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. Thanks.

A Question
Are there any exceptions to the wiki's rule against using the word "you"? I have noticed a lot of articles in the "Articles Needing Cleanup" category have "you" in them, and I'm wondering if that's why. If so, I can easily repair quite a few of them. Arbington 23:39, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry had a 4th of July party to go to. Anyway, from my experience it is usually only allowed in the tactics section of the enemy pages, and in walkthrouhgs or guides. Main articles should be kept as if you are reading them on an encyclopedia, but those are the only two exceptions, apart from talk pages obviously, that I can think of. Lancer1289 06:14, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having a difficult time getting the enemies to pop up in the adversaries category where I want them too. Can you explain how I get them them where I want them? (i.e. Turian Bodyguard listed under T)AdmiralPedro1stFleet 03:16, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already fixed it. To do that just go to the bottom of the article and select the add categories button and type in the name of the category. Be careful as it is case senestative. Lancer1289 03:19, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already fixed it. To do that just go to the bottom of the article and select the add categories button and type in the name of the category. Be careful as it is case senestative. Lancer1289 03:19, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
I for one would like to welcome our new Lancer overlord. Congratulations on your promotion! I have been wondering for a while (after I got over my first impression of you) why you didn't have at least partial admin powers. You definiately deserve them. Bastian964 22:22, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, congratulations on the promotion to admin, Lancer. Arbington 22:25, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the two of you as well. As to a new overlord, well I wouldn't say that. :) Lancer1289 22:34, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lancer, just don't get a big head. You truely are the most vocal admin to the people now. MEffect Fan 22:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed and that is always something good to say to someone. One must be very careful to not let power corrupt one's self. Lancer1289 22:40, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. I leave for dinner and all this goes down while I'm gone? grumble. I'll echo the congrats! Earned many times over, it seems to me. Vandals don't stand a chance now. :) Dammej 23:01, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed and again thank you to everyone. Lancer1289 23:02, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats from me, too. One of the big-shots now, eh? -- Commdor (Talk) 23:47, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well, look at here now! After being away for a while and I see a new Mr Admin! Congrats, I'd must say! Teugene 06:30, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, sir! I knew it would happen eventually :-) Fiery Phoenix 16:33, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Help
Lancer. Can you please explain how to get the enemies into the Adversaries category? I want to help but I want to know what I'm doing. It would be much appreciated. Thank you.AdmiralPedro1stFleet 03:19, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already answered above but go to the bottom of the article and select the add category button to add the category and the Wiki will do the rest. Just be careful as it is case sensitive. Lancer1289 03:22, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I know I'm not the best with this kind of stuff, but if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.AdmiralPedro1stFleet 03:30, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, always happy to be of help. Lancer1289 03:31, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Picture quality
What is considered too low quality to be used for displaying? I did some digging and could not find any minimum pixel limit so any edits I do wwould conform to the requirements. Thanks a bunch. GrandMoffVixen 02:59, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its more of a visual presentation, if the picture seems grany, and in your case the picture looked squashed as well, then it really shouldn't be dispalyed. The picture you uploaded was grany as I could see the pixelation in it, and again the image looked sqashed. This one is more of a common sense rule. My policy with images is, if you wouldn't put it on an official document, like a school report worth 50% of your grade, something you'd give to your boss, or anthing along those lines, then don't put it in an article. Again though that is my policy so take it as you will. Lancer1289 08:06, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I uploaded a new one. Tell me what you think so I can try again if it doesn't work. GrandMoffVixen 03:21, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is still a very grany image. The other major problem is the HUD elements in the middle of the image. We really want to avoid the HUD in screenshots, and I know Dammej has been very good about it. Either way, it still isn't up to the quality of other images, even when I shrunk it and played around with it as I could still see the pixelation. For good pictures take a look at Eclipse Trooper or FENRIS Mech or LOKI Mech article for good screenshots. The images there are the ones without any major pixelation and they are high quality images. Lancer1289 08:31, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is still a very grany image. The other major problem is the HUD elements in the middle of the image. We really want to avoid the HUD in screenshots, and I know Dammej has been very good about it. Either way, it still isn't up to the quality of other images, even when I shrunk it and played around with it as I could still see the pixelation. For good pictures take a look at Eclipse Trooper or FENRIS Mech or LOKI Mech article for good screenshots. The images there are the ones without any major pixelation and they are high quality images. Lancer1289 08:31, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Quarian Language
Hi, sorry I wrote the wrong info, but I found the answer about Keelah Se'lai on http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/105/index/1778641/2 in the first post, and Tali says that in ME2 while on her loyalty mission.
 * Yea except there are no BioWare employees on that thread and most of the people are guessing at the meaning. A post by a non-BioWare person is some of the purest form of speculation there is. Again that is not a valid soruce becuase there are no BioWare people to confirm it and it is people mostly guessing at what it means. All of that forum is speculation, therefore not a valid source for information. We don't know, and neither did any of the people who posted on that thread, they all guessed. Lancer1289 09:33, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. Using that blog as a source, I could just as easily say that 'keelah se'lai' means 'don't drink the water' or 'die in a fire'. SpartHawg948 09:35, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Addendum: Also that specific post you mentioned, at the end the author closes with and I quote "My two cents", i.e. his guess, i.e. his opinion, which is speculation either way you put it. We don't know what it means and everyone there was guessing. Granted a well thoughtout guess, but still a guess. He also mentions phrases like "my guess" and "Hypothetically speaking", so it is again his guess, and not fact, so we don't know what those words mean. Lancer1289 09:39, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Shepard's new armor has a name at last
I just found a new pack that has both weapon and get this the same looking armor from the arc projector pic.

