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.

Re: "Noticed Vandalism"?!?
Yeah, like YOU - or whoever did this - have the right to talk when you violate other Wikis. Need a reminder? Here you go:

http://masseffect.wikia.com

If you've already decided to become a dedicated Mass Effect Wiki editor, we can arrange your application procedures on my talk page:

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Lancer1289

I suggest that before YOU go on talking, you better consider your own attitude!

P.S.: Re: "Noticed Vandalism"?!?
Just noticed that somebody must have been doing this spamming and vandalism spree. If it's not you, sorry for the harsh words - but whoever did this is sure in for some "mass effect" if I could get my hands on him!

Hahahahaha... Had to laugh at the Mass Effect comment.. lol --Humans Vanish 11:31, April 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * On both this section and the one above, it has been YOU (the Wiki contributor) who added both sections, trying to make it look like one user who's bad and this supposed one who is "apparently" good. If you are the sock puppet that this wiki has banned countless of times, I suggest you get off the wiki once and for all. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 11:34, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, probably the mistake the vandal intended many to make, but I have to ask what gave you the idea that you were responsible for arranging applications to become an editor, or that applying to be an editor was even something that even has to be done? Espcially considering you can't even identify the admins of this wiki, or, apparently, sign your own posts. JakePT 11:36, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * My sincere apologies, I see now that the sentence I was referring to was actually part of the vandalism that you were describing, sorry about that. JakePT 13:26, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

I think it was an honest mistake guys... :( --Humans Vanish 13:48, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to figure out what happened here but considering I've gotten a lot of messages since last night I'll have some reading to do when I get back from class. As for being an honest mistake, we were initally confused here so I would have to agree with that statment. Lancer1289 13:55, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there is another Lancer impersonator and I just undid an edit of his. Be vigilant about it as well. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 17:55, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * He's already been dealt with, but in the future, just revert and don't leave an edit summary. Just revert, ignore, and don't feed the troll. Lancer1289 18:02, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he is not a troll. Suffice it to say, when I frequented this wiki a couple of years back, it was administrated much better and people weren't going around telling everybody how frustrated they were with you guys.


 * Because back then, only the first game was out, and information controls were not completely set into place at the time. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 18:51, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think JakePT was right here. It appears to be an honest mistake. The anonymous user, apparently from another wiki, was duped by the vandal and genuinely believed that Lancer1289 was the person vandalizing other wikis. He came here, saw the discussion between myself and Ausir about dealing with vandals, and got mad about the apparent hypocrisy. Upon realizing that the vandal and Lancer are not one and the same, he apologized. It's a harmless mistake that we'll apparently be seeing more of, what with at least three other wikis (that I'm aware of) being vandalized. SpartHawg948 19:34, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Three? I was only aware of two, DA and KotOR, what's the third? Lancer1289 19:37, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

The Uncharted wiki. See User talk:Ausir for details. SpartHawg948 05:58, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah so that was the other one. Thank you, and since I am signing off for the night, I which you all a good night, or good morning, good afternoon, or good evening. Depending on your time zone of course. Lancer1289 06:00, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Jack Harper.
I didn't see that his name was there, but now I do. Thanks. Roger Murtaugh 04:05, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, and considering that would be a massive spoiler for Evolution, putting it there is more appropriate. Lancer1289 04:46, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * And the only single person in the world who seems to consider that a "massive spoiler" is you. Mac Walters (the lead writer for Mass Effect) confirmed that the protagonist of Evolution comic would be the Illusive Man, and did it when it was first announced, in fact, like half a year ahead of the release of the first issue. Yet you personally kept goofing and banning people on the Illusive Man page for four mounths after it! And now, with nowhere to run from the facts, you invoke this "spoiler" nonsense.


 * Come on! Your little power trip cannot cancel the facts. And the facts are that anybody who is remotely interested in this character, or the comic, already knows that Jack Harper and the Illusive Man is one and the same character. Therefore, putting this somewhere to the middle of the article is counter-informative, and will keep confusing people who come to that page and do not see this information in its rightful place at the top of the article. On the other hand, people who are not so well informed are more likely to remain that way. All because you have to "inflate your ego", as you like to say about this vandal.


