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.

Missing Title #1
I don't stop by the wiki often, but I always seem to find a thread where multiple people harrass you for upholding site policy. I just felt inclined to let you know that I appreciate your dedication to following the rules(even though I sometimes break the language policy in a fit of nerd rage). Never let a bunch of a**wipes get you down for doing what is right. --CommanderCousland 05:26, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Lancer1289 14:33, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting
I recently discovered that I was banned for some time and I ensure you it wasn't me who did that "stuff", you can even chek with "Arby 'n' The Chief wiki" as I sent a message to XtranormalGeek. I don't care if you think I'm a c#@% all i ask is that you look at the evidence yourself and make a new opinion and I hope this "Incident" can be forgoten and we can forge a new friendship, what do you say? Also, you might notice that we are undergoing a few changes and I am now an admin of that site.

I hope you can see reason. --Blazingswords 02:56, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is the evidence that I'm supposed to be looking at here, because I'm seeing a distinct lack of it? If it's the message that you were gone for two and a half weeks from that date, then your ban was put in place at least a full day before that. So far I haven't seen any evidence that you weren't the one doing it as it was under your account so unless you have other evidence to present, then the facts remain, and this is not an incident that I will forget anytime soon. The fact remain that the edits that were made were from your account, and with again no evidence that says it wasn't you. The messages and the pictures broke so many rules at once, including one that a user is still suffering a year ban from, that a two-week ban was IMO generous.
 * This is not something I can forget and will need extremely strong evidence that can conclusively say that you didn't do it, which I haven't seen. So unless you have new evidence that you haven't presented, I'm forced to deal with what is at hand, and so far, there's nothing that I'm seeing that doesn’t begin to convince me that you didn't do it.
 * I'm more than capable of reading and reanalyzing evidence, but when there is no evidence presented, then I can't do anything about it. That may be harsh, but that's the facts that are being presented. There's a lot of evidence against you and so far there hasn't been very much to eliminate it. Lancer1289 03:29, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Blazingswords, the fact remains, and it's abundantly clear, that your account was used to post pornographic images on this wiki. There is absolutely no evidence that it wasn't you who did this. None. A ban was a no-brainer. SpartHawg948 06:37, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

Collector's Edition dog
It totally is a FENRIS. I don't see how that's either irrelevant or speculation. --Lucius Voltaic 19:57, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * So where's your proof that it is a FERNIS mech apart from visual comparison. Lancer1289 20:01, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I said it appeared to be a FENRIS mech. 2. Visual comparison is relied on all the time. Take, for a random example, Captain Bailey. He's listed as human. Does he ever say "By the way, I'm human"? He could be a midget Brobdingnagian or something, but there's not really reasonable doubt there. --Lucius Voltaic 20:53, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect and straight visual comparisons are not allowed on this site. Your trivia is not valid because you are making a visual comparison and that isn't allowed. It even states that visual comparisons are not valid trivia without some backup. Quote, "Note that straight visual comparisons in things that really are otherwise unrelated are not enough to justify trivia". You are making a pure visual comparison, and you don't have backup. FERNIS mechs are security drones, yet this is a robot companion. So either get some further evidence or it will not be mentioned.
 * Also your analogy isn't valid because your saying that just because he doesn't say he's human, he isn't. How is that logic? In fact that is about the most flawed analogy that I've seen a person use to argue their point. If we did that, then we have to say that anyone who doesn't mention their species or say what they are, isn't that species. So let's start with the Councilors, Anderson, and Udina and go from there. We could even expand that to say that anyone in the games who doesn't explicitly mention they are a member of a species, then we can't put them into that species. So we can’t say that Wasea is an asari, we can’t say that Joker is human, we can’t say Niftu is volus, and I could go on for some time. Where in the world is the logic in that? It's nothing but pure illogical and one of the most ridiculous things I've seen anyone use to argue their point. The analogy has a fatal flaw that you are trying to exploit, but the thing is it fatally weakens your argument. Lancer1289 21:09, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * If the rules say that, then that's fine, but you're completely misunderstanding my analogy. I'm not saying that Bailey isn't a human. I'm just saying that even though we don't have explicit confirmation, we can still assume that he is. --Lucius Voltaic 21:14, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, your refutation of what you thought my analogy was is the point I was making in the first place: that we can use visual comparisons to a degree. --Lucius Voltaic 21:15, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * And again your point is that we can't assume anything, which is a completely flawed statement. Anything that isn't explicit, we can't mention, and that is some of the most ridiculous thinking that I've ever seen. We aren't using a visual comparison to say he's human, he obviously a human, based on a lot off evidence, and not just a visual comparison. Your analogy would say that he isn't because he doesn't say it. That is what your analogy is saying, not we make visual comparisons all the time. There are other things we use to classify things, but your way of thinking would make it so strict that we can't say anything unless it's so explicit that it has large neon signs around it. That is a flawed analogy, not what you say it is. Again, the analogy doesn’t help your case, it fatally weakens it. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. I KNOW that's absurd. That's my WHOLE POINT. I am AGREEING that it would be ridiculous to say that we don't know he's a human. I am pointing out that we DO know he's human DESPITE the fact that no one actually says it. Have I made myself clear yet? --Lucius Voltaic 21:33, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * And you clearly glossed over some of my sentences in my last comment. Lancer1289 21:38, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, what did I gloss over? Let me emphasize that my point is exactly not, as you said, "that we can't assume anything". --Lucius Voltaic 22:09, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainly the sentence "There are other things we use to classify things, but your way of thinking would make it so strict that we can't say anything unless it's so explicit that it has large neon signs around it." However, the point you are/were making so you could get what you wanted in the article. We can't use visual comparisons as it is a violation of the MoS for things like that. Assumptions are backed up here and you are arguing to get your thing in, yet are trying to say something else. Lancer1289 22:36, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually trying to get my edit in any more, I'm just trying to get you to understand what I was saying. You mention your sentence about how my way of thinking was strict. But you're the one who took out my edit--does it make sense that I would be stricter than you? I was pointing out that such a strict interpretation of the rules would not make sense--NOT promoting it. --Lucius Voltaic 22:47, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except this isn't an interpretation of the rules, it is the rules. We don't allow visual comparisons on this site, and that was your only justification for the inclusion. Because there is no other reason, then it isn't valid because of the rule. It's not my interpretation, it's the rule. Plan and simple. We've removed trivia about Omega and High Charity I don't know how many times now and the only thing that was used there to justify the trivia was a visual comparison. You need evidence to back up a visual comparison and you don't have it. Lancer1289 23:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not arguing about the FENRIS thing anymore! I gave up on that hours ago! How can I make this any clearer? ALL I AM TRYING TO DO IS EXPLAIN MY ARGUMENT. The argument which I am not still trying to win with, in case you still don't understand that.
 * FACT. It is not explicitly said that Bailey is human.
 * FACT. It is, however, reasonable to assume that Bailey is human.
 * CONCLUSION. It is sometimes reasonable to assume something without it being explicitly said.
 * OPINION. It is reasonable in the dog's case.
 * That argument, right there, that is all I was saying. I am not still saying that it is reasonable in the dog's case. That is what I was saying at the beginning of the discussion. Also, when you say it "isn't an interpretation of the rules, it is the rules" that's not correct. The strict interpretation which I was referring to is the interpretation, which I do not agree with, and have never agreed with, that would have Bailey not listed as human. NO ONE IS PROMOTING THAT INTERPRETATION. NO ONE HAS EVER, EVER, EVER, BEEN PROMOTING THAT INTERPRETATION. --Lucius Voltaic 02:02, October 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it the same size as the FENRIS? Does it move the same way?  Does it make the same sounds?  Why don't we wait till we actually SEE it.--144.96.212.163 21:12, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * See my reasons above, and someone else's reasons below, for why it can't go in. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he meant that, to use/refer to Lucius's analogy, we can tell that Bailey is a human because he is the same size as a standard male human, his anatomical motions are the same as a human, and he sounds like a human, so he is a human. THe wiki contributor is just saying that we should wait for it to be released before we confirm what it is. Well, that's how I interpreted it at least. --CommanderCousland 21:54, October 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I'd be against mentioning that it's a FENRIS (whether or not it actually is; of course it's extremely likely that the Robotic Dog is a FENRIS, but BioWare could always throw a curve ball and call it a FENRIS 1XC or another name) mainly because I don't feel such a statement belongs in the article. The article for the CE versions of ME games are pretty much word-for-word from what info BioWare has given us. The contents of those CE's are explained in-depth in separate articles (where separate articles are necessary) and linked to in the CE articles. Once we learn more about the Robotic Dog (such as if "Robotic Dog" is its final name in ME3), we'll probably make an article for it. That article would be the best place for info about the RD. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:17, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll wait and see. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #2
I was the one who edited Admiral Koris Vas Qwib Qwib, Admiral Xen vas Moreh. Why did you delete them, i was trying to put a link of a video but you delted them.
 * First I only removed the Kasumi Goto eidt, I didn’t remove the edits you are talking about. It was actually Commdor who removed your edits, and I don't know how you could get our user names confused. Second, it was removed because it was unsourced material and without a source, it isn't a valid addition and will be removed. However, if the video is the same one that Commdor is thinking of, then that isn't confirmation, rather it is speculation. No dialogue is used and therefore we can't confirm who they are. We need evidence, and the video, if it is the one I'm thinking, and that Commdor was thinking of, is not proof. Third, we don't allow videos up be uploaded to the wiki. If you want a further explanation of why those two edits were removed, then ask the person who actually removed them as I'm guessing here. I can only speak for one edit, and it’s neither one of the two you incorrectly told me I undid. Lancer1289 19:18, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know
There is a vandel by a user named Blehh vandalizing the DA wiki with porn. You may want to keep an eye out in case he/she comes hereSer Derek of Highever 18:39, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We'll keep an eye out. Lancer1289 18:41, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