The Aegis Pack adds the M-29 Incisor sniper rifle and the Kestrel armor to Shepard’s armor locker. The Incisor sniper rifle is a burst-fire weapon that excels in destroying enemy shields. The Kestrel armor comes in five pieces: The Kestrel Helmet adds weapon damage, shield strength, and headshot damage. The Kestrel Torso Sheath adds melee and weapon damage and shield strength. Kestrel Arm Sheathing adds melee and weapon damage and shield strength. Kestrel Shoulder Pieces adds shields and melee damage. The Kestrel hip-mounted Power Pack ups shields and heavy weapon ammo capacity. http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/games/offers/0ccf0015-0000-4000-8000-0000454108ce?partner=MajorNelson Shadowhawk27 12:21, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * My appoloigies for not addressing this right away. As I couldn't sleep last night for whatever reason. I decided to look over my paper one last time, and to my shock I found a whole section missing and several edits gone as well. So I spent the last few hours fixing that. So to this new DLC pack. Lancer1289 14:08, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's ok, i know the feeling of lack of sleep :( By the way congrates on being the new administer to this site, you have my full support ;) Shadowhawk27 20:23, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Acutally the funny thing is I'm not all that tired. A quick nap about 3 hours ago and I'm fine. Maybe it has to do with the tea that I have been drinking all day. Lancer1289 20:49, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar
Just noticed a possibly broken link on the monaco sidebar. Under Manual of Style, there's a link that literally says "Editing $1" that goes nowhere. We selling the space or something? :) Anyway, it looks like the link is broken, or more likely, we don't appear to have an Editing page in the Manual. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:38, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we are selling the link, or at least no one has told me so. But a dollar, I think we can get more than that for it. :)
 * Getting back on topic, you are correct in that is a broken link. I have since removed it because the redirect didn't work. So bye bye broken link. Too bad maybe we could have gotten some money for it. Lancer1289 21:45, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Slow down speedy
I appreciate that you like to bring up issues quickly, but would you consider letting the person that added a move tag to the article get the first word in on the discussion, to clarify their position? Seems like the courteous thing to do in my eyes. :) Dammej 22:08, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, used to people just posting delete, move, or whatever tags and then leaving it just like that and not opening the disucssion on the talk page. Lancer1289 22:11, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Jack romance pic
What's wrong with it?

How Can I Help?
Hey Lancer, you seem to know what's what on this wiki. I love Mass Effect so much I wanna help contribute. So are there any pages that need contributing (Note: I just created this account). Thanks! MEfan217 20:46, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well welcome to the ME wiki then. Anyway there are many was that anyone can help. First is to take a look at our Style Guide and Community Guidelines and read them over to get familier with our policies. A good place to look for something to do is the Article Stubs and Articles Needing cleanup cateogries. Those two categories are good places for anyones looking for something.
 * In general, just looking through the site and checking articles isn't a bad thing to do either. However before doing anything, do read though our sytle guide and community guidelines just so you are familier with our policies. Apart from the general advice to read over the guide and guidelines, just look around and anything that helps one article helps the wiki as a whole. Lancer1289 22:04, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can do a favor for me too, i've been trying to add this SFXGameContentDLC_PRE_Cerberus.SFXWeapon_CerberusShotgun to the PC Tweaks (Mass Effect 2) section Shadowhawk27 02:19, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, becuase I really don't use all the mods when playing PC, I generally avoid the PC Tweeks articles, unless there is vandalism, because I really don't know where this goes. If you can post this on the talk page, if you haven't already, and I'm sure someone can add it when it is double checked. If it is already on the talk page, then post a new message and be specific about where it should go. Again I really don't mod my games on the PC, with one exception, StarCraft, so I'm not really of much help here. If you don't want to go to the talk page, Bastian964 has done a lot of edits to the article, so I'd recommend contacting them. Again I'm not really good with this so hopefully I have pointed you in the right direction. Lancer1289 02:27, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the warm welcome. I have checked out both the style guide and community guidelines, so I'm happy to just use the wiki. Thanks so much for helping to make this wiki betterto use for all of us huge ME fans out there.

-Mousy
 * Well welcome. We all do our absolute best to make the ME Wiki the best and #1 place for all your Mass Effect related needs. Lancer1289 19:56, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Blatant Vandalism by 67.244.114.72
Unregistered Contributer 67.244.114.72 replaced all the text in Forum:Character_builds with what equates to nonsense. Bastian964 17:51, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Already caught and taken care of. Thanks for being on the lookout. Lancer1289 17:53, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you for taking care of them. Bastian964 17:55, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * As you said, no problem at all. Lancer1289 17:57, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Main N7 Picture
Sorry to bug you again but the main picture for the N7 Armor currently violate our minimize-the-amount-of-Shepard policy. It lacks a helmet. While there are two option for helmets we only really need to pick one because that picture doesn't need to show everything, like how it doesn't show the legs fully. Furthermore, the helmets are just variations of each other. Anyway, while the image does need to be replaced, unless someone thinks differently, I am unsure if we should leave it up until a new image is found or if it should be taken down immediately. Bastian964 18:09, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry dropped out for lunch. Anyway while it does violate the whole minimize thing, we don't have a better image right now. My opinion is to leave it up until we get a better image. Dammej has been taking a lot of armor pictures so I stuggest dropping him a line to ask for a new armor picture. I'd prefer one with the N7 Breather Helmet as that would almost certainly cut out most of the facial features. Lancer1289 18:34, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I was clean so we were both busy. :) I have to agree about the use of the Breather Helmet. Anyways the line has been dropped. Bastian964 19:09, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10-4, now I have to go fix a problem I had when I was editing. Curse having 5 tabs open. Lancer1289 19:12, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pic uploaded. Dammej 02:03, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job, Thanks Dammej. Lancer1289 02:06, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering...
Hey, I've been working on another wiki recently, and it's been basically abandoned by everyone. It's really unorganized, so I want to create a character box template, but every time I try, it always turns out wrong. I must be coding it entirely wrong. So, I was wondering if you would know how to do something like that, or know anyone who does? Sorry to bug you about this, I just didn't know where to go. Thanks. --Effectofthemassvariety 23:12, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I need some info first before I know if I can help you, and I had my laptop closed becuse I was fixing my desktop, finally have my graphics cards sorted out.
 * Anyway the first question is really just because I'm curious, which wiki becuase I really just need a look?
 * Are you refering to the character boxs like the ones we have at the top of our character articles like Garrus?
 * If you can answer those two questions then I can help or at least point you in the right direction. Lancer1289 01:15, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

