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.

'If I left you a message on your talk page and you wish to discuss it, please do so there as I do not like cross page conversations. Thank you in advance.'

Star Trek
So, from what I gather, you like Star Trek: DS9 & Voyager. What a coincidence, so do I! I have a friend who hadn't seen the rest of the DS( from about 5th season on so I decided to use my netflix account to get the discs and we picked up from there.

I personally like DS9 more than TNG. I do like Voyager as well. In DS9 & Voyager, who are your favorite characters? From DS9 mine are Worf & Jadzia Dax while from Voyager I like the Doctor (hilarious bedside manner!) Oh, do tell your opinion about the new Star Trek movie. I for one loved it. GrandMoffVixen 18:42, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Me personally if I had to pick a favorite then I couldn't as I like DS9 and Voyager about the same. Each has something different to offer compared to TOS, TNG, and Enterprise. I really couldn't pick a favorite. As to my favorite characters, DS9: Kira, O'Brian, or Worf. Worf was just out of his element in DS9. As to Voyager: Chakotay, Tuvok, or Neelix. I really can't pick a favorite for each. As to the new movie, I had my likes and dislikes. I can see why they did it, and they explained a few things that had people scratching their heads for a while. However I didn't like a few things they did, small things, but they still annoyed me. They aren't worth mentioning, but overall it was a good movie. I just hope they don't start remaking every movie, I don't want to see ST:II remade. Lancer1289 19:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will agree with you there that ST:II does not need remaking. It is just too good a classic. If it is remade, this is my reaction. Hehe GrandMoffVixen 20:15, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is no need to remake classics, that's just wrong. Lancer1289 20:22, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can't get this little annoyance to leave me alone. When the Enterprise fires the impulse engines, they always show the engines right behind the saucer on the neck. Now in the new Star Trek movie, anytime they use the impulse engines it shows the nacelles being the ones that provide the thrust whereas in all the movies and the series, thrust is provided by the engines located on the neck behind the saucer. For whatever reason, this bugs the crap out of me because they went to great lengths to research the things needed for the movie and they couldn't get this one little thing correct. Grr. What do you think? GrandMoffVixen 21:51, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * That was one of my little niggles that I had. You'd think they would get where the thrust is coming from wouldn't you? The nacelles provide the way for a ship to enter warp speed. The impuse engines are completey different and operate from different places. Yes some were near the nacelles, NX-01, Voyager, and the Defiant off-hand, but they were never incorperated into the nacelles, for obvious reasons. There are a few other niggles that I have, but the fact that every other ship operates via their impusle engines, but you'd think they would get that right? Alas not, unless they changed how ships move. But why confuse people, that never turns out well. Lancer1289 21:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I was having an OCD moment in the which I remembered my issue I have had with the new movie and I had to see what you thought about it. You know how it goes, expecially for being a sci-fi fan, let alone a fan of Star Trek. GrandMoffVixen 22:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Lancer1289 22:05, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Rachni Brood Warrior
I gonna upload a screenshot for the Rachni Brood Warrior. I have two, which one?

Screenshot 1

Screenshot 2

I like the second one more. Also I have a Rachni egg screenshot. Can it be used anywere in the Rachni article? SoulRipper 16:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I like one better. It's a closer shot and shows more detail. As to the egg, I'd really have to see it first before making a decision. Lancer1289 16:32, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok added the first one. Can you remove that "I need a picture" thing?


 * The egg is this: Rachni Egg.PNG
 * Hmm, the problem I have with that is we don't know that it is an egg. Given the cirumstances, I can't see anything else it could be, But they are seen wherever the rachni are. I'd say for now, I would have to say put it in, but don't list the caption as an egg because we don't know what it is. As to the caption, I'd say, "rachni object" or something like that. Unless you have concrete proof that it is an egg, then fine, but please share it first. Lancer1289 16:43, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: If you want to put it in the specualtion section, that section needs an image, then the caption of Egg would be acceptable becuase it is the appropiate section. Lancer1289 16:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually its a rachni egg because the models package name is "BIOG_APL_STD_Rachni_Egg_01_L.upk". Here is a screenshot in the UModel: Rachni Egg Umodel
 * As you can see the models name (highlitghted with red) is also rachni egg. SoulRipper 16:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I don't mod my PC game, nor do I have any of that stuff. In fact the only game I have ever modded is Freelancer for the PC. Anyway since I can plainly see that it is called an egg in the files, I will have no objection to the caption. I still think the Speculation section of the article needs a picture, but then again anywhere will just about do. Also you don't need to link images like that, just do this, this is for the Citadel Council Chamber image in the Citadel: Expose Saren article. Citadel Council Chambers . The colon in front of the File tells the wiki code to link, rather than display. Lancer1289 17:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing that I have changed in the game is the Flycam and the remove HUD code. I also will check what Dammej has done to remove completely the HUD.
 * That thing with the link I dont get it. Can you anylize it a bit? I understand that [[File:(the name of the image) tells wiki which image to chose but I dont get how the code works. And whats that "|" and how I type it at all. [[User:SoulRipper|SoulRipper]] 17:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest I haven't seen the code there are small things like that that tell it how to funcction. As to the "|", it allows for the creation of an alais. Like you would type out the full link, Legion, but in context it doesn't fit so you would instead type the geth or something like that. However creating unnecessary alais like Jacob Taylor are completely unnecessary as there is a Jacob redirect that takes people to the Jacob Taylor article. Lancer1289 18:53, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats what Im talking about, [ [ :File:CitadelCouncilChambers.png | Citadel Council Chambers ] ]. I spaced it a bit to be visible. That thing in the middle of the .png and Citadel, the " | ", how I type or insert it. SoulRipper 19:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah it is access using the "Shift" key. The "|" is located on the same key as "\", above the right enter key, well on every keyboard I have seen. Just use the shift key, then the "\" key to put it in. Lancer1289 19:56, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * F-g s--t. Never saw that thing and it was always there. Thanks anyway. SoulRipper 19:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 20:01, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Rachni concept art image next to trivia in the Rachni article. Thats actually a Rachni worker. Im gonna take a screenshot ingame of a Rachni worker. SoulRipper 22:25, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then that should go on the Rachni Worker article. As to the image, I have no idea if that is concept or not, but either way Workers appear green in-game, so I think it should stay. Lancer1289 22:43, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did that image came from. I only can find that image in google and one in this website which also discribes it as a rachni worker. No other source. Do you know anything?
 * Also here is the ingame model as seen in UModel (the texture is not right, its just the normal map): Rachni Worker UModel
 * Its the same pose. SoulRipper 22:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well excuse me. Lancer1289 23:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well excuse me. Lancer1289 23:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Horizon
We dont even have any evidence that there were only humans. The PDA in ME: Incursion only shows human populations. I think its more accurate to say that there were those thousends of humans rather to say that the hole population were humans. In freedoms progress there was Vetor. We dont know if there were any aliens who may fleed, the bugs were only attacking humans. Also Horizon was not that little part were we explored in the game. If you look around there are other buildings that are not accesible. Just my thoughts.