House Divided
On the Trivia section of Legion: A House Divided, where it says the name might be a reference to Lincoln's speech or to Mark 3:25, I put a note that said Lincoln's speech was itself referring to Mark. You took that away--why? Do you want me to cite something? --Lucius Voltaic 15:29, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * To which I ask, did you read my edit summary? From your comment, I'm guessing not. Another question I ask, what was the point of adding it in the first place? Answer: Without devconfirmation on what source it is referring to, it is basically irrelevant as the line could be referring to either one. The only thing it did was bias a reader towards one part of the trivia, while saying the other was almost irrelevant. Because we don't know what it is referring to, we have to keep the trivia neutral when it could be referencing two or more sources, and what you did again was bias it towards one particular part of it. If you want it to go back in, then get devconfirmation that the line is referring specifically to Lincoln's speech, and it can be worked in accordingly. However, without it, we cannot bias trivia towards one particular item, as we don't know what it is referring to. It doesn’t matter what Lincoln was referencing, it matters what the line in the game was referencing, and given there are two equally likely possibilities, Mark may be even more so as that is where Legion gets its name, we have to consider both options equally and not bias the trivia toward one, which is again what you did. Lancer1289 17:10, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * How was I biasing the trivia? I was just making it clear that these were not completely separate sources. I would never say that Lincoln's speech is irrelevant, especially as it is now where most people know that line from. --Lucius Voltaic 21:52, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Read my last comment as it clearly explains how you were biasing the trivia with unnecessary and irrelevant details. When a piece of trivia could reference two things, then we must demonstrate a relationship between the thing being referenced and the thing being referenced. Any other details about them are irrelevant as they have nothing to do with the trivia and add only unnecessary details that could end up biasing the reader towards one piece of the trivia over the other. Either way though, it was irrelevant as it did nothing to enhance the reference between the line being referenced, and the possible sources. Lancer1289 22:00, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Revision 224431 to Mass Effect Guide 2 (Tali:Treason)
Although minor, the change I made was to clarify that Veetor will always be alive and present at the trial. However, he will only help if he wasn't interrogated by Cerberus. On the other hand, Kal'Reegar won't show up or help if he's dead.
 * Specific details like that belong in the guide page itself as the ME2 guide itself is really more of a very general overview. Lancer1289 20:58, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Pyjak page
The content wasn't valid unless you consider "Uberhaxor mudafukaa" as valid to Mass Effect. That's the text that was showing up on the front page.--144.96.212.163 16:50, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. The page is fine and there is no vandalism on it, a simple check of the page will show that. If you persist on removing valid content, you will be blocked.Lancer1289 16:51, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I only edited the page once, and I don't appreciate being threatened. I did perform a simple check, and the page looks fine now.  It was NOT fine when I edited it.--144.96.212.163 16:59, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what you did was remove valid content, which is a bannable offense. That's not a threat, that's fact. The page was 100% fine when you edited the page and a check of the history will confirm that. The page before you edited it, and the page after you edited it. The history doesn't back you up as you clearly removed valid content and there was no vandalism on the page when you edited it.
 * Regardless, removing valid content is a bannable offense and that is clearly outlined in the Community Guidelines. Lancer1289 17:05, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * The page was hacked, Lancer. Two different editors including myself saw it.  I was in the middle of fixing it.  I removed the line, whatever it was, that was causing the wrong text to appear.  As I said in my edit, the edit text and the screen output didn't match.  Now you can either take my word for it as a fellow editor and be on the lookout for this in the near future or you can continue to bluster about bans and Community Guidelines.--144.96.212.163 17:11, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * The page wasn't hacked as it showed up quite clearly the first time I logged on this morning. The vandalism was removed 9 hours before your edit and I don't know what the problem was, but the facts are not in your favor here. I have actually never seen this happen except during a database lock and there wasn't one today. I can only go off the evidence at hand, and the evidence is not in your favor. Lancer1289 18:31, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks as though the unregistered users were viewing a cache page instead of the current. Why?  Don't know, but I do know I'm no liar.  We could've figured this out without all the talk of banning and rule breaking, Lancer.  I was just trying to fix what looked like vandalism to me.  You know I've heard several times about how the admins here have to deal with alot of vandals and such, but it seems to me like you wouldn't have so many things to fix if the editors felt empowered to fix things.  As for me the next time I see vandalism of any type, I'm not doing anything to help.  I don't want to be banned and have to defend myself against your implaccable "evidence".--144.96.212.163 18:50, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * So you can't look at things from my perspective then can you? From your last comment, and you attitude, I'm guessing not. I can only go by the evidence at hand, and given what I can see, the removal of valid content twice, despite the fact the vandalism was removed over 7 and 9 hours before the edits were made, I can't ignore that. I've never seen, or heard of an instance where Wikia permitted the editing of a cashed page over the current version, and the only thing I think that could cause that would be a database lock, and there wasn't one that day. But, during a database lock, there is no editing. Again the evidence doesn’t support your version of events given the evidence I have to go on. The evidence says one thing, you say another, so what do I have to go by, what I can see. We've heard just about every excuse in the book, so the physical evidence is what we have to go on.
 * The bottom line is that the Evidence, not the "evidence", doesn't support your version of events, and that's all I have to go on. The warnings are standard procedure when this occurs and that is also something you didn't, or can't, consider. Lancer1289 18:59, October 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove anything twice, Lancer. I removed it once and was in the middle of putting it back.  I see your side just fine; all I'm looking for is for you to acknowledge that maybe I wasn't acting maliciously.  "Alright buddy, No harm no foul, sh*t happens,..."  Anything that let's me know I'm talking to a person I can maybe trust and not some rules-bot looking to ban me at the drop of a hat.  You should think about altering "standard procedure" a bit so that people aren't immediately thrown on the defensive regardless of their intentions.--144.96.212.163 18:19, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * When did I say you removed it twice? Please indicate where I made that statement because I stated that it was removed twice, but did I ever say by you? Answer, no. You again realize that when someone removes valid content, a warning about them being banned is standard procedure? It doesn't remotely matter if you like it or not, support it or not, that is procedure and I, and any other admin will do the same thing. I have to go with the evidence here and evidence says you removed valid content. I don't look for reasons to ban people, despite your very inaccurate, accusatory, ridiculous, and inflammatory claim, as we are more than capable of leaving a warning about it, and leaving it at that. That is where it almost always, like 98% of the time, ends with the person receiving the warning either dropping it, or just saying it won't happen again.
 * Yet you are the one who persisted on continuing a conversation that has long sense been dead of any meaning and at this point, its more like you complaining about how I followed site policy, and you don't like it. Procedure is procedure, and I doubt it will change as removing valid content is a serious offense and if it persists, then someone will be banned because of it. The page wasn't vandalized when you edited it, as it was removed over nine hours beforehand. That is what the Evidence in this case says, so let's take a closer look at that.
 * So what does the evidence say. You say one thing, and the evidence says another. Who should I believe? You, someone who has had a problem in the past with policy, specifically the voice actor trivia policy and complained when you didn't get your way, or the evidence, a.k.a. the page history? Everything I know about how Wikia works, and how the editing process works, tells me to believe the evidence because of what I stated above. The evidence doesn't support your version of the events, while the evidence supporting the other side does. If I was looking to ban you at the drop of a hat, then you would already be banned and we wouldn't be having this conversation, yet you aren't banned and I left a warning about it, as is site policy. Am I capable of thinking that someone wasn't asking nefariously, yes, but when the evidence says something else, then I have to consider that as well. If we just took people's words, then we wouldn't be very productive and we'd be having so many problems, that we'd look like a joke.
 * Again I have to go with what the evidence says, and the evidence says that you removed valid content. Am I willing to admit there might have been an issue, yes, but the fact of how the editing process works, not allowing users to edit an old version of the page, says otherwise. Even when there is a database lock, the RC and WA can jump around often, not showing more recent edits, but the page histories, and if you manage to get an edit screen, show the current version of the page, not an old one. Lancer1289 18:56, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Let this go guys. There's enough right on both sides to continue this argument indefinitely.--Captainhu 03:38, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