About the Illusive Man page
Is that why the latest post on the talk page was how you dragged it off topic and that the info should be there? CAW4 15:03, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dragged it off topic, well that's a stretch. I pointed out that saying the Illusive Man's eyes are similar to Shepard's cybernetic implants implies that the Illusive Man's eyes are cybernetic, which is of course speculation. You said I put words in your mouth, which I didn't, and you brought the topic further off course by focusing on that falseality. I never put words in your mouth and saying that I did is incorrect. Also by wording it by saying Cybernetic Implants, which is how you wanted it, implies that the Illusive Man's eyes are cybernetic, which is again speculation, and as pointed out by Spart on the talk page.
 * You said I lied, which is false as I stated myself clearly, you questioned my integrity, which I take as an Insult anytime that happens, and that is where the discussion got off topic. You are the one who accused me of lying, and defended that, rather than focusing on topic, no matter what anyone else said. You are quick to violate our guidelines about language in just about every post, and since you direct all of that at me, I take it as a further insult. The discussion got off topic because you focused on one thing I said, and blew it out proportion, which is where it got off topic. You are very quick to insult me, throw rude language in my direction, or call my integrity into question in just about everything I do. Which seems to me that you have it out for me just because I don't agree with you and your views on what is and isn't trivia, despite president, our guidelines, and despite multiple other users agreeing with me that it isn't trivia.
 * As to the trivia, bottom line, for reasons already stated it isn't trivia. Lancer1289 16:35, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * When every single post has you saying speculation and I'm just trying to get you to quit saying that, I'm sure as hell not the one bringing it off topic. As I said many times, I was not in any way, shape, or form trying to have anything at all like that in there, and you keep saying that I am, you are lying.
 * I take it as an insult when people put words in my mouth, which was exactly what you were doing, and once again you are lying. After I called you out for lying, you never responded afterwards. I never tried to force that you were lying, I asked you to stop saying I was speculating, since I had said multiple times that I was not in any way saying what you were accusing me of, and even offering to allow anyone to format it how they wished, which you completely ignored to focus on saying that I was speculating.
 * I have not violated the language policy since my ban expired, nothing I have done has gone against the language guidelines, which you would realize if you read them. And the reason that it's focused at you is because you do nearly nothing for the wiki. You remove useful information, and the average amount of edits you make that add something are only about 5 per 500 edits.
 * And it got off topic because I focused on what you said? I told you to drop it but YOU kept repeating speculation like it was a fetish. You may have started off simply misinformed, but after I've said directly to you twice that that was not my intention and that I was fine with having my edit formated you are lying, or you are simply not reading my replies.
 * And your 'reasons already stated' are about the equivalent of 'it doesn't count.' Your arguments focus on either 'unnessisary' (Which is a bs cop out excuse), or 'speculation' (which, for reasons already stated, is lying). Get an actual reason for going against it. CAW4 19:13, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't violate the language policy huh, "And now you're just making shit up." "THE SAME DAMN GAME" "JUST. FUCKING. STOP." "Wow, really? Keep trolling, since apparently all you and lancer need are your undo buttons", "trolling", "Which is a bs cop out excuse". Six examples of you either violating the language policy or insulting other users. You have again insulted me becuase you said I lied when no one else says that I did. You accued me of putting words in your mouth, which I didn't, and lying, which I didn't also. Remember that people can disagree without getting hostile, which you do every time someone disagrees with you.
 * I read you replies and all you kept doing was insulting me and calling into question my integerity, which I again take VERY serisouly. You clearly haven't read my posts becuase I explaned, and Spart did as well, why I said what I did.
 * As to my undos end my edits, I have done many things to make this wiki better, more than 80 edits as you claim, so you again insult me. I undo things when they go against policy and our guidelines that you are so quick to break or ignore. You seem to patrol my contributions looking for an excuse to bring something up that was either fixed or undone becuase of said policies.
 * If you would read our speculation policy, you would realize that most of the edits that are undone by Spart, Myself, and other users, is pure speculation and doesn't warrent a place in the articles. They are all valid removals and if you would read the policy then you would see why.
 * As to my apparently reasonable excuse that you have again violated the language policy again on, I felt that I didn't have to repeat what Dammej and Bastian964 already stated. I gave my reasons and they are in line with what other users have said so why repeate them. Lancer1289 19:37, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * The language policy states that offensive language is not tolerated in articles, which I've never done, or against other users which I haven't done either. Using foul language is not completely restricted, and the times I've used offensive language so far have not gone against the language policy. You really should read it before trying to use it against someone.
 * I only said you lied once, and after I said that you never responded again. You are lying by saying all I was saying was that you're lying. That...that's just...really?
 * And because you keep saying you explained why it was removed, let's look at what you said
 * 1) "Speculation" and "not enough to justify trivia" (both seem to be your buzzwords, and there was nothing that showed any reason for it to be removed)
 * 2) See #1
 * 3) Only "not enough to justify trivia" (again, no facts or anything that isn't in the eye of the beholder)
 * 4) Not having seen the dev interview that I referenced and "speculation"
 * I'm not joking or exagerating, it's there for anyone to see right on the Illusive Man talk page.
 * I don't look for just your edits that remove valuable pieces of information, I'd put valuable info back in no matter who removed it, but you're the person who does almost all of it. Don't blame me for what you do.
 * I've read all the policies, there's little you (un)do that's warranted by those policies. Your arguments are little more than 'I don't like it, so it's gone.'
 * And once again, I'm all for coincidental similarities being removed. But when the similarity is something that's in this game, nothing from outside it, and what causes the similarity was added withing the same game and has the camera focus in on multiple times throughout the game, it's nowhere near coincidental. CAW4 00:16, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * And you are arguing that I remove things I don't like, which is a completly false. There is a lot that gets removed when I want it to stay, but we have guidelines for speculation and the like, which you don't seem to understand, don't care about, or think that everything should be in the trivia secitons that even hints at a similarity. 1) + 2) Again speuclation becuase of the cybernetic implants. Saying that TIM's eyes are similiar to Shepard's cybernetic implants, is implying that they are cybernetic themselves, which is speuclation. I explaned that, and tried agin in my second respone. 3) To Quote Bastian964 "Either this trivia counts as "Coincidental similarities" or it is speculating that there is some significant reason for the alleged visual similitarity between the Illusive Man's eyes and Shepard's implants. Neither of which are allowed as trivia." 4) Your dev interview states that the eyes played a part in the creation of the character, and nothing more. We don't know what they ment, and you seem to want to put words in their mouths, or interperit their words to suit your own needs. Either way that is SPECULATION, which isn't allowed.
 * My undo's are perfectly justified and would have been done by other users, had I not gotten to them first. Speculation isn't allowed, and "Coincidental similarities", aren't trivia either.
 * As to the lying, I stated why I said what I did, using the word IMPLES multiple times. I wans't lying becuase I wans't putitng words in your mouth. I stated that saying they resemble Shepard's cybernetic IMPLIES that they are cybernetic. Which is of course Speculation. I used imples becuase it avoids me lying and me putting words in your mouth. Get your facts straight and look at it from an outside perspective. Read it, with the cybernetic implants, and tell me that you don't see that implying that the Illusive Man's eyes are cybernetic. That is speulcaiton, which isn't allowed, nor are visual comparisons, which as pointed out by Dammej, "The pattern is not the same. Renegade shep has solid red pupils with 3 small dots in the iris. The illusive man has a circle that goes around the pupil, 3 much larger circles in the iris, plus arcs between each of these circles" they are similart, i.e. visual comparison, i.e. not trivia. Your only support is that dev interview that you keep coming back so which you twist by putting words into the mouths of the devs, to suit your own needs. We don't know what they ment by them saying that a lot of work went into TIM's eyes. Becuase we don't know what they said, it is speculation and therefore not trivia. I have given you reasons that this isn't trivia and you still argue that it is, which is completly against our policies. Lancer1289 00:44, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * CAW4, face facts. You have violated the language policy several times since your ban expired. Lancer demonstrated as much above. Stating that you have not violated the policy in the face of evidence to the contrary is a lie. And we know how you feel about lies and people who tell them. SpartHawg948 19:55, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, I advise you to read the policy. It was not in the article, nor was it directed at another user. It would be against the language policy to say "eff you" or "You are _____," but using language is not instantly against the language policy. Every time I've used it, it is being used as an adjective or adverb to show intense emotion.
 * If you want to keep talking about the language policy, use my talk page, I don't want this going off topic as the original one did. CAW4 00:16, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will admit, you are correct. Your language thus far has not violated the language policy. I was mistaken. Your language thus far has actually been in violation of the banning policy. Several specific infractions are listed as things that can result in a ban. Among these is "Crude or offensive language". This is taken straight out of the Community Guidelines, which I advise you to read in their entirety before asking that others do the same. And again, I have at least three examples of violations of this policy by you since your ban expired. "And now you're just making shit up." "THE SAME DAMN GAME" "JUST. FUCKING. STOP." Clear-cut violations of the banning policy. SpartHawg948 00:25, July 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The banning policy is an overview of what can get you banned. It's essentially another heading for the language section which I have not gone against (Compare it to

