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.

Mass vandalism by Istilldontcares on 3/28/11
Hopefully I'm going through the correct channels on this. Sending this to both you and SpartHawg948.

Was browsing the Mass Effect wikis and stumbled across one of the vandalized pages (was reading on Urdnot Wrex). Noticed that user "Istilldontcares" made the last edit. Checked their profile and subsequently their "contributions" and looks like they're going at it in quite the number. I reverted one but I'd imagine you and/or Lancer1289 have a better way to revert all those?

Thanks and goodluck!

AnimeKid 09:58, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah the problem has been dealt with, but sadly not before he went on a massive spree. The staff worked on it, then once I got on, I've been dealing with it ever since. I certainly hope that he's done by now as he needs to get a life, and quickly. Lancer1289 20:17, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Legion: Trivia
Hello There, Im a bit new at this so please bear with me. I recently added a piece of Trivia to Legion. I can't see it anywhere on the page. Has it been removed? The piece of trivia I added was about Legion having a Gamer Profile. Could you please give me a hand here. Thank you Carbine 707 20:10, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it was removed by me. The thing is that information from the Shadow Broker Dossiers isn't repeated in the main articles because we already have that information in the Dossiers themselves and we don't need to repeat it. That said, I really can't see how that is trivia because it again puts information from the dossiers into the main articles, which is just needless repeat of information, and the reference part can't stand alone without it. Lancer1289 20:15, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Infinite bans for IP addresses
Probably aren't going to help (and might stop someone in the future getting through).  Random Time  21:14, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there is more than enough evidence to suggest a sock puppet in this case given actions and content of edits. The standard practice here is to ban suspected sock puppets for the same length as the rest. Also we generally don't protect pages against vandalism. Lancer1289 21:23, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry (it might be worth protecting pages, temporarily, however), it's totally your choice on the block length, so do what you think is best - the way I see it, he's using open proxies to hop through different IP addresses fast, so he probably won't be back on the same IP for a while 21:26, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that both active admins, myself and the resident B'crat SpartHawg948 are really against protecting pages, even for vandalism, which hasn't happened in the past. This just forces them to other pages, which will lead to more pages being protected. This is the worst I've ever seen it, and by one guy who in all honesty just can't get a life and grow up. Eventually he will have to run out of IPs, or go to sleep, or even just give up. Lancer1289 21:32, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough  Random Time  21:34, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering they are getting fewer and farther in-between, I'm really thinking he's running out of places to proxy from. He's probably exhausted all of the easy options, and now he actually has to do some work to continue doing whatever he's doing. That tends to stop most people, when they actually have to do some work. Frankly, I think it's how he gets his kicks, undoing the hard work of others. Well I'll drop a message with SpartHawg948 about the IP blocks, and see what he says about it. Lancer1289 21:36, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

SP Request
Hey, can you semi-protect my user page? I'm really the only one who's supposed to be editing it anyway; might as well lock out current and future vandals since they won't follow the rules. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:58, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been tossing this around for about 10 minutes now, and right now, I'm going to be honest; I really don't know what to do. I'm not planning on protecting any user page, including my own, but I'll ask Spart what his opinion on this is. I honestly don't know what to say or what to do with this. We haven't protected pages, and I'm unsure what his opinion about user pages and protection, but I can't see him having a problem with it. I'll enact protection for 24 horus, on your user page only, pending Spart's response about this issue as I know this hasn't come up. Articles yes, this no. Lancer1289 23:16, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is done but I'm not sure what is going to happen as a result. Like I said, I'll leave Spart a message about this, and see what happens. If he says no, then I won’t extend it, but I could come up with a few arguments for user pages, while still keeping the article rule. I honestly don’t know what he will say. I do hope you understand my hesitation in this matter. Lancer1289 23:20, March 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it should be fine since it's a self-request, but we'll see. I had a similar setup on Wikipedia, and I didn't think it could hurt to also have it here. But if I can't, then I can't. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:47, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I left Spart a message about it, included in now a six part message, and we'll just have to wait and see what he says. Again I'm not sure what he will say, but then we'll just have to wait and see. Lancer1289 23:56, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Ongoing vandalism
Hi Lancer. I wasn't aware of the wave of vandalism that just happened. That sucks! (Spam Task Force FTW) Other than blocking users with the "account creation disabled" option selected (which prevents anyone using that IP to edit or create an account), I'm not sure if there is anything more that can be done. That said, I'm not the authoritative person on that topic. To get a more official answer, I would recommend either sending in a message via Special:Contact or sending an email to community@wikia.com. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  23:47, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

RE: Email Contact
Hi Lancer. It looks like it was a glitch on our end. We force set your email address to re-mark it as confirmed, so it should be back to normal again. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  16:23, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