sorry to spoil
ha 23333 edits
 * I'm perfectly capable of reading my own edit count. I don't need a little reminder of things like this. Lancer1289 00:21, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
Sorry, I didnt realise it was a violation of MoS on System Pages. User:JediSpectre117 17:21, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that kind of thing isn't permitted on those pages as it breaks the in-universe feel of the article. Things like that are noted in the planet articles themselves, and on the Planet Scanning page. Lancer1289 16:28, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dude.
I'm new on this wiki...Is there a IRC chat We can talk on or....Is it just messages. Commander Faol 23:03, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, welcome. As to the talking part, we use talk pages here. We don't have an IRC channel. If you prefer something more private, we use email, which you can access here. Email will only work however if you have a validated email account with Wikia. Lancer1289 00:03, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #3
Just wondering why you deleted my edit about the Dr Pepper promotional items for ME2. That promotion has restarted, and those items are available again. I thought that information should be out there for the people who didn't (or didn't get a chance to) get them the first time around. 75.75.41.174 13:42, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had read my edit summary you would have found your answer. The answer is simple, a source is needed for that information. Since you didn't provide one, the undo was simple. Lancer1289 13:50, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * The source was the official Dr Pepper promotions page I linked to. If that's not enough, though, here's another one. If it wasn't up to snuff, maybe you could have edited it instead of deleting it outright? 75.75.41.174 01:27, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) First I don't see any of the DLC that was offered. I should also note that at times over the course of the last year, we've heard several reports of it being avaliable again, and when we go to the page, even if they are listed, which has happened in the past, no one can access them. This time however, they aren't even showing up. Second, that source is not even remotely an acceptable source. Fan sites like that are not acceptable. Get a better source.
 * So it wasn't even close to being acceptable and therefore removal, rather than modification was the only option. Get a source that is more reliable than a fan site and then we can talk.
 * As to the source you added which caused the edit conflict, that is also not an acceptable source. Lancer1289 01:40, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Screenshot proof in an imgur album: link 75.75.41.174 02:53, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not good enough. Lancer1289 02:55, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be good enough? 167.64.57.21 14:28, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit mean lancer 153.107.97.161 03:26, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * What is, asking for a reasonable source? Or informing him that a source he provided isn't good enough? Both are quite reasonable and unless you have something to contribute to the conversation, a.k.a. a valid source, then please don't contribute. I prefer to keep conversations on topic as much as possible and this had nothing to do with the topic at hand. And I find myself having to say this again, for the umpteenth time, reading text is subjected to so many factors that what you read, may not be what someone else reads. Lancer1289 03:32, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * What Lancer is referring to is a magazine source (e.g. OXM magazine) or another reputable source that contains dev confirmation regarding the presence and ability to attain these promotional items. Yes they were available before, but this particular instance requires the necessary sources I just mentioned. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 15:27, November 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I followed the link and clearly saw the promotion with the availability dates of 12/31/2011 and 1/31/2012 for redemptions. However, these same dates apply to all the codes for all the games, so there isn't anything that says this is definitely for the ME2 stuff.  It seems obvious that these dates apply, but the level for confirmation around here is always extremely high.--144.96.212.163 21:51, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

RE:Question
''Just a few links about the issue with DE at hand but basically, we're discussing how his treatment is justified by his actions. The last link probably explains everything the best but most are just examples of some things he's done. He hasn't done anything to affect this site in any way though so it's really nothing to worry about. I simply felt he needed to be called out on his comment.''


 * here (Removing content from another user's page)
 * here (admitting to plagiarism from Mass Effect Universe)
 * here (Quoted insult and admittance of sockpuppeting plus user response)
 * here (Moving article to inappropriate name)
 * here (Admin's response to one of many sockpuppet accounts)

--DeadDATA 04:04, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting and I thank you for the links, but in the future, could you please respond on your talk page like I ask at the top of mine. I despise cross page conversations. Lancer1289 04:17, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, if you have an Email, I would like to talk with you about this on friendly terms. No doubt that the other Admin teams have, most likely, already told you stories about me from their point of view, but I have no beef with you, you've never steered me wrong, so, if possible, I would like to talk with you on this on a mature, man-to-man level. You do understand most of these events are complete misunderstandings and the background leading up to said events happened several years ago. Just take note, this entire fiasco could and would have been avoided entirely if DeadDATA had just left well enough alone and let sleeping dogs lie, it is him I am angry at, this is a message of peace. Please consider it from an unemotional, rational, neutral standpoint...please. I am begging you. Just hear my side of the story out for a moment. --Dark Energy: The forces of the universe bend to me. 01:03, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now I am extremely hesitant to give you my email, or the link to it. Your conduct both on the blog and on DeadDATA's talk page are...disturbing to say the least. To that end, and the evidence presented, FYI I haven't done any contacts yet, there are some disturbing trends in your behavior and your recent conduct hasn't done anything to elevate that.
 * So what I'm saying is that you need to convince me that you will not extend the behavior you have demonstrated on the blog and on DeadDATA's talk page, being mad at him doesn’t in any sense of the word excuse your behavior, to an email. Is this a no for giving you the link? No it is not. What I want is for you to convince me that I should provide a link, rather than having you discuss it in the open. I also want your assurance that you will not continue this behavior if I do give you the link because if I see it once, and only once, then I will not hesitate to break off all communications because you will have done nothing but repeat behavior which is unacceptable, rude, and insulting. And doing it behind someone's back is even worse. Not to mention you will only confirm my suspicions about your behavior. Lancer1289 02:36, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't act that way to you. I never get psychotic like that when it comes to tender situations such as this, not to mention this is serious, I'm only like that around people I dislike or have personally attacked me (If you notice I did not attack anyone else--no excuse--just example), you are neither, and worry not, I wasn't trying to be excused of anything, I was coming to you with a matter of diplomacy, not excuse. I realized the situation was getting out of hand rather quickly so I took it to the Administration. You will find that was my original intentions in coming here, to convince you, diplomatically, of my ability to reason, which, again, you will find are well beyond what you may believe based on outside perspective of impression and experience. Me coming here in the first place was my assurance that I would cease confrontations on all fronts, it would be detrimental to my cause. --Dark Energy: The forces of the universe bend to me. 03:10, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. I still have reservations, but here. Just remember, one insult towards me or someone else, one anything, and it's over. Lancer1289 03:56, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. My internet was off...