law. There are overviews such as 'Killing is illegal,' while it gets further explained and things such as killing in self defense aren't illegal.) CAW4 01:44, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... no. You know why? Because in the law, there are overviews, but when there are said overviews, there are also detailed accounts of what is and isn't excusable. Here, that is not the case. It's black and white. The banning policy is not an 'overview', it is the policy in its entirety. To modify your analogy so that it actually works, the law is 'Killing is illegal'. No ifs, ands, or buts. Self defense? What's that? Please don't try to argue this with the person who (as it just so happens) is the arbiter of these policies. You won't win. An overview can only exist when there is something more detailed for the overview to summarize. And that isn't the case here. So no, it's not like the law. Please do two things for me. 1) Start following the policy. 2) Come up with analogies that work. SpartHawg948 01:52, July 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll delete the language policy section then, since everything within it is rendered moot by the banning policy.
 * And since I'll be editing, I'll add in the Illusive Man's eyes, since you have nothing in terms of arguments and have twice simply driven the topic off topic and stopped caring about what was supposed to be discussed. CAW4 02:13, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * And how about that is only to be edited by admins and and people with admin permission, which you are neither. Also the tircia isn't trivia and I have explianed why, LIKE YOU ASKED, and you apparently didn't read it. So that isn't my fault becuase I did not derail this topic, I explained and responed to your comments, and you apprarently didn't read them. I gave very valid reasons for why it isn't trivia and you either did read it or ignored it. See all of my posts before accusing me again of derailing the topic, when you did. Don't accuse me of doing things I didn't. Lancer1289 02:23, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now you're just making shit up." and "JUST. FUCKING. STOP." were directed right at me becuase I disagreed with you, which falls under insulting behavior towards another user. Ok so maybe ti was the banning policy, but you still violated policy and insulted me in the process. Lancer1289 00:49, July 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Saying "you're just shit" or "fuck you" would have been violations, these are not.
 * Once again, if you want to discus the language policy, do it on my talk page, don't derail this topic. CAW4 01:44, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Uploading videos
You know how to upload videos? I can't for the life of me figure out how. All I want to do is upload this (the Mass Effect Story So Far video BioWare released about the time Overlord came out) for use on the main page (this stems from my project). It's an official video, so I think it meets Community Guidelines standards. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:45, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah well the rule is, no videos, see the Mass Effect Wiki:Community Guidelines, General FAQ, last item for more. However if you allow me to modify your page, then I can get that video into the page. We use the embedded feature, but again it will go quicker if you allow me to mod the page, and then I can explain it. Lancer1289 00:02, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Permission granted. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:09, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Ok as to now as how we embed videos. We embed vidoes using the (URL of Video) command. Just replace the (URL of video) with the actual URL, and the video and Wikia will do the rest. There are a few other parts, but I really don't understand them. Anyway that's embedding videos 101. Lancer1289 00:19, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, thanks a bunch. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:25, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Bug
"I believe that bug was removed before, a few times now"

