User talk:Lancer1289

Welcome to My Talk Page. If you don't find an issue that you have brought up with me in the past, then please check my archives because I have moved a lot of it to there. However I ask you to NOT edit there, just drop me a new message to bring up the discussion again. To leave me a message, please click on the "Leave message" button above, rather than just editing the whole page. That way I know what to look for. Thanks.

Please do leave me a new message unless there is a conversation that is already in progress that you wish to comment on. If you have a question that has no bearing on a conversation that is under a heading, then please don't edit there. Just leave me a new message. For example, if you see a section called Help, but your question doesn't relate to what the conversation was about, then PLEASE don't edit in that section, just leave me a new message. The comments will be moved to the end and I'll create a new section for it.

'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.'

Writing
Hey, I don't know if you'll have the time, or the will, but I was kind of hoping you could help me with something. See, I'm trying to get some feedback on this story that I'm writing. Not many people take the time to actually tell me what they like or dislike about it. It's a sci-fi story, and I think it's one of my better works, but I just need feedback. If you find the time, the story is located here. If you have time to read it, please comment on it, or leave me a message here, so that I have something to work with. If you don't, that's totally fine. If you can, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. :) --Effectofthemassvariety 08:54, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I can probably get around to it later today or over the weekend. I'll post any comments here. Lancer1289 12:36, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

That would really be great! Thanks. Just know that it's still kind of a work in progress. It's only the first chapter of the prospective story, and as such it requires some amount of set up. Also, the story has a working title design to attract readers, so no need to make fun of it. haha :P. Thanks a lot for this, by the way. I really don't have many people I know that are into the genre, and would actually take the time to tell me what they think. :) --Effectofthemassvariety 05:27, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I know you don't like cross-page conversations, but I just thought that I'd thank you again for your input, and suggestions. I actually took what both you and Spart had to say, and added a large amount of character description, and more dialogue. It beefed it up, and I think that it's been improved as well. I've also rewritten some parts to clarify, and corrected errors that were brought over from the original draft. Thanks again for taking the time to read it. If you're really interested in reading more, then I'll be sure and tell you when I put the next chapter up. :) --Effectofthemassvariety 22:25, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh that's fine, and looking forward to chapter two. Lancer1289 22:33, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

no problem :D
Hey I just wanted to say thanks for welcoming me! Oh and I've seen the arguments you have had with others, and just want to let you know I'm sorry if my contributions are not relevant(forgot what canon meant), and hope to be good friends, man! I kinda like how Legion talks, do you?--Dagoth11 12:16, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just be more careful in the future and if you have any questions just ask. Lancer1289 12:36, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so... who's your favorite character? Bet ya cant guess mine! :D --Dagoth11 16:44, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Hey freind
Can you tell me why I was baned for removing pointless trivia but you're ok by changing it all together? Is there something I'm missing? Sentenal01 02:50, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was changed to make it more relevant, as others clearly saw it as relevant and valid trivia as well. You gave no valid reason for removal of it and violated several site policies. You are on extremely thin ice, just saying that again. Lancer1289 02:42, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooooo...I'm scared. Regardless, why didn't you change it before, when we had out "edit war". What happened to "considering we have a ship thing, it is relevent" Sentenal01 02:50, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * You got banned for removing trivia. Removing as in deleting it from the article. Lancer didn't remove anything. He added to the trivia. They are not the same thing. None of your points here is making a lick of sense. He didn't "change it altogether". He added a few words to bring it into compliance with site policy. Grow up, please. SpartHawg948 02:54, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Because no one brought up rewording it, and you certainly never did. All you did was remove it, and kept doing so even after two admins told you to stop, and both of us saw it as relevant trivia. The rewording was brought up later and it was since reworded to make it stronger. You never suggested rewording it, so don't start saying that you did.
 * As to "considering we have a ship thing, it is relevant", see your talk page for the answer. I will not repeat myself. Lancer1289 02:58, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I can't edit at all then, is that it? Not just on the fish page, anywhere now? And grow up? Are you kidding me? Look who's talking, you two are bent out of shape OVER FISH. This is not harassment, this is my opinion. How can you tell me to grow up, when you two are looking at the fish article 24/7? Not 30 seconds did I finish editing, and Lance undo's it. How's that growing up, it's FISH, FISH for Christs sake. And just because fishes are "rare" in Sci-Fy doesn't mean the fish in Mass Effect are a reference to Star Trek. Yeah, they are in the same place, captains quarters, but THAT'S IT. No line that references to Star Trek at all, no motion from Shepard, the only thing here you justifying it is FISH. Maybe there should be a deeper reference in Kasumi's article. "Because she referenced from Planet of the Apes in the DLC, it could be that she has a deep seeded hatered for primates, judging from Donovan Hock killing her former partner and lover, Keiji Okuda, and Keiji for leaving her due to his death, also suggesting a mental illness." What? No different from the reasons you two gave for FISH. Now I suppose you're going to ban me because I'm not "getting it", that I can't understand your logic of connecting fish to Star Trek, that I'm just wasting your time. Well, guess what? Deal with it. If you could take the time to look at fish all day long, then you have time for this. Baning me is not a reason you're right, it just shows you're wrong and can't refute anything. Sentenal01 03:14, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's right. You're not allowed to edit ever again. That's why... wait a minute. No one ever said that, did they? Seems you just made it up. Odd. Yes, it's fish. And yes, it's relevant. You are correct that just because fish are rare in sci-fi, that doesn't mean the fish in Mass Effect are a reference to Star Trek. But, on the flip side of that, since fish are rare in sci-fi, particularly the use of fish tanks in Captain's rooms on ships, it very well could be a reference. If there is anyone who can't refute anything here, it's you. You have failed to refute the theory that they could be a reference to the Enterprise-D. This little tantrum of yours does not constitute refuting that point. Nor do your bogus analogies. After all, your little "Planet of the Apes" foray did nothing but display your own willful ignorance on this matter. A valid analogy would be to say "Well, saying they could be a reference to Star Trek is like saying Kasumi's utterance of 'Damn you Hock' while looking at the Statue of Liberty could be a reference to Planet of the Apes. Adding the extra layer of "hating primates" nonsense is just ludicrous. It's not really a strawman, or a red herring, it's just plain stupid. So yes, please do grow up. This temper tantrum is impressing no one. SpartHawg948 03:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * "KNOCK IT OFF. As Lancer has stated, if you continue this pointless and extremely juvenile edit warring, you will be banned again, and it will be for much longer. 