Missing Title #4
Quick question: A while ago, I put down on the ME3 Multiplayer page that there wouldn't be splitscreen and said I learned this on xbox360achievements.org (It was in a interview) and you removed it saying the source wasn't good enough, and now, somebody has added Quarian to the list of playable species but didn't give a source or anything to prove this, but you haven't removed it yet, why not? I added a FACT from a interview on a game news site, and you removed it but you haven't removed something which hasn't been proven or given a source to prove it.
 * First, you couldn't leave a new message and follow simple directions like I ask at the top of my talk page? This is done so that it makes it every so much easier for me to communicate. To that point, I specifically ask that people not edit sections that have nothing to do with what they are talking about, like you did.
 * Second, no source was provided for the information and because there was no source, the information will be removed. I do not have time to go hunting through a site for information and it is up to the person who adds the information to source it. This is not an unreasonable request, but yet one that is often not followed and results in this. You must provide a source for your information, not just "I got this information from (insert site name here)", and since you didn't, information will be removed as unsourced information. Lancer1289 14:43, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Possible co-op Splitscreen local splay
There was rumor and im wandering i'd love to play with little bro and it comes out on his b-day so yeah?

--Commander Elijah sheperd 02:19, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Um what exaclty are you asking? What rumor? Lancer1289 02:22, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

People saying that it might have splitscreen or system link or local play also
 * Right now we only have information that it will be just over Live. No system link and no splitscreen. For more informaiton Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer. Lancer1289 02:35, November 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually according to Jesse Houston in this interview, there will be no split-screen MP at launch, but it may be added later.--Captainhu 04:06, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * That has bad idea written all over it. You either go splitscreen from the start or you don't. Adding it will require a huge update. Lancer1289 04:15, November 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree whole-heartedly. In fact that entire interview made me nervous.  It sounds like they are still trying to pin down big details of the MP even this late in the development of the game.  I'm afraid they're going to pull the ol'push-it-out-fix-it-later-as-dlc trick.  I hate that trick.--Captainhu 04:32, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That trick is used far too often. Lancer1289 04:35, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

I wish i'd love that --Commander Elijah sheperd 15:24, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Um what? Lancer1289 16:39, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he means that he wishes that there was split screen play? LordDeathRay 17:21, November 6, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for going to the trouble of posting a policy notification to User:Cameron.Vickers.Vicks007kid about uploading videos. My home internet connection was extremely, extremely bad and it decided to cut out before I could post a note myself. Hopefully my parents will finally switch providers by the time I go back for Thanksgiving. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:21, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 01:24, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

Trivia
Recently I made some changes to trivia on a page by expanding what was there and fixing some links to the dragon age wiki ;The page is Gavorn. The thing is that somebody followed the links to the DA wiki and made changes on the articles there (has to do with the similarity of the name's of characters). The user's edits were reverted by an admin as it did not comply with the trivia policy. So I am now wondering if the edit I made here is somehow in conflict with any policy on this wiki. Balitant 01:51, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * You have to remember that every wiki has their own policies, and their own way of doing things. What may be acceptable on one wiki, may not be on another. Now, I can't speak for D-Day, the admin over at the DA Wiki who undid the edits, but it appears this was done back in January by the same user, and was removed then as well. Again, they have their policies about trivia, we have ours, and I have to say that the trivia is ok. We usually keep name trivia like that to a minimum.. When it comes to BioWare games, there seems to be a little more leeway than with most trivia items. That said, I cannot see a problem with the items currently and therefore I really don't see a need to remove them. Now, if the items were removed, I wouldn't oppose it, but again, I currently can't see a reason for me to remove them at the present time
 * Funny, it's just past 8pm for me and this is my first edit of the day, and my first in about 21 hours. Talk about a slow day, not that I'm complaining mind you. Lancer1289 02:20, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not the DA policies that I was worried about. I know that there are separate policies for different groups, as such I was wondering about the policy for trivia here. I don't always articulate my points in the clearest fashion I suppose. Balitant 02:25, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Again, I don't see a problem with them, but again I won't oppose their removal. Lancer1289 02:28, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Gammar
Obviously fixing gammar on all the pages is not a priority to an admin here than they are on Wikipedia, so I don't know why I even bother. 76.21.202.215 01:53, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Wow, I don’t even have to read very far this time to find an insult. Why is that every time someone's edit is undone, and instead of handling it like a mature adult, they decide to act like a 3-year-old?
 * As to the issue, we do value grammar, however, it becomes a problem when you are contradicted by several other articles and how they are written. Articles were written that way for a reason. Just saying. Lancer1289 01:59, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * It hurts me to think that you may have such a low opinion of poeple. I am not a practicle editor, and I don't tend to have time to use sand boxes. I tend to make small fixes as I go along. I find that many of these pages are in great need of work, and I thought that it would have been beneficial to make small edits to help them, hoever I can not work on them if they are constantly reverted, and I am not the kind of person who would get into a revision war. All I am is a fan of Mass Effect as you are, nothing more. 76.21.202.215 02:25, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet who is the one who is throwing insults here? Not just at myself, but at the entire community here? And proving my point about how people can't act maturely in the process? The answer to that, would be you. It's not an opinion, but what past experiences have taught me, and I can point you to many places where people have acted that way.
 * Many of our articles are actually of very high quality, as that is not my opinion but the opinion of may countless editors and visitors. Although your opinion of that seems to be that anything that isn't up to your standards and your way of thinking is not even remotely high quality. If your edits are in line with site policies, canon, spelling, and grammatical rules, then they won't be undone. However, if they run counter to that should we just leave it? The answer to that should be obvious. Lancer1289 02:37, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, let's slow down here for a second. One of the things I hate about text message is that emotion is lost in the context. My first post was not a direct insult to you nor the community, it was more out of fustration that my work is constantly being reverted. While others may have caused you to think very poorly of poeple, but don't you think that you should give some them the benefit of the doubt? I'm not trying to make enemies, all I wanted to do was to help make articles, look more like articles. Obviously, my initial comments made you angry, and for that I can at least apologies for. Like I said, I was just furstrated in having my contributions reverted. 76.21.202.215 03:07, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) My opinion of people and how they act on the internet comes from experience, but I do give people the benefit of the doubt when we interact for the first time. I've not only find myself wrong on many, very pleasant occasions, but been known to have very pleasant, engaging, and stimulating conversations with people, but what you did was start off completely on the wrong foot. It isn't interpretation of your comments, but rather how your comments read.
 * Let's take a closer look at your first comment. "Obviously fixing grammar on all the pages is not a priority to an admin here". Now how many different ways can someone read that? Well that's a long list but let's stick to the content. What this says that I don't care enough about articles and their content to use proper grammar. That is not only a slap in the face to me and you insult my intelligence as you directly accuse me of not knowing what proper grammar is, or your proper grammar. As to your second comment "I find that many of these pages are in great need of work", that is an insult to the community as you directly accuse everyone here that we don't know how to use proper anything, how to write articles, or meet your standards. That's not subject to interpretation, that is how the comments read, and you being frustrated doesn't excuse that. And again, I always give someone the benefit of the doubt, but when said person insults me right off the back, then the benefit of the doubt goes out the window as you clearly show what your intentions are. Then instead of starting a mature conversation where we can talk like adults, you have to build up my opinion of you and how you will behave over the course of the conversation. If you want to start off on the right foot, then some advice that I got from another admin, and used it when I start getting frustrated. Take a moment, relax, think about what you type before you post it, and if necessary, allow a few minutes to calm down before making an edit.
 * Edits are undone for many reasons, some obvious, some more complicated, and some are just plain vandalism. We do welcome any and all edits that improve content, add information, and a very long list of other items, but when those edits run counter to the things I've listed above, among other things, then it causes a problem and that's when the undo button or the edit button come into play. I've had many edits undone before, and while it is frustrating, and I've been known to make some comments that I've regretted, and a few still regretting, on occasion, the bottom line is that there's almost always a good reason for it. Eventually your work will be reverted, you edits modified, removed, or added to at some point, and usually there is a good reason. If you find it frustrating, then take a look at your edit summaries, the edit summaries of the person/people undoing the edits, and if you still have questions, then ask. But don't go off the deep end and start off on the wrong foot and insult someone who is there to help. Lancer1289 03:21, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum due to edit conflict: Again, being frustrated doesn’t excuse your first comment, and while the apology is accepted, there is still the issue that you made the comment out of frustration and started this conversation on the wrong food. Not making enemies is a good idea, and while you haven't made one, the fact again does remain that your first comment really set a positive tone for the conversation.
 * The statement of "wanted to do was to help make articles, look more like articles", worries me a bit. We have standards here, and you trying to apply your own standards can, and has in the past with other editors, caused a lot of issues, and a ban in more than one case. Now a ban here is not even remotely warranted, justified, or anything along those lines, but I feel giving the past of something, both the good and bad parts, usually is a good idea. The standards of many articles is an in-universe feel, and sometimes there are things issues where we have to go with what is done in the Mass Effect Universe over real world standards and rules. Generally, it doesn't cause a problem, but when people try to impose their standards on an article, and their standards can cause an issue, it again has lead to problems. Most edits are left untouched, but there are cases when edits are undone for various reasons, and then someone goes off the deep end and starts a conversation completely on the wrong foot. Many articles are written to very high quality, and trying to apply outside standards, when they might not work, is generally not a good idea. My best advice in this case is to look around, ask questions if need be, and then make small edits, learn the way of the land, then make larger edits. I can from experience that every time I've seen that happen, a lot of edits are undone, modified, or added to at first, and while it may be frustrating, if you stick with it, as I've seen a number of people do, eventually they make an edit, then a series of edits, and they aren't undone or anything else. Lancer1289 03:33, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