Do you mind if I ask why? It is most certainly a bug, and if it has been removed several times, then obviously multiple people have reported it, which many people would consider confirmation of its existence.
 * Because, to quote one of our other admins, SpartHawg948 on one removal, "Given that addressing female military officers as 'sir' is fairly commonplace in sci-fi (reference the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica for a prime example), can't say for sure its a bug". And I tend to agree. It isnt' a bug because we don't know that it is. Lancer1289 02:57, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

dreadnought numbers
How can the number of Asari dreadnoughts be 20 either way? If the Destiny Ascension is saved, there is no mention of another Asari dreadnought being destroyed or decommissioned. This has to be an error on the part of Bioware.

Aside from that I would be interested to know where in the game it confirms that the Asari lose a dreadnought if the Destiny Ascension is saved; I have always saved the Destiny Ascension and haven't found any mention of dreadnought numbers other than the Codex, unless the problem was overlooked by Bioware. "...since the Codex is...the ultimate source of canon information..." That may be, but I wouldn't blindly obey a source just because it says so. It is probably just an oversight by Bioware, who wrote the Codex in the first place. Can the inconsistency at least be mentioned in the trivia section? Until definitive proof is furnished that the asari lost or decommissioned another dreadnought while the Destiny Ascension was saved, I won't believe that the Codex mentioned number for Mass Effect 2 is anything other than a mistake by Bioware, it just doesn't make sense. The Codex was written by humans after all.
 * It isn't confirmed in game so to speek but in the Codex. See Codex/Ships and Vehicles. We were able to confirm that the Codex says 20 either way, whether or not the Ascension was saved, and since the Codex is Law, and the ultimate source of canon information, if it says 20, then we say 20. Just becuase something isn't mentioned doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Lancer1289 13:20, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also remember rame race caps, asari, turian, and human are common nouns in the ME universe so they are here and are lower case. See our style guide particularly our naming conventions for alien races. Lancer1289 14:35, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, saying that it is a Bioware mistake is as much a speculation as saying the dreadnought is lost/decommissioned. As you said, proof is needed for saying that the asari could have lost/decommissioned another dreadnought, so proof is also needed for claiming it is a Bioware mistake. That's why neither of the 2 possibilities are mentioned anywhere. Teugene 16:16, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yea how about the Codex doens't have a trivia section for a good reason. And noting it in the starships trivia section is unwarrented becuase we don't know that it is an oversite. Also the Codex is the ultimate source of canon information and unless there is evidence to the contrary, like on the Graybox page, it is FACT. Again just because we don't see it happend doesn't mean that it didn't whcich is what you are arguing. The games and books can only cover so much, and who is to say that the asari didn't decommission a dreadnought or lost another in the span of two years, becuase both seem very plausable.
 * Just because the Codex was written by humans doesn't mean that it is a mistake. We have a confirmed case where it is a mistake, noted above, but maybe BioWare indended that for a reason, oh maybe to avoid saying that the asari have 21 dreadnoughts if you saved the Ascension, and 20 if they don't. They worte it that way for a reason, and until we have evidence to the contrary it isn't noteworthy because the Codex is law. Lancer1289 16:22, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Until we have proof one way or the other, we can't say anything more. The Codex says 20, and yes we will "blindly obey" it becuase the Codex is from a canon source and again until we have prof one way or the other we can't say that it is an oversight/mistake, or that the asari decommissioned a dreadnought or lost one in the mean time. Either way is speculation. Lancer1289 16:25, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is what was already stated by Teugene. Again until we have proof, we can't say anything either way becuase it is speuclation, which isn't allowed. Lancer1289 16:27, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Asari Consort
Is there any written proof beyond your speculation that she lives there?