News Blogs You Say?
Hey, I was going over some recent edits, when I noticed you made a comment about (among other things) news blogs. As I recall, I proposed a news blog system a while back. Does this mean I should perhaps try and work on it again? Or are we talking about a different type of news blog thing, like just casual blogs about the wiki, and not a full blown news system on the mainpage and all? Either way, Spart seemed rather neutral/against-ish towards the idea. Arbington 06:35, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something different unless I’m misunderstanding something. What I was thinking about was maybe a monthly or bi-monthly news of what's going on with the wiki. Not reporting news like releases, information, and things of that nature like the initial proposal was several months ago. This would be more like "here's what is going on around here, what can be done, and what needs to get done". Again unless I'm missing something. I really don’t have anything developed and right now don’t have the time, but as I said I’ll get around to it if I do. Lancer1289 06:43, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Good idea, but indeed quite different from my old proposal. Good luck, should you choose to go through with it. I'm thus far in favor of the concept. Arbington 06:48, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Just a quick note - I'm against the use of these blogs as an "official" thing (i.e. the "official" ME wiki news blog or whatever), as this has never been done. The prior blogs, which Lancer cited as examples, were done by Tullis with her personal blogs. As such, anyone is free to maintain their own personal news blog. I'm just opposed (at present) to the implementation of any official or quasi-official site news blog by any one individual using their own user blogs. SpartHawg948 06:50, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you are opposed to a system of news blogs more akin to the system I proposed. I had thought, at the time, that Lancer's proposal was similar to mine, and so thought you were somewhat opposed to the idea. I now know a bit more about what Lancer is going for here. Sorry about any misunderstanding and such. Arbington 06:56, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You did make your position quite clear Spart, which is why I let the issue go for the time being. Currently this is something on the "back burner" for me as I still want a chance to really work on it before proposing it and seeing where it goes. Maybe I'll start with something unofficial as examples like Tullis did, but like I said above, I really don't have much on this at the present time. I hope to develop it when I have more time, most likely in about a month and a half after finals conclude for me, and see then. However, I don't plan on making this Official in any sense of the work if I start something now. That will be much further down the line, if it even goes that far. Again though even if I start something, it won’t be the “Official Mass Effect Wiki News”, just something I do in my blog for the time being.
 * Arbington no need to apologize, you saw a few comments about something that you put a lot of time into, and just wanted some more information on it. Nothing wrong with that. Lancer1289 06:59, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Infobox basic info
your last edit summary asked me to put in basic info for enemies when adding infoboxes. I'm not playing ME at the moment and don't have that info that I've been leaving blank. Is there some basic reference I can look at? Arbiter099 06:37, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Also, should all ME enemies get an infobox? I know its standard for ME2. If so I get the feeling that there are a lot more pages missing these than I thought, found another one on Geth Hopper Arbiter099 06:43, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok first, if you are going to keep adding them, then please put in everything that can be found in the article. I found several things in the articles that you missed, including the enemy's armament, and all of it was quite easy to find.
 * Second, and I really have to ask this, why are you putting in info boxes if you aren't playing ME and you don't have the information in front of you? The best thing to do with info boxes is to get all of your information before adding it as it only creates unnecessary repeat editing to put in information, especially if information that is already on the page is missed in the initial edit. There is no basic reference and again because these pages aren't edited regularly, Commdor, Dammej, or myself are probably the last ones, and probably several months ago. This isn't like the enemies from Arrival or some other recent DLC pack as those enemies will get edited regularly as they are brought up to date. These enemies are not edited regularly and getting all of the information first before editing would be a good idea with them. Updating articles is a good thing don't get me wrong, but since info boxes are a big part of the enemy articles, and these articles aren't edited regularly, then putting in the box with all of the information is the best strategy here as it prevents unnecessary repeating of edits to articles that aren't generally edited.
 * As to the Geth Hopper page, see Talk:Geth Hopper and eventually all ME enemies should all have a box, but getting the information for them first before putting in the box is highly recommended for reasons I've stated above. Get your ducks in a line before moving on so to speak. Lancer1289 06:52, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

In between my last comment and your response I've noticed that a great deal of, if not the majority of, those pages lack infoboxes. I started this when I landed on a page through the random article button and thought it needed the box, that led to another, etc. On my next ME run through I'm going to make an effort to fill in all these.Arbiter099 06:58, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I again don't have a problem with them being filled in and the boxes added, as they all should have them eventually. However, getting all of the information for articles that are rarely edited anymore is a good idea as it prevents two things. One: It prevents a second quick edit, like I did, of filling in information that is already present which can be missed with just a quick just putting the box in. Two: It makes double checking the information a lot easier when all the information is there to double check. There will always be a need to double check the information, but when it is all there to begin with, it just makes it easier to do it. Lancer1289 07:04, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