Also what about an article about the Omega 2 Relay? SoulRipper 12:35, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the thing is that Horizon and Freedom's Progress are human colonies and Veetor was an exception on FP. I can't say no to having that on the Citadel article, if it isn't there, but on colonies that have more evidence that only humans are there, I'd have to say no. Lancer1289 12:41, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * If the number in the source is for human population, then we must say that whatever number is on the page is for humans only. This is pretty cut and dry in my opinion. The only thing we know is the human population, so the only thing we can say worth confidence is that the human population is X. It's not like that could possibly be inaccurate either. If the population is human only, then the number is accurate, and no matter how many others show up, the number is still accurate because we specified that the number was humans only.JakePT 12:49, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another example, "According to Mass Effect: Incursion, the exact population of Earth is 11,490,225,106 humans. " . That doesnt sounds very accurate. It should be "According to Mass Effect: Incursion, the exact human population of Earth is 11,490,225,106. " or something like that. Because we dont know how many aliens live on earth. Maybe there are 3 million aliens, who knows.
 * And also this " the population of Terra Nova has actually decreased since the events of Mass Effect, from 4.4 million to 4,145,412 humans". I dont remember that it was stated anywere that on Terra Nova there were only humans.
 * The Freedoms Progress and Horizon are human colonies BUT that doesnt mean that there are only humans. Maybe there are but it isnt stated anywere. SoulRipper 13:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * However Horizon and Freedom's Progress were founded by humans looking to get away from the Alliance and its politics. We have one quarian, one, on Freedom Progress and no evidence of any other aliens. Again, while I have no objects on articles like the Citadel, I have a problem with Freedom's Progress and Horizon. They are more likely to have only humans, and considering the nature on what they were founded, and while yes we only see a small part of the colonies, it is much more likely that they have humans only compared to the Citadel, Terra Nova, and Earth, because we have proof that asari live on Earth thanks to August 22nds CDN article.
 * As to accuracy, I really don't see a problem with it, or how it is inaccurate for trhat matter. It states that the population is ____ humans. That doesn't discount aliens, and we have proof in more than one case, but if you insist on rewording it fine. Lancer1289 13:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Conversion
Why don't you want to insert a conversion into the SI units? SkyBon 23:11, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because source says feet. We don't convert from Kilometers to miles do we? Because if we are going from feet to meters, then we have to go the other way as well to be fair. Are we going to do that, of course not because it uses km in the Codex. It is pointless and note that you are also edit warring at this point. Lancer1289 23:13, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Canon sources are canon sources. It says 20 feet. Not 6 meters. And last I checked, 20 feet =/= 6 meters. Canon sources overrule inaccurate conversions. SpartHawg948 23:14, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about replacing the original value, but about merely adding a conversion. SkyBon 23:16, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, we have a canon source for feet, and not meters. Since you want to go one way, then you must be willing to go the other as well. So that would mean converting every number on this site. So dreadnoughs would read "800 meters (2625 feet) to 1 Kilometer (3621 feet)". Are we going to do that either, of course not because the Codex uses meters and kilometers so we use them there as well. Canon overrides conversions. Again if you want one, then you have to have both. And I suspsect that you don't want that. Lancer1289 23:21, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing my point about inaccurate conversions vs canon sources. Really appreciate being ignored. Way to make a compelling argument. Just to restate, 20 feet =/= 6 meters. SpartHawg948 23:22, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for this needless debate to end, if we were to use conversions, then we would have use them for every number on the site. For example the dreadnought section of the Starships article would then read: "Dreadnoughts range from 800 meters (2625 feet) to one kilometer long (3621 feet), with a main gun of commensurate length. An 800-meter (2625 feet) mass accelerator is capable of accelerating one twenty-kilogram slug (44.1 lbs) to a velocity of 4025 km/s (2501 mp/s) (1.3% the speed of light) every two seconds." That just looks sloppy and is completely unnecessary as the Codex uses SI units. Ascension has Imperial Units, so we use them where appropiate. This is pointless as again canon measurements override conversions. Finally, again, if you want it one way, then you have to be willing to accept the other way as well. Also address Spart's point please as I want an answer as well. Lancer1289 23:26, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, giving values both in Imperial and SI in Codex would be great too. As for precision, it has to be determined whether the value is exact or not. For example 'threw 20 feet' does not mean that the one threw 240 inches exactly. That's why a close conversion should be acceptable. SkyBon 23:30, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... canon source - "He flew twenty feet through the air before slamming down on one of the tables." (P 110). Note it says 20 feet. Not nearly 20 feet. So, you'd need to justify your statement that canon is not correct. Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons, not canon. It is or it isn't. And, given that 6 meters does not equal the distance the canon source tells us Nick flew, a "close conversion" is not acceptable. It's shoddy approximation. SpartHawg948 23:34, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And how about since the Codex is copied VERBATIM from the game, absolutely not. We use the appropriate measurements when necessary, and putting something like I have above on every number on the site, is unnecessary, time consuming, and looks sloppy compared to how it is now. Bottom line is the source says feet, we say feet; if it says meters, then we say meters. There is absolutely no reason to have both listed. As to accuracy, it doesn't matter as it clearly says feet, so again feet is used. No need for meters, or feet, or miles, when it is uncalled for. Lancer1289 23:36, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the readers who are unfamiliar with Imperial? SkyBon 23:47, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * They can muddle through just the same as readers who are unfamiliar with metric do on pages where metric is used. SpartHawg948 23:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not quite reader-friendly attitude. SkyBon 23:51, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Exactly. However since the games are rated M, 18+, etc. most people playing them have probably seen both, and used both. This debate is pointless again as we use the labels where appropriate, and suing both looks sloppy and wouldn't be considered canon as we have canon descriptions from the books, and the Codex. And that especially is where this would be inappropriate for reasons listed above. Lancer1289 23:52, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Neither is assuming that inaccurate metric conversions should take precedence over accurate standard measures taken from canon. Life is imperfect. Get used to it. Not every situation has a nice, fuzzy, happy ending. Sometimes the imperfect status quo is the best of bad alternatives. Accuracy trumps 'reader-friendly attitude'. SpartHawg948 23:54, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflcit) And since when do conversations, that probably won't be accurate, override canon, not recently unless something changed when I wasn't looking. We use the appropriate measurements where they are called for based on canon sources. Again a source uses Imperial, then we use Imperial; a sources uses metric, then we use metric. There is no reason to have both when only one is called for. Accuracy takes precedence over "reader-friendly attitude." Lancer1289 23:57, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Idea
I have created a template Template:Mass Effect News. If we use it on the main page, we can keep the old news on the template page instead of deleting them. SkyBon 09:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't really say I see the usefulness of it. After all, the way the discussion is currently leaning is towards archiving old news in a manner similar to how it's done at Wookieepedia, and a template does not factor into that. Additionally, templates should not be created on a whim like this. Site policy calls for the template to be proposed and discussed before being implemented. It can be sandboxed for demonstration purposes, but not created. SpartHawg948 09:23, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed templates like this are to be at the very least discussed with an admin before implementation. Like I did with the redirect template, even though I was an admin at the time. I don't like the template and it serves no purpose. And just to note, this is not the discussion I'm talking about, this is a reaction to the creation of a needless template that serves no purpose and probably will be deleted. Lancer1289 15:00, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it is my Wikipedia trait of being bold and doing everything myself. SkyBon 19:56, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, all I can say to that is 'Thank God we aren't Wikipedia!' If we did things the way they do, I'd be surprised if we had half the editors we do. SpartHawg948 20:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed we have our autonomy, please don't take that away. If we did, then we probably would only have the half that Spart said. Although I think that number would be less, I'd would think a third. Lancer1289 20:21, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think one of my favorite lines from wikipedia was when a user, not an admin but nevertheless a user who has been elevated above the rank and file (being a 'reviewer' and having rollback rights and such), said "Editors don't have "rights" per se. Editors, rather, have obligations to follow policies and guidelines (including behavioral ones)." WTF? Editors don't have rights? He then goes on to say that when "the community" decides that a user has crossed the line, they can have their privileges removed. Editors don't have rights, and can be subjected to mob-rule, popularity contests, and witch-hunts? That's no system I want anything to do with. I like our system, in which everybody has rights, and everybody gets a fair shake. SpartHawg948 20:28, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a few words on that: Wow; WTF indeed; and I see anarchy coming from that scenario. Defiantly no system I want a part of either. Just the fact one of them said that scares me. Lancer1289 20:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Another Idea
i have an idea on how to expand the wiki you should put a did you know section on the home page
 * And what idea would that be. Also why do we need a "Did you Know" section? I don't see a reason for the main page. However I am curious. Lancer1289 16:20, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Congrats
Id like to the first to say congrats to your 11,000 edit.Legionwrex 15:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well thank you, however as I said, I never though I'd have that many edits by now. Mid next year, yes, but not mid this year. Lancer1289 16:21, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Post Mission emails
Lancer, I noticed you moved the Professor (Dossier page) "post mission email" from its own section to a subsection of the Walkthrough, for the reason that that matches other pages. First, which others? (e.g. it doesn't match Archangels). Second, does it really make sense to have those as subsections to the walkthrough? (I suppose it doesn't much matter, and so if there is a convention, that should be followed. Just want your opinion) --AnotherRho 01:11, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I see that, curious. However any emails, logs, datapads, either from the assignment itself, or after it should be in the walkthrough before the enemies subsection. It is consistent with the Assignments, see N7: Lost Operative, and I can't think of any others at the moment. Hope that answers your question as the Pizza guy is at the door right now. Lancer1289 01:26, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I found a few other examples, Horizon (mission), Tali: Treason, Jacob: The Gift of Greatness. Also according to the MoS for missions and assignments, all emails, logs, and that like are supposed to be in the walkthrough. Sorry about the quick message earlier, as I just wanted my pizza after the place I ordered from, no need to mention names as I do like the place, messed up my order so badly that they had to remake the whole thing. So I got it free, per their policy on messing up orders, and they delivered it free. I also got something extra for free as well. So again I do hope that answers your question. Lancer1289 01:50, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, and thanks for finding others. I've found a couple more as well, so if I add any more emails, will follow the convention. -- Glad to hear they fixed your order, and hey, free pizza!
 * Annnnnd I've another question. The cleanup tag on two Pinnacle Station articles say, "Verify in-game journal entry" in a note (and in the history). What's this mean? What the journal entries say, when one clicks on "journal"? And how/where would such info be put in the article (I can't find any examples of pages that quote the journal). AnotherRho 02:10, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Soryr for the long wait time, but I had to figure out what you were talking about. As to the tags, I am the one who added them because I'm not certain that those are the official entries, which is the only thing that is supposed to be on the top of the page. The opening blurb at the top is the journal entry, and that is supposed to be the only thing at top.
 * I also discovered almost all of the ME assignments don't have the approppiate Journal entries, so I'm fixing that. Also I had forgotten about those, and since I'm on a playthrough of ME, both for cleaning up the UNC assignments, and now for journal entries, I'll be sure to get around to them. If you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask. Lancer1289 02:24, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the first lines are the journals. Duh. Thanks. AnotherRho 02:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, that's what I'm here for. :) Lancer1289 02:37, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Citadel: Ritas Sister
Mind if I upload some screenshots for that article. I saw that it has a "I need image" tag, so I took some. Its one for Rita, two for Jenna (one Chora's Den and one Flux), one for Jax and two for Chellick (one Chora's Den and one C-Sec).

