help anonymously for a couple of years now around Wikia (Fallout:3, NV; ME1,2), but just got this account today. I wanted to apologize for deleting a portion of the Arrival (assignment) page. Thanks for the quick un-ban (if that was you, or Wikia if that was them)! I was confused about the two sections "Sneaking In" and "Guns Blazing" and thought they were repetitive, much of the two sections were copy/pasted verbatim. I have since edited the page with a short primer that Sneaking In and Guns Blazing represents branching paths the player may take instead of a linear plot/guide like the rest of the page. Thanks for understanding!

Also, I wrote one of the first Insanity Vanguard guides a while back when the game first came out. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/944907-mass-effect-2/53386345, you are free to use it as you see fit if it helps the wiki.

Best, --ADWCTA 00:30, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't lifted that ban, I don't intend to, and I'm considering banning you right now for a similar time period. You removed mass content from the article, and I didn't see a justification behind it. For now I will not ban you but what happened was completely unacceptable and I would advise you to not do it again.
 * Also the edit has been removed, and frankly I would have removed it myself as it was completely unnecessary. Of course both sections are similar, because they cover the same thing with, in all honesty, a few small differences. Lancer1289 02:00, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

New Picture
oh im sorry,I didn't notice but anyways... i don't know if this been discuss about but I think we should update the main character (squad members ME 123 )and Shepard because they look like the present version(like garuss face).Alterman09 23:27 June ,6 2011
 * (edit conflict) Seriously is it that hard to leave a new message? The above conversation has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation and I ask people the top of my talk page to leave a new message if it is a new conversation, has nothing to do with another conversation, and not to edit the whole page. I really am puzzled why this keeps happening. This just makes it so much easier to not only respond to conversations in a timely manner, but to archive them.
 * As to the point itself, I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are talking about the images at the top of the various character pages in the templates, then that is an outright no. If you are talking about other images, we are trying to update as fast as new data comes out. Changing the images at the top qualify as spoilers and because of that, they cannot be changed. New images are to be in the appropriate sections. Lancer1289 03:31, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Language
Yep, just got caught in the momment. Lately I've been able to refrain myself though.--BriNg iN DeR FLAmeS?! 21:07, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is still no excuse though. Just keep it on the DL. Lancer1289 21:09, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't making an excuse.--BriNg iN DeR FLAmeS?! 21:31, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Still though, keep it down as you will more than likely not get another warning. Lancer1289 22:05, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Notability policy?
A minor, identified character is still an identified character. Unless there is some notability policy on the wiki that prevents Williams' inclusion, why remove factual information from a website that claims to be a comprehensive Wiki? SinisterSamurai 21:59, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except he is such a minor character, the fact you destroyed a redirect to make an article, and it would have more than likely been deleted/turned back into a redirect. There are plenty of things that don't have article because of such a minor plot role, they appear once, or any number of reasons. That one, fell right in the definition, extremely minor, if negligible role. Lancer1289 22:02, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * So then there is a notability policy that prevents the wiki from being complete and comprehensive? As for the redirect function: The For template still allows navigation to Ashley Williams. Alternately, the article could be moved to a descriptor page, IE: Williams (Project Guard). I can see how such a page may not be popular or interesting to a great number of people, but I don't see how it's damaging to a point that it should be removed entirely. SinisterSamurai 22:10, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with it, then take it up on Talk:Williams. If the article had stayed, then it would have more than likely been turned back into a redirect as the person has such a small plot role that it isn't notable and better left mentioned in the Arrival (assignment) article. Lancer1289 22:13, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lancer. "Williams" isn't even identified as such on his health bar, he's just another Project Guard. At most, this is worthy of a trivia mention on the Project Guard article. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:16, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, that is another option. Lancer1289 22:18, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Flashbang Shield Drain
I would simply like to draw your attention to the Talk:Flashbang Grenade page. Tali&#39;s no.1 fan 15:34, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 and melee combat.