The Council
Juakoblabla 20:42, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well hello. I guess we are both at a bit of a disadvantage here as I don't speak any Spanish apart from a few very simple phrases. I can read a bit of it, but most of what I learned in high school went in one ear and out the other.
 * As to the question itself, there aren't articles for them already because there really isn't much to say about them apart from information that would only end up being about 5, maybe seven sentences spread through three sections. There just isn't enough information currently to warrant articles for any of them. Perhaps if they play a larger role in Mass Effect 3, then we could look at the issue again. In fact, all three had articles, but were deleted due to the fact they contained a lot of redundant information with the Citadel Council article. We don't have need of articles like that which ultimately end up being "cookie-cutter" articles. There just isn't enough unique information about any of them. Lancer1289 20:53, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #5
Hello
 * Yes? Lancer1289 00:37, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #6
Nice to meet you Lancer1289.
 * Hello. Lancer1289 17:42, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

do you know if there is a trailer out for ME3 yet?
 * There are several actually. See the Official Mass Effect Website for them. Lancer1289 17:58, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

thanks!

Video rules
I was browsing ME3's history and I noticed an edit note from you that videos are not permitted here. I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning for that rule. Note: I'm not trying to challenge the rule but rather, as someone who's helped out on the administration side of a few wikis including a featured article committee for Halopedia, I'm curious as to the philosophical reasoning for it. --forgottenlord 20:49, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not around when the rule was created, but the reasoning behind it is laid out in the General FAQ of the Community Guidelines.

"There are two reasons for this: one, it is a thorny copyright issue, and two, it falls under not depicting Commander Shepard on the wiki to keep it universal (see Style Guide: Canon). If you want to link to a video to prove an edit is not speculation, add a link at the bottom of the article, but any video uploaded to the site will be deleted."
 * Lancer1289 21:06, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks --forgottenlord 18:39, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused here
Since you hate swearing so much why do you edit Jack's article? SeaTerror 07:37, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Come again? What are you talking about? Lancer1289 13:34, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Lia%27Vael_nar_Ulnay Stuff like that. I only saw it because I wanted to make a comment about the mission but realized it would be too bloggy. Also saw similar stuff on other pages. SeaTerror 18:17, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what you are asking. Lancer1289 18:28, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Why would you edit a character like Jack's article if you hate swearing so much? SeaTerror 20:01, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * To which I pose another question, why shouldn't I? It is part of the wiki isn’t it? I also think you have a very incorrect perception on what I like and don't like. Lancer1289 20:03, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Because of how she talks. I would think a person who doesn't even like the word "hell" would hate a character who says "fuck off" and want to avoid the article. SeaTerror 07:43, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * And now it is readily apparent that you have a complete misperception of what I like and what I don't. It is also apparent that you haven't read many site policies and see how they are enforced. We have a language policy here and I was enforcing it. Even then, what I like is irrelevant in this instance. It doesn't matter if I like swearing or not, Jack's article is part of the wiki, I'm an admin, and therefore, I have to watch it just as much as any other article. Especially considering what the article is about, a major character in ME2. Lancer1289 13:30, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Ironic to have a rule against swearing on a wikia about a M rated series that has a lot of swearing. I can understand if you want to stop people from swearing at others and flaming them but just saying "what the hell happened?" or such is nothing bad at all. SeaTerror 22:18, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except there is no reason to swear in a conversation to begin with. What the game is rated is irrelevant, if you can't have a mature conversation, then what's the point? There's no reason to have swearing or crude language in a conversation, especially when the only means of participating in that conversation is by reading text. There are literally millions of ways that someone can read text, and avoiding swearing usually prevents a conversation from getting further heated and further off track. I cannot find one thing ironic about the language policy.
 * I also find the term "flaming" to be rather insulting. I would hardly call informing someone of site policy "flaming", and if you call that "flaming", then I hope you don't violate site policy. Lancer1289 22:42, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Prove there's no reason to swear in any conversation. I find it immature that you even think that a person who uses swearing would be immature. Or just extremely prudish/elitist. The irony is the fact that there is a lot of swearing in the Mass Effect series and then to block it from the wikia about it is ironic. There's also no evidence that somebody swearing would even take a conversation off track or heated unless the swear was aimed at somebody. I also never said you flamed anybody. I said I could understand stopping people from swearing at others because of flaming. SeaTerror 02:05, December 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove to me there is a reason to swear in a mature conversation. If you are talking to someone, why do you need to swear? Why should you have to use words that could offend someone a lot easier than something else? Offense others around you?
 * The bottom line is there is no reason to swear as it is a sign of immaturity because you can't go without using some form of profanity, words that are looked down upon in the English language as a sign of immaturity. People in mature conversations will frown when seeing those words, and if you try to use them in just about anything apart from extremely informal conversations, people will look upon your use of words as vulgar, profane, and immature. This is something that has been demonstrated multiple times in history.
 * Again, it doesn't matter what the game is rated, what takes place in the game, or anything else. What matters is the rules we establish and enforce on the wiki. I actually like coming here where I know people won't swear every other sentence as it is extremely present to have a conversation with someone without those words. Just about everywhere I go on the net, I see swearing, and honestly I can't see why people have to use it. Are they trying to act "cool"? Are they trying to compensate for something? I don't know, but many of the conversations I hear with my professors, my friends, and others, I often don't hear any swears because we don't see the need to use them. There are literally thousands, if not millions of ways to communicate without resorting to crude, inappropriate, or vulgar language, so why do you even have to use them.
 * As to the statement, "There's also no evidence that somebody swearing would even take a conversation off track or heated unless the swear was aimed at somebody", I'm sure I can find conversations here where someone has sweared and it did drag the conversation off track, and someone has felt insulted because they see the language. If you can't keep your language "G" rated, then don't say anything. It is again extremely possible to communicate effectively without the use of vulgar words.
 * Calling this "prudish/elitist" is really insulting to every here. All we ask is for people to communicate without using vulgar langauge, as again communicating without swearing is extremely possible, is often easier, and has a lesser change of offending someone. Why do you have to communicate with swears, a.k.a. vulgar language, in a mature conversation? Answer that question with a logical answer. Lancer1289 02:59, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