Saltpeter1 13:42, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Considiering a few things here. It was up there for well two and a half years, it was like that when the article was created as a matter of fact, before you changed it, and being passed over by two adimins several times, they tend to agree. Normanlly becuase he is a consort, i.e. a fancy name for a prostitue, and considering she runs a more fancy version of a brothel, and considering what her private quarters looks like, it is very logical to assume that she lives there. And many people agree with that. Also considering the fact that the second person to edit the page, an admin, left it like that after she edited the page to add more detail. THere is enormous president for this and from the evidence, she clearly lives at her place of business. Which also has historical backup as well. Lancer1289 14:09, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as another note, I lost track of the amount of times that this was passed over by editors and admins alike. Lancer1289 14:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right. I trust you that it is where she lives but no matter how many admins or users agree it's still speculation, remember when I changed the article about Sgt.Haron and you changed it because you didn't know it was him, well sure I was speculating but isn't this about the the consort speculation too? I understand that there is some indirect evidence that suggests the consort lives there, but Sgt.Haron's face tatoo's match in the two cutscenes so isn't that indirect evidence too? The only difference between the two is that admins looked over the consort article.Saltpeter1 14:35, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait just one second, now you are saying that you agree that she lives at the Consort Chambers too? Because I am very confused now. There is a large amount of evidence both in the universe and outside the universe that give support to claim that she lives where she works. Also several admins and other editors agreed with that statement in there was enough evidence to support that claim. The majority has ruled in this manner, considering it could have been changed by any number of editors, and yet it wasn't. Lancer1289 15:15, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lancer lack of change is not a good defense for not changing something now. I have to agree with Saltpeter that it is speculation to say that she lives there. They might we called her "Private Chambers" but it's a brothel that's a pretty obvious name for them. Would you want to live where you worked if you ran a brothel? Do we actually have any statement that says she lives there? If not then changing it to 'works' isn't such a horrible thing and removes absolute any possible speculation. Bastian964 17:47, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * However in history, women who ran brothels did actually live there, granted it wasn't where busisness was done, usually, but they still lived there. However I can see I'm on the minority side of this argument so if you want to change it back fine. Lancer1289 18:08, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * But Lancer as I said I agreed because she probably lives there but it's still speculation and why does human history about prostitutes living in there brothels matter? The asari are aliens so there prostitutes might not live in there brothels, it's a likely assumption that she lives there but again there's no proof and the fact that human prostitutes live in there brothels is not valid since asari arn't human.Saltpeter1 01:52, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * History matters because it put the universe in context. BioWare had to get their ideas from somewhere, so putting htings in context matters. Works is fine becuase it setteles the matter so why keep arguing at this point. I consider this matter closed. Lancer1289 02:02, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for accepting "works", it's apreciated
 * Saltpeter1 02:08, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for accepting "works", it's apreciated
 * Saltpeter1 02:08, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Saltpeter1 02:08, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Policy forum
Congrats on becoming an admin by the way. I've had a look now, and it definitely seems like an interesting idea, though I'm rarely active enough to contribute a great deal. Phylarion 16:51, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thank you as well. As to you not being active enough, anyone that makes a positive contribution, or anyone visiting for that matter, can still voice their opinion. After all this is a colaberative project so anything positive, whether it be a comment about a policy, or an edit to an article, helps. :) Lancer1289 16:55, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Eternity edit
If it's not trivia, then put it somewhere else instead of just completely erasing it.
 * How about it doesn't belong anywhere becuase after finally sorting out my graphic cards, and figureing out the fly cam feature, against my better judgement, I couldn't reproduce this result on my game. I even tried this on my 360, just to cover the bases, and I still couldn't see anything that you don't see, more clearly, when the camera gets close to Tali's face during normal game play. There are the white eyes and they appear to be set against black skin, or at least from my perspective. So for that reason it doesn't belong anywhere because it can be seen elsewhere, without mods, or moving the camera angle to just the right angle. Also putting it in the quarian article wouldn't be good either becuase we don't know if that is what they look like, or if is just another placeholder image. So again, it really doesn't belong anywhere. Lancer1289 21:57, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that happened because of the way the Quarian moved back and forth. Sorry for the speculation, it's probably just a placeholder.
 * (edit conflict x2) You also have to understand that in most cases (such as this one) the 'if it's not trivia, put it somewhere else instead of erasing it' method is just plain impractical. I mean, where else should it go? And why? Most things that get removed because they aren't trivia are removed because they have no bearing whatsoever on the topic. If we include this bit, next we'll have to include that Vulcan Station may be named after Vulcans from Star Trek (which it obviously isn't), or that krogans are like Klingons and asari are like Vulcans (neither are true), or include the names of every fictional ship from every sci-fi genre named Cerberus or Sovereign. Some things just don't need to be in articles, and this was one of them. SpartHawg948 22:04, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum- also, please remember, it's quarian, not Quarian. SpartHawg948 22:04, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum- also, please remember, it's quarian, not Quarian. SpartHawg948 22:04, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ok I get it, and that was just a typo.
 * Just making sure, since this 'typo' also appeared in the trivia item in question. SpartHawg948 22:09, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x3) Oh that's how you did it, well that I have experienced and that is what I see when you move the camera in the same motion across Tali's face, and even when it zooms in close during some of the romance secitons. If BioWare could just release an image, or even a vague description about what quarians look like, we can settle this debate. However something tells me that either they won't until ME3, or never. I do like the mystery they provide however so I guess I really can't complain.
 * (edit conflict x3) Also do watch your name race caps, quarian, asari, human, etc, are all lower case due to them being common nouns. Sorry but the good editor, or admin, still getting used to that, hat never really comes off. Lancer1289 22:11, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Purgatory
The prisoner being interrogated is not the same prisoner who sends the email. The convict who sends is the email is called Billy, the convict being tortured is called Bimmy. I was removing an incorrect fact.
 * And yes you would be correct on that, and after digging through the history it was added by someone then just overlooked. Oh well my mistake.. Then I guess the quote thing is my only complaint. Lancer1289 18:15, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