 * And I have to say he seems to be a witty fellow. Not that I condone him, but I think he is not the problem here. Well, maybe a part of it, but not the source of it. And the source of it is your snobby attitude (to put it mildly), and the continuous abuse of your admin powers, which brings up the question how you gained them in the first place.


 * Actually, I've been lurking a lot here lately, and this is the opinion I've formed for myself. So I registered here just to send an e-mail to an older admin and try to draw some of their attention to what is happening here, which I am going to do tomorrow (or later today, in fact). So, please, don't ban me just yet. Bemused One 08:10, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to point out: going to another admin for advice or their opinion is great. I'd highly recommend it. (I'd also point out that if by "older" you mean "has been an admin for longer", there's only one older than me, and that's User:Bioevil087. Everyone else is a youngster by comparison!) However, you do need to be aware that all admins are equal as far as power/authority/whatever is concerned. The only thing another admin would be able to do is talk to Lancer or make edits themselves, and if the admin in question is who I think it is, that isn't likely, as our two absent admins show no signs of returning anytime soon. If you have concerns with an admin, you need to take it to a Bureaucrat, as Bureaucrats are above admins, and have the power to promote and demote admins and whatnot. The Bureaucrats for this site are myself and the aforementioned Bioevil1087, who has been absent for well over a year now. SpartHawg948 08:34, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, as to the vandal - honestly, I don't see how an objective observer could say that he isn't the problem, or is only a part of it. How is Lancer's attitude, and the alleged abuse of powers, in any way justification for this guy to go around vandalizing multiple wikis (four, at last count) with his nonsense? He is the problem because, rather than try and go about things like a civilized being (i.e. discussing the matter and, if needs be, involving people higher on the chain of command), he immediately resorted to petty vandalism on a mass scale of several websites, repeatedly and deliberately targeting Lancer and, to a lesser extent, myself, which I find odd as I was only peripherally involved with that whole thing. He then proceeded to turn his ire towards any and all users who attempted to undo his vandalism, and eventually progressed to targeting other wikis. There is nothing mature there, nor do I find any wit in his infantile humor, which relies on homophobia and gay-bashing to get a cheap laugh. SpartHawg948 09:02, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, thank you for so kindly and condescendingly telling me you don't care, but I've sent that e-mail to the old admins regardless, Bioevil087 included. And as too the vandal, I said I do not condone his actions, but happen to think that his profanities actually convey the gist of the situation any new contributor is bound to encounter on this Wiki. And I, as well as a few other folks, judging by some conversations I've read on several talk pages here, consider Lancer1289 to be more of a problem than a random Lancer1289-hating vandal, because, unlike the vandal, Lancer1289 is capable of doing lasting damage through his admin powers abuses. Bemused One 22:29, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * First this isn't a power trip and so don’t start saying that it is. Second it is a massive spoiler as that information isn’t learned until the comic, and the last two pages of the last issue. It isn’t mentioned anywhere else before this, and because of that putting it at the top is a massive spoiler for people who haven’t read Evolution. This isn’t counter-productive as you claim, but rather in line with site policy and is the way things are done here. I’m not even remotely doing this to inflate my ego so don’t claim that I am. Lancer1289 13:07, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever. I would not expect you to say anything but “No, I don’t” and “we do not do that here” in response to actual arguments. Still, I’ll point out the fact to you that the Illusive Man’s being the head of Cerberus and all that should be considered “spoilers” under your high “standards”, but the phrase “The Illusive Man's real name and his life before Cerberus are both long forgotten”, which remains unedited even after this Jack Harper epopee came to a close, is outright misleading for both long-time fans and newcomers to the series. So enjoy your power trip, Mr. Site Police. Now you can threaten me with a ban, or you can ban me, either way I can’t help improve this Wiki on your watch. Bemused One 