That is why I wrote the ME2 guide and began playing with melee builds in ME2. The Aegis Pack to me seemed like a way for them to ease players into melee in ME3, of course it was only a theory at the time, but now its been verified. Mass Effect 3 will have a significantly larger role for melee combat, I probably don't have to post the links for you. Its in the ME3 cover issue of GameInformer magazine if by some odd happening you missed it. If I can afford ME3 when it comes out I will write up a gameplay article on the subject of melee. I still have not played ME1 at all though, so I can't really show the evolution of melee from ME1 > ME2, just ME2 > ME3. Mictlantecuhtli 13:53, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Verified how exactly? Do you have a dev confirmation that your theory has been verified because without it, it is still a theory. We do know that melee combat will play a larger role, but as of now, we don't know how big of a role and larger is vague to say the least. Until we know exactly how large of a role melee combat will play, I would have to say a melee guide would be out of the question, with that kind of information belongs in the class guides as it will probably be specific to classes. Lancer1289 15:31, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Vague but it implies more than what ME2 has, you're right on it being part of class articles though. Since it was mentioned each class has its own form of melee attack. There's also no guarantee that melee will be as effective as it was in ME2 if they put much thought into it, as the same damage versus shields/barriers/armor as health was what made it a bit overpowered and useful on any difficulty in ME2. Mictlantecuhtli 10:15, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again we'll just have to see about it as right now, we really don't have much to go on on the moment. Lancer1289 14:54, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Reapers N' Stuff
Hey Lancer. I just wanted to apologize for my rude behavior the other day. And to also say that I have further proof of the enormous beetle-like mechanical laser shooting beings in the new ME3 game to actually be ground-maneuvering Reapers. Video link can be found here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t8qq35tVH0 You can hear Shepard referring to the creature as a "live Reaper". I would like to ask permission to edit the article to provide this information. Yes? No? Maybe so?... --Shplah!!! 23:58, June 10, 2011 (UTC)Clockwork
 * I would have to say wait for now. Granted it did look like it would be part of the game, but with Mass Effect, there were things of Caleston, and that never made it into the final game. Also we don't know if that is a Reaper from the invasion fleet, or something that was constructed afterward. Lancer1289 00:50, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess we could wait a little longer. Maybe we could put it in the trivia section as a possibility for now. I don't see how they could construct a Reaper so quickly and without using genetic lifeforms. All present Reapers in the game I believe are from the fleet. I think they are able to travel through space with a detachable propulsion system on their back. Like how Sovereign's hologram was smaller than his full form because the hologram only showed his main body. Its just a theory I have but I believe it may be correct. Once on the planet, they drop the excess weight and begin their walk, cleaning the planet of all organic life using their lasers. Oh God I'm blabbering again. Well, that's all for now I guess. Thanks for your time! --Shplah!!! 02:12, June 11, 2011 (UTC)Clockwork
 * Except now both of use are speculating, and it is just better that we wait for something official, i.e. probably the game to be released or a dev. Theories, speculation, or anything of the like doesn't have a place in articles. Lancer1289 02:22, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Dude don't worry. I know the difference between speculation and confirmed info. I even said that it was my personal belief. What isn't is that the Reapers are the giant walking beetles.--Shplah!!! 17:22, June 11, 2011 (UTC)Clockwork

Racism
I Was reading the articles when I looked at that wikia answers section a wikia user has posted questions such as why are black people not in their rightful place as slaves its in the ME answers thing I thought you would want too know its disgusting http://masseffect.answers.wikia.com/wiki/Why_aren%27t_black_people_in_their_rightful_place_as_slaves_any_more.--DC 00:55, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok the Answers site is not affiliated with this wiki, granted we cover the same content, but we have no control over what happens there and we cannot do things there that we can here. The admins here are responsible for the Wiki, not the answers site. I would suggest that you contact the admins there, or the staff, to resolve the situation. Lancer1289 00:57, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you ill inform them I did see the content on this site though so doesnt that mean the user placed the stuff on here as well it is surely a bannable offence because racism was on this site even if it was posted on answers? who are the admins on wikia answers by the way I've not visited the site?.
 * I already stated that that wiki is no way affiliated with ours. Again we cover the same content, but admins here are not admins there, guidelines here may not apply there. I don't know what their standards are, and we can't do anything about it. I don't know the admins there, but I would suggest finding out who are the admins there and report them as again, the admins here can't do anything about it. We can't ban someone there, nor can we ban them here for something they haven't done here as our standards and guidelines only apply here. Lancer1289 01:09, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