More Sidebar stuff
Just a couple things, I think you can fix them all at once whenever we finally get the proposed Series article out there. Under "Mass Effect Overview", there is still a link to the now-deleted PC version article. Next, under "Mass Effect Series" and "Mass Effect 2", I believe the link to N7 Armor needs to be changed to Armor Customization now that we have all the armor parts there. Uhhhh... that should be it. I think. Got one of those tip-of-the-tongue thoughts I can't place. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:29, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well see if you can think of that other thought. Anyway I can remove the PC version link, but I have to say that the N7 armor link stays. Mianly becuase it is the only armor players have access to without DLC so having that link is a very good idea. I can add a link to the armor customization option, but the link to the N7 armor should stay. Give me a minute. Lancer1289 18:35, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Lancer1289 18:36, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign - 'We' vs 'I'
It is a fact that Sovereign always refers to itself as an individual " I am Sovereign and this station is mine ." " I am beyond your comprehension." In contrast to Legion who referes to itself as a group " We are all Geth." "There is only we ." despite the fact that both entities contain many AI programs. This is something that should be mentioned somewhere in the article on Sovereign, and if not in the trivia section, I would be very interested to know where.

79.67.147.213 20:16, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong anywhere. It is dialogue and as I stated in my edit summary, we don't know how other Reapers refer to themselves. We also have only one other snythetic race to compare them too, or rather one other synthetic unit. Dialogue, or how someone says something, isn't trivia especially becuase we only have two comparison points. Dialogue isn't mentioned in articles for a reason, we have subpages for squadmates, but otherwise it isn't noteworthy. The fact that Sovereign referes to itself in the first person, while LEGION, refers to itself as a group, isn't noteworth becuase we know how the geth function, while we don't know how the Reapers function. One progarm in Sovereign can be in control of the comm system, another enginnering, and the progam in the dialogue system says "I" for whatever reason. Bottom line, it isn't belong anywhere becuase its diaogue, we have very little to compare it to, and we don't know how the Reapers function, while we know the geth are a collective intelligence, like the Borg. Lancer1289 20:25, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

[sic]
I re-added the [sic] in the Purgatory article, because its doing exactly what its job is: Indicating that the misspelling of Shepard as "Shepherd" exists in the original email from the game, as is not the result of an error in transcription. I'm not saying BioWare made an error. I'm quite certain that they intentionally had this unknown person misspell Shepard's name in the email. But people visiting this site won't immediately know that, and may attempt to correct the error. Having the [sic] tag next to the name lets them know "oh, that's how it is in the game". Basically, it'll save us having to make hundreds of undos for people mistakenly correcting it. -- Dammej ( talk ) 08:58, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary said it all. However I am used to seeing [sig] next to something that needs a fact check, so a little ignorance on my part to also not know what that ment. So thanks for fixing that and I guess I've learned something new today. :) Lancer1289 09:01, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to elaborate I guess. I actually thought you'd already retired for the night, so I wanted to leave a more thorough explanation just in case. Guess it wasn't needed. :) Cheers! -- Dammej ( talk ) 09:11, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, can't sleep for some reason, maybe it was the 5 cans of soda and the 20+, I lost track, cups of tea that I had. Or maybe I don't want to fall asleep as I slept most of the weekend, especially while my Internet was out on Saturday. Anyway so I guess I can do something in the mean time. I don't have class today until 7:00 pm so I can take a nap during the day if I need to. :) In case no one has figured it out yet, I have a very weird sleep schedule. Lancer1289 09:15, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Intergalactic Distances - Dark Space
The Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter and 1000 light years thick. Galaxies are on average millions of parsecs apart, one parsec equal approximately 3.26 light years. The number of stars in a galaxy ranges from as little as ten million to as much as a hundred trillion in some supergalaxies. If galaxies were only a few thousand light years apart, the gravitational pull of so much stellar mass would cause exponentially more galactic collisions and would tear galaxies apart. Such events, if they occured as frequently as the thousand light year error implies, would be cataclysmic for the galaxies involved, and on an astronomical scale, highly noticeable. The Milky Way has dozens of satellite galaxies, the closest of which is the Canis Major dwarf galaxy at 42,000 light years from the galactic centre; this is probably where the error originates. Only three of these orbiting galaxies is less than 100,000 light years wawy from the Milky Way, the other are several hundred thousand to over half a million light years away. But even these distances are unusual in that they are at the far end of the spectrum of galactic distance, the Andromeda galaxy for example is approximately 2,500,000 light years away.