22:33, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no need for petty jabs like that as they are just uncalled for and unnecessary. Yet again it is a massive spoiler for Evolution and you stating that the Illusive Man being the head of Cerberus is how he is introduced to the series, and while one could argue that the entire article is a spoiler, that isn't as much of one because it is again how he is introduced in Ascension. The sentence you also quote is also still very much relevant as even Miranda, arguably the Illusive Man's most loyal agent before she met up with Shepard, didn't know his past. The sentence isn't misleading, but rather quite accurate as anyone who has played ME2 and not read Evolution, would find it accurate. Even after reading Evolution, the Illusive Man buries his past which again, even his most loyal agents don't know it. Finally why exactly would I threaten to ban, or ban you? Lancer1289 22:42, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Conviniently, how you forget about the exiestence of the original Mass Effect with its faceless enigmatic evil Cerberus, while at the same time insinuating that somebody can go in reading Evolution without the prior knowledge of who is its protagonist. Supposedly, you're trying to sell us that it is some kind of "massive" revelation in the end of Evolution that Jack Harper is the Illusive Man, But te fact remains, that it was announced and advertised all the way as the story of the Illusive Man. Anyway, I have no time nor interest nor pleasure in retyping the the arguments others already brought before you more than once (incluning the "Mac Walters said so") and you handwaved as "speculation". Bemused One 23:07, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet again that is still a massive spoiler for Evolution because it isn't until the last issue that it is confirmed that Jack is the Illusive Man. Yes it was advertised as it would cover the Illusive Man's background, but again it wasn't confirmed it was Jack until the very last page basically. You also forget how and when the Illusive Man is introduced, Mass Effect: Ascension. While we actually see him for the first time in ME2, he is introduced and plays a decent role in the second novel. We don't learn much about Cerberus in ME compared to everything that comes later. Lancer1289 23:13, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Bemused One when it comes to the Article. It was announced before and therefore isn't a spoiler. The article as it is, is misleading. And while a slight stretch, you CAN compare the fact that in ME Cerberus is a faceless organization. So it would be a spoiler to anyone who can't afford to play ME2 that the Illusive Man be named the head. The article is flawed. Jack Harper should be on the article. I believe further discussion on this matter is needed in order to make the article as informative and correct as possible. --Humans Vanish 23:14, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't misleading as it goes over the information in the appropriate manner and does reveal a big spoiler right in everyone's face. It also stay in line with the information we have from the other sources in that he is called the Illusive Man and has effectively erased his past. The article stays in line with how he is first introduced and covered the appropriate material in the appropriate manner. It mentions that Jack was the Illusive Man under a spoiler tag, where that kind of information belongs and in the section it belongs considering that is his background information which again, very few, if anyone actually knows about. We don't post that Liara is the Shadow Broker at the top of her article because that is a spoiler as well and it is covered under a spoiler tag where that information is appropriate. It was announced that Evolution would deal with the Illusive Man's past, but what wasn't announced was that Jack Harper was the Illusive Man and that isn't confirmed until the last page of the last issue and because of that, it is a spoiler, plain and simple. The information is covered in the appropriate manner and in line with how we deal with that kind of information. Also just to say it again, don't forget how the Illusive Man was introduced to the Universe, as the Illusive Man, not Jack Harper, in the opening pages of Mass Effect: Ascension, and the article should reflect that. Any additional information should be covered under spoiler tags and in the appropriate section, like it's done now. Lancer1289 23:48, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is misleading, as evidenced by this very section of this talk page. It was created by somebody who was MISLED by the article, and had to have a run in with your persona to learn that the information was there, burried in the middle of the article.