I threw together a blog on this to see if I can muster a community effort to speed this process along. Arbiter099 07:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just noticed that, however I will stress that you add something to ask people to put all the information in before adding the box so we don't have to do this thirty times. Lancer1289 07:25, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Impersonator
Hey Lancer. Someone this morning created an imposter version of your profile and managed to make 40 vandalizing edits. He would go around deleting whole pages and replace them with phrases like "unheard of", or "why's this here" or something like that. Fortunately most, if not all the edits have been reverted, and Randomtime blocked the user for three months. I thought usernames can't be re-used, even if the passwords are different. H-Man Havoc 11:48, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * He was actually using a different username each time, using a special character that looks like an a, for example, but can't be told apart using the wiki's normal typeface. Hopefully, he's gone, but I'll keep my eye on Recent Changes for a bit to see if he comes back. If he comes back and I don't spot it - and there are no admins around to block him, you can report it using our IRC channel or Wiki page.  Random Time  11:55, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that an "a" in the Cyrillic (Russian) alphabet closely resembles our "a", so he could've used that. H-Man Havoc 12:47, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's good that the phony lancer is blocked but still this site need to be more careful on those types of things in the future. Shadowhawk27 13:20, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * He's still here... worse, he copied the true Lancer's page and incorporated it into his own. Randomtime blocked one such user, but he remains, with a slightly different character. H-Man Havoc 13:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, he's banned for now (again). H-Man Havoc 13:28, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Can we do a IP cross check with the vandal we had recently? I'm suspecting it might be the same person. — Teugene (Talk) 13:44, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is... the IP is banned when the user is banned. H-Man Havoc 13:45, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having a look when I block him, there's no pattern so it looks like he's using proxies (H-Man is right, the IPs are blocked when I block the account, unless a box is ticked to not do that)  Random Time  13:48, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Response from me: I still can't believe this guy came back, and again thanks to everyone for putting up with someone who can't seem to grow up. If I keep going, then...well I'd rather not find out. Lancer1289 16:52, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Account blocked
Hey, what is happening here? It is my understanding someone is using my username to vandalize the site again. And now I cannot access my own account! It says it's been blocked by Randomtime. Anybody please contact him or other Wiki staffer so that they unblock my account, please! I'm the real Lancer! 64.20.45.178 14:35, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Having a look, I'll solve this as soon as possible  Random Time  14:40, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see a block on your account anywhere, only on the sockpuppets that look like you. I've reverted all the blocks on the sockpuppet accounts. Can you login and edit now?  Random Time  14:44, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, still, no luck :( 64.20.45.178 14:52, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you copy the exact block message here, please?  Random Time  14:54, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in a diner with my laptop now. Got to go anyway. I'll try again later... All this is so disgusting!64.20.45.178 14:59, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry for the inconvenience - let me know if there are any problems when you come back. Hopefully he won't vandalize again, but I'll have to block those accounts again if he does.  Random Time  15:02, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but I highly doubt user 64.20.45.178 is the real Lancer. By checking the IP, it shows it originates from New Jersey where Lancer is from Chicago. Secondly, it doesn't sound like his speech pattern. I may be wrong but it's my gut feeling that he may be the same impersonator. — Teugene (Talk) 15:50, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I second Teugene's statement; I've never seen Lancer use a smiley face or write like that. I think it's safe to say that 64.20.45.278 is not the real Lancer. I think your best bet, Randomtime, is to leave the culprit's accounts blocked.--Tecni 15:59, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the intel, I had my doubts, but I thought I'd better be safe than sorry - I'll reblock the accounts and we'll go from there.  Random Time  16:13, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

OK first I really don't care about the site policy right now, second this really is me, and third: WTF HAPPENED HERE. Everything was fine last night when I went to bed and now this happened. I can't believe this could have even happened. I haven't been on since about 3am CST, so now that wasn't me to begin with. I'll be contacting Wikia to see how this could have happened in the first place. Right now, I really don't have any words to say what I'm feeling, but my hands are shaking as I'm typing. Looks like I have even more reading to do. Seriously some people need to get a life. Lancer1289 16:49, April 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * Chill there Lancer. No lasting damage had been done. To cut short the story for you, basically someone registered an account with a name closely resembling your username by using special Cyrillic characters which is hard to detect. For example: "а" and "a", "с" and "c". They look the same but the first characters of "а" and "с" are Cyrillic. That's how he impersonate your account. So don't worry, your account wasn't hacked in or anything. — Teugene (Talk) 17:05, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's a relief, however I'm sure you can see my frusttration, anger, and well just about everything else with this situation. As to the letters, well that makes sense, I think. Lancer1289 17:24, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is frustrating. I was bewildered when I saw an anonymous user reverting all "your" edits but turned out he/she was reverting your impersonator. Even had the cheek to pretend that he was the real one and unable to login into "your" account, as you can see above. So yeah, truly cunning vandal, but fortunately speech patterns are a little harder to impersonate. — Teugene (Talk) 17:38, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it was a little surprising. It has happened before, I'm not always right, but it happens very rarely. But yes speech patterns are harder to impersonate and he made more than a few slipups and if this situation had happened, there would have been other things I would have done, but do you really think I'm going to give those away in light of this? I don't think so. :) Lancer1289 17:52, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that I was the first to mention to Randomtime that the vandal could've been using Cryllic characters... I'm partly Russian, so I have some knowledge of the alphabet. I don't normally brag about these things, but I was one of the first, if not the first to discover the true alphabetical lettering being used. H-Man Havoc 00:55, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did notice that, and while I also have some Russian ancestery, I know only English. I mainly have to deal with Cryllic spambots and the like. I've wanted to learn Russian, but just haven't had the time. Lancer1289 01:28, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeap H-Man found it first (though I only noticed after I discovered and posted it). No worries H-Man, I didn't take any credits for it but just giving Lancer the gist of what happened :) — Teugene (Talk) 03:00, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem Teugene. I just saw that everytime this situation was posted, I'm wonderin': they write as if it just "magically" appeared to 'em.H-Man Havoc 11:46, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