The point being saying the word "hell" isn't even bad especially when it isn't aimed at a person. I wonder if you would say something even if a person said something like "Damn, I forgot about that part of the mission" or something similar. Also it really does matter what goes on in this game series and makes absolutely no sense to ban ALL swearing when this game series is rated M. And also no I wasn't implying banning swearing is prudish/elitist. That was aimed at you for implying swearing is immature no matter what the reason. SeaTerror 07:05, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except "damn" is banned under the policy, and that is not my opinion, but the opinion of the resident b'crat. You have again failed to answer any of my questions expect with the typical answer of "the game series is rated M". That's not an answer, that's dodging the question. You have yet to provide a logical, thought out, and real reason that anyone should have to swear in a mature conversation. Provide an answer that isn't along the lines of what I said above, and if you cannot do that, then you have your answer about maturity in conversations.
 * Also you did imply that banning swearing is prudish/elitist as you have not only directly insulted me, which is against the Community Guidelines, but you insulted everyone who enforces the policy. We want this wiki to be a friendly, welcoming place, and if someone sees swearing everywhere, then they might get the wrong idea. Keep the conversations mature, and clean, then you have nothing to worry about. Lancer1289 13:50, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * SeaTerror, the less profanities are laced in a conversation, the more mature they are. Sure they can be bland, but the lack of swearing shows how prepared the debaters are in terms of the subject matter. In a logical conversation, swearing has two credible uses; the first being a manner of which to drive a point across (granted, this isn't always effective, particularly when used often... seeming like an illogical argument); the second being used when frustration sets in (again, the amount needs to be limited otherwise it sounds like incompetency to convey points). Any other method of deliverance is an indication that the person speaking is incapable of portraying or delivering credible arguments with articulation... in other words, swearing's the easy way out when one chooses to not want to clarify terms. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 14:55, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

N7 Assault Rifle: Pretty Danm Awesome Design
Hi there. Thanks for welcoming me to this wiki by the way. Also I recently saw today your post on the talk page regarding the N7 Arsenal/Arms pack, about no new info (as of yet) regarding the unnamed N7 assault rifle, of course coming out in the ME3: N7 Collector's Edition. I do have a picture I found of it (maybe), on this awesome blog from this prop-maker who does this for a living on Blogger. Pretty awesome stuff. Here's the link:

http://volpinprops.blogspot.com/2011/07/n7-rifle-mass-effect-3.html

Unless you have already seen this then I understand. Still impressive though, right?

M4 C-Corp 02:13, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * We haven't had any new info about it yet and that is just about the only thing on the subject at the moment. We've all seen that before when it initally came out back in July. We would need devconfirmation on the rifle before it can be added however. Lancer1289 03:49, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Just keeping an open mind about it. The clock is ticking down but you are correct. Definite confirmation is required, hopefully sooner rather than later. Besides that, what new ammo augmentation powers/abilities do you think BioWare could add or create for ME3? I have a few but I would love to hear another fellow ME fan/follower's hypothesized ideas first on that new subject matter. Wishful thinking never hurt to preform or try, am I wrong? M4 C-Corp 07:28, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a big fan of "what do you think will happen" type conversations on my talk page as I've seen how they can quickly get out of control, and trying to deal with the "You have new messages" popup every time I get someone responding to it on my talk page gets very annoying, very quickly. If you do wish to discuss that, then I would encourage you to open a forum or blog post about it. I will more than happily discuss it there, but I'd rather not have a conversation like that on my talk page. I know that only my opinion was asked for, but what seems to happen here is that I will respond, then usually someone else will respond, then you get the domino effect. It's nothing personal, I just don't want to deal with the popup every ten minutes on what I can see would be a topic that people would talk about.
 * As to wishful thinking, usually no it doesn’t hurt. Lancer1289 14:22, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Ah well that is understandable. Thank you for clarifying for me on this matter. Maybe I will do that, what you suggested. Maybe, if I find the time that is. Between college and finding even a part-time gig for next summer is difficult in its own right. Still thank you. Keelah se'lai.

((Note: This does not mean that any of my online personas are quarians, just like saying that from time to time.)) M4 C-Corp 17:50, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Vandal
This guy just vandalised LordDeathRay's profile,[].--Legionwrex 07:03, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I got him but in the future, and this is my personal preference for just one act of vandalism, not sure about anyone else's, just revert and ignore. Even leaving a message with someone can potentially cause a person to vandalize more, especially if no one is on to block them. The RC makes sure we can see everything that happens and we can pick it up when we log on. Lancer1289 14:25, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #7
I've read "God is a Verb" several times. The central bleeding concept is that God isn't an anthropomorphic magician. God is a force of action on the cosmos. Do you want me to quote hundreds of passages of Zohar, Tanya, Kabbalah and Gershom Schloem at you? I can if you really want.
 * So the only thing connecting them is a few phrases where the connection between them is subjective? That isn't trivia, that's what's called an opinion and opinions do not belong in articles. What you call "[t]he central bleeding concept" is entirely subjective and therefore is not trivia. Besides that, you didn't even connect anything to anything from the mission. No dialogue, no actions, no nothing. You didn't even demonstrate a connection to begin with. Lancer1289 03:04, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Military history
Hi, I saw the Battle of Jutland post... Man, where do you get the time to write this much? :-)

Anyway, you obviously love military history. By any chance, have you read Honor Harrington? Just thought I would recommend it. It's like Horatio Hornblower, only in space.

Misacek01 20:26, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * First, when I have the time, I haven't recently or there'd be something else there. As to the second quesiton, I've never even heard of it before. Lancer1289 21:10, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Recent Morality edit
Reguarding my undo on the Morality page: sorry, the browser decided to take it before I finished leaving comment as to why.

You claim the Daniel stuff is mentioned elsewhere on the page, and in an "appropriate" place.

To which i reply, first of all, that where I edited, is the appropriate page. It's in the mission area.