Also I have one screenshot for Flinch and one for the Turian Guard from the Citadel: Old Friends mission. SoulRipper 17:28, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. You usually don't have to ask up upload screenshots if they are good. The problems come when they are bad and then they get removed. Usually being bold is ok with screenshots. Lancer1289 17:32, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, when the "you cant upload images right now" will go away, I'll hit them. SoulRipper 17:50, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well at least it shouldn't last much longer. I think. I don't upload image very often, so I wouldn't know. Lancer1289 17:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Fai Dan - Wrath of Khan
I think the better question is why the reference to Wrath of Khan is in the article about Fai Dan? Sure, the scenario presented was similar in that Terrell committed suicide after being mind controlled, as did Fai Dan, but there is no "reference" to Wrath of Khan. As I said in the post, not everything has to come back to Star Trek. 67.171.69.236 10:16, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not sure how Lancer will answer, but given that he just barely beat me to re-adding the Wrath of Khan bit, I'll add my two cents. You are correct that not everything has to be a Star Trek reference. However, sometimes there are things that are Star Trek references, and this proposed reference seems plausible enough to merit inclusion in the article, so long as it is stated as being possible, probable, or likely, as opposed to definitely. And, as it is, I see no reason not to include it. Unless you have some reason other than "No, not everything is a Star Trek reference....". SpartHawg948 11:40, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Spart, you're up late. Anyway, the reason I revered is the same reasons listed above. Scifi barrows heavily from each other, and there are a lot of similarities from this. Currently I can't think of another scene like this, which involves a mind controlled person who commits suicide. and I'm a scifi nut. Or at least that is what I've been called on multiple occasions. Spart is correct in that while not everything has to be a Star Trek reference, but the reference between the two scenes are enough to justify trivia in this case. It can be referenced if the key words, which are listed above, are used because we don't have dev confirmation on it, like we do with some trivia. So unless there is another reason apart from what is quoted above, there is no reason to delete it and it merits inclusion. That being said, you need connections to justify trivia, and not just putting useless trivia there. Just throwing that out there. Lancer1289 12:20, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Geth Flyers
Hi! I want to ask if you know where exactly are those geth flyers? Im on Virmire searching for those and I cant find them. On the platform mentioned in the article there are geth rocket drones. SoulRipper 13:15, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK I have it. When I destroyed the Geth Rocket Drones and the Geth Assault Drones, I got a "pop-up message" saying that I destroyed the Geth Flyers. I assume that the Geth Flyers are actually the Geth Rocket Drones and Geth Assault Drones, as you can see here. So I guess that there are no geth flyers but assault and rocket drones that are characterized as geth flyers. SoulRipper 14:00, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, then I would guess that they don't exist after all. Curses I could have sworn that I saw them. Anyway I'll throw up two proposals, redirect and deletion and see what happens in seven days. Lancer1289 14:12, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I searched the whole Virmire enemy by enemy 3 times and the only reference I found about geth flyers was that message. I think that deleting the article about the geth flyers, add a redirect for geth flyers to the drones and put some trivia or something in geth rocket and assault drones articles could work. SoulRipper 14:17, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the proposals are currently up for redirect and delete, however to delete and article, then turn it into a redirect is just extra work, much easier to go from proposal to redirect. Currently the redirect proposal is for redirecting to the Geth Drones section of the Drones article. Feel free to comment at the Talk:Geth Flyer page and we will see what happens in a week. Personally I favor the redirect and a note over deletion. Lancer1289 14:21, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Rachni song
Hey, whats up?

So recorded some samples from the rachni song that can be heard on Luna (while on the mission for the rogue VI) and put them togetherer. I have a audio file about 40 seconds.

This is the file:

Can it be used to the rachni article? SoulRipper 22:36, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Right now I'd have to say no. We are still working on how to incorperate audio files, and until we do, no audio. Lancer1289 23:05, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Im not saying to put it now. I know that there are problems with audio files. I just asked and informed you that I have this file. If it can be used, feel free (whenever that will be). SoulRipper 23:15, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like you are talking with Spart as well, I'll shift there as there apparenlty was information I didn't know about. Lancer1289 23:17, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Question about XBox savegames
Hey Lancer, I'm curious: can you save the game at any time on the XBox versions of ME 1 and ME 2? (On the PC, of course, the player cannot save during combat). --AnotherRho 02:09, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope the same thing applies on the 360 versions. You can save just about anywhere, but not during combat. Lancer1289 02:14, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Strangest thing: none of the "talk" is displaying on your talk page now. I can read it through the "history" link, or the "edit this page" link, but that is all.  AnotherRho 03:06, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now that I've posted this last message, it's all displaying again, properly. AnotherRho 03:07, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can say is Wikia hiccup. Lancer1289 03:11, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Nihlus
The same way as the turian representative. You have a turian which looks (exactly) like Nihlus same markings and same armor and its not Trivia? SoulRipper 19:32, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have to say it again how is that trivia? The comparison between the turian Councilor and Nihlus are valid as they are comparing two prominent people in the game. How is a random turian notable when you compare it to the Councilor? This goes along with the voice trivia thing about prominent members. Also I think I've seen several other turians with those same facial markings on the Citadel and in other places. Should we note those as well? No, because unlike Nihlus and the Councilor, they aren't prominent members in the game like those two are. The Codex states that the markings indicate turians from the same colony/world. If we put every turian that shares those marking, then the list would probably get long. And since here is probably a small list of turian facial markings, it could just be thrown in there. If said turian was a more prominent member of the game, and not just a nameless NPC, then maybe. However, since he isn't, it isn't trivia. Lancer1289 19:42, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree with the notable turian thing, but he looks exactly like Nihlus. Its not only the markings. When I first saw that turian I said "WTF does Nihlus here, isnt he dead". Maybe its Biowares nasty trick. SoulRipper 19:53, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its probably just an easter egg if anything. Also what did that turian merchant say in the Wards. I think it was that he was surprised that a human could distinguish him, because apparently all turians look alike to humans. Lancer1289 19:55, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Re Edits
Actually I always just assumed the captains had some weird fantasies regarding their vessels. Also if your adamant about leaving it like that, there are other points on the page where its and 'it' and not a 'her'.
 * Well considering that both Normandy's are referenced in game as she, we can follow the same convenstions. However the SSV Normandy page refers to the ship as she, Joker refers to the ship as a she when he talks about his piloting in ME, Shepard refers to the Normandy in the Citadel: Snap Inspection assignment with one of the dialogues, and usually when refering to the Normandy, either one, in game, "she" or "the ship" is used. She is more than perfectly acceptable when refering to ships, and switching from one to the other is a needless edit as either is perfectly valid. Lancer1289 22:18, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * And, just to throw in a couple of pennies... if there are other points on the page where the ship is referred to as 'it', not 'her' or 'she', then you could always (and I know, this may be a novel idea)... FIX THEM. It's so refreshing when someone sees a mistake and fixes it. It's decidedly less refreshing when someone sees a mistake, does nothing, and leaves a message saying 'just so you know, it's messed up in other places too'. Gee. Thanks. So helpful. Sorry for the snark, this pointing out problems while doing nothing to rectify them just gets real old, real fast. SpartHawg948 22:21, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem fixed. The Normandy is now referred to by name, she, or her when appropiate. I went over it twice, but I might have missed one or two, but I think I got them all. Lancer1289 22:29, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Editing the Downloadable Content DLC Sidebar
Hey Lancer, I just had an idea. The "Downloadable Content" sidebar on the Main Page of the Mass Effect Wiki, when you drop down to "Mass Effect 2", well that DLC list is wayyy too long, there's 17 bits of DLC there now, compared to only two for ME1. I say this because the drop-down menu list sometimes goes below the limits of my browser, and I think it happens the same for most people as well.

I propose that we add another sidebar within the DLC drop-down menu, so it can go "Downloadable Content" > "Mass Effect 2" > "Weapons and Armor" > Blood Dragon, Incisor, etc. then "Downloadable Content" > "Mass Effect 2" > "Storyline" > Normandy Crash Site, Zaeed, Kasumi, etc. So that there'll be 11 items in "Weapons and Armor" and 6 in "Storyline". It will let things be a lot less cluttier, you know? PARAGADE74 23:42, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Or "Promotional Content" (all pre-order bonuses), "Cerberus Network" (all free Cerberus Network DLC), and "Available Content" (all paid DLC). Throwin' that out there. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea I talked this over with Spart a little more than a week ago and he disagreed because there was no reason. Also PARAGADE47's proposal was the exact same as mine, just with LotSB added. Since in a week I don't think Spart has changed his mind about it, but I don't know so maybe he'll see this and comment. I'd like to see what he thinks before moving further with this. Lancer1289 23:57, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Commdor's proposal, what about items that were previously available only as part of pre-orders but are now available through other means? I don't like the degree of crossover here. And what about promotional DLC that wasn't part of any pre-orders, such as the Dr Pepper promotional items? SpartHawg948 00:12, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's already a degree of crossover. The Inferno Armor and M-29 Incisor are already linked separately, despite being included in other packs. If they have to be linked separately, it would only make sense for them to be with the other pre-order items because they are not available separately in the paid DLC. As for the Dr. Pepper stuff, those and the pre-order things would be listed under the more generalized "Promotional Content" label. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant by 'crossover' was items being listed in two different tabs, not items being listed twice due to the fact that they were first released as promotional items and later as paid DLC. That degree of redundancy is unavoidable due to its originating with BioWare. We don't need to compound the redundancy though with non-mutually exclusive categories. SpartHawg948 00:29, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why we have the system we do now. If we were to reorganize it, it would be a very tricky operation due to the redundancy of content. The only remaining piece of Pre-Order bonus left is the M-490 Blackstorm. The Collector Weapons and Armor aren't coming out so no worries about that one. If we were to reorganize it, then we would have to pick and choose what would be there, and me no like that. While the current system is long, reorgganization would be complex to say the least. Lancer1289 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. My plan would look like this:
 * Promotional Content
 * Blood Dragon Armor
 * Inferno Armor
 * Terminus Weapon and Armor
 * Collectors' Weapon and Armor
 * Recon Hood
 * Sentry Interface
 * Umbra Visor
 * M-29 Incisor