GENERAL NOTICE TO ALL USERS
Just a few things I'd like to say first about what happened over the course of the last few hours: Again that wasn't me and while Randomtime was here, this is still something I'll be contacting Wikia about. I think there are a few other things I have to say, but I can’t think of them right now. Lancer1289 17:05, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) That wasn't me last night, I'm still trying to access the damage.
 * 2) Thanks you all for undoing the edits. You will all have a nice thank you in a few minutes
 * 3) I firmly believe this is the same guy as last time and now is just trying to be a pest.
 * 4) I have some blocks to extend
 * 5) This guy needs to grow up
 * 6) There are more things I'd like to say, but I think I've gotten away with what I can about breaking the Language policy for now.

The same guy.
Im thinking that the sockpupet is the same guy who put up all those "I am tim and my name is jack harper" pics.He used that smae picture when he vandalised N7 user page after all.--Legionwrex 18:03, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's kind of a given. One person who can't act mature, can't grow up, can't get a life, among other things. Lancer1289 18:33, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Karora
Re: Your edits to the Karora page. I don't know why you set up a wiki if you want to discourage user edits.

The "trivia" sections are used on many pages to point out interesting/humorous/popular culture references, and are not deleted for "relevance" or speculation. It's trivia. There's already an existing example on the Karora page, speculating that the name of planet refers to an aboriginal god. The page for "Uranus" speculates on the humorous statement made by the game when you probe it. How is this any different from noting the game designer's use of an unusual, verbatim quote from a popular space movie, in the description of Karora ("essentially a great rock in space")? Your edits make no sense; it's as if you don't like the movie, so you won't let that trivia on the site.
 * See your own talk page and we have standards for trivia anyway. Lancer1289 00:00, April 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * You said that the phrase "essentially a great rock in space" used to describe a planet in Wrath of Khan, is actually a common phrase that's used all the time? Seriously, dude?  Do a search for the phrase on Google - almost every entry on the first several pages is an express, direct quote of the film.  It brings up links to the movie's script.  Can you point out one other example of a film that uses it?  It's not a common phrase, it's no less speculative than the other entry on the page.  Your edits are ridiculous, and it's obviously being done for reasons unrelated to your "standards."

Vandal's back
FYI: your 'doppelganger' has returned. I'm reverting his edits as they appear, but you might want to block at your earliest convenience. -- Dammej ( talk ) 02:21, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Already done. Lancer1289 02:22, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I saw the block in the activity log immediately after I posted. Cheers! -- Dammej ( talk ) 02:26, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just stepped out for a second and look what happens. I can guarantee it is the same guy from earlier and who has been a pain in our sides for weeks now. I’m taking additional steps. Lancer1289 02:29, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

You should have left that message in Lancer. Let everyone know how insecure he is, probably lacking some development in his the cranium. He must have been ditched so bad in real life thus probably too cowardly to take vengeance in person. So he must do in anonymously behind a monitor screen. I'm sorry that he is feeling rejected. Not. — Teugene (Talk) 03:22, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have my reasons for removing it which I won't state. Lancer1289 03:27, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Another one!
Check out this guy!!! So far, he's been harmless, but we'll see. Look on the bright side though. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or so they say! :D SpartHawg948 05:15, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed Spart. Indeed. In times like this, one does tend to forget that. Thanks I really needed that. Lancer1289 05:17, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm gonna be proactive. Call me a go-getter and all that, but suspicion of sock puppetry is grounds for banning, and it's grounds for banning for a reason. Plus, it's been a few days since I banned anyone... SpartHawg948 05:19, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well then. Lancer1289 05:21, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * On the off chance I'm wrong, the talk page was left open. How they can disprove accusations of sock puppetry is beyond me though. But really, what are the odds that Iancer1289 is unrelated to all the other "close but not quite" usernames that have been created for vandalism today? Answer - not bloody likely! SpartHawg948 05:23, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was confusing earlier because of how he did it, but you can read why above in two different sections. Lancer1289 05:30, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, there still are a number of ways to spell Lancer1289, even though if they tried it, it would be obvious sock puppetry: LaNcEr1289, lAnCeR1289, LAncer1289, and so on, so forth.H-Man Havoc 11:50, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