 * Liara wasn't always the Shadow Broker, and with the imminent Reaper invasion and her ME3 squaddie status will probably not always remain. But the Illusive Man ALWAYS was Jack Harper and always will be. It is his BASIC INVARIABLE CHARACTERISITIC.


 * The information is covered in an inapropriate and misleading manner, but in line with how you, personally, have been dealing with it for the last half a year or so, by reverting relevant edits and banning people, with the connivance of Mr. Bureaucrat here.


 * So why don't you just be yourself to the full and say that IT IS NOT REVEALED that the character from the last two pages of the comic is Jack Harper. Or the Illusive Man. That could be anybody. Mac Walters didn't come through to say "that dude on the last page is both Jack Harper and the Illusive Man you see in the game". It's not confirmed. It's a speculation. You've been doing it for 4 months, I'm sure you could get away with it forever. So why the sudden flinch? Bemused One 01:17, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) "Flinch"? Really? I merely stated that it was speculation and until it was confirmed on the last page of the last page of the last issue of Evolution, it would have been. I merely upheld site policy and prevented speculation in the article until we had confirmation on the issue. The information, for the, what fourth or fifth time now, is covered in the appropriate place and in the appropriate manner because it is an absolutely massive spoiler from Evolution, hence why it is covered in the manner it is. To put it at the top of the article would violate site policy on Perspective to begin with. This is why a lot of articles are written the way they are, and why this information is covered in the way it is. Putting it there would not only violate policy, but put a massive spoiler right at the start of an article.
 * Also the Liara connection is valid because it does provide a point, we don't put spoliers above a spoiler tag, which is what you are arguing. I can also point to a number of examples of this, which will be pretty much everywhere.
 * And that entire last paragraph is just completely unnecessary and tthere is again no need for those petty jabs as they don't help, and they only inflame a situation. Lancer1289 01:29, April 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not more confirmed on the last two pages that Jack Harper is the Illusive Man than anywhere else in the comic, starting with the cover art of the first issue. There is no "Illusive Man" written anywhere. If you had no reason to believe that Jack Harper would be the Illusive Man during the first 80+ pages of the comic (coupled with all the advertisement), then you can't gather any more hard proof off the last two pages.


 * As to your policy, either update it in accordance with the necessities of the day to allow putting "Jack Harper" on the top of the "Illusive Man" article, or bring all the articles up to it so that the policy could be consistently lame. For example, the "Shadow Broker" article contains a "massive spoiler" in the first sentence, saying that "the Shadow Broker is an individual", whereas from the "perspective of introduction" and throughout the rest of the series up until the last moment of the "Lair of the Shadow Broker" DLC, a great deal of the mystique surrounding this character rests in the uncertainty whether it is an individual, or a group, or an AI, or maybe something else. Or take "Miranda Lawson": she is introduced in Mass Effect Galaxy, therefore her being a Cerberus Officer is a "massive spoiler", right at the top of her article.


 * Until you sort it all out, justifying removal or complication of relevant information by site policies clearly indicates your double standards and power trip tendencies. It must be quite cool to ban or revert edits of somebody who thinks faster than you. And no, these comments are not "uncalled for" and not petty jabs. I don't know who you are, and I couldn't care less if you were the British Queen or Bin Laden, but your policing here is the real problem. It has been making my browsing of this site uncomfortable, and now I find myself drawn into this stupid futile dispute with you, despite my clear understanding of what you are. Grats. Bemused One 02:42, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You just won't stop with the petty jabs will you. Parts of your comments are uncalled for and frankly unnecessary as they just inflame a situation. And instead of keeping your comments mature, you just inflame the situation.
 * As to the policy, it does provide an effective standard for this and I should also point out that while it was changed after LotSB, it does still fall in line with the policy. Miranda is a small exception to the rule, reflecting her more active role in ME2.
 * Putting Jack Harper at the top of the Illusive Man article is a violation of that policy as the information is a spoiler from Evolution and should be covered in the Illusive man's background section, given what it covers, and under an Evolution Spoiler tag. The policy is not "lame" as you claim, but very important to how we maintain articles here. The information is covered in teh appropriate way, in the appropriate section, and under the appropriate tags. Putting it at the top would violate site policy and would give up a massive spoiler for Evolution. Lancer1289 02:50, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Wait... when did I say I didn't care? I explicitly told you that going to other admins wouldn't be a viable solution to any issues with Lancer, and instead directed you to a Bureaucrat, either myself or Bioevil. At no point did I condescend, or claim not to care. I'll gladly hear any concerns about any admins, and do my very best to weigh the issues fairly and impartially. But hey, you (BemusedOne) seem more than prepared to assume the worst in people. Good for you. SpartHawg948 03:58, April 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just like you fairly and impartially banned user Shadowhawk27 over something as trivial as forgetting to log in before editing. The real reason being, of course, that he had fallen out with your precious Lancer over some other trifle, and even the fact that he had helped with reverting vandalism didn't save him. You know, this sycophancy and hypocrisy you cultivate here is sickenning to observe. The fact that you convert the simple "F.O." message (which pretty much everyone gets as soon as they dare to question the management of this Wiki) into grandiloquent tirades doesn't make you any less of a douche. It makes you more of a douche. Bemused One 16:31, April 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually he did that several times. He didn't forget to sign in. If you look at Shadowhawk27's talk page, you'll clearly see that he intentionally used an unregistered profile to "defend" his own actions. Do research on that before putting the blame on Spart. By this, your accusation is flawed and invalid. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 16:42, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * And that "someone" runs to ShadowHaw's defense, which can be found on his talk page, and that was the same user who's signature ShadowHawk replaces on multiple occasions. Then he proved sock puppetry beyond a reasonable doubt with his first, and only comment, in the Sock Puppet section, which lead to the ban. He was not banned unjustly, or because he "had fall[en] out" with me, he was banned for violating site policy. Plan and simple. Next time before you throw false and completely baseless accusation, make sure to do your research, and in this case is easily accessible and tells the whole tale, so you don't get contradicted by the overwhelming evidence.
 * And need I say it that calling someone douche is an insult and insulting other users is against site policy. Lancer1289 17:20, April 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Shadowhawk is a pretty good example, though not for the reasons Bemused One seems to assume. It seems our new friend here doesn't like to be bothered with simple things like fact checking and getting a grasp of the situation before throwing around accusations. Here's what happened with Shadowhawk: compelling evidence was presented that Shadowhawk was engaged in sock puppetry. I left him a message asking him to explain this. He responded and openly admitted to having engaged in sock puppetry in direct violation of site policy. Then and only then was a ban enacted. It wasn't because "he had fallen out with your precious Lancer over some other trifle". It was because he openly admitted to violating site policy by abusing multiple accounts. Abusing multiple accounts (as the vandal we've been dealing with has been doing) is a serious issue here, and it was his admission of guilt that got him banned. SpartHawg948 19:38, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Warcraft Page issues
Hi I was trying to access information on roleplaying in wowwiki and it said that you deleted all of the information on that page (with a rather useless and slightly disturbing picture). When you have the time would you be so kind as to remove the picture and replace it with the correct information.