Also, you didnt give a specific reference as to where. I did not see any such reference anywhere. I searched the page beforehand. didnt see anything relevant. Still dont see it. Otherwise, I would have not done the edit in the first place. 173.60.89.31 05:19, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * A glance just further down the page, of the exact same section would have turned that up. Just follow this link to the appropriate section. Recovering Daniel is a separate assignment as a sub unit of Mordin's Recruitment mission, therefore by the organizing system that is in place, it is still in the Dossier section, but in a subheading under it. Lancer1289 05:25, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the direct link. Okay, there is "a section". But it's not "the same section". It's a whole separate mission heading. Who in their right mind is going to search in-page for "Missing Assistant"? Or that bizzare sub-mission title that almost no-one realizes exists? The page is incredibly long: no-one reads the ENTIRE thing.. they jump to the specific *actual mission* they are on. And they stop, when they get to the end of that mission section, unless warned otherwise. In the "Dossier: The Professor" section, there is no reference at all, to "oh by the way between mordin meeting, and the fan takedown, there's this sub-mission you probably should read". But it DOES mention, "If Daniel was saved..." and so on. Major, major inconsistency. No reference to a sub-mission, only "daniel". At the very least, the "missing assistant" section should mention "daniel" so it shows up in page searches. But better yet, the main mission should explicitly reference "go read the sub-mission section here". 173.60.89.31 05:47, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that is how the system is organized, by mission and by assignment. If an assignment is part of a larger mission, then it is a subheading under it. It doesn't matter if people know about it or not, the point is that is how the system is organized, and there are no exceptions. It isn't inconsistent, it is very consistent with the organizing system and putting it the middle of the professor mission makes no sense from two angles. First, it isn't part of the mission, it is a separate assignment. Second, it's optional. You don’t have to even rescue Daniel, you can just bypass the door. it's just inconsistent to you, and that isn't enough to throw a wrench into the article.
 * The title of the section will not be changed as it would be inconsistent with the organizational system. The titles are by mission and assignment, and adding something that isn't part of the name isn't kosher with how the rest of the article works. So none of your options work and none of them will be implemented because they don't fit into the organization system and the flow of the article. Lancer1289 05:57, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I was an a*s
>>Copied from Element Zero talk page (you said you won't continue the discussion there, so I put it here, as I don't know where else you'd see it; I didn't delete it there, as I don't have the rights for that)<<

Ok. Sorry I was so grumpy before, Lancer. I guess nobody likes being deleted, but I get a little self-righteous at times. And I do see your points. I probably would make them myself if I were the one administrating. Re: discussion: yeah... um... see, the reason I didn't know about that is that I virtually don't know the sandbox exists. Oh, sure, I do know it's there, it's just that I've always mostly ignored it. Kind of makes me an ass, doesn't it?

And while I'm sucking up shamelessly, I also have to say the wiki's standards are better than I thought they were. That is, I never thought they were bad, but I didn't know you people do so much cooperation and finishing work that you obviously do. I mean, I knew this was the case on major wikipedia articles, but this is, after all, a wiki with "only" 1900 pages. --No, seriously, the sucking-up was a joke, I mean the compliment.

Misacek01 20:16, December 5, 2011 (UTC) (AKA the random IP spammer :-) )
 * First, we do have a language policy and crude/inappropriate language isn't tolerated. Second, I'm not even sure what this is about, let alone why it is here. But I will not continue this conversation here, as this will be my last post in this topic. There are more appropriate venues for this, like a user talk page, not some random talk page. This talk page is supposed to be about the Element Zero article, not about whatever this is which has no relevance to the article. Lancer1289 21:12, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

'*sigh*. Okay. This relates to the large post that you recently (like a week ago) deleted from this page. It was made from a public IP, not under my account, but it was me. You told me that there were some problems with the edit, and that the sandbox should be used so that there is room for discussion first. Remember now?

Whether you do or not; I'm trying to apologize here, my single fault being that I've posted a large edit which nobody approved, you removed it, to which I replied in the above post ("not very encouraging"), and that reply was a bit more scathing than would be fair. I had a bad day, you had a good point, so I apologized.

Now, the general response when somebody says they're sorry is something like "apology accepted". That, or else saying it's not good enough or you don't care. I think I displayed just a bit more maturity than the average user would after being more or less slapped down. Now, if I say I was an ass (which refers to the animal, not the body part, making it somewhat less rude, and no, I will not put asterisks in here, but ban me if you like, that's your prerogative), and the only thing the person being apologized to can say is that "rude language will not be tolerated", now that seems a tad stuck-up to me. I do realize you have a language policy. But I'm also not a five-year-old to feel bad if I use a word like this in a situation like this. I wouldn't dream of using vulgar insults against anyone here. But I'm not insulting anybody with this. Neither am I posting it where everyone can see. This is the bottom of a talk page for crying out loud.

((I did read the post just above here, and regarding your request of that user to "prove that vulgar language has to be used" (I agree with you, it doesn't have to, but): I now here place the burden of proof upon you: show me a phrase that says the equivalent of "I was an ass" without a similarly rude or ruder word. Of course, the first answer that comes up is "I was wrong". But it's not the same. The particular nuance this particular word gives it is why I used it. If it offends you or the wiki policy, I will henceforth refrain from even mild language, and find some way to say what I want to say with a limited gamut of meanings (okay, this is one of only very few situations where a rude word is actually hard to replace, but still). This entire paragraph is quite a lot of wasted space, but I guess I felt the need to point out that there just *might* be reasonable limits to what you can and can not tolerate. Sorry for spamming your talk page with so much text, though.))

And I also accept the argument about the article talk page being a bad place for this, and I guess you have a lot of work managing this wiki and better things to do than answer me. But all you did here was point out what's wrong with the post. Maybe you could stop once in a while to actually read what people are saying, especially when they're apologizing to you.

Misacek01 18:56, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except we do have a language policy and we will not tolerate violations of it. That's plain and simple. Second, this had nothing to do with what an article talk page was supposed to be about. This had nothing to do with it, and therefore it was inappropriate there, no matter where it was on the bottom of the page. And the attitude about where it is/was, was unnecessary. Now this is an example of an appropriate place for what this was. I've seen discussions on talk pages go ari with very few comments, especially when the purpose of the original post was nothing related to the page or what the topic was supposed to be about.
 * Second, I didn't even know what it was about, so explain to me how I should accept something when I don't even know what is going on or who it's from? It's puzzling and until this all was connected just now, I had no idea what is going on.
 * Third, since I know now what is going on, I do accept it, but again, there was little need for any of this, especially when it all comes across as coming from someone who is clearly agitated. Before writing something down, try to consider next time who is on the other end, take a moment to calm down, and think what may be going on and the connections that may or may not have been made. There were two IPs and one user involved with it, and how was I supposed to connect the user to the IPs until now? Lancer1289 21:42, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Kelly_Chambers
Rather than just deleting what I wrote, how about suggesting a better place for it, or moving it yourself? Philip Brown 00:19, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or how about it doesn't belong anywhere. Dialogue isn't trivia, that's been a standard for a while now. There is no where that can go because it isn't interesting, it adds nothing for the character, or anything that would fall into the lines for addition anywhere. Lancer1289 00:22, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny you should say that.. because, again, I am copying a style that I have already seen elsewhere: dialog type information filed under "Trivia". No I wont give you a specific reference, because as demonstrated by your prior behaviour, you'll just go delete it. But there are some existing already.
 * Except that dialogue isn't supposed to be trivia anywhere on the site. Period. That isn’t negotiable. If there are examples, then you should point them out so they can be removed in line with site policies. The fact you won't, and your recent comment on another page, says worlds to me about your behavior, your character, and your ongoing attitude doesn't help anything. Lancer1289 01:35, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give me a reference on "policy" on what should, and should not, be in trivia sections. 173.60.89.31 03:13, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had read the Manual of Style, like the welcome messages asks, you would have found it. But here's the direct link. Lancer1289 03:21, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. Odd that it's under "style", not community guideles. But anyways, that page does NOT say "no dialog in trivia". It says (no character specific 'extra dialog' in a common location). That is different from the situation I added the dialog reference to.
 * And my previous statements, like everything else I seem to say to you, mean nothing. It is a long standard and actually it is policy that dialogue, no matter what, isn't trivia. That's fact. Even if dialogue was considered trivia, what you provided still would not be trivia because it does not meet any other trivia guidelines. Dialogue is not trivia, that's policy. Lancer1289 00:46, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Dossier: The Justicar
Your summary of changes for this edit, was, "Slight adjustments. We don't need to link to the same thing twice so close to each other" First off, how come you only changed MY edit? The entire section is riddled with similar links, "close to each other". Every other paragraph seems to have a link to "LOKI Mech" or "Sisterhood Initiate". If you're not just stalking me and picking on my edits, surely you should "clean up" the ENTIRE article.