The vandal is back... I recognize the "reasons" posted... the same one that used the cryllic letters, just as a Wikia Contributor. Already overturned some edits, but this is gonna turn into another barrage! H-Man Havoc 12:19, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Should let you know, he's still active. I have a theory why the vandals strike at this time: it's because they know you and Spart live in Chicago and Santa Clara (or was it Santa Barbara?, I apologize if I'm wrong) respectively. Knowing that you guys are asleep, they strike. Though I bet they underestimate me being up at this time. H-Man Havoc 12:44, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.63.242.83 This guy seems to be doing very similar edits. I'd suspect him of being the same vandal. He's limited himself to the Salarian page, though.
 * Got him. Lancer1289 13:11, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally he's down. Thanks Lancer. Was already committed to over 50 undoing edits in the space of 30 minutes.H-Man Havoc 13:13, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks guys, for all the hard work you've put in to keep the wiki intact ^^
 * (edit conflict) I've just been reading over Teugene's talk page, and I must say that I'm finding myself having to agree with Spart. Still the conversation was interesting. As to the other comment, thank you and you're welcome. Lancer1289 13:22, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Here's another one. Just hit your user page. -- Commdor (Talk) 13:27, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lancer caught him just now. Indefinite ban. H-Man Havoc 13:30, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yeah I got him. Lancer1289 13:39, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Same guy's back, using a slightly different "L".H-Man Havoc 13:42, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it and please see your tlak page H-Man. Lancer1289 13:43, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Saw it and replied accordingly. Unless it becomes very personal, I'll quit it. H-Man Havoc 13:46, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even then don't. There's no need to feed him. Lancer1289 13:51, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

First, it is indeed Santa Clara where I reside. Second, so you guys don't think us admins are just sitting around twiddling our thumbs and making you all do the heavy lifting so we can swoop in at the last minute and be heroes (since, as Alistair put it, "swooping is bad"), know that steps are being taken as we speak to implement somewhat of a more long-term solution to the situation. I can't really elaborate atm, but hopefully I'll be able to soon. Unfortunately, it appears based on last night that we can't really rely on the CVTF to be there, but the measures I'm working on involve us taking care of things ourselves. SpartHawg948 19:25, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to seem condenscending, but it in slight seems that way... I can't blame you two for that because of the respective time differences (You in PDT, Lancer in CDT and me in EDT), yet it just so happened that I was active as this latest spree went on. In the previous incidence I was one of only 3 active members undoing vandalism (a Wikia contributor was one and Teugene was the other albeit briefly) and this went on until Lancer went online; and in this incidence I was the sole caretaker of the wiki for nearly 20 minutes until Dammej came online and used his rollback abilities to ease the workload. As much as I'd wish for more around-the-clock monitoring, that is an impossibility for two reasons: The first being that we aren't robots who do nothing but troll the internet for all eternity and that's in reference to my earlier statement; the second reason is that we all have lives outside the wiki and I myself despite sometimes wishing I can guard a site for a full day knows full well that even 30 minutes on one site can sometimes feel like an eternity, and instead not worry about it that much. I don't think it's necessary to act like a "Hobo with a Shotgun" (An obvious pun using that new movie's title, but it works the same way as "swooping in"). H-Man Havoc 00:22, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Quick question
One other thing: Don't misunderstand me, I'm not questioning your decision or anything. It was a judgement call and I wasn't there. I noticed that you blocked User:Garrus Is My Bro for suspicion of sock puppetry. My question is, what led you to suspect this? Again, not questioning the decision or trying to undermine it or anything, just curious. SpartHawg948 05:26, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be this edit which was referring to this edit. If follow the image link, fixing the http, then you have been warned but it does explain what he was referring to. Lancer1289 05:29, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno about you, but the guy on the left looks nothing like me. He doesn't even have a beard! Preposterous! :P SpartHawg948 05:32, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither the other one me, but I think you can see the logic now. Lancer1289 05:33, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Kylan
Shouldn't the one-sentence "article" on Kylan go the same way as the one on Moklan? (I'm contacting you since your name is the first one on the Moklan talk page.) --87.78.31.76 17:09, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I personally see no reason to propose deletion of the article, but if you feel that it should go, then feel free to post a delete tag there, give an explaination for why in the template, open a new section on the Talk:Kylan page, and see what happens. Lancer1289 17:15, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issue warrants a formal discussion. Just thought that the Kylan article couldn't possibly be less of an article than the deleted one on Moklan. Either delete it for basically the same rationale, or don't. --87.78.31.76 18:39, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except you are incorrect there as that isn’t how things work here with article deletion and deletion nomination. Every deletion of an article, with few exceptions, warrants a formal discussion, and this article would require a formal discussion. Using one article to justify the deletion of another doesn’t work 100% of the time, and it doesn’t work here as they are different situations and the articles contain/ed different information. So I will not delete it "for basically the same rationale". If you want it gone, then put a delete tag and open a discussion as that is the procedure here. Otherwise the article will stay as I see no pressing need to nominate it for deleting. Lancer1289 18:47, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Samara/Romance
"However, due to Samara's commitment to the Code, she chooses to serve the code over romantic pursuit, which the code does not forbid, thus rejecting Shepard's advances" Could you please explain your reasoning for this particular line? It was my understanding that the Justicar code does not allow for the pursuit of romance. Samara states, "I serve a code deeper and stronger than any feelings. If we survive this mission, my oath to you ends. I will be bound by the Code again. That makes a relationship impossible." This strongly indicates that romance is indeed not allowed by the Code. If I am mistaken then the section stating "...which the code does not forbid..." seems out of place in that particular sentence and would probably be best mentioned later that despite her unwillingness to become romantically involved,it is noteworthy that romance is however not forbidden by the Justicar Code(though as mentioned earlier Samara indicates the Code does forbid romantic liaisons or any romantic relationship at all). The sentence is structured in a way that makes it seem as if she rejects Shepard's romantic advances because romance is NOT forbidden. It sounds like a blatant contradiction when structured in this manner. LegacyOfTheAsh 05:49, April 5, 2011 (UTC)LegacyOfTheAsh
 * Except the Code doesn't forbid romantic involvement. I'm puzzled why this keeps coming up. Never does she state that the code forbids romantic involvement. She actually says that it doesn't as this video demonstrates. Head to 2:30 and Samara says, flat out I might add, that the code doesn't forbid romantic involvement. The line you quote is basically saying that because she is dedicated to the code, and swore an oath to Shepard for the duration of the mission, that when that oath expires, she will go back to the Justicar Code, and while it does not forbid romance, she just can't maintain a relationship while doing her work. There are also probably personal reasons as well, but that's a different matter. So again, the Code does not forbid romantic involvement as Samara herself flat out demonstrates. Lancer1289 12:32, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

