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)

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)
 * 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 currenlty 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)