Secondly though, this is a lousy thing to do. A timesaving technique for reading long texts, is for people to go scan through JUST "the blue bits", ie: the links, for stuff they really need to pay attention to. For that reason, it is a nice thing to do for users, to have mission references always be a link.
 * Ok now I know that you have an attitude towards me. Did you ever once consider that I didn't notice the other links? Did that ever cross your mind? From your comment it readily makes it apparent that it didn't. Don't continue to assume that I have a vendetta against you because nothing could be further from the truth. You are the one who has created this air of hostility and from your continued comments, and especially the one above, it is readily apparent that you will continue this, and why I don’t know. It is evidently clear that you have zero respect for me, and yet you expect me to respect you 100% in return. Respect has to be earned and while I will do my best to show you respect, I will ask that you show the same in return.
 * Second, it is practice that we do not double link things in articles. Now that you have pointed that out, I will be removing a lot of double links except where they are called for by precedent. Most articles will not have double links, and it is often only noticed, when someone makes an edit to the article. I'm guessing you didn't consider that. Lancer1289 05:31, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly I considered that. Im just pointing out that you arent being consistent in your edits. If you are looking at an article "When someone makes an edit to the article", look at the whole article.
 * It is so painfully obvious that you didn't consider that, otherwise you would not have worded the first comment the way you did. It is also blatantly obvious that have zero, nada, not one iota of respect for me, and yet you expect me to respect you. You do not care about me, my time, what I may be doing, or anything else about me. You continue to perpetrate this vendetta when it does not exist. I changed one of your edits, and you did not like it, so you come and complain about it. That is all this is, you venting, ranting, and complaining about something that you did not like. Your continued disrespectful comments tell me something about your character, how you behave around people, how you act towards other people, and about you in general. Lancer1289 01:48, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Illium:_The_Prodigal:_Lost_Locket_Found
If you're going to make gripes about "Journal entries are verbatim", then make sure you actually put it back to what the journal entry says, not "what the wiki page used to say". Otherwise, put my edit back please. This is another example of you just reaching for the "undo" button, rather than fully checking over the article. As as admin, please take more time before doing that.
 * And what, you could not have put the correct journal entry in instead of what in all essence amounts to you yelling at me to do it for you? Or, I am not even going to say it this time, because I already know the answer. You again did not consider anything apart from yourself and your invented "personal vendetta" that you continue to perpetrate against me. Until proven otherwise, we can and have, with few expectations, correctly assume that the text at the top of the mission and assignment articles is the journal entry for Mass Effect 2 related articles. Most of the time it was put in correctly the first time or fixed shortly afterward. You assume no good faith on my part, or anything else for that matter, you just perpetrate your” vendetta” and that is about it. It is frustrating to even make an attempt to work with someone like that. You again want me to show you respect, but you continue to show me nothing, not one iota of anything in return and that is just outright insulting. You expect everything, and yet are willing to give nothing in return.
 * Anytime I do anything to you, you make a scene for whatever reason. This is another example of you complaining about me instead of being mature, civil, and about it and saying like "that wasn't the journal entry, and I can't access it right now, but it is incorrect". That would have been enough, but you proceed to make comments towards me with inflammatory statements that continue to show the fact you have zero respect for me. Lancer1289 01:53, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Romance Edit
Please note: I'm putting yet more comments, in your talk section, rather than just editing your edit, because you previously remonstrated me about avoiding "Edit wars". So, I'm doing the best to follow your interpretation of rules, as I currently unstand them, by not just editing your edits of my stuff.

So, to the specific issue: while on the one hand, you removed "speculative" comments in the Romance section, you removed some hard factual information as well:  2 paragon bars is not enough; player should not attempt the mission if they want "good outcome", and they dont have it already.

Additionally, you made comments about "retaining loyalty", but the main point of article is about romance, not loyalty. I only mentioned loyalty in my original edit, because I wanted to warn people away from "well i dont care about romance, i just want their loyalty".. but if the same amount of points are required for romance and loyalty, they may as well just "do it right" the first time.

Also, my speculation, had some amount of 3rd party research.. I had read somewhere that it requires "75%" points, which I interpreted to be 3 bars. If 2 bars isnt enough for loyalty OR romance.. but 3 bars is enough for romance... then it will logically be enough for loyalty as well. You made referenced to (information found elsewhere). It would be helpful if you pull in the specifics
 * The fact here however remains that people have reported having full bars and they still couldn't get the options. If you are so sure that they only need three bars, then explain this. Someone with a full Paragon bar, "I've just maxed out the Paragon points, and yet I still can't choose the upper option", can't get the option. So clearly there is something wrong with your numbers. And I've seen numerous reports from various people on the forums, and on BSN about having full bars and still not getting the options. Therefore the undo is valid on both counts, since you failed to address one of them.
 * I should also point out that "assumptions", which is what most of it was, a.k.a. speculation, is not permitted in articles. You need evidence to back up your claims, and you saying "I did this fifty times" means nothing here.
 * However, I will say is that there is a valid point about loyalty and romance. I will modify the current wording to reflect that. Lancer1289 03:18, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Morality Guide (Mass Effect 2): Jack loyalty points
Reguarding your undo of my edit on the paragon points for jack's loyalty mission: "Undo. That needs to be brough up on the talk page first as there is inconsistency with how the interrupt system works and the level is subject to interpertation"

While you may not like my "tone", hopefully you are noticing by now, that I dont just blindly report hard numbers, unless I've confirmed them. (I have a Comp.Sci. degree, and my primary day job is a sysadmin)

I very carefully verified the differences required, by going back to the pre-fight auto-save, and doing everything the same... with the sole variable being that I ranked up my class skill, which gives the multiplier to the points.

So there is no change to the hidden (percentage of possible points in areas covered)

With multiplier at zero, and "bars" at 1, the talk option did not show (but the interrupt did). When I went back to autosave, and used the multiplier, which put me at just over 2 bars, then went through the fight, etc. the talk option showed.

So.... please undo, your undo.
 * My comments above sort of deal with this issue, but again, saying "I did this fifty times" is both irrelevant, and not evidence. We've had reports of bars being all over the place and not getting dialogue options and therefore verification and documentation by independent parties is a requirement for listing things like that. Listing the amount of points you can get is easy, but getting the amount of points needed to obtain the options is a bit of a mystery and I think the biggest example is getting one of the dialogue options for LotSB during the fight with Vasir. People have reporting getting the options with everything from half to beyond full bar, and sometimes even with full bars, they can't get it. A few of the reports are on BSN and others on the Talk:Lair of the Shadow Broker (mission) page. So the one conclusion that everyone has come to is that you need to rely on the points, and not the bars as they are very misleading.
 * And the fact you told me your job in relation to this, or rather rubbed it in my face, tells me something else about your character, and it's not good. Lancer1289 03:10, December 12, 2011 (UTC)