It came up because I thought it was wrong and had forgotten about that particular conversation. It is very easily overlooked. That is however what I was looking for but I still believe the structure of the first quoted sentence could be augmented as its structure makes for a confusing and somewhat sloppy arrangement. 76.111.44.189 15:30, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * And you are who exactly? I'll take it that you are LegacyOfTheAsh. I will state however that the wording is fine and I do not see a reason to reword anything at this time. Lancer1289 16:00, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Yes that was me, Legacy but I do wish that you would consider a reword, because as it stands the current wording sounds muddled and slightly confusing. If not, it really is not a big deal. Just an informed suggestion.LegacyOfTheAsh 21:23, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated previously I really don't see a pressing need to change the wording at this time. The wording is fine, the main problem is just people doing what you did, is change it to say the Code does forbid romantic involvement. Lancer1289 21:45, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Lol we were past that but okay, it's no problem. 76.111.44.189 23:44, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Geth military
This line from the geth page's military section confuses me, "Their sudden and unexpected return from beyond the Veil after three centuries was typical." How in any way is their "sudden and unexpected" return typical.I tried to change it but it just got reverted. I look further to your response.Out --Legionwrex 18:55, April 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Reading it now, it sounds to me like the "typicality" is referring back to the first sentence there. The sudden geth invasion of the galaxy isn't typical by itself, it's typical of geth warfare in general. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:08, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm going to have to agree. Typical does seem to describe their tactics quite accurately their tactics. I would have to say that I really don't see a problem there and I would have to say that the article is fine as is. Lancer1289 19:38, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Heads up
Another sock-puppeteer of you did some vandalism to Noveria, Feros, First Contact War, Tuchanka, and Thorian Creeper, but I reversed them. Here's the vandal: http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lan%D1%81%D0%B5r1289