The claim that galaxies are thousands of light years apart is ludicrously unrealistic. Scientists and astronomers, with the help of high powered telescopes - both space based and ground based - estimate the avaerage distances to be millions of parsecs. I was correcting a false fact on the Dark Space article page.
 * No you are not correcting a false fact here as it has been proven outside of Wikipedia that the CMDG is 25,000 LY away not millions. Putting millions imples that a greater distance exists, when the nearest is a mere 25,000 LY away. Galaxies are close together and since all of the Milky Way's satalites are within 300,000 LY, then millions is inappropiate as it is incorrect. There is proof and evidence for the current way the article is pharsed, so stop chaning it back and note you are in edit war territory now, which is a bannable offence. Lancer1289 10:23, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that you are being deliberately ambiguous with the distance of the Canis Major dwarf galaxy. The CMDG is 25,000 light years away from our solar system, and 42,000 light years away from the galactic centre , since we are discussing galactic distances it would appear that the latter distance is the relevant distance, but even this is unusually close. Furthermore, I never said that the CMDG was millions of light years, and it is concerning that you attempted to imply that I did. Having said that, even if we discount all but the galaxies within 1 megaparsec of the Milky Way (the limit your wikipedia list is based on), those galaxies that are tens of thousands of light years away are at the far end of the spectrum and very much in the minority. The rest of the galaxies on the list are hundreds of thousands to millions of light years away. Even then, we could discount all but those galaxies that orbit the Milky Way; only three, including the CMDG are less than 100,000 light years away, the others are close to half a million light years away.

If you can't bring yourself to recognise millions as the most realistic average, at least change the Dark Space article to say hundreds of thousands, or if you insist to tens of thousands of light years, since I am sure even you would agree that 1000s is far too short a distance, even for the CMDG.

Please also note that the correct spelling of 'satalite' is satellite. Minor errors are forgiveable when touch typing, but obvious spelling mistakes like this look sloppy and second rate, and it is hard to take seriously someone who cannot spell properly.
 * And when someone starts point out spelling errors that occur from typing quickly, then the converstaion starts driting off topic. Anyway would you say you had millions of dollars if you only had say 500,000, no you wouldn't because it would be inaccurate, which is what his debate is about, accuracy, NOT averages. Also take this to the talk page in question. Lancer1289 10:58, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, as regards pointing out spelling mistakes, but you have failed to answer the rest of my message.
 * Becuase this is about the Dark Space article where this should be discussed as I said in my last comment and where I have answered and provided back up. I don't like to repeat myself as I have answered where it is more relevent, however I'll just copy paste what I just wrote. And when you say tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands you imply 10,000 - 99,999, and 100,000 - 999,999 respectivly. Both of those are innaccurate as there are galaxies that fall outside both categories. Thousands has been used in places where tens and hundreds isn't appropiate, like this case. Thousands is more accurate and saying anything else is implying something else, when thousands has worked and is the best fit for this situation. It is also used to descibe distances beyond what yoru definition of thousands says. Examples: The Earth is thousands of miles in circumfrance. The Moon is thousands of miles from Earth. And I can go on all day. Bottom line is thousands fits better and is more accurate. Lancer1289 11:09, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy between the Earth's circumference, the distance to the moon, and the distance between galaxies is a weak one. While it may be the case that units of distances are sometimes used to denote distances greater than the actual definition, there is a reasonable limit to how far one can stretch these definitions, otherwise language begins to lose any real meaning. The difference between 1000 light years and 100,000 light years is too great to be taken seriously by simple logic.

You have insisted that accuracy is the subject of this debate, and yet you also insist on using an inaccurate figure to denote the intergalactic distances when 100,000s or even 10,000s is more accurate. Furthermore, whilst you may reasonabely take liberties in describing the circumference of the Earth (24846.5992 miles), you cannot honestly expect someone to believe that the Moon is thousands of miles away when it is actually 238,857 miles away, tens of thousands is more accurate with respect the lunar distance though ideally one should say hundreds of thousands. Similarly, the most accurate average galactic distance with respect to the Milky Way's orbiting galaxies is in the 100,000-500,000. Therefore, hundreds of thousands is the most accurate description, and tens of thousands if you wish to take liberties, but thousands is plainly false.
 * Again why isn't this on the Talk:Dark space page, instead of my talk page, where this conversation belongs and where this should be discussed. And you want us to use your definition of thousands, which seems to contrdict many other definitions, see that talk page. Lancer1289 12:05, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

One final message before I leave your talk page, it is not MY definition that I would see used, but the most accurate and representative definition - representative of scientific truth, not of various interpretations of it. You clearly don't care about accuracy at all as far as this discussion is concerned, though you have falsely stated otherwise.

But that's your business.
 * And yet everyone else seems to agree that thousands is acceptable. That's all I'm saying. Lancer1289 12:17, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum is a hollow argument, that's all I'm saying.
 * And this a community project, i.e. the majority rules, and the majority has decieded that thousands is acceptable. Again that's all I'm saying. Lancer1289 12:29, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign Unique Dialog
Hey Lan, what's up? Everything good?

I just wanted to ask you about this unique dialog page for Sovereign? I mean seriously? Sovereign really doesn't have that many lines to say. It only has a relatively small number of lines (which are totally epic though), which means that that unique dialog page will essentially include everything Sovereign can say in the game, voiding the idea of "unique" dialog completely.

I hope you can see my point here. Just an observation, nothing more. I think that article is entirely unnecessary. It's not like anyone will miss Sovereing's lines anyway; they're all very obvious to get -- unless they are horribly unobservant. Fiery Phoenix 14:08, July 19, 2010 (UTC)