Thank you for your consideration CMP.
 * Except that wasn't me and doing some quick research will confirm that. If you want more information, then just read further up the page. Lancer1289 13:02, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by a user copying your name
I'm just editing many many vandalism posts in the Wowwiki section by user "L a n c e r 1 2 8 9" posting harrasement and pictures about you.

As example http://www.wowwiki.com/File:MEWa.jpg

In source it cites: http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lancer1289 and there are references to your user name Lancer1289 all over the place.

I'm on the proccess of reverting all those changes and even thought about uploading 1px blank images to replace the existing ones but I thought I rather tell you so you can take apropiate action.

Hope you have a good day, and I'm sorry this happened.

Will try to revert all those posts in the morning.

Edit: Reported this on http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Violations#April_2011
 * (edit conflict) Except there really isn't anything I can do apart from revert the edits. You need to get an admin involved at the WowWiki in order to do something about it. That would be the first place I'd start. I actually don't even know if I can edit there, but I'll see what I can do, but no promises as again an admin needs to get involved. Lancer1289 13:11, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I am reverting those edits and trying to get an admin on it. Don't think you need to put up your effort on reverting what you haven't done, just wanted to inform of those vandalism acts. I think WowWiki is 90% clean at that time and will look forward to revert them all.
 * A monumental task considering WoW Wiki has more than 45x the amount of pages that this wiki contains. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:38, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I managed to do some cleaning myself, but it looks like everything was undone. Lancer1289 13:44, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