6 times longer, to be precise. (That's 3 months, in case you weren't keeping score at home) SpartHawg948 02:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC)" Implying. Also, it appears you are mad, seeing how you take in pleasure in telling me I'll get "6 time longer" ban, or "3 months" in the context of talking to me like a child.So, tell me, out of all the things in the ME Universe, out of all the events in the game, how are fish revalent enough to get into a pissing match with someone that likes Star Trek profusely? "Could" and "Known" are two different things. I see now you and Lancer like to treat this wiki as your own personal fanfiction club, and not as a wiki. I don't need to provide the proof, you do. The burden of proof is on your claims. You think FISH are a reference to Star Trek? Get the proof for it, that's what wikis are suppose to do. Just because you and 20 other people like something doesn't make it true, and that why wikis have a bad name as they do. I'm just stating that if you and others felt it so you'd put that layer on Kasumi's article, just like here on fish, it's just one level shallow. Maybe you can tolerate that, but that jsut makes you a sorry excuse for a editor/mod/admin/whatever you are. Sentenal01 03:46, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Implying, eh? I guess I can see how my telling you to stop edit warring can be interpreted as my telling you to stop editing. Wait... no, no I really can't. After all, I said "KNOCK IT OFF. As Lancer has stated, if you continue this pointless and extremely juvenile edit warring, you will be banned again, and it will be for much longer." (emphasis added) Additionally, I apologize for having the audacity to "get in a pissing match with someone that likes Star Trek profusely". After all, you are the only person in the world who happens to like Star Trek profusely. Wait... no, I believe I would fit that bill as well. Hmmm... You are correct again, could and known are two different things. That's why we have different standards for trivia that states something could be a reference and for trivia that states something is a reference. And no, wikis are not supposed to "Get the proof for it". You seem to have concocted that mission statement yourself. Don't believe me? Go ask the folks at Wikia. Just because you and... well, just you... don't like something, doesn't make it true. Funny how that one works both ways. It may be trivia based on one shallow level. I fully admit that. However, it does meet site policy governing trivia, so you need to present a valid reason to remove it. Valid as in demonstrating how the trivia does not comport with site policy. Your own personal dislike doesn't count. As for your opinion of my performance as a Bureaucrat (which I suppose could fall under "whatever you are"), sticks and stones. I've been called much worse by much better. Try something original next time. SpartHawg948 03:57, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what edit waring means to you two specifically, but it seemed anything that you edit in relation to, A.K.A. me. Also, are you dense? I can't copy paste the whole discussion Lancer had up above your head, but I meant HE liked Star Trek profusely, and wouldn't that have something to do with you and him editing over this little section of text? So, I'm to believe that mods can write whatever they want about anything, and the burden of proof is on the users? I don't think anyone is that stupid and can still has a business like wikia.So you admit to using this wiki as a fanfiction servers, seeing how you don't need to provide proof and whatnot. It's not that I don't like the text in the fish article, it's that it's not revalint, despite what you and Lance say. Two groups of fish dosen't mean a connection. That falls inbetween the lines of OCD fanboy and paranoia. And I didn't want to call you a bureaucrat. Bureaucrat's have egos I can deal with. Sentenal01 04:19, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant, quite obviously, the edit warring you and Lancer were engaged in on the Fish page, the same edit warring Lancer had warned you about in the preceding message. Talk about dense... Speaking of which, you must be dense if you take anything I said to mean that admins can write whatever they want, and that I "admit to using this wiki as a fanfiction servers". Please, point out to me where I said any such thing. I merely stated that, if you want trivia removed that has been judged as valid, you need to justify its removal, and do so by demonstrating how it violates site trivia policy. It's not hard. Many people have done it successfully to get bogus trivia removed. As for whether or not I'm a Bureaucrat, you can choose not to call me one. Doesn't change the fact that I am one, but whatever floats your boat. SpartHawg948 04:34, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The message you sent me was longer and more threatening than before, so i didn't know whether you where a raging fanboy or something else. "...wikis are not supposed to "Get the proof for it"", meaning admins, that have higher power,can do whatever they want in terms on content, and require the users like myself to find the proof themselves. The Star Trek trivia is bogus, I've shown that, though I'll admit I could have explained myself better before. However, 1: I didn't want to get into this stuff then, and 2: It's common sense that this is bogus. Common freakin sense. Oops, was that a bad word? Don't care, I have the right to express my feelings in words, for I refuse to use faces with characters. Sentenal01 04:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * You really haven't proven it's bogus. All you've done is make bad analogies, and say "it's bogus because I say it is". Again, the burden is on you (the person who wants it removed) to disprove it and to demonstrate how it does not comply with site trivia standards. Saying that you have disproved it without actually disproving it doesn't count. SpartHawg948 05:01, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that if there is only speculation that the fish is a reference, then either it's not trivia, or a disclaimer must be put up to not deceive people that it's a fact and only speculation at this point. Sentenal01 19:41, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * And the current wording states that by saying "might be a reference". That is how we handle trivia on this site that we do't have confirmation on, which again you have yet to read any policy about anything or you would know that. So again you dodge a legit use of policeis and basically say becuase it doesn't meet your standards then it doesn't fit. We have policies about thigns and again you have yet to read how they are handled otherwise you wouldn't be arguing this. Lancer1289 19:46, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me, if I hadn't pushed this, would you have changed it to fit the "policy" of this wiki, or would you have felt it necessary to keep it as it was, as you clearly thought it did until a mere MONTH after our quarrel? Sentenal01 20:16, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * "You Pushed"? Please. Someone else, who is not you, said that the trivia didn't make much sense as it was worded, so it was modified by myself then Spart. You never pushed anything, all you did was remove valid content, get warned about it, then banned over it. Don't take credit for someone else's work as that is one of my major pet peeves. Lancer1289 20:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed you have to prove how it doesn't meet the site's standards, which you have so far failed to do and only used what Spart mentioned above. Currently it does meet the site's guideliens, and it is on you to prove that it doesn't, and currently there are at least three people who think it's valid. Lancer1289 05:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflcit) Edit warring is classified as three reverts in one day, which you have done on multiple occasions now. Also how is the burden of proof on the users. Tell me do we have any proof for this trivia from Jack's page "Jack's name and shaved head might be a reference to the character Jack/Kyra from the Chronicles of Riddick movie series, more specifically the first movie Pitch Black, in which the character was approximately 14 years of age. The two characters also share similarities in that they are both killers and are found in prison, which they both escape from with the help of the protagonist." To which the answer is no, and why it is worded that way. While I may consider myself a bit of a trekie, I added the trivia, as I stated before, because of the rarity of this and because I'm also a huge scifi fan and have only seen this, in this context, once. We don't admit to using this as "our fanfiction servers", when did we admit to that because I can't see where. Currently you are using this as your fanfiction server because when you disagree with something, you remove it because you don't like it. Moderators can't writy anything, we have to back it up somehow, which is usually form the games, books, etc. Trivia is a different story, with different guidelines, which is why trivia is worded that way. We have guidelines for trivia and again this has more support than other pieces of trivia here. This is turning pointless quickly because you keep arguing the same argument Spart and myself have seem many times before. Lancer1289 04:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) There is plenty of trivia on this site that doesn't have dev confirmation, so we leave it as the current wording. Which is in line with site policy, which you are again so quick to defy. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that it is valid content and trivia. You and you alone don't like this trivia, so by your justification, that doesn't make it valid, while at least three other people say that it is. And probably a lot more that have probably visited the page in the mean time. We have even more shaky trivia on this site that meets our standards for trivia and as such they are worded appropriately. We have guidelines for what is, and isn't confirmed, and since this one isn’t it is worded in line with that policy.