 * Cerberus Network
 * Normandy Crash Site
 * Zaeed - The Price of Revenge
 * Cerberus Weapon and Armor
 * Arc Projector
 * Firewalker Pack


 * Available Content
 * Alternate Appearance Pack
 * Kasumi - Stolen Memory
 * Equalizer Pack
 * Overlord
 * Aegis Pack
 * Firepower Pack
 * Lair of the Shadow Broker

The only technically-redundant things are the Inferno Armor and M-29 Incisor, but even they aren't linked twice. Personally, I'd prefer if we didn't link any of pre-order or promotional stuff at all. No one can obtain any of it anymore, so putting it up in the sidebar as if it's something essential for the player to know about is needless. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:47, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The same could easily be said for the Dr Pepper promotional content, but I'd rather we didn't pick and choose which DLCs were 'worthy' of inclusion. It's better to just include them all. SpartHawg948 00:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the Dr. Pepper items as well. The promotion for that ended in May. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:50, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * But again, it's still DLC. Sure, it's DLC that you can no longer download, but that doesn't make it any more or less DLC, and I don't see any real reason to cull unique items from this listing just because it's downloadable content you can't download anymore. It's still DLC, just historic as opposed to active. SpartHawg948 00:53, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then my above layout plan stands. I'm not sure what's wrong or "redundant" with it that makes it difficult to navigate. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't recall difficulty of navigation ever being mentioned, nor has redundancy been brought up since the actual layout was presented. I actually rather like it, I just didn't like the idea of picking and choosing what DLC was going to be included based on some arbitrary guidelines, and was attempting to address it before presenting my opinion on the layout, as again, I don't have any objections based on redundancy or ease of navigation, contrary to what your last post seems to infer. SpartHawg948 01:00, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I jsut feel like I have to point this out. Currenlty the Dr. Pepper Items aren't even linked and only the major packs and promotional content like the Terminus Weapon and Armor and Collectors' Weapon and Armor are. However the reason that the Inferno Armor and M-29 are because they were avaliable seperatly for the PC version Digital Deleux Edition and pre-order. While yes the Dr. Pepper items are DLC, they aren't linked. That needs to be sorted out before we go further. All or nothing, or picking major packs and pre-order items. I have no strong opinions either way. Lancer1289 01:13, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no objections to the version shown above, other than the caveat that all DLC must be included, not just the DLC we cherry-pick because it's currently active or whatever. SpartHawg948 01:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this, a slight mod of what is above. With that would be a new redirect to take people to the Armor customization article and the head section. That way, we have everything and nothing is left out. Lancer1289 01:20, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Promotional Content
 * Blood Dragon Armor
 * Inferno Armor
 * Terminus Weapon and Armor
 * Collectors' Weapon and Armor
 * Recon Hood
 * Sentry Interface
 * Umbra Visor
 * M-29 Incisor
 * Dr. Pepper Promotional Items (new redirect)
 * Cerberus Network
 * Normandy Crash Site
 * Zaeed - The Price of Revenge
 * Cerberus Weapon and Armor
 * Arc Projector
 * Firewalker Pack
 * Available Content
 * Alternate Appearance Pack
 * Kasumi - Stolen Memory
 * Equalizer Pack
 * Overlord
 * Aegis Pack
 * Firepower Pack
 * Lair of the Shadow Broker
 * I don't see the point. The version Commdor posted already lists the Dr Pepper content, and the only change I noticed with yours was the addition of a Dr Pepper Promotional Items link, which would be redundant, given that the three Dr Pepper items are already listed and linked to. SpartHawg948 01:23, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)(Dang laptop crashed again) Lancer, the Dr. Pepper items are there (Recon Hood, Sentry Interface, Umbra Visor). You could make those redirect to the Armor Customization article instead of making a new redirect. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Thought I removed those links, oh well. So no objections to Commdor's version? Because I currently have none. Lancer1289 01:27, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * As to redirecting the links and swapping the menu, I don't have any objections to doing that. Lancer1289 01:28, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

So about Commdor's overhaul proposal? Or did I miss something. Lancer1289 01:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... I figured the first three times I said I didn't have any objections were sufficient. I can say it a fourth time though, I guess. I have no objections. SpartHawg948 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I missed something then, brain fart. Implementing, just give me a few minutes. And chalk up another productive conversation. Lancer1289 01:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wow! This discussion got a life of its own after I brought it up. Well, I still kind of like the idea of just putting "Weapons and Armor" and "Storyline" in its own dropdown menu, but I like Commodor's first suggestion with all the bullets and the like. Though I would rename "Available Content" to "Premium Content", because really, those who are just coming to this wiki wouldn't know that "Available Content" really means "You have to pay for it". And yeah, I know that you have to spend some money to get Blood Dragon Armor, Collector Armor, etc., but those are promotions and fit well within it's own category. Really, "Premium Content" says that you have to pay for this stuff, it isn't Cerberus Network (sans used) free. "Available" doesn't hint that you have to pay for it. My two cents. PARAGADE74 02:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the way it is setup, with the various links, you can't avoid hitting the price for those. And Premium sends the wong message. That makes it sound like it costs money yes, but a lot of money at that and that it give a lot of content for that. However some of those packs are small, and as such Avaliable content is better over premium. Also that is the way it is set up on the Mass Effect 2 and Cerberus Network articles so there is no confusion. Lancer1289 02:08, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) But the issue with "Weapons and Armor" is that it's misleading and kind of vague. After all, there are several DLCs that would not fall into this category (as you envision it) that also contain new weapons and armor. As for Premium Content, that one seems an issue of semantics, and I personally don't see anything "premium" about (for example) the alternate appearance pack. Premium also doesn't hInt that you have to pay for things, unless your definition of premium and mine differ. Available, on the other hand, says that it's content that is available, just not through either of the other means listed. SpartHawg948 02:08, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Feron in Lair of the Shadow Broker
Check the clip on LOTSB and pause it around 0:12, that has to be Feron, it can't be Thane or his son http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWrxAdg7utw Shadowhawk27 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't we just wait for the DLC to release? It's less than a week away. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:40, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * And there are, of course, only 3 male drell in the entire known galaxy, thus ruling out the chance that it could be a male drell other than Feron, Thane, or Kolyat, possibly even one new to the DLC. SpartHawg948 01:42, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And again that is based on visual comparisons, not fact, or dev confirmation. How do you know that isn't another drell that we haven't seen yet? Bottom line, we need dev confirmation or we have to wait six more days. Visual comparions aren't enough to justify trivia, especially in things like this. Lancer1289 01:44, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know but haven't we already got enough goddies from Chris prestly that feron's profile needs a makeover, didn't liara say that her friend was left behind when she delt with SB from before and ME: Redemption proved who that friend was :( Shadowhawk27 01:46, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Find Chris Priestly saying the drell in the video is Feron. Not statements he made that you think suggest that he is. SpartHawg948 01:47, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes find that, and then we can call it fact. Until then, all we have is speculation, which isn't trivia. Lancer1289 01:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh i would love too, but the thing is Chris hardly responds to my PMS :( Shadowhawk27 01:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking more something in the forums, i.e. something documented and verifiable. For instance, during my recent email exchange with Drew Karpyshyn, knowing that 'he said this in an email to me' wouldn't cut it, I asked if something could also be placed into the forums, as personal messages and emails and such aren't really valid sources. SpartHawg948 01:59, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we lived that with the Weapon Damage pages, which was only confirmed by Ms. Norman herself via her account here. A forum post by a dev would be the best thing in thise case. Lancer1289 02:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * And how the two drell have the same face colors? Check it:Feron Comparison. And whats the reason to have a drell other than Feron there? For him Liara fights against the SB.
 * Im not saying anything about Trivia, just that the drell IS Feron.SoulRipper 09:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * They have the same face color? Are we looking at the same images? The drell strapped to the... apparatus (for lack of a better term) has several very noticeable dark blotches or marks on his face. Feron? Not so much. And you can't attribute it to the hood, either. Look on the cheeks (dark green blotches jutting in towards the eyes), just above the "eyebrow ridge", and the big one smack dab in the middle of the forehead. If those faces are the same color, then I must be color-blind. And the Air Force has assured me several times that I'm not.
 * I'm certainly not ruling out the possibility that the drell is Feron, but we have no confirmation, and 'face is the same color' images that show that the faces are not the same color really aren't helping that case. SpartHawg948 10:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Not the same colours, but the same colour scheme - green forehead, yellow(-ish) around the nose, red(-dish) on the chin. Actually, quite unique colouring (rainbow, heh), sure, difference in visual styles makes them look different. But hey, it happens to all characters, if you compare their comic book and game versions. The 'blotches' were probably just let out, as well as neck/cheek anatomical details. It would appear that all drell we see have similar 'blotches', and the comic simplifies their faces. And no, I'm not jumping into conclusions. I'm just pointing out that if that is Feron, the comic rendering of him is pretty viable (or vice versa). --Kiadony 11:50, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * There are differences in the colour, sure, but we're talking about two different mediums here done by two different artists, they don't have to look the same. There's definitely a matching colour scheme though, so it would be a huge coincidence if it wasn't him. Anyway, no matter how similar they look that's not confirmation that they're the same person. We'll know for sure in a week. Personally, I think it's almost beyond reasonable doubt that it's him, but only almost.JakePT 12:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok here is the bottom line on this. While I am also almost certain that it is also Feron, we don't know for certain so saying that it is pure speculation. Either hold off for five more days, or find some dev confirmation. Visual comparisons aren't enough in this case, and especially for something like this. Either find that dev confirmation, or wait until Tuesday. Lancer1289 12:31, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Guess what guys, this article proves that it is Feron that's being held by the shadow broker. http://uk.xboxlive.ign.com/articles/111/1117621p1.html Shadowhawk27 00:06, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh... so much for journalistic standards. This author, who claims to be a huge fan of Mass Effect 2, can't even get a simple thing like race name caps right. Oh well... now that it appears to be sourced, and it's not just people speculating, it should be ok for inclusion. SpartHawg948 00:12, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Yeah no, that gives a background of Redemption and a brief summary of the pack for the readers, not confirmaiton on Feron. It says: "To sum it up, Liara worked alongside her partner, Feron, and Cerberus to retrieve Commander Shepard's body from the Shadow Broker's possession before he could sell it to the Collectors. In the process, Feron was captured and Liara is hopeful that her former Drell partner is still alive on the Shadow Broker's ship. After years of tracking, Liara finally gets her big break – a Salarian named Sekat has discovered the location of the Shadow Broker." THat in no way confirms that Feron is in LotSB, that is a summary of Redemption and things in ME2. That is not confirmation, having read the article now twice today. This is not proof, just a repeat of Redemption and events in ME2. Lancer1289 00:15, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, that is true. It could easily be a drell other than Feron, and the article doesn't actually say the drell in the video is Feron. For all we know, it could be a look-alike the Shadow Broker is showing Liara to lure her into a trap, or something similarly devious. Hmmm... SpartHawg948 00:18, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it could be a clone, a hologram, an impersonator, or any number of things. The article gives no confirmation either way, as such it is speculation, until Tuesday that is. Lancer1289 00:23, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that it's Feron, but dev confirmation is required before it can go into the article. If such confirmation exists, please find it. If not. we'll have to wait another agonizing five days to find out. Arbington 00:26, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think this is one of those cases that in pre-release we need the devs to confirm this before adding it. If they won't say anything, and I seriously doubt they will as that would probably be an absoltuly massive, MASSIVE, spoiler, then I guess we will just have to wait. Patience is a virtue. Lancer1289 00:29, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ok one last try, http://forums.pesfan.com/showthread.php?t=226423&page=39 Shadowhawk27 00:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * And still no. That = fan site, and that already disqualifies it. In this case we really need something from one of the devs on the BioWare Forums for this. Do I think it's Feron too, absolutely, however we have no confirmation apart from our assumptions, and that ain't good enough. Lancer1289 00:40, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Jacob/Tailor Unique dialouge
well maybe it was my mistake i just thought it could have been a good idea, since it s something i feel is obvious