L a n c e r 1 2 8 9
A guy named L a n c e r 1 2 8 9 has just vandalised 73 pages of my wiki, the L.A. Noire Wiki, please look at his edits and you will see why i contacted you, if you have any idea who it is could you please tell me, thanks. Tom Talk 13:03, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm already aware why, and if you want more information, just start from the top of my talk page, look for sections that deal with a vandal, and just keep reading. Lancer1289 13:12, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is quite likely the same guy who's also vandalized the Dragon Age Wiki, the Star Wars: The Old Republic Wiki as well as the Uncharted Wiki. Apparently also the WoW wiki. He attacked this wiki several times for a period of two weeks back at the end of March/early-April. This guy's got a bone to pick with Lancer and because the guy can't continue to edit here (we banned a lot of his profiles, though he could still come back) he takes his vandalizing talents elsewhere, and spams this page by placing an "alleged" pic of Lancer and SpartHawg948. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:14, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, i'm going to request a global block, has he used any other accounts? Tom Talk 13:17, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except that I think they have already been globaly blocked as of yesterday, but if you need a list, I can give them. Lancer1289 13:20, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the global block hasn't worked as he vandalised the L.A. Noire wiki less than an hour a go, he won't cause any more problems on my wiki's so i'll let you decide what to do. Tom Talk 13:24, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is pretty much impossible to initiate a global ban on the blasted sock puppet because he always has been able to manipulate wiki spelling codes to use very similar letters without detection. He's used Cryllic letters that look virtually identical to English letters but the wiki detection tools are incapable of detecting those very subtle variations. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 13:30, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also impossible to do a global ban on an alias he hasn't created yet. Lancer1289 13:46, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some sort of a wiki tool (I doubt it) that can track all available permutations and combinations of letters and similar symbols against those already deleted and can allow an admin to execute a global ban (minus ones an admin such as your self would not select, like your own name)? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 20:19, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

A Favor.
Lancer, I would be happy if you deleted this blog. Its my blog and its got way out of hand.--Legionwrex 19:46, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow I don't think you will get much argument from anyone about it. I'll be more than happy to delete it as that is probably the most tangent I've seen a blog go. Anyway one deletion coming up per the request of the author/publisher of the blog. Lancer1289 19:48, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Legionwrex 19:52, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * No Problem. Although I've clogged up the RC, I would agree that blog was so off topic and out of hand that it was beyond ridiculous. Lancer1289 19:53, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt; so many different tangents and digressions away from the main idea. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:57, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm surprised the above comment from Havoc made it in before I hit the edti button to archive my talk page. Again. Lancer1289 20:03, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it was just unlucky timing... it would've been malicious if I was capable of incessant forethought as to when users do certain things, but thankfully I'm not. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 20:20, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think you misinterpreted. You didn't cause an edit conflict and I was expressing surprise that your comment was in the edit window when I started. I wasn't expecting a comment so it was a relief that it did. Lancer1289 20:25, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with you?
Don't spam my wiki with bullshit like you did today. I swear to God if you do that again, I'll get the staff involved. Yuri ( Leave a message! ) 18:39, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a solution, first listen to our langauge policy. Second do some research first. That wasn't me and if want the story, then come back with a better attitude. Lancer1289 18:43, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not you, eh? Please, enlighten me, because as far as I can see, you went to the Homefront wiki about seven hours ago and replaced the content of about 30 pages. Under this exact name. As long as I've been on wikia I've never known any loophole whereby one person can use the exact username of another. Yuri ( Leave a message! ) 18:54, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Take a look at the URLs
 * The Vandal: http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/User:%C4%BF%D0%B0n%D1%81%D0%B5r1289
 * My URL (Here on the ME wiki): http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lancer1289
 * My unused account at the Homefront wiki: http://homefront.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lancer1289
 * If you would notice, the URLs aren't the same and if you would look up my user name on the homefront Wiki, you would have found that I've never been there. Nor do I plan to go there anytime soon because of this. I would suggest that next time you some research, or just ask a calm question about what happened.
 * What the vandal is doing is using Cyrillic characters, which confuses Wikia's markup for user names, and spoofs my user name. If you would also notice, the L on your vandal has a different L than mine. "Ŀ" doesn't look like "L", and is one of the few characters that the makeup recognizes. Because of this, I feel that I'm well within my rights to ask for an apology for your actions because if you had taken a minute to do some research, you would have found the discrepancy. Lancer1289 19:05, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