So if im understanding you right you cant ban or report them because even though the content appears on Mass effect Wikia itself, it was posted on another unaffiliated site and therfore doesnt break any of the ME wiki guidlines which you have to follow and therefore it is mass effect answers who have too carry out any action against them? I cant find an admin on answers site ill just let them know on the actual wikia place instead thank you for the help.--DC 01:21, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * First the content doesn’t appear here, because if there was vandalism here, it would have been dealt with quickly and efficiently. The Mass Effect Wikia Answers site is a completely separate site from this one, and for the third time, while we cover the same content, they aren't affiliated with us. Very little about site operations is the same from here to there, guidelines, standards, admins, among other things, aren't the same. They are the ones to whom you should be reporting this, not here as again we can't to anything about it here.
 * As to reporting it, since you are the one who discovered it, and since you know who it was, what it was, and what happened, you should be the one reporting it as you can give specifics. On th other hand if I report it, I can only say, there was questionable content at this site but I don't know the specifics of it though. Lancer1289 01:26, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

It does appear here in the same way that green lantern advertisement or the wikis recent contributions does it is as clear as day in the recent questions section that appears bottom right on this site I was not on or had any intention on being on mass effect answers when I saw it I was on this site and this site alone it may not of being placed here originally thats not what im saying if it had being in a article I could of simply removed it im saying it appears here when im browsing this sites content, thats why I reported to you I didnt know what the protocol was with the answers section and I believed that it was this sites responseability to deal with it. After discovering that was wrong & why I needed help in what do too I just feel their should be punishment for writing such offensive and disgusting stuff.

I didnt ask you too report it I was originally informing you of it (when I thought ME wiki had too remove it). I just havn't any idea who answers admins staff etc our thats why im going to the actual wikia wikia so too speak the one where you apply to be an admin and so forth. Anyway thanks for your help on this.--86.176.176.128 01:53, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except those images are ads for other wikis, frequently changing, all of them cover other content, and are only associated with us through Wikia, which is the hosting site for all of us. The same applies to the answers sites. Each wiki is separate of every other one, and problems on that wiki should be reported to either the admins there, or to the Wikia staff as there is usually nothing that can be done by admins on a site with what is basically an ad. Lancer1289 02:04, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Kalee Sanders page in need of update
I was looking over the David Anderson article and decided to take a look at the article concerning Kahlee Sanders, specifically the content of Retribution. The issue is that the article is in need of an update, as the book has come out some time ago. I have never read the novel, furthermore I am unfamiliar with the templates that are used on this wiki (plus I don't have the time to edit like I used to on other wikis). Instead, I thought it would be best to bring this to your attention. Balitant 05:30, June 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh, something else that slipped through the cracks. I can take care of that tomorrow. -- Commdor (Talk) 06:03, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I haven't read Retribution lately so that would be a good option. Lancer1289 14:32, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

The Illusive Man / Trivia
You might wanna look up what a trivium (not "a trivia", lol) is. best regards, some unregistered guy. --91.15.164.30 15:39, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I ask the question, how is that trivia? The only thing that connects the trivia is a name, and by our definition of trivia, that isn't trivia. So I don't need to look up anything, it is in fact you who needs to look up what our standards of trivia are. Lancer1289 15:43, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