Uhm was this done correctly im kinda new in some spots. im trying as good as i can SuperVegitoFAN

uhm i just thought it was a good idea since i keep noticing it, well im trying this the best i can damn i need more experiance hehe sorry
 * And why would it be good to me mentioned. There was no reason to mention it as it didn't make sense, and was unnecessary. And are my directions at the top so hard to follow. Thanks Dammej for fixing it, but seriously is clicking the Leave Message so hard? It's right next to the "Edit this page" button. Lancer1289 18:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Saren
Do you know what armor saren wheres cause it looks awsome.--Legionwrex 21:35, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um no but it is probably custom armor becuase it doesn't show up anywhere. Lancer1289 23:13, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Name
one more thing,ummm did you get your username gears of war.--Legionwrex 02:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

sorry there should be a from inbetween username and gears.--Legionwrex 02:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * No and Lancer doesn't come from Mass Effect either, although I was suprised with both Lancer Assault Rifles. It also isn't my gamertag in case you are curious. I usually try to ditch the Lancer Assault Rifle in ME as quickly as possible.
 * Lancer is acutally from the computer games Starlancer and Freelancer. Two space combat simulators that I enjoyed, and still do. The numbers 12 and 89 mean different things. 12 is one of my lucky numbers, seriously it is, and my graduation year from my current college, at which point I'll either transfer or go into the industry, unsure at the moment. And 89 is the year of my birth as I am currently 21. Lancer1289 02:49, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :).--Legionwrex 02:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 02:55, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * (It's funny how as you get older, you hear other people's birth-years that seem so late and yet they are not children...). 12 is also the number of the divine, according to many ancient traditions. AnotherRho 03:18, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, and as it applies to my own faith as 12 was the number of Jesus' apostles. Lancer1289 03:26, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is one example; however, I do not know much at all about Hebrew numerology, so I don't know e.g. if that has Hebrew connections or Hellenistic connections (or is mere coincidence, which is doubtful). Other examples include the 12 Olympians, the division of the heavenly ecliptic into 12 houses (i.e. the Zodiac), which shows itself in other divisions of circles (a day is two sets of 12-hours, calendar is 12 months of 30 days [we correct that calendar by many means, of course], etc.). Is 12 of note in music at all? AnotherRho 03:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in music an octave is a series of half and whole steps, w w h w w w h, equaling 8 notes, with the top an bottom being a perfect octave. In a chromatic scale, which is all half steps, there are 13 notes with the top an bottom repeated an octave apart. However, on a standard piano there are 12 pitches between C4, otherwise known as middle C, and C5 including the top or bottom C.
 * However chromatic scales aren't used that often, and usually there will be only the 7 notes in the scale that are played, unless the key changes or there are accidentals. So 12 isn't used that much in music apart from usually a measure number or rehearsal number. There are time signatures that are 12/8 or 12/4, but those are very rare. I have been playing music since I was six and have only played one piece in 12/anything.
 * Sorry if I confused you with all the music mumbo jumbo, but the general rule is when asking a music major about musical terminology, you have to know something about music, otherwise it’s Greek to most people, and somewhat difficult to explain. Lancer1289 03:52, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary, you answered the question finely. Thanks AnotherRho 04:05, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then you're welcome. As to the mumbo jumbo bit, usually when people ask questions like that, I usually leave them scratching their heads and asking me to reexplain it in terms they will understand.
 * Know what you mean. But it is a good skill to learn, i.e., being able to speak in terms that are common (for the obvious reason that it's friendlier, but also because using obscure speech gives oneself the [likely false] impression of wisdom. Besides, many technical words once had a sensible reason for being so named, e.g., "octave" has some reference to "eight").  Similar problem in medicine, sciences, and probably most other specializations.  --- In a completely unrelated question, have you ever used Gibbed's save editor? AnotherRho 04:32, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * No I don't mod my PC games with only a few exceptions. I really don't like messing around with it, and although I understand coding, to a degree, to me it just seems like cheating. The only ones I mod are games like Freelancer, linked above, where you can add things without really altering the storyline. Modding games like ME and ME2, I don't because it again just seems like cheating. The only time I have on ME is to get access to the secret manufactures. Why they are hidden, I don't know because some of the weapons and armor are quite good. Lancer1289 04:45, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

why is it that when ever I ask about a name it ends up being a 5 paragraph awnser when the question was less the 1 sentence, the same thing happend with sparthawg,not that im conplaining its just an observasion .--Legionwrex 04:36, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because in both cases another question was asked that continued the conversation. People like to ask questions, usually about something they see, and sometimes it derails the original topic. Lancer1289 04:45, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Lancer, as always, you provided the frank answer. -- As to my Q, yes, game modding often allows "cheating"; however, Gibbed's editor allows you to all sorts of random things which don't give you any advantage whatsoever. Anyway, doesn't matter. I forgot you play on XBox!  AnotherRho 04:52, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Just to note that I also play PC, but I do yes play 360 more than the PC. I prefer the PC for RTS games, much easier to control than on a console. I really also don't like save editors for the same reason, I make a mistake, I have to live with it. Just like in life. I prefer realism over the whole "I've got a magic time machine that allows me to fix anything" sort of deal. Lancer1289 05:10, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to me?--Legionwrex 04:55, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lancer answered a question you asked and he answered a question I asked. But I was responding to Lancer, sorry about the confusion! AnotherRho 05:01, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) My post under AnotherRho's comment was responding to him, and my commend under yours was responding to you. Just to note it is ok to bump people's comments on talk pages if you need to respond to a specific person's comment, just don't modify the other person's comment that you are inserting between, including the indents. I repeated the same process with this reply. I believe AnotherRho's comment under the one above yours was responding to my comment, not yours. Lancer1289 05:10, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Its just that lancer asked me the exact same question you asked him about hacking.--Legionwrex 05:04, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * On a different page where the comment was more relevant, not here. AnotherRho asked me if I mod my games and I said I don't because A) I don't like to. And B)Because it sometimes causes problems. Lancer1289 05:13, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well I didnt hack mine.--Legionwrex 05:28, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * And that would have been ok on the relevant page, not here as I read the comment but am dealing with admin things, which is why this response is quick and to the point. And maybe a little snappy. Lancer1289 05:32, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry lancer.--Legionwrex 05:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine and do watch your spelling. No need to respond to that. Lancer1289 05:45, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for DPL weirdness
Not sure if you're interested, but I'll post my "post-incident analysis" of the weird category inclusion that only happened with the DLC planets:

On all the other planets, the Codex entry is not the last section of the included codex page, meaning that the DPL query only includes the start of the specified headline until it meets the next headline. In a bizarre coincidence, all three DLC planets are the very last section of their respective codex articles. Because of this, everything at the end (including categories) got included. According to the manual for dpl, the reset parameter will fix this behavior, but only when used like , and not like. All in all, a pretty bizarre sequence of events. -- Dammej ( talk ) 22:56, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that makes sense. Personally I really don't care if it is copy pasted from the Codex, or using DPL, however I don't really like it as it sometimes causes problems, as we just saw and is somewhat less user friendly. Sometimes simplicity is better. However, the entries are there as per the MoS, so no further editing is required. Unless someone adds either good or bad trivia, probably the former. Lancer1289 23:01, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * DPL is highly preferable to manually duplicating information on other pages. DRY understood this, which is why I imagine he specifically wrote that Codex entries be included in articles using DPL, rather than copied manually. The hangup with categories was a situation that he couldn't have seen. Now that we've dealt with it, all future inclusions of codex entries should go off without a hitch. I'll go ahead and modify the MoS to use the new syntax. -- Dammej ( talk ) 23:12, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I don't see any preference either way, but if something is more efficient, I guess I can't argue. Lancer1289 23:18, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Favor
Can you do me a favor and just delete my "Halo reach ending leaked" blog post all together,It contains spoilers.--Legionwrex 22:08, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure if that is what you want. Lancer1289 22:13, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

It is,thanks.--Legionwrex 22:14, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 22:18, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Issue
Hi Lancer, how are you? It's been a while.

I just thought I'd say that I've been experiencing some serious lag with the Latest Activity list. It lists edits as having been done 7 and 8 hours ago on the main page, but when I enter a different page, it magically updates. It's starting to get annoying as far as I'm concerned.

Am I the only one who's experiencing this by any chance? It's been like ten days now and no change. Fiery Phoenix 22:23, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you might be the only one. Personally I use both the My Home, which is the activity feed of main aritlces, and the Recent Changes or the RC. I like the My Home feature because it allows me to see pictures and categories that are added to the article. Which isn't avaliabvle with the RC.
 * I don't have a problem with either right now, so maybe it is just the Latest activity thing. To be honest, I don't know. Lancer1289 22:28, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

It's not a huge problem. I'm just wondering what might be causing it and whether I'm the only one. It doesn't happen when I visit the Dragon Age Wiki, yet it does on here. Fiery Phoenix 22:31, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well like I said it isn't happening to me, as my latest activity thing is ok. However the only thing I can say is maybe you aren't refreshing the page. I think the DA wiki's thing may auto refresh. Some wiki's have the AJAX feature that auto updates the RC and activity feeds, we don't have that here. I talked about it with Spart a while back, and it wasn't implemented. Lancer1289 22:37, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that's good to know. I'm sure it will fix itself at some point, though. Fiery Phoenix 22:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah it probably will. Wikia is pretty good about fixing things. Lancer1289 23:04, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Spelling
Hey there, I didn't just dogmatically go through and respell 'armor' to 'armour' I just rewrote the "armored weak spots" to "weak spots in its armour" or something to that effect. I was just changing it to read better, I didn't even think about the spelling. 91.108.40.161 23:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but again changing one to the other isn't acceptable. Making it read better, great, violating the spelling policy and chaing one valid form of a word to another, not so much. 23:44, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

LotSB DLC
Is it possible to lock the SB and LotSB related pages for a couple of days? I understand that people are excited but that ruins our gaming expirience (for us who still wait to download, especially PC players) by adding spoilers. We already know whats the half of the stuff that we will see by not even playing the DLC. SoulRipper 14:28, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah how about no. We add content as quickly as possible. We aim to be the best resouce for the Mass Effect series, so waiting a few days after anything is released is out of the question. You'll get the same answer from Spart when he logs in, so either dodge the wiki to avoid spoilers or play the pack. Lockdown is out of the question. Currently I'm writing the walkthough. Lancer1289 14:32, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * OKSoulRipper 14:35, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again the only thing I can say is dodge the wiki until you have played it for yourself. Lancer1289 14:44, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Shadow Broker video archive
So, here's what I'm thinking. We need to nip this thing in the bud. If we want to keep the contents of the Shadow Broker archives off each and every character page, which seems to be what you're thinking, I suggest we do something like we've done for unique dialogue. We make a blurb to the effect that "The Shadow Broker has files on ___ which can be accessed aboard his ship" or something along those lines, with a link to the applicable page. Then we insert this into each applicable article in a trivia section. Thoughts? If needs be, we can also run this by everyone as a proposal or something. SpartHawg948 22:26, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * First apologies for not getting back sooner. When you trying to cook on the grill, in the oven, and three pots on the stove at the same time, it can get a little hectic.
 * As to that proposal, yes that would seem like a good idea and we do need to nip this in the bud quickly. The reason I liked Jake's video archive thing is that it prevents the Shadow Broker Base article from getting too long, and I brought something up on the Talk:Shadow Broker Base page about this very issue. Basically what I had thought of at the time was that since it isn't only characters but organizations like Cerberus, I was thinking of creating a hub page titled Shadow Broker Dossiers, liked from the Base Article, and then set it up like how we have the Codex. For Miranda it would be Shadow Broker Dossiers/Miranda Lawson, Cerberus: Shadow Broker Dossiers/Cerberus, Shadow Broker Dossiers/Shadow Broker. That was my thinking at the time since it could be accessed from the Base page.
 * However your idea like how we did with the UD pages, like Miranda Lawson/Shadow Broker Dossier, might work better and another trivia bit in articles like how we have the UD pages set up. Personally I don't have a preference either way, and to be honest, I think this is something that we need to work out quickly, otherwise we'll be dealing with this for a few days to come. And a discussion might lengthen that further. Lancer1289 23:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on the outside looking in with this discussion, but I'd support the Shadow Broker Dossiers/such-and-such setup. We could maintain Shadow Broker Dossiers page like the Codex page, and link to each "entry" in trivia sections like we do for UDs. But whatever y'all two are happy with. I'm exhausted and steadily losing the ability to focus on anything. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:21, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is what I intially proposed becuase it seemed to fit better, however I'm still waiting for Spart to respond. Lancer1289 01:20, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like Commdor's idea. Seems like a good mesh of the two. And sorry for the delay. No indication was given that a response from me was desired. SpartHawg948 01:26, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then I'll work on a quick hub article and then we can co from there. Also you were the one who proposed the idea, it's always best to have all the details and all the opinions. Lancer1289 01:29, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

My apologizes, I was not aware you had already come up with a method of delivering the information for respective characters. Karl&#39;Vhazo 16:43, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. We came up with this last night when we realized the amount of information that the base had. We're still working on transcribing all the information. Lancer1289 16:47, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Intel in Liaras Terminal.
There is intel if you dont have recruited Samara or Thane. About Samara:

Justicar Samara

''Currently on Illium for undisclosed business (likely related to her position as a justicar). As a courtesy, Samara checked in with Tracking Officer Dara at the transportation hub upon arrival''.

Follow up: Dara may have more information on Samara's whereabouts.

About Thane:

Thane Krios

''The drell assassin is on Illium, apparently targeting businesswoman Nassana Dantius. Prior to arrival, he spoke with former Dantius security expert named Seryna''.

Follow up: Seryna is now employed in the local cargo transport level and may have information on Thane's current activities.