They aren't the same name. The real Lancer has a real L. The vandal has a Ŀ see the dot? --Humans Vanish 18:56, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition Yuri, the Homefront wiki is not the only wiki that this Lancer impersonator has vandalized; he also hit this one with several similar usernames as well as at least 5 others. I can vouch for that, as I've personally deleted about 100 edits that the impostor had instigated. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:02, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * World of Warcraft, Dragon Age, Uncharted, Star Wars: The Old Republic, and I can't remember the fifth one, but now it looks like six. Lancer1289 19:09, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * The fifth one was L.A. Noire. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:20, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: It wasn't Knights of the Old Republic, but rather Star Wars: The Old Republic wiki that was hit. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:21, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Slight Correct then. Lancer1289 19:23, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind... The Old Republic wiki is a name change and continuance of the KOTOR wiki. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:26, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well whatever then. But the majority of the site's content reflects the upcoming MMO. Lancer1289 19:36, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I apologize for jumping the gun. This isn't the first time I've seen something like this; on CNN there was somebody else who did the same thing to me and several others...

I maintain, however, that I didn't realize that there was an odd L with a dot next to it; my computer screen is really dirty. Yuri ( Leave a message! ) 22:58, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is ok and do accept your apology. It is confusing at first but just checking the URL is an easy way to spot it. Also what is this CNN story, now you have me curious? Lancer1289 23:32, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * On CNN.com there was this guy using odd characters to masquerade as other users. I'm pretty sure he got blocked from the site after a while, but it was a LOOOONG while. Yuri ( Leave a message! ) 23:35, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that kind of story does sound very familiar as that is exactly what has been happening here. Lancer1289 23:37, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

vandal
You can find this guy here he just vandalized the equipment page.--Legionwrex 20:46, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for "Removing content from pages: And insterting [sic] gibberish". At least it wasn't another message about that one person. And I'd really like to leave it at that if you don't mind. I've already heard enough about that person today. Lancer1289 20:48, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

wiki issues?
Is something wrong with the wiki? I keep getting all this weird code, then I get two versions of the same page, one in extra small text. I've heard of an overall, I wanted to make sure it had something to do with that, because I just upgraded to IE9, and I heard that some sites look funny on it (plus I haven't really got a handle on IE9's controls yet. --Darth Something 14:19, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

No I see it too. I think we are getting slammed by a hacker. --Humans Vanish 14:23, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Go ask the staff at Community Central. Lancer1289 14:29, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

indoctrination page
You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, ie the people supporting a theory. I could write on the Asari page that they have 3 lungs based on absolutely nothing and then you'd have to prove me wrong to remove it? No. You can't even prove me wrong, just like I can't prove what the exact reasons were that Sovereign's shields went down. But by that logic anyone can just put any nonsense on any page.

It's a stupid theory that makes no sense for the reasons that I put in the edits. If you care about the integrity of the wiki then ask the person making the claim for a source quote and book name and page. Delete it until you have verified that it is true.S0meguy 22:21, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * sigh, you could respond on your talk page like I ask at the top of mine? I don't like cross page conversations which is why I ask that.
 * As to the issue, the burden of proof is on you, and for you to discuss it in an appropriate forum and manner. Removing content from pages is not the way to do it. If you want to discuss it, then take it to the appropriate forum but I know you will find objectors as the theory has support from the game. Your example, apart from improper race name caps, has multiple flaws as that doesn't have one bit of support. Since you want something removed, you have to present a case for it as this theory has support, while yours of it can't take the damage, doesn't. In fact it has opposite. Lancer1289 22:26, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * S0meguy, I have a similar field of knowledge regarding fallacies and rules of argumentation; check out my blog on this topic. As for your assumption,the burden of proof may be on the person making a positive claim, yet also on a person countering a claim such as yourself. Lancer established his reasons for initially inserting and maintaining the information on the Indoctrination page, yet your evidence supporting its removal is insufficient and unnecessary. By this you violate the burden of proof principle as well as the truth-seeking principle, since the evidence provided by Lancer is properly documented. I've read that article many times over, and I assure you that no argumentative violations have been committed except by you, who failed to provide appropriate reasons to delete the information and subsequently failed to take the discussion to the appropriate forum. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:34, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to argue with that logic. Lancer1289 22:37, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt. Thanks for the support. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 22:46, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just... wow. That may be the single best comment I've ever seen in the history of this wiki. (Referring to H-Man Havoc's first post.) H-Man Havoc, you are officially my new hero! :) SpartHawg948 22:50, April 28, 2011 (UTC)