James Vega Talk Page - Class Section
I wanted to remove the entire section to clean up the page since my paragraphs were speculative and yours was simply a response to mine. It makes no sense for me to leave your post intact as I remove mine (because in turn you are now responding to a nonexistent post), but nonetheless I have done just that. I urge you to remove the entire section from the talk page because it's just unnecessary clutter that can hinder the flow of the entire page. I don't see why I couldn't just do that for you and save everyone a lot of time and headache, but alas I don't run this wiki. Mapex 16:11, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict due to signature) I should point out that I can't do that as there is a comment that is left there by you, so I can't remove that as it is against the Community Guidelines. Not even admins can remove comments from talk pages unless they are obvious vandalism, or they are their own comments. If you want the section removed, then remove your comment, the header, and then I can remove mine. I cannot remove a comment left by other user if it is not obvious vandalism as it is against site policy to do so. Lancer1289 16:15, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish you had said that the first time; we could have handled this situation with much more tact. I've removed everything from that section except your post. Your post will now be found as a child of the previous section. Mapex 16:26, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * And the first time I'm assuming was on the talk page, but usually that message is enough to end the conversation. We rarely get people who remove comments, normally they are just left there anyway. Lancer1289 16:38, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Whoa
Have been here, noticed Lancer's talk page is the fourth most crowded page on Wikia? What the :) Mitranim 19:31, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * And that doesn't update very often. Lancer1289 19:33, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Two Things.
Hey Lancer, I would like to bring up two issues to you, in a civil, adult manner. Now, those issues are Kasumi and Geth. I'm more concerned about Kasumi than the Geth, but still.

Kasumi: I noticed a source for Kasumi in the ME3 article. But, you undid that edit and told the guy to find a source in text. Why? It's still a source. Did you not feel like watching the entire video? I did. I watched the whole thing, and the developer states that Kasumi - as well as any character that meant something to you (squad members) - will reappear in ME3. That is valid, and I don't see why you undid that when the source was good.

Geth Trooper: I don't care as much about this as I do on the Kasumi thing, but I was on the Xbox Live Marketplace a few minutes ago. Guess what I saw? An image of Shepard fighting a Geth Trooper. I deemed that a good source, but I couldn't find out how to bring a source on the Xbox onto the computer. So, I used the video as a source. Apparently, we need more info, but the video shows Shepard firing a Warp at a Geth Trooper. It looks a LOT like a Geth, and if you pause the video at the right moment, you see the flashlight head.

LordDeathRay 20:21, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll back lordDeathRay up on the geth matter. I have seen 2 videos that show shepard fighting geth troopers.--Legionwrex 20:25, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I did watch the entire video and I couldn't find a mention of Kasumi, though I could have missed it. So I thought the people were referring to the chat below that, and I can't get the comments to display. What we really need for that is something solid and right now, I'm not comfortable using that source. If you can find something better, then more power to you, but for now, that source needs something to back it up given that we can't see the comments, only a "Share on Facebook" button.
 * As to the geth, I provided a link in my edit summaries, but I will print it again as we had that discussion little more than a day ago, Talk:Geth. This is your quote, not mine, "Okay, I'll hold off on it for now. Thanks!", and I still think that we should hold off. And I do have to ask, what’s with the sudden reversal all of a sudden? You ask for an opinion, and then you say we can wait, then pull a 180? Is it a geth, I can't deny that, but we don't know if it is a Trooper, BioWare brought back the Shock Trooper, a Rocket Trooper, something new, or anything else. The source is subject to a lot of interpretation, and we should wait for more solid confirmation on what it is. Again, we do know the geth will be back, but we currently do not know in what capacity. To call that a Trooper, given the video, is speculation at this point, and again just getting confirmation on it, is better than speculating. Lancer1289 20:30, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the edit conflict, and why can't I get a word in first, I have my opinion above, and the fact DeathRay said something, then little more than 24 hours later, pulls a 180. So I'm curious why and again we can wait for confirmation on what it is as the source is subject to a lot of interpretation. Lancer1289 20:32, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's just that when I saw the image of Shepard fighting a Geth, I thought that'd be a good source. I'll look for a source for Kasumi. LordDeathRay 20:41, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah if you can find a better source for either, then you won't find me arguing, but you can see that the video is subject to a lot of interpretation, and just isn't solid enough. We need something much more solid. Lancer1289 20:43, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. And again, I'm sorry for pulling the 180, and I hope this doesn't impede your ability to trust me. Also, I know you have xbox live, but I have no idea what your gamertag is. What is it? =P LordDeathRay 20:50, June 19, 2011 (UTC)