It has a "Download Intel" button. The whole thing works the same as talking to Liara to get the info. Also Nyxeris disapared after the coversation with Liara about the Cerberus data. SoulRipper 13:48, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll make a note of it. Lancer1289 14:04, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Data is no longer available after recruitment of Thane and Samara. SoulRipper 16:55, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The current wording is fine on that mention. Lancer1289 16:59, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Rocket Drone
Something is not going well here. It is stated that Rocket Drones have only shields (expept those on Kopis) but the image shows shield AND health. In SB mission none of the RD have health. I think that the red bar should be removed because its the exception and not the canon. What do you think?SoulRipper 19:31, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * However some do have health, so the bar is warranted. Also how is in-game content not considered canon? Did I miss something here? A note will be sufficient but since some do have health, the bar is warrented. Lancer1289 19:35, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Acutally it is already noted. So I see no reason to mofity the article further. Lancer1289 19:38, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont mean that is not canon in the way that is fake or something. I mean that most of the RD have only shields and only on the Kopis the RD have also health. The only-shield RD are more common than the shield+health RD. I mean that having the exception for default looks a little weird to me. SoulRipper 19:56, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * However you have to consider that the only way to do that is to create another template for the ones on Kopis, which will just clog the article to no degree. I can also see this as because enemies have shields and barriers on higher difficulties, and non on lower ones, then those aren't called for either. In this case however, the fact that some have an additional bar, with it being noted I might add, removing it is out of the question. They are a template for the enemy and anything odd like that is ok only as long as it is noted somewhere, which it is in this case. It is noted and as such should stay. Lancer1289 20:02, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Why to be botherd to create another template. One way could be to have the most common info about an enemy and have also additional info about other difficulties (I think most-if not all-of the players start the game at casual) or about other "forms" of the same enemy (like S-RD and S+H-RD). It was just a thought (because you or Spart, dont remember exactly) said something about the easiest accesible or something like that. SoulRipper 20:22, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that was probably Spart, he tends to say things like that. Anyway it does again bring up that we have every species listed for enemies, all of the various weapons, etc. I think I see more Blue Suns Troopers that use the Avenger than the Katana, so then should we remove the Katana? No because it is a part of that character. Putting the health bar there, with a note about it applying to only a certain group seems perfectly fine, to me anyway. And as long it is clearly noted that there is an exception and the rest have only one seems perfectly fine to me. Lancer1289 20:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats a bit funny. Having 10% over the 90% LOL. Anyway, it was just a thought so never mind. I have no big problem as it is. SoulRipper 20:48, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Upgrade Guide Credit Updates
I would have if I had time to do the maths, although I hasten to point out that I believe your update is wrong as its actually lower than if someone had all the missions and DLC's according to your input. Ilovetelephones 20:02, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really because I did do the math. Each additional med-kit and power cell container that goes unused collects 100 credits. I merely added the LotSB data in, plus the addition 10 med-kits and power cell containers. So I messed up on copying the information. Lancer1289 20:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Video Archive
Why can't you post a goddamn link to a video archive on Khalisah al-Jilani page? |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 17:52, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And watch your language for the SECOND time. You have already broken three rules today, insulted me in and edit summary, removed valid content from articles, and fianlly swearing which goes against your language policy. As to a link there is no reason to as no other person in the archive has it linked. Lancer1289 17:55, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, since you can't process it yourself, I will explain below:

Imagine a situation: a new random visitor comes to this wikia, looking for information on Khalisah al-Jilani. He/she wants to see as much some interesting facts on her that may have eluded his/her attention during the gameplay. He doesn't find any... He goes on to yet another search through game forums/google/y! questions etc. |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 18:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And you just can't lay off the insults can you, that makes two today. Since we don't duplicate information, why do we need to link that. I see no reason that Ms. al-Jilani should get any special attention when compared to very other character in the Video Archive. None of the others have a link, nor do they need any. Also note that it is unavailable without the DLC, so how would it have eluded players I ask you. There is no need for a trivia section in Ms. al Jilani's article. Remember, some people don't buy the DLC for games. Lancer1289 18:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that noting somewere in the articles of the characters that are related to Video Archive should be OK. After all there isnt only the dossiers that the SB has, there is video footage of some people and that has to noted. Just my 2 cents. SoulRipper 18:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I don't see a need to. The dossiers are a special case like the UD pages. There is no reason to like the video archive. Lancer1289 18:10, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with SoulRipper and Naihilus Ceris here. Linking the video archive can only be helpful. -- Dammej ( talk ) 18:12, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I don't see a need to. The dossiers are a special case, like the UD pages, and when the links for them were being created, we didn't see a need to link the archive. I still don't see a need to. The archives don't need to be link IMHO, and I am still strugging to see why. I can see the dossiers, but not the video archive. Lancer1289 18:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally thank Dammej and SoulRipper for expressing common sense on this matter. |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 18:17, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And again I have to state that linking the Dossiers is fine, but the archive no. I still see no reason to treat Ms. al-Jilani's article different than any other character with a video archive. None of them have it and I don't see a reason to link it. Lancer1289 18:20, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

With respect, your opinion has been clearly stated, but it is currently in the minority, with 3 users expressing a desire for a video link. I don't see what the big deal is here. al-Jilani need not remain exclusive in linking to the Video Archive-- other characters can link there too! -- Dammej ( talk ) 18:27, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And again I don't see the need to link every little thing. I think that people will mainly to the Shadow Broker Base article to look for the archive, and see no reason to link it on every page that has a video. I have left Spart a message about this, and I obviously want his opinion. However I will stand by what I said, I don't see a reason to link it. With some there isn't even a point as they are minor characters and some don't even have articles. So are going to create articles for them because I think the all or nothing thing comes into play here, well in my eyes at least. If a character has a video, then they need to be linked and if they don’t have an article then it needs to be created. I see a perfectly valid reason for the Dossiers, but not the archive. Lancer1289 18:35, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * As per minor characters: any minor character which made more than one significant appearance, deserves an article; while some (like Urdnot Torsk for example) which appear very briefly or didn't appear at all (just mentioned) would have to wait until there is enough data. |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 18:40, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

The point is not about minorities and 3>1. The point is that if someone does not search (in the search bar or whatever is called) about the VA there is no place that this is showning. There is no point? How many articles about minor characters have a stub tag? And no there is no need to create new articles. After all there are only two character that doesnt have an article, Urdnot Torsk and Fred Mazzei and there is no info about them (except the vids) so no article. Youre doing things a bit more dramatic. Will it hurt to put a "See also Video Archive" or something like that? The are characters that are related to the VA and has to be noted, I think. SoulRipper 18:45, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And again I don't see the need to create trivia secions on some articles for the purpose of a link that is for something trivial. The SB dossiers provide backround for characters and like the Codex, warrant a link. We had to create a trivia section for Anderson. The whole archive seems more trivial to me, but since I'm clearly in the minorty for now, I still want to hear what Spart says. I honestly don't know which way he'll side on this one. Lancer1289 18:51, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with SoulRipper. I prefer articles to be as comprehensive as possible. |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 18:54, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * And there is trivial matters that don't belong in the trivia sections. However I do want to hear what Spart says on this matter. Persoanlly I think it is more trivial than trivia. Lancer1289 19:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * If Lancer wishes to wait for Sparthawg, then I doubt he'll be persuaded otherwise. Still, I agree with Lancer that there is no "need" to add a link to the VA. Nevertheless, a reference to the vid archive seems like a sound specimen of trivia,, as opposed to necessary or essential content, for the few relevant characters (if people wish to add it). The Broker didn't have video footage of every named NPC; thus its existence is fairly unique to those to whom he did (i.e., it's pertinent trivia). - As for its utility: I at any rate had not yet discovered that there was a video archive until I looked again at the al-Jilani page and this dispute. Also, looking at the vid archive info, I discovered things which I have not yet seen in the videos (e.g., about Aethyta...).  AnotherRho 19:08, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict x2) Actually I really just want his opinion on this because I don't see a reason to link it. Lancer1289 19:20, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well put, AR. It is not necessary to link to the video archive from every character which has one. We only have to link to the archive from those characters which it is interesting info. Necessitating that we link to the Video Archive from every character that has an entry is, to borrow a phrase from DRY, a foolish consistency. But for those which it would provide interesting supplementary information (e.g. al-Jilani), a link to the VA only serves to help others. -- Dammej ( talk ) 19:24, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what definies interesting supplementary information then, because that will be one will be tricky as that definitnion changes from person to person. I don't thing al-Jilani getting punched by more people is important or supplemtary information. Since you mentioned her, I'm guessing you do. That would have to be very strict and then we'd be making a double standard. For example, why should Udina have a link and Emily Wong not. Lancer1289 19:30, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Is Legion's gamer usarname, Jack's username at some forum or Miranda's username in some love\sex chatroom, more trivia than a video footage of important moments of some charachters? SoulRipper 19:16, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably yes, but I won't argue. BTW, I LOLed at "Cure for what ails you. Kill 100+ quarians". |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 19:19, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * No it isn't more triaiva worthy but I fail to see how those videos can be considred important moments. Lancer1289 19:30, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * It is quite important to show that Shepard isn't the only one, who got provoked by Khalisah al-Jilani. Remember, Mass Effect is RPG. In RPG, everyone and everything matters. |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 19:36, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really don't see the problem with providing a blurb linking to the video archives. For the life of me I can't see any reason to treat the video archives any differently than the dossiers, and we link to those. And this is saying something, as I generally prefer to avoid taking a side after its leading proponent has dazzled the crowd with scenes of boorishness such as were displayed here earlier. But in this instance, I think that, crude behavior aside, that side simply makes the stronger argument. SpartHawg948 19:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I digress from this one then. I thought it was trivial but I guess I'm in the minatory. Lancer1289 19:43, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict; deleting some crap then): Spart's right, rude treatment wasn't the best beginning to this. - But some of it is important to those who are interested in the story and characters. For example, al-J smooching an alien suggests an interesting twist. By means of that video, the player is enabled to learn that she is not simply anti-ET (whereas, from the player's interactions with her, there would be no reason to suspect that she could tolerate an alien's intimate presence, let alone lips. Cf. the Illusive Man's love life). Doesn't that at least seem like an interesting bit of trivia? Maybe just a little? AnotherRho 19:47, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seriously though, if you can give me one (I only need one) valid reason that we should provide links to the Shadow Broker Dossiers as trivia but not links to the Video Archives, I'll change my tune and admit it's trivial, as you contend. I can't see one. Seems like inconsistency to me. SpartHawg948 19:49, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The main one that keeps jumping at me is the information contained within each of the things. The dossiers provide a wide array of information on the characters and their backgrounds. Tali’s original communication with the Shadow Broker, Anderson’s investigation after Shepard’s Death, Cerberus’ History, etc. I see those things as information that is like the Codex just more detailed. As to one of the people on the videos, I really don’t see things like Emily Dancing, or her doing interviews as valid enough reasons to link.
 * The only one listed there I can see a reason is Anderson going to see a Cerberus Agent. However I can also dismiss that because since he wasn’t getting anywhere through official channels, he needed to go through unofficial channels. Sometimes when that happens people go to people and organizations that they publically condemn, but they also are holding the cards they need, so to speak. Those are my reasons, or at least the ones I can put into words. Lancer1289 20:04, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