 * Spart and myself don't treat this as "our fanfiction club" as you claim, because there are plenty of other editors that also edit here. So the opinions of all those other editors are beneath yours, because that is what you are making this out to be. Your opinion trumps all others. You don't like something, then it gets removed. Again there is plenty of other trivia that has even less support than this one, and it's still here. Also your mission statement that wikis are supposed to get proof seems like something you just concocted because it benefits you and your goals. There are plenty of other wikis that play even loser with trivia than we do. You are still acting like a juvenile with this tantrum, and your stream of insults is just adding up to the amount of violations of the Guidelines you have committed. Also Spart has been called a lot worse. I'm pretty sure I've been as well, but not sure if it was here. Lancer1289 04:12, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect Mr. Beck, removing text from the fish article dose not benefits me or any "goals" I might have. Wikis always cite their sources, anything else would be trivia that is false and benifiting only the person that put it there. Sentenal01 04:24, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Really because we again have guidelines for that, which you either have completely ignored, or never read. Trivia is handled differently and each wiki is different from the others. Some site sources, others don't. This wiki is written from an in-universe perspective, and as such sources are irrelevant unless there is something that we need to source as the sources are the games, books, comics, etc. Every wiki is free to set their own guidelines and every wiki is different. Not everyone does the same things so don't apply things from other wikis on to us, because that rarely if ever works. Lancer1289 04:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That shows that what isn't cited IS fan work, not acual content in the games. Also: "Either cease your juvenile behavior, in doing so you violated site policy multiple times, or you will be banned again for repeated violations of site policies." Dose that mean on the article, or here as well? Because it seems you want me to stop. Sentenal01 04:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It means anywhere on this site. The rules don't get thrown out of the window just becuase it's a talk page, and the talk page of an admin at that. Currently you have violated the edit warring policy, lanugage, insulting other users, and probably a few others, but those are the major ones. You don't seem to care for our policies, as evidence that you clearly haven't read them. Lancer1289 05:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And you're telling us to grow up, when you just threw a tantrum like a little kid who didn't get his candy, please. Spart and myself have acted mature in all of this, when you violated site policy multiple times and when asked to stop, you didn't and then got banned over it.
 * The reason your edits were undone so quickly is that I was logged on and, as an admin, or heavy editor before that, I monitor the recent changes to maintain this site. Both Spart and myself so this, along with many other editors.
 * And you have again broken the language policy as what you just said offends me as a Catholic. Any inappropriate language isn't tolerated. Either keep it "G" rated, or not at all.
 * So how can two things that show up so rare in scifi, AND IN THE POSITION OF THE SHIP THEY WERE IN, not a probable reference. We obviously don't have dev confirmation on it, hence why it is worded the way it is. Again we have reasons for this to be valid trivia, and clearly others saw it as such, HENCE THE REWORDING, which isn't the same thing as removing valid information, which is what you did. And how that Kausmi line even qualify as trivia anyway. You're speculating at what was intended, and stretching that beyond the point of breaking. Shattered it is more appropriate.
 * We don't ban people for not getting it, talk pages usually solve that problem, you were banned for repeated violations of site policy, which you just violated again. We explained why it was valid, then it was strengthen, and you seem to have ignored all of that. So who is refuting something, because we explained why it was valid, and you are saying that we didn't, which is completely false.
 * Bottom line, you tell us to grow up, when you are acting juvenile and throwing tantrums. You violated site policy and then were banned for it. Either cease your juvenile behavior, in doing so you violated site policy multiple times, or you will be banned again for repeated violations of site policies. Lancer1289 03:34, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because I said Christ doesn't mean it's inappropriate. If I say Jeez, you would have been offended by that. There are a lot of things that offend me Lancer, like Inequality, favoritism, and bigotry. But I meant Christ in the context of frustration, not to defile whatever belief you may have. Now you're just picking at pointless banter. Sentenal01 03:46, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit confclit) Really I would find Jeez offensive? Because several priests I know use the term and obviously don't find it offensive. Your things that offend you are things that you are pulling out of the air because you need to bring more "pointless banter" to the table. Your language is offensive, and as stated "keep it "G" rated, or not at all". We take any kind of language on that line offensive and don't allow it. Whether it be against Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, or any other religion. There is no excuse for that language in any setting, and we don't allow it here. You are in volition of the community guidelines, on multiple counts, and multiple times, and with your latest comments, you are now violating it three times on the guidelines, so you are on even thinner ice now. Lancer1289 04:12, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I said you would find Jeez offensive because you found Christ offensive. Maybe if you explain why Christ is an offensive word and not just a name, I could understand your strange logic. Sentenal01 04:19, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) How about you look how you used it and the context of how you used it. and then tell me how I wouldn't be offended by that. I.e. "for Christs sake". Lancer1289 04:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * "For Christ's sake" I am surprised or annoyed by this for God's sake/For Christ's sake, Julie, what are you doing here? This dress makes me look like a little old lady, for Christ's sake. It's two in the morning, for Christ sakes! Why are you calling me now?"Sentenal01 04:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't care about anything do you? Quite a few poople would find that offensive, and you just did it again, so it just adds that you don't care and cleary haven't read our policies about...well...anything. Also again keep it "G" rated or don't say it. Lancer1289 05:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * All my Christian friends say for Christ's sake, and they say it's not offensive, and it's just a idiom. If you can't understand a offensive word from an idiom, then that's your problem. Also, "I don't care about anything"? Really, so offending is perfectly OK if you do it, and any feelings I have are irrelevant because I'm not a mod on a wiki. Hypocritical much? Sentenal01 19:33, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a hypocrite am I? You have violated multiple language policies, insulted other users on multiple occasions, engaged in edit warring, which has already gotten you banned once, so your offended how. Because we take the time to explain your wrongdoings, what you did wrong, reasons for valid trivia, and then you insult us back, throw temper tantrums, among other thing. If anyone is a hypocrite then it's you. Lancer1289 19:40, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're throwing a tantrum (Isn't that a insult?). You asked in what context did I say "for Christs sake", and I did. You then disregarded what I said and then straight up lied about who I am, claiming I cared about nothing. I'm not offended by what I did, I'm offended at the level of ignorance here, and that's not a insult, that's a fact. Sentenal01 19:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * And now you are the pot calling the kettle. You have again yet to read any site policy about anything. Mainly language, trivia sections, insulting other users, so who's ignorant. Because from someone who is familiar with site policies about these things, arguing with someone who clearly isn't because they haven't read them, which wouldn't have resulted in this argument in the first place. You are either ignorant or arrogant and I can't tell which, but considering that you are arguing over site policies, I have to say a little of both. Ignorant for not reading them, and arrogant for refusing t despite several times being asked to do so. Oh and how is stating facts a n insult. You threw a tanturm and then you got called on it. No insult, just facts. Lancer1289 19:49, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets turn it around. How is "For Christs sake" offensive and breaking policies?