--Lucius Voltaic 08:35, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh heck he's on a roll :O
 * --Lucius Voltaic 08:36, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't deal with this, it's a huge onslaught of vandalism.
 * --Lucius Voltaic 08:43, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately he's been banned by a member of the VSTF, for a year, most likely the same guy as before, considering he keeps using your handle with similar but foreign letters. H-Man Havoc 10:58, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully additional steps being taken at the moment will prevent this from happening again as this is just out of control. Lancer1289 14:08, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Quick question
I sort of blocked my first guy! Huzzah! Anyway, how do you block indefinitely? I only saw options for 1 year at maximum. -- Commdor (Talk) 16:54, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you figured it out, but just type "indefinite" in the "Other Time" line on the block form. Also for my "clones" make sure to check "Prevent user from sending e-mail" and uncheck "Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked". If you can spot them with the User Creating Log, then even suspected Sock Puppetry is reason enough for a ban. I've already done this a few times today. Just make you don't accidently ban me in the process. :) Lancer1289 17:00, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks. I'm off again, should be back by Fiveish. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:05, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Now to lunch. Lancer1289 17:06, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacks
When rollback is used, say, on a swathe of vandalism (e.g. 15 straight instances) does it either: a)Count as a single edit; b) Count as 15 edits (per the example); or c) Count as no edits (as no record is left on the Wiki activities page and it is as if every edit switches everything back to status quo as if nothing had happened in the first place? H-Man Havoc 19:27, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * It counts as just one edit. Lancer1289 19:31, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Infinate block for IPs?
I'd advise against blocking IPs permanently - just because it means that if someone uses it in the future, they may be blocked, and he's almost certainly not going to come back on the same IP if he's using a proxy. It's you're decision on the end of the day, but it's unlikely to make a difference in him coming back, and it may hinder the wiki later.  Random Time  13:43, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * We did go over this above and site policy is clear on this matter. In addition, one thing I do know about bans for users is it bans the IP they used anyway for the same period of time. So either way we are banning IPs for an indefinite period of time. Sometimes you just have to do things. Lancer1289 13:51, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn, forgot which wikis I'd advised against this practice before, sorry for wasting your time (correction: autoblock blocks the IP for 1 day, see Special:BlockList)  Random Time  13:55, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah well I still learned something then. I guess when you do go around and do what you do, it can be easy to forget which things you have done on wikis before. Don't give it another thought as I've had, and I'm sure everyone has had those memory blackouts before. Lancer1289 14:00, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, there is a chance some of these IP blocks will be lessened. It's happened before. We did some indefinite IP bans a while back, and one of the other admins, through the use of persuasion and whatnot, convinced Tullis and myself to lessen the indefinite bans on IPs, which was subsequently done. I'm not saying that will happen again, but it's certainly a possibility. SpartHawg948 18:58, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet the guy who's been impersonating Lancer the last two weeks (yes, he still comes back here, like he did earlier today) somehow still gets on. I feel as if the IP blocks need to maintained and perhaps expanded should the sock puppet get back on again. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 19:03, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Leaving messages over other user's comments
There have been two instances including one just a couple minutes ago where you had placed a comment in front of my comment even if the latter was already there. I don't know many of the wiki rules, but isn't it considered an improper action if any user places a comment above a previously added one? Even if it isn't, I found myself vilified by looking at these instances where my comment was superseded by another one, and I consider it a somewhat hostile action. This is not a threat, I'm just simply pointing out that I don't agree with this practice and have never done it myself for etiquette-based reasons. If you or any other user needs to place an addendum to a comment that they previously posted, isn't it better to place it below a pre-existing comment and reference their previous comment above? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 17:48, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * First, can you just leave a new message like I ask at the top in the future please instead of editing the whole page? This is because it makes it so much easier for me to know what to look for.
 * Second, no it is not illegal for the reason that there were specific things to respond to, which weren't part of your comment. This is literally done all the time and I can provide a number of examples. None of us consider it rude, and I would consider it ruder if you were to address things in a comment that weren't in the comment above it, instead of responding to that comment directly as the conversation about that specific topic can stay there, while another may have been started.
 * Third, it was an addendum to my comment, which wasn't able to be completed because you edited. Addendums have always been placed right after the comment in question because it is more relevant there, and your way of doing it can cause things to get misinterpreted, misread, or could even derail the conversation. Lancer1289 18:01, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm, I actually clicked the "Leave Message" icon at the top of the page before creating this section. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 18:26, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * To address the second part of your answer, I present a hypothetical scenario: Suppose I wrote a comment on a talk page and it is subsequently succeeded by 50 posts (a tad excessive I find). To me, it doesn't make sense to bypass all 50 superseding edits just to place an addendum to my original post, even if the additional points are in line with what I previously wrote. In this case, I'd write my comment at the bottom of the page, starting off with "In reference to my last post on this page [or something of the like]", then pull points from what I wrote previously down to my new post. The policy just makes me feel as if my comments are rather unimportant when someone adds an addendum to a comment they wrote ahead of my comment. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 18:36, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that if you had clicked the new message button, then it would have left a different edit summary. Maybe you did something, or the wiki did something, but either way there would have been a different summary.
 * To the point, that scenario is also perfectly fine either way. No one's commons are unimportant, and I’m surprised you take it that way, but a question I pose to you. If someone was adding to their comment, and you edit conflict them, wouldn't it be rude to force them to put in a new comment rather than just finishing what they were initially saying? Like I stated, I was adding to my comment, then you edit conflicted me. This is again done all the time and if the conversation breaks off into two different ones and you post a comment about the first conversation in the second one, that doesn't make much sense what so ever.
 * Users are free to modify, add, or remove things from their comments at any time and the only rule that we have about that, is you can't modify or remove comments from a talk page unless it is either you comment, or your talk page. In the latter example, I am perfectly free to remove this entire section from my talk page if I want to, and no one can say anything of it as it is my talk page. For the former example, if I were to modify your comments, then that would be a problem even if it is my talk page because that is illegal. The bottom line is that users are free to do what they want with their comments at any time, whether add an addendum, modify a sentence, or fix spelling, and they don't have to create a new comment, although it is usually a good idea, if they don't want to. Addendums are exactly that, addendums to a comment they are about. To me it doesn't make any sense what so ever to add an addendum to a comment if it is down the page, or create a new comment that was an addendum to another one. Lancer1289 18:48, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Thanks for clearing that up. Now if you'll excuse me, I've an International Politics exam to study for, and it's in 4 hours' time.Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 18:59, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well good luck with that. Politics for me = headache. Lancer1289 19:03, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the ME3-related reference edits.