So... we should treat two similar terminals differently because the content is different? I don't really buy it. After all, by that argument, unique dialogue pages would also probably need to go out the window. Most of the info there is vague peripheral stuff as well. And while you are correct that some of the Dossiers provide a "wide array of information on the characters and their backgrounds", many others do not. Look at Legion's and Grunt's. Or Zaeed's. What meaningful info do they contribute? But consistency demands that, if one is included in an article, all must be included in their relevant articles. And that's what this boils down to for me. Consistency. We have to archives in the Shadow Broker base, both of which contain information about people. So why label one as worthy of trivia, but not the other? After all, per site policy, "Trivia is classified as information players may not have been aware of and is impactful or interesting", and while the videos may not be particularly impactful, they are interesting, and they are things players may not have been aware of. SpartHawg948 20:13, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... good point about the information. Some don't have that interesting of information do they, with Grunt’s probably being the at the forefront. Your argument about consistency does also bring up a good point, I guess if we include one, we have to include them all. However you asked for a reason, and I gave it my best shot, you can’t fault me there. Some of the videos are interesting and I guess if we have to link one, then the other must follow suit. I just felt that the dossiers had more of an impact, to quote your words there, while the videos didn’t. Again I explained my reasoning and gave it my best shot, but I can live with this. At least it was a mostly productive conversation. Lancer1289 20:25, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, once we all started being politic. And no one faults you, Lancer, you're great! What would the wiki have without you? Some half-witted walkthroughs, that's what. AnotherRho 20:35, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However I'm still not done with them yet, I still have quite a few more ME walkthoughs to get through. Lancer1289 20:38, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

dash
You mentioned to someone on some page at sometime that "we have mdash for a reason". First, what's the code? And second, what's the reason? AnotherRho 22:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me a while to find it, but I did. Mdash, or  in code, replaces the — in HTML formatting, and it make it look cleaner. From what I understand, mdash is used because it uses code, rather than the —, and it helps with debugging the pages and replaces the usual -, --, etc. It is mainly to deal with the carryover from word processors. However we don't use that in quotes or things like that. For more, I'd contact PikaShepard who was the one putting it in for more. Also a few other users as well once it caught on. Lancer1289 22:21, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it looks like you left out the code between your "code /code" entries! :( AnotherRho 23:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found it: look a dash!&mdash;Hooray! AnotherRho 23:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops I didn't even see that. My apoligies. Fixed. Lancer1289 23:25, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Upgrade Guide
Thanks for cleaning up after me, I'm still fuzzy on the whole aliases thing, and I'll try to remember that it's okay just to put the necessary letter after for things like plural.--Xaero Dumort 03:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sometimes the alias thing can be tricky at times, I know I've encountered a few hiccups before with it and frequently had to go right back and fix them. Also do remember that we have redirects for most of the squad member's first names, i.e. Liara, Tali, Jacob, Thane, etc. Just one more quick thing, the plural form of krogan is still krogan, like asari, geth, etc. Lancer1289 03:58, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Will do, didn't even think about it, just edited what was already written which was "krogans".--Xaero Dumort 04:17, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, all I can say is wow to that one. In that case, I withdraw my previous comment, I didn't know that was already there. The things you miss. Lancer1289 04:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Just a question
Has there ever been an occurance where a Bioware employee has contributed to this site?--174.3.9.125 23:20, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been many such occurrences. Christina Norman has posted, unregistered users have posted from BioWare offices, one of the admins (Tullis) works for BioWare, though not on Mass Effect or any related projects, and another editor, Stormwaltz, is a former BioWare writer who wrote for Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. SpartHawg948 23:24, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes we had a user in the past, before I was serioulsy active, Stormwaltz, who was a writer at BioWare for Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. Also Cristina Norman has an account here and has posted before. We've had several BioWare employees with IPs also. And IIRC one of our admins Tullis works for BioWare, but I'm not sure on what projects. Lancer1289 23:27, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Spart Basically said everything I did, making my comment very redundent. Lancer1289 23:28, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I didn't say everything you said! I said more than you said! After all, I stated as fact that Tullis works at BioWare, and that she doesn't work on ME stuff. (Can't say more, having been sworn to secrecy) :P SpartHawg948 23:32, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * So who found this site? Was it one of you guys or an employee at BioWare?--174.3.9.125 23:30, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, everyone found this site at one point in time or another. If you're asking who founded the site, the answer is: neither. Wasn't me, wasn't Lancer, wasn't an employee of BioWare. SpartHawg948 23:32, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea that was what I meant. Can you tell me who it is or is it a secretive thing like the Shadow Broker?--174.3.9.125 23:34, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * See Shadow Broker, Shadow Broker Base, Lair of the Shadow Broker (mission), and yahg. That should provide the answers you need. Lancer1289 23:35, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I have to ask. Are the admins at this site robots? Who's really the founder of this site? Because if you don't know, you could have just said so.--174.3.9.125 23:39, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (I tried to say so, but you edit conflicted me) I could tell you, if I knew. But I'm honestly not quite sure. I think it was Bioevil087, which would make sense b/c he's the only other Bureaucrat, and IIRC the person who starts a wiki is automatically a B-crat on that wiki, but the history doesn't really go back that far... earliest things I can find are from Nov '07, back around the time I showed up, and apparently the wiki had existed for five months before that. SpartHawg948 23:40, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also last time I checked none of the admins here are robots. Lancer1289 23:41, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I might be a robot, but I'm not an admin. :P SpartHawg948 23:42, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have a theory. The founder of this site... is a reaper. Think about. The founder of this site probably just created it and then left it for thousands of fans to complete it and then return one day to see how we have progressed. Except this time it won't destroy us all(?)--174.3.9.125 23:46, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? I put all that research and time into a thoughtful, well-stated answer... for this? I hate you so much right now... SpartHawg948 23:48, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if this is where this conversation is turning, then I would like it to stop now. Thanks. Lancer1289 23:49, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have it your way. But one day I will find out who the founder is! ONE DAY!--174.3.9.125 23:52, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. I mean, sure, I pretty much told you who it was with about 95% certainty, but you keep on plugging. Maybe after you find the real founder, you can go help OJ find the real killer. SpartHawg948 23:54, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Then if you’re so eager, take it up with Wikia. They might tell you, and they might not. We don't know and we can only speculate as to who the real founder is, although Spart gave you his best guess, and given that a founder is usually made a Bureaucrat by default, Bioevil087 is probably the best we can come up with and is probably the founder of the site. Lancer1289 23:57, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure he isn't the real founder otherwise he'd say so in his profile. Sorry for wasting your time.--174.3.9.125 00:01, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. After all, not all wiki founders are narcissists who feel the need to point out that they founded the wiki you are on. And you're overlooking the smoking gun. I did some checking, and founders of wikis are indeed made both sysops (admins) and bureaucrats, so that they can make whatever edits they want/need to the site, and promote other users as admins. And there are only two bureaucrats. So, it stands to reason that one of the two must be the founder. And it wasn't me. SpartHawg948 00:04, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Two bureaucrats, and one of them just said he wasn't, so that leave just one. Lancer1289 00:09, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Idea concerning US/UK English
Quick thought I had while making a recent edit. I think it may help a little bit to provide a link in the spelling section of the Style Guide to a page showing some common differences between US and UK English spellings, as quite often when I ask people to not make those changes they'll remark that they hadn't even been aware there was a different spelling. So, I found this one, which, in case you are wondering, isn't just some random thing from the internet, it's actually a document prepared for what appears to be an ESL class at Georgia State. So I'd say it's a reputable source, and it does contain most, if not all, of the common ones, like defense/defence, armor/armour, honor/honour, check/cheque, etc. So, if you don't have an issue with it, I figured I'd just stick the link right into the Spelling section and use an alias to merge it right in with the existing text. SpartHawg948 08:50, September 12, 2010 (UTC)