 * It is crude and/or offensive language. Again either keep it "G" rated or not at all. Lancer1289 20:00, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's disect it to see what parts offensive. Is it the "For", the "Christ's", or the "Sake" part? Because a idiom is a idiom, despite what you say to the contrary. Sentenal01 20:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes alone they aren't crude and/or offensive langue, but in the context you used them, it is crude and/or offensive language. You can't pick things apart to say, “oh look individually they aren't offensive”. The same thing can be said for a lot of things. Content matters which again you seem to ignore. In the context that you used them, it is crude and/or offensive language. Don’t dance around the bush and say that individually they aren’t, because while true, context matters. Lancer1289 20:13, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave you the context I used it in, you're just ignoring it. Sentenal01 20:19, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. You, not me, took it out of context, i.e. the sentence and way you used it, and then proceeded to say that you didn't violate the language policy. Which you did. Lancer1289 20:23, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let me repeat myself then to explain the context I meant it in. "For Christ's sake". I am surprised or annoyed by this. For God's sake/For Christ's sake, Julie, what are you doing here? This dress makes me look like a little old lady. For Christ's sake. It's two in the morning, for Christ sakes! Why are you calling me now?" Sentenal01 20:28, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * And that is still classified curde and/or offenseive language, as I explained above somewhere in this mountain of text, as it isn't "G" rated. Again please take some time to review the policies. And the final time, either keep it "G" rated or not at all. Lancer1289 20:42, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, link me this language policy, it seems I can't find it. Sentenal01 21:45, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the Community Guidelines, which is already linked at least three times on your talk page. Lancer1289 21:50, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Offensive language, either toward other editors or in articles, is not tolerated. There is some leeway in Talk pages and in discussion between users, but inserting offensive language in articles is considered vandalism. When deciding how to respond to an editor’s comments, consider how you would speak to a stranger face-to-face in public, as that is effectively what you are doing. If you find offensive language in an article, please correct or report it. Repeat offenders will be warned, then banned (see below)." Yeah, "for Christs sake" is not anything mentioned there. I would say it in a conversation if I was frustrated. inb4 you say "Well you where told multiple times so BAN LOL". For Christs sake is not offensive, therefor, I haven't said anything offensive. Sentenal01 21:57, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the banning section as well. And don't just copy paste from the guidelines as that doesn't help when I can read it myself. That doesn't help your argument. Lancer1289 22:02, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Repeated vandalism of pages": Yes. To one line of text.
 * "Crude or offensive language": No.
 * "“Editing wars”": Yes. To one line of text
 * "Insulting other users": No.
 * "Editing another user’s comments": N-...OH NO TYPO CORRECTION! I GET THE BAN HAMMER THEN!!!11!
 * "Impersonating another user to vandalize pages or ridicule them": No.
 * "“Sock Puppetry'": lol no
 * In summery, 2 out of 7. And apparently it did, seeing how copy pasta finally got you to understand what I meant when I said for Christs sake. Sentenal01 22:11, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Try three with Repeated vandalsim, crude or offensive language, and editing another user's comments. Either way only one is enough to justify a ban. And you are on extrmemely thin ice. Also that didn't help your agrument. You used crude language and again either kep it "G" rated or not at all. And you again violated the drude or offensive language part. Lancer1289 22:16, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It's not. How many times do I have to say it and explain it to you? FCS (there, are you happy now?) is not a offensive term, and you haven't provided proof that it is. And nice on the "editing other users comments", a.k.a. typo correcting. I guess it's all part of the users intellectual property, that typos are excepted. Tjis is good new ssince i don't have to spell check i can go on and on and not worry about how i look at all! THank you lancer.. Sentenal01 22:22, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * hmm well this is oddd my internet didn't blow up. so why is it like this i wounder? Sentenal01 22:28, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And how do you know that was a typo? You are putting words in my mouth, and that is something I hate when people do. You are not allowed to edit other user’s comments no matter what you see, because you don't know what the intent was. You assume that was the intent and that is putting words in other people's mouths. Also that is still crude language as again I know what Internet shorthand is. 22:32, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah, youre right i know nothing about typos? And, again, you are nip picking at an issue you can't win. So, I shall list this whole thing in a way you can understand (and for other people, in case you felt singled out b y any chance)
 * Your guidelines say "Offensive language, either toward other editors or in articles, is not tolerated. There is some leeway in Talk pages and in discussion between users, but inserting offensive language in articles is considered vandalism. When deciding how to respond to an editor’s comments, consider how you would speak to a stranger face-to-face in public, as that is effectively what you are doing. If you find offensive language in an article, please correct or report it. Repeat offenders will be warned, then banned (see below)."
 * Please note the following:
 * "There is some leeway in Talk pages"
 * "When deciding how to respond to an editor’s comments, consider how you would speak to a stranger face-to-face in public"
 * I said "For Christs sake""
 * That is not offensive
 * You say it is
 * You lack and proof it it
 * The burden of proof is on you, if what you two said about the fish article is going to be true. Confused still? Don't worry, I'll break it down for you.
 * You and spart say I need proof to disclaim something as trivia.
 * You need proof to disclaim my statement that FCS isn't offensive.
 * You say "shorthand", a.k.a. acronym is offensive because you "know" what it means.
 * Who are you to say what things are and what things aren't?
 * FCS actually means "Fried Clams Special"/"Flying Circuits Sparks"/"Family and Consumer Sciences"/"Federal Cyber Services"/"For Christs Sake."
 * Just because you might think it's offensive, you can't force your idea of right and wrong down like I did. Are you no different?
 * Do you understand now? Sentenal01 23:08, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Leeway in talk pages does not include crude or offensive language or insulting other users. Yes that is crude language, thanks for again not saying what it is, and especially in the context you used it in. You are using crude language, and I won’t repeat what I said above, look it up.