Been having a hard time trying to create a reference for the GameInformer magazine. Feel free to correct the links to the BioWare boards.Dibol 21:22, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * First that isn't a valid reference for two reasons; one it isn’t out yet, that is none us here have received it; two it isn’t a link to a website. We need a website for a valid reference, i.e. something we can link to. What you provided was not a valid reference and you also didn't format the article correctly to accept the reference tags. If you don't have a valid link, then it can't be used a reference. Lancer1289 21:31, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Morality guide edit
Lancer first of all I'd like to apologize for "vandalism" but I grew and keep getting frustrated whit the posting of false information. I wrote the article after being waiting if vain for someone else to do it and I assumed you get points the first time I wrote it but after reviewing it it turn out not to be true. You say this wiki has standards, so if you don't get morality points for the decision I mentioned but it says on the wiki that you do, then isn't that posting false information? Please tell me what do I have to do to get that section of the article permanently deleted. (RobertX13 06:36, April 9, 2011 (UTC))
 * Are simple instructions that hard to follow? I specifically ask people that if they have a response to a comment I put on their talk page, then to respond there as I hate cross page conversations. So therefore I will respond here.
 * As to your questions, I already stated where you should bring this up on your talk page. Lancer1289 06:50, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Your Doppelganger is Back Again
Same guy as before... how's he still able to use a similar handle to yours? There are only a certain number of permutations that the guy can use to copy your name before he's completely blocked, but that'll take a very long time to accomplish.Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:01, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: so far he's isolated his vandalism to the Citadel: Expose Saren and Missions pages, but he could eventually proceed to do more damage. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 12:06, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * There was nothing I could do as I was asleep. If this keeps occurring, and I have little doubt it will, then please contact the VSTF on their wiki to report the vandalism if no admins are on. Lancer1289 16:53, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Please leave me a new message in the future. Lancer1289 17:04, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried contacting through IRC but to no avail. Nobody there seems to be responding, or probably are AFK. — Teugene (Talk) 16:57, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I guess we'll just have to deal with it then. Lancer1289 17:04, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lancer, I did click leave new message when I first wrote the text. I think the wiki is doing something weird here if that's not the case. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 03:16, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to say that the wiki messed this up twice and I do think that it is something that you either are doing, or aren't doing correctly. Can't say which at the moment. Lancer1289 03:28, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you insinuating? That I'm incorrectly clicking a link that clearly says "Leave Message"? When I click that, two options come up (Edit and Rename) but I click neither of them, and the page ultimately loads to an editing template such as the one where regular edits are made. Is it that I place a title when I leave a message, but not a subject heading? I'm not sure myself. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 03:33, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah that's what you are doing. That Subject Heading is where you place the title, not in the message body that will auto-create the heading when you hit publish. I wasn't insinuating anything, just that you were doing something that caused an incorrect edit summary, and made it harder for me to see the message. Lancer1289 03:51, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title
Ok that's fine, at least people will get to have a look at the new looks of Ashley and Kaidain the pictures section for now still the better resolution pics turn up. Also if you or Commdore don't mind updating the mass effect 3 page with this information from the gameinformer magazine. Basically Mass Effect 3 begins directly after Mass Effect 2 DLC Arrival with Commander Shepard being on Trial, which gets interrupted by the arrival of the Reapers. That's your choice I am not forcing you to put it up, it's your descision. Oh and like the PS3 comic story for Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 has a similar intro for people who start a new game on Mass Effect 3, but haven't played the other two games.
 * Are simple instructions really that hard to follow? I ask people that if they want to discuss something about a comment I left on their talk page, then do it there, maybe I should just stop responding to comments like this. Second I ask people to leave a new message and you didn't do that either. Seriously, are simple instructions that hard to follow?
 * As to your points, which should be on your talk to being with, we will not use those images as they are low quality and I will take no image over something that is super low quality. As to your other thing, I already stated where you can find the information on that and I will not repeat myself. Lancer1289 17:04, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Test message
Is this the correct way to leave you a message, with the title of the message in the Subject/Headline bar? Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 03:57, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that's it. Lancer1289 03:58, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, now I know. Thanks Lancer. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 04:00, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pilgrimage edit
I don't disagree with your decision to undo my edit... I knew it was likely a fallacious claim, comparing a rite of passage to a necessity of life. But do you at least acknowledge that some similarities are present between the two customs? I know I do, albeit not strong comparisons. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 23:31, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * The only comparison, if that is what you want to call it, is that they leave and find somewhere else to live. That is it. However, this is not that uncommon with what children do when they leave their parents house when they grow up. They find somewhere else to live, a new town/city/country, and remake their lives. Overall, I can't see a comparison apart from what is just common in a lot of mammals and other species on this planet today. And it definitely isn't trivia material. Lancer1289 23:39, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words it's pretty much a trivial aspect of any life; separating from the parents to start a new life. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 23:45, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically. Lancer1289 23:46, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a more appropriate analogy would be if there were a parasitic animal species that, upon reaching maturity, left the animal it was in or on (which itself is part of a larger herd), wandered for a bit, then came back to the same herd, just to a different animal within the herd. After all, the analogy you make assumes that each individual ship on the flotilla is akin to a separate herd. This is, of course, not the case. The flotilla itself fills the role of pride or herd, and individual ships are like individual animals. SpartHawg948 06:09, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a better analogy wouldn't it, except I don't know of anything like that. Lancer1289 13:25, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Remoras maybe, as they usually cling to sharks and then eventually leave that shark to latch onto another shark. Typically seen on Manta Rays and Nurse Sharks. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 15:52, April 12, 2011 (UTC)