 * The burden of proof is on you because you are three against one on removal, and your vote doesn’t count for four votes. Three people, including two admins see it as valid trivia, and so yes you have to provide a reason for it go be removed. There is nothing wrong with how it is worded now as it is in line with site policies on trivia. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t trivia, which is exactly what you seem to think it is.
 * I have demonstrated why it is crude language, and while I said I won’t repeat myself, I will for the absolute last time. EITHER keep it “G” rated, OR NOT AT ALL. So you have yet to address that point so thanks for ignoreing it, again and again and again. There are many people who could find that offensive, and either way it is still crude language which is against the language policy.
 * You continually beat around the bush and argue points that are site policy and you are still arguing over needless things. This conversation would have never happened if you had read the policies, and now as evidence that you have, I think, then follow them. Is that so much to ask. Based on your comments, yes it is. Everyone is bound by site policies, and you are no exception, despite what you believe. No one is above law here. Lancer1289 23:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT) Hey. Lancer, I spent some time Googling the acronym Sentenal used, and I came up with nothing offensive, aside maybe from "Fetal Cow Syndrome" or "Feces Containment Station", though it's entirely possible I didn't find the right definition. If he meant "for Christ's sake", that's not all that offensive. Also, to Sentenal, you have indeed violated at least two (probably three) of the rules Lancer said. Don't edit other people's comments. Poor grammar is their problem, not yours. Language is an iffy one, but again perhaps I just didn't find the proper vulgar acronym. Also, Edit Warring is a very punishable offense. Also, the rather... argumentative manner in which you've dealt with Lancer, an admin and thus your superior, has helped your case none at all. Please, just take no for an answer. Further (constructive) contributions from you are still very welcome, however, so please don't take any of this as an attack or a spewing of hatred. Hopefully, this little bit here will help to end this fight. Arbington 23:26, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * While I disargree with the rules and their reasons, I have stopped caring about fish. Thank you Arbington, your response was very reasonable. Sentenal01 23:36, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * He stated quite clearly what it meant in this mountain of text somewhere. Anyway I know quite a few people who would find that very offensive. I'll start at the Pope and work my way down from there. I also know quite a few non religious people who would also find that vulgar language. It is offensive language, and even if it wasn’t, it is still crude language that doesn’t have any place here. See my comments on what is appropriate, which is what Spart is saying as well. He has violated the language policy, quite a few times on this page alone. Also he insulted Spart as well. He has violated many of the guidelines and yes arguing isn’t helping his case. Lancer1289 23:32, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

The Pope would not find it offensive, as it contains no word of offence in it, as i said before, you'd have to be some retarded Christian with downs to think it is offensive, as you must be yourself. Please learn the difference between offence and C.U.T.(commonly used term), it is not hard and will benefit you very much.
 * "Anyway I know quite a few people who would find that very offensive. I'll start at the Pope and work my way down from there." Good job, you've said something so mind bogglingly stupid that it actually gave me an aneurysm. You should be proud of your accomplishment.WikiClams 23:41, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) And who are the two of you as neither of you have edited before. Both of you just violated site policies. First offensive language and insulting other users. Second insulting other users. This is getting really old really fast. It’s crude language and offensive to people. It takes the Lord’s name in vain, and last time I checked that violates the First Commandment. Lancer1289 23:50, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your Judeo-Christian laws have no power on this wiki. You are poorly rationalizeing your feelings. Sentenal01 23:53, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * And you are using crude language, which is still a violation of the Guidelines. Lancer1289 23:55, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. You just admitted you where basing your opinion on my statement "For Christs sake" on the 10 Commandments, not the guidelines of the wiki. And you mean the 4th commandment. "Do not take the name of the Lord in vain." Sentenal01 00:00, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflcit) So I messed up on the typing, but either way it is still crude language and offensive to some people. It has no place here as I have stated multiple times. See my comments about what is allowed here above. I am not basing this on my opinion, but rather that it is crude language and again OFFENSIVE TO SOME PEOPLE. Language like that either way has no place on this wiki, and you still insist on violating that. Lancer1289 00:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Some, a.k.a. you. YOU took offence to FCS. YOU, not anyone else. What you THINK is irreverent. I could think that any comments on the Prophet Muhammad that are mean are a violation of Guideline. But they're not. They are criticism, not offensive language. The idea that those are is based on beliefs. The same concept is here. YOU think it's offensive due to your beliefs, and claim it's against Guidelines. It is not. It is my way of talking. I could give a flying monkey what you believe. But this is not a matter of belief. It's a matter of Guidelines. And if your going to ban me over what I did, you have to accept what you've done as well, ITT, you being mistaken on FCS being a violation. Also, you only mentioned your reason one time before. You had all the means to say your reasons again, and that speaks volumes. Sentenal01 00:19, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if I throw out the offensive part, it was still crude language that has no place here. You violated the policy either way. Lancer1289 00:24, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, that's JUST you. Christ is a word. A holy word to some, but a word nonetheless. Your feeling are not a bases to dictate what people can and can't say. Sentenal01 00:30, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm certain I can find others who find that offensive. Either way you still violated the policy with crude language. Lancer1289 00:41, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "crude" about it, only what you think it is. It's an idiom, plain and simple, an undeniable fact. You are misguided in your reasoning by your faith. You are the only one here that thinks that an idiom is offensive. Sentenal01 00:46, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is crude language. See my previous comments about that. As I've said it multiple times now so it should be easy to find. Lancer1289 00:54, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is crude and/or offensive language. Again either keep it "G" rated or not at all. Lancer1289 20:00, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes alone they aren't crude and/or offensive langue, but in the context you used them, it is crude and/or offensive language. You can't pick things apart to say, “oh look individually they aren't offensive”. The same thing can be said for a lot of things. Content matters which again you seem to ignore. In the context that you used them, it is crude and/or offensive language. Don’t dance around the bush and say that individually they aren’t, because while true, context matters. Lancer1289 20:13, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Try three with Repeated vandalsim, crude or offensive language, and editing another user's comments. Either way only one is enough to justify a ban. And you are on extrmemely thin ice. Also that didn't help your agrument. You used crude language and again either kep it "G" rated or not at all. And you again violated the drude or offensive language part. Lancer1289 22:16, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)And how do you know that was a typo? You are putting words in my mouth, and that is something I hate when people do. You are not allowed to edit other user’s comments no matter what you see, because you don't know what the intent was. You assume that was the intent and that is putting words in other people's mouths. Also that is still crude language as again I know what Internet shorthand is. 22:32, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Leeway in talk pages does not include crude or offensive language or insulting other users. Yes that is crude language, thanks for again not saying what it is, and especially in the context you used it in. You are using crude language, and I won’t repeat what I said above, look it up.
 * The burden of proof is on you because you are three against one on removal, and your vote doesn’t count for four votes. Three people, including two admins see it as valid trivia, and so yes you have to provide a reason for it go be removed. There is nothing wrong with how it is worded now as it is in line with site policies on trivia. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it isn’t trivia, which is exactly what you seem to think it is.
 * I have demonstrated why it is crude language, and while I said I won’t repeat myself, I will for the absolute last time. EITHER keep it “G” rated, OR NOT AT ALL. So you have yet to address that point so thanks for ignoreing it, again and again and again. There are many people who could find that offensive, and either way it is still crude language which is against the language policy.
 * You continually beat around the bush and argue points that are site policy and you are still arguing over needless things. This conversation would have never happened if you had read the policies, and now as evidence that you have, I think, then follow them. Is that so much to ask. Based on your comments, yes it is. Everyone is bound by site policies, and you are no exception, despite what you believe. No one is above law here. Lancer1289 23:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * He stated quite clearly what it meant in this mountain of text somewhere. Anyway I know quite a few people who would find that very offensive. I'll start at the Pope and work my way down from there. I also know quite a few non religious people who would also find that vulgar language. It is offensive language, and even if it wasn’t, it is still crude language that doesn’t have any place here. See my comments on what is appropriate, which is what Spart is saying as well. He has violated the language policy, quite a few times on this page alone. Also he insulted Spart as well. He has violated many of the guidelines and yes arguing isn’t helping his case. Lancer1289 23:32, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Anyway I know quite a few people who would find that very offensive. I'll start at the Pope and work my way down from there." Good job, you've said something so mind bogglingly stupid that it actually gave me an aneurysm. You should be proud of your accomplishment.WikiClams 23:41, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)And who are the two of you as neither of you have edited before. Both of you just violated site policies. First offensive language and insulting other users. Second insulting other users. This is getting really old really fast. It’s crude language and offensive to people. It takes the Lord’s name in vain, and last time I checked that violates the First Commandment. Lancer1289 23:50, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * And you are using crude language, which is still a violation of the Guidelines. Lancer1289 23:55, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflcit)So I messed up on the typing, but either way it is still crude language and offensive to some people. It has no place here as I have stated multiple times. See my comments about what is allowed here above. I am not basing this on my opinion, but rather that it is crude language and again OFFENSIVE TO SOME PEOPLE. Language like that either way has no place on this wiki, and you still insist on violating that. Lancer1289 00:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if I throw out the offensive part, it was still crude language that has no place here. You violated the policy either way. Lancer1289 00:24, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm certain I can find others who find that offensive. Either way you still violated the policy with crude language. Lancer1289 00:41, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is crude language. See my previous comments about that. As I've said it multiple times now so it should be easy to find. Lancer1289 00:54, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you like to use that word alot. Don't really see a reason why you think it's crude. Not once, not even at your first crude comment. Sentenal01 01:09, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop copy pasting as it isn't helping your case one bit. I can read thing myself and don't require assistance to doyou seem to vbelieve. My comments still stand however as it isn't what I few times now. Spart has stated the saem thing numerous times now and I agree. Either that nothing. 01:18, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm simply bring to you attention that you never explained why for Christs sake is crude language. Also, what? Sentenal01 01:23, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * And when didn't I explain why it is crude language. It is stated quite clearly a few times now. Some definitions of crude: 1)lacking culture, refinement, tact. 2)lacking in intellectual subtlety, perceptivity, etc.; rudimentary; undeveloped. Language just clarifies it further and applies it to what it is defining. It is crude language and there is no getting around that. Lancer1289 01:32, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the 14 or so posts before this when you said for Christs sake and never explained why. You just explain why NOW. Nice copy pasta btw, but I think that a copyvio right there. You should delete it. Regardless, 1. dose not hold water, and 2. is the same. As for the third part, what am I reading.png. That makes no sense whatso ever. Sentenal01 01:51, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * And I thought you knew what the definition of crude was. Considering the word is very common I didn't think a definition was needed. Lancer1289 02:20, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you said you did explain, which you clearly didn't. Please stop lieing so blatantly, it's not helping you. Sentenal01 02:28, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * No I did explain but I assumed that you knew what "Crude" meant as I said it is a common word. Clearly wrong about that and that couldn't also look up the definition. Everyone I have meet knows what Crude means and in this context as well. You are the first person I've meet that didn't know what crude meant. And that goes to some of my neighbor's who are in elementary school. Lancer1289 02:49, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * You did not explain BEFORE. Explaining now dose not change the past lancer. I thought elementary kids knew that much. And I know what crude is, and it's what you said it was, 100%. For Christs sake is not crude. It is a idiom. It is a valid statement. It shows a frustrated attitude to something. You have failed to provide WHY it's crude, only saying "I said it was, therefor it is." Sentenal01 02:59, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * No I said it before as I stated over 6 times apparenlty. "Either keep it "G" rated or not at all." I serioulsy doubt they would say tings like that on G rated movies or shows, and if they did then they shouldn't be G rated. You clearly seemed ot have missed that. This time all I did was give definitions for crude, nothing more or less. You seem to have glossed over the keep it G" rated comments, or you didn't understand them. Lancer1289 03:35, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing how I have a life that is more important than this foolish conflict over a line of text on a fish article, I'll end with this: For Christs sake is not a violation of this wikis guidelines. You are offended because you're a die hard Catholic, which is meaningless here. It is not a crude saying, it means being frustrated or annoyed. Please, work on this attitude of superior status, it is not attractive in the least. You don't make friends or go about life with "I'm offended by your comment respect my feelings" despite being the only one that is offended. You are also a liar, as seen with anyone with a brain that looks at what I revealed above. If there is a god, then you'll have to work on your complex if you want to be saved. One last thing: You keep saying I'm on "thin ice", that you keep warning me to not offend you... yet I'm still not baned. You can't do it, can you? You can't ban me because you have no case, and you're just waiting me to say something that actually breaks the guidelines. Here's a summery for everyone that is reading this: I haven't done anything, and he needs to deal with it. Sentenal01 17:42, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah no, you did violate the language policy, among other things, becuase that is crude language and has no place here. You are on thin ice becuase yoof your past actions and frequestn violations of the Community Guidelines. You don't seem to care about anyone but yourself, as hinted by the conversation below this one, and you clearly think that your opinions matters above anyone else's. Frankly I could ban you right now with the editing of my comment, but I chose not to because I think people deserve a reason why that is wrong. You could have been banned much longer the first time, and you can again because you so far have meet the qualifications for banning, many times over. You have done things wrong, and you won't admit to that, so yes you are on thin ice as it is. Yes I can be offended by that, and so could many other people, as I showed quite a few people this conversation and they agreed that it was either offensive and/or crude language. Both of which violate the Guidelines as they both have no place here. So here's another summary, Sentenal01 has repeatly violated the Community Guidelines and this arguement wouldn't even have happened if he had bothered to read them to being with. He has repeately broken the language policy on crude language and don't want to admit it. See my comments above for that one. Lancer1289 17:55, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Christ on a cross, I'm deeply offended that you said that. I do care about others, stop assuming. You know what they say about assume. And what timezone are you in, you never seem to sleep? Sentenal01 18:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is is with you and crude language, you just can't seem to stop using it can you. See my previous comments about what is acceptable, because what you are using isn't. Also my comments were based on your previous actions and your comments here, which are backed up. And yes I do sleep and I live in the US in the Central Time Zone. Lancer1289 18:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Jumping Jesus, that's not crude! You've never been to anywhere other than the U.S., have you? If you have you'd hear people use that and for Christs sake in conversations and on T.V., even in Rome! Sentenal01 19:10, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is curde language and again would you hear that on a "G" rated TV show or movie. I don't think so. That is crude language and frankly you can't seem to follow any rules can you. It's not about what is language used in conversations, it is about what is allowed, and again see what my comments about what is acceptable here, because you just can't seem to follow that can you. Is that too much to ask. Apparently so. Lancer1289 19:17, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Saibaba Homel, you say you'll never hear for Christs sake in a G rated show or movie?
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J22K13OJeKs At 3:20
 * http://www.amazon.com/Christs-Sake-Tom-Harpur/dp/077103945X
 * http://forchristsake.org/
 * 2 Corinthians 12:10: "That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong."
 * http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/12-10.htm
 * For Christs sake is even in your own Bible, the good book, and you're saying it isn't G rated? Please, learn about your own religion before you preach about it and condemn others about it. Sentenal01 19:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or if not that (If you are a denialist) then Google for Christs sake on your own. I've given my points why for Christs sake isn't a violation of the Guidelines or a crude saying. Derp. Sentenal01 19:50, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) I just have to say this: Sentenal01, you are proving Lancer's point! You don't care about anyone but yourself. You say you have a life? Please go live it! I find what you just said very offensive, and I'm sure that most other people would too! It's definately more offensive than what you said before, and you are purposfully doing this to be offensive to Lancer, and other people. A reasonable person might try and stop offending people, but I think that you've proved you're not reasonable at all. I ask you politely to stop doing this, and go on your way, as you've proven that the only reason you're here is to be rude. Lancer, these two comments have offended me deeply, and I suggest that, if he doesn't stop, you throw the book at him! --Effectofthemassvariety 19:22, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Subhan'Allah, I have to ask, WHY are you and others so offended by those sayings? These are phrases and idioms said by almost every Christian on a daily bases. If I said a Chinese idiom, would you have the same reaction? If you said no, then why? You can't say cus you're not Chinese, because it has the same meaning, regardless of who you are. Just because you're one thing doesn't mean you have any special privileges over others. Sentenal01 19:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing how I have a life that is more important than this foolish conflict over a line of text on a fish article, I'll end with this: For Christs sake is not a violation of this wikis guidelines. You are offended because you're a die hard Catholic, which is meaningless here. It is not a crude saying, it means being frustrated or annoyed. Please, work on this attitude of superior status, it is not attractive in the least. You don't make friends or go about life with "I'm offended by your comment respect my feelings" despite being the only one that is offended. You are also a liar, as seen with anyone with a brain that looks at what I revealed above. If there is a god, then you'll have to work on your complex if you want to be saved. One last thing: You keep saying I'm on "thin ice", that you keep warning me to not offend you... yet I'm still not baned. You can't do it, can you? You can't ban me because you have no case, and you're just waiting me to say something that actually breaks the guidelines. Here's a summery for everyone that is reading this: I haven't done anything, and he needs to deal with it. Sentenal01 17:42, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah no, you did violate the language policy, among other things, becuase that is crude language and has no place here. You are on thin ice becuase yoof your past actions and frequestn violations of the Community Guidelines. You don't seem to care about anyone but yourself, as hinted by the conversation below this one, and you clearly think that your opinions matters above anyone else's. Frankly I could ban you right now with the editing of my comment, but I chose not to because I think people deserve a reason why that is wrong. You could have been banned much longer the first time, and you can again because you so far have meet the qualifications for banning, many times over. You have done things wrong, and you won't admit to that, so yes you are on thin ice as it is. Yes I can be offended by that, and so could many other people, as I showed quite a few people this conversation and they agreed that it was either offensive and/or crude language. Both of which violate the Guidelines as they both have no place here. So here's another summary, Sentenal01 has repeatly violated the Community Guidelines and this arguement wouldn't even have happened if he had bothered to read them to being with. He has repeately broken the language policy on crude language and don't want to admit it. See my comments above for that one. Lancer1289 17:55, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Christ on a cross, I'm deeply offended that you said that. I do care about others, stop assuming. You know what they say about assume. And what timezone are you in, you never seem to sleep? Sentenal01 18:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is is with you and crude language, you just can't seem to stop using it can you. See my previous comments about what is acceptable, because what you are using isn't. Also my comments were based on your previous actions and your comments here, which are backed up. And yes I do sleep and I live in the US in the Central Time Zone. Lancer1289 18:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Jumping Jesus, that's not crude! You've never been to anywhere other than the U.S., have you? If you have you'd hear people use that and for Christs sake in conversations and on T.V., even in Rome! Sentenal01 19:10, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is curde language and again would you hear that on a "G" rated TV show or movie. I don't think so. That is crude language and frankly you can't seem to follow any rules can you. It's not about what is language used in conversations, it is about what is allowed, and again see what my comments about what is acceptable here, because you just can't seem to follow that can you. Is that too much to ask. Apparently so. Lancer1289 19:17, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Saibaba Homel, you say you'll never hear for Christs sake in a G rated show or movie?
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J22K13OJeKs At 3:20
 * http://www.amazon.com/Christs-Sake-Tom-Harpur/dp/077103945X
 * http://forchristsake.org/
 * 2 Corinthians 12:10: "That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong."
 * http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/12-10.htm
 * For Christs sake is even in your own Bible, the good book, and you're saying it isn't G rated? Please, learn about your own religion before you preach about it and condemn others about it. Sentenal01 19:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or if not that (If you are a denialist) then Google for Christs sake on your own. I've given my points why for Christs sake isn't a violation of the Guidelines or a crude saying. Derp. Sentenal01 19:50, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict) I just have to say this: Sentenal01, you are proving Lancer's point! You don't care about anyone but yourself. You say you have a life? Please go live it! I find what you just said very offensive, and I'm sure that most other people would too! It's definately more offensive than what you said before, and you are purposfully doing this to be offensive to Lancer, and other people. A reasonable person might try and stop offending people, but I think that you've proved you're not reasonable at all. I ask you politely to stop doing this, and go on your way, as you've proven that the only reason you're here is to be rude. Lancer, these two comments have offended me deeply, and I suggest that, if he doesn't stop, you throw the book at him! --Effectofthemassvariety 19:22, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Subhan'Allah, I have to ask, WHY are you and others so offended by those sayings? These are phrases and idioms said by almost every Christian on a daily bases. If I said a Chinese idiom, would you have the same reaction? If you said no, then why? You can't say cus you're not Chinese, because it has the same meaning, regardless of who you are. Just because you're one thing doesn't mean you have any special privileges over others. Sentenal01 19:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * (EDIT CONFLICT) Well, he's definitely violated the Language Policy on those accounts then. As for the acronym thing, I would honestly say that's a pretty common place thing to say in modern society, but I agree comments like that should be kept to a minimum. Gotta go with the admin's opinion on these matters though, so that's a violation too. Not looking that good for Sentenal then. Also, taking the Lord's name in vain might kinda offend the Pope, Sentenal... and way to go with that whole "nonabusive language" thing. Real classy. Don't offend admins, or anybody for that matter. Arbington 23:44, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't taking your lords name in vain, and even if I was, that's not a violation of the wiki's guidelines. It might with your's, but not the wiki. You also are going to bat for lancer, which conflicts with your previous comment before about for Christs sake. Offending one person is not a violation in which lancer keeps harping about, that multipliable persons is offended with for Christs sake. Sentenal01 17:42, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Its not taking his name in Vain silly, its just a reference to the past times. Chances are the pope says it too.

I'd like to state for the recored that it's 3 to 3 on this issue. Sentenal01 23:48, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't involve me in your pissing wars, I'm not on your side. I just need to point out when something so preposterously stupid as "You said Christ, I'm offended dur hur". I'm offended that I share the same carbon base as that person, but you don't see me trying to drag out an apology.WikiClams 23:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And you are already bordering on a ban as you just insulted me again. Insulting other users is a bannable offense. Lancer1289 23:55, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT) Er... Now you've insulted an admin and violated Language Policy, WikiClams. Can everybody just take it easy and drop it? Nobody's gaining here, and we're all poised to lose. Arbington 23:58, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's not like this petty quarrel has any point, and I'm just here because Sent is advertising on another site to come and mock you guys.WikiClams 00:03, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I did so that cus I thought you would find lancer amusing... which I was correct on. =3 Sentenal01 00:03, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't ammusing and all this did was further weaken your case. Lancer1289 00:09, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict x2) Actually, you aren't going to lose anything. If anything you, Arbinton, have gaied even more respect in my eyes for trying to stop this. Unofrtunatly two more people came in and added fuel to what I thought was a dying fire. Lancer1289 00:07, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dare I ask what exactly he contributed that you hadn't already done? It seems he only "gaied" more respect because he's agreeing with you. WikiClams 00:11, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's start with he didn’t come onto my talk page in the middle of an argument and insult me for starters like you did. He has also a track record of trying to settle arguments, some of which succeeded, and has a long history of constructive edits, which is a lot more than I can say for you at this point. He is someone who tries to resolve something without further argument, and all you did was add fuel to the fire. As such he gained more respect for jumping into a shark tank, for lack of a better word, and trying to resolve an argument. That takes a lot of courage. Lancer1289 00:15, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lancer. And, to WikiClams, though you came here with the intention of harassing people and such, contributions are still welcome. Same goes to Sentenal. And for the record, I don't always agree with the admins. There was an interesting discussion between me and Spart about the Destiny Ascension once. And there was that time when I was the only one who thought my "News Blogs" project would work absolutely perfectly (After later consideration, I realize how badly that could've gone.). I do, however, like to settle arguments when I see them. I'm all for discussions, but once they turn nasty it's time to just make a compromise and move on. One good thing to remember is that, whatever point you're going to argue, site Policy trumps it. Always. In a matter of opinion, the admin's opinion will usually trump in a similar manner. So long as everybody learns these things, we should all get along just fine, and I'll have to spend fewer evenings dealing with disputes and such =). Arbington 02:26, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also do hope that people can get along. I don't think anyone is here to make enemies. Unfortunatly we do hese arguments come up from time to time, and it never helps the community as a whole. Lancer1289 02:51, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can get along with people Arbin. They just need to keep an open mind and meet me half way. Sentenal01 03:00, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ok really just end this now, you shouldnt have messed with the fish ok see, its finished.--Legionwrex 03:04, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, compromises are my thing, man. And Legion, though the help is appreciated, el argumento se resuelve. Arbington 03:11, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Arbigton no se--Legionwrex 03:16, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not what? Eh, I've got a C in Spanish. A in Debate though. Heh. Arbington 03:22, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Page History
This new skin is ridiculous, and hard to understand. I know I'm probably not looking hard enough, but I went to check on an edit on the page about Humans and couldn't even find where to check the page history. Aside from going to the specific user's contributions page, how can I check the history of an edit? --Effectofthemassvariety 17:05, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already took care of the human page, but to check the history of articles, there is this very annoying drop down menu above the text. At the top of the article, just below the article's title, is this think that says "Edited ____ by ____", the ___ are filled with time and person respectively, and after that is an arrow. Hover your mouse over that and you see a small drop down of the latest contributors for the article and at the bottom is "View full history". Click on that to get the full history of the article. You can't do that to user space pages, including sandboxes, which is annoying and ridiculous in my opinion. I've left a message with the staff about it and asked they bring that back as we've had more than a few instances of vandalism on user space pages.
 * And yes the new skin is very annoying to say the least, but we're stuck with it. I'll keep most of my opinions about it to myself as we do have that language policy. However the staff didn't listen to much and they needed to. Lancer1289 17:11, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad you took care of that Human page. Those edits looked like complete speculation, and, if you read them, they don't even make sense. Thanks for the "tutorial." I don't like to complain about something that's not going to change cause it only makes it worse; However I'm not going to ignore the elephant in the room either, you know? Anywho, thanks again. --Effectofthemassvariety 17:29, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 17:30, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Community Thing
Wouldn't you know, I forgot the actual name of the thing I came to talk to you about. It's the thing on the main page. The community board thing... I dunno. Anyways, I was just reading the Community ____ and saw that it said "...drop one a line with one of the admins." I'm sure you can see why I brought it up, but I'll say it anyways: the first 'one' should be deleted so that it says "...drop a line with one of the admins." Just thought I'd bring it up. --Effectofthemassvariety 18:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Community Messages! That's what it is! How did I forget that? --Effectofthemassvariety 18:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It's the Community Message, and that has gone unnoticed for about three months now as the last time was back in July. Anyway fixed. Lancer1289 18:53, October 24, 2010 (UTC)