User talk:Elseweyr

Welcome to Mass Effect Wiki!
Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Matriarch Aethyta page.

If you haven't already, please sign in and create a user name! It's free, and it'll help you keep track of all your edits.

If you're new to wikis, please read the tutorial at Wikia Community Central.

Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started. In particular, be aware of our policies concerning the capitalization of alien race names and information sourcing.

Leave a message at the help desk or on my talk page if you need help with anything! Trandra (talk) 18:01, May 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcoming message! My first playthrough is still in progress, but I've already spent countless hours browsing the ; the whole universe is nothing short of awe-inspiring. I am indeed quite new to wikis in general, but I hope I'll be able to start making useful contributions myself as well. I'll check out the links you posted, thanks again! --Elseweyr 11:28, May 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to our community, feel free to ask questions about Mass Effect or the wiki. --DeldiRe 11:43, May 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll have to keep restraining myself so as to avoid spoilers until I've completed the trilogy, but once I have, it'll be great to start exploring the universe for real. (Not literally, but fortunately that's what we have Mass Effect for!) --Elseweyr (talk) 12:08, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Help for quality check
Hi Elseweyr,

I saw that you made a some work to clean several pages and I need some help before implementing a project especially because I'm not a native english speaker (as you can read ;) ).

Could you please make a quality check (grammar/spelling/layout/syntax) on three of my sandbox pages please ? Feel free to edits those pages, you have my permission to do so (a formal permission is needed to edit users pages):
 * User:DeldiRe/Sandbox/N7 HQ
 * User:DeldiRe/Sandbox/Mass Effect 3: Galaxy At War
 * User:DeldiRe/Sandbox/Mass Effect 3: Datapad

Thanks in advance. --DeldiRe 08:43, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey DeldiRe,
 * First of all, you seem to have done a great job with those pages! I appreciate you entrusting me with revising them, and will do my best to help you out. I still feel obliged to inform you that even though English is my primary language for all academic purposes, I'm not a native speaker either. I'm confident that I can be of use, but if you wish to ensure that the language is truly native-like, you might want to have a native speaker at least read it through. Elseweyr (talk) 09:37, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'm sure that admins or others users will make some adjustments when those pages will be implemented so it will be ok.--DeldiRe 10:01, July 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your first corrections so far, keep up the good work ;). Those three pages will be clear this week I think and I hope that I will be able to implement them before the week end. --DeldiRe 14:56, July 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! I'll be going away over the weekend, but I'll do as much revising as possible before that. Elseweyr (talk) 16:21, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

If you strt correction on MEI content, there is a looooooooooot of work on the Walkthrough of the missions articles ;)--DeldiRe 09:49, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * You're probably right, but unfortunately I haven't played the game at all (because I don't own the right mobile device), so I'd only feel partially qualified to make adjustments. Plus, in the unlikely event that I'm able to lay my hands on the game at some point, I'd like it unspoiled :) Elseweyr (talk) 10:04, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

We have a deal for electronics ;) --DeldiRe 13:57, July 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Fortunately my Renegade score was high enough to resolve the situation peacefully through Intimidation ;) Joking aside, joint revisions are probably more fruitful anyway, and completely welcome on my behalf. Elseweyr (talk) 19:50, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your quality check on MEI articles --DeldiRe 09:59, August 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. — Elseweyr (talk) 10:17, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

yes the sources are the locations provided by Miranda. Once more do not hesitate to edit my sandboxes for the cleanup. --DeldiRe (Talk) 18:49, August 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright. I'll be busy with other things for the rest of the evening; back tomorrow. — Elseweyr (talk) 20:55, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear
See counterexamples below. I didn't make these, I just followed the patterns set.
 * 1) Combat
 * 2) Geth Juggernaut
 * 3) Shock Trooper
 * 4) Overload
 * 5) Armax Arsenal
 * 6) Krogan Warlord
 * 7) Many, many more

Like you I just want to help out but I would rather not have these silly nonsense edit wars since they are to the detriment of what we're trying to achieve. Good day. 176.31.226.184 13:27, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Mentioning other similar instances doesn't make it more correct or relevant. The disambiguation hatnotes are not supposed to include links that aren't ambiguous with the title in question, which makes perfect sense (and which in turn I didn't make up). This can be found in the MoS ("Each additional link in the hatnote besides the ambiguous or confusable topic(s) makes it more difficult to find the desired target."); in these particular cases I don't think there's any reason for additional linking. Elseweyr (talk) 13:42, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * That is from Wikipedia. This is the Mass Effect Wiki. I believe it has been stated multiple times by multiple admins across multiple wikis that things are done differently in every wiki. If "my" formatting change was wrong, the counterexamples I listed would have been edited by other users or the admins themselves long before I started caring about this site. 176.31.226.184 13:51, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of which wiki this is, and you are not helping your case. I questioned whether your edits were true improvements, then consulted the disambiguation page, found support, and rightfully reverted your edits in a hopefully non-hostile manner. Your last argument doesn't permit an article to contain mistakes at all (and ironically removes the need for your own edits), so I fear you are shooting yourself in the foot. Nevertheless, your edits might not be wrong, so I'll wait and see what happens. A very good day to you, too. Elseweyr (talk) 18:50, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * i'm just the newest janitor with extra buttons here so don't construe my judgment as "admin abuse" plz. to my knowledge as far as this wiki's concerned extra links in disambig templates are allowable. no one had an issue with it before since it's a trivial thing. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 20:14, July 9, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sorting this out; I agree it was perhaps blown out of proportion a little bit. Elseweyr (talk) 20:29, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

query
was your last blog just an exercise in venting, or did you forget to turn on commenting for it? here's your friendly reminder if the latter; carry on/ignore this message if the former. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:52, July 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Both. (I suppose I'd be dishonest if I claimed I didn't hope it'd inspire some conversation, if just a little.) Thanks! Elseweyr (talk) 17:25, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

rescel and wallace data
are correct. just checked.

normally i don't bother praising people over routine ops like this, though since you haven't been patted on the back yet by any of the others who care for wiki maintenance then here it is. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 04:25, August 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * Appreciate it (: Elseweyr (talk) 06:55, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

I
I care for the fixing. the war between the quarians and geth was called,"The Morning Wars" please don't change it.

Template Hint
Yo, when you're editing templates you need to purge the page to see the changes manifest themselves. Purging the page can be done one of two ways: importScriptPage('PurgeButton/code.js', 'dev');
 * 1) By typing  after the page name
 * 2) By clicking here and putting in the following code so that you get a cool new option in your edit button drop down that says, "Purge."

Note: You can go to this page to make the purge option appear on all Wikia wikis you edit. Trandra (talk) 20:51, August 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sweet! Thanks for your trouble. — Elseweyr (talk) 21:46, August 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I noticed you changing your JS customizations and realized that the link I gave you to the global.js is wrong. If it's on a single wiki, it's at wikia.js; at the Wikia wide one, you change global.js at the Community Wikia. I fixed the link above to bring you to the right place. Trandra (talk) 01:28, August 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. — Elseweyr (talk) 07:27, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

II
Hi I was wondering if you could help me set up my clans wiki just search for Crue wiki thanks just contact me when you can. Zeeow100Zeeow100 (talk) 19:24, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, (1) I have no idea what you're talking about and (2) atm I'm devoted to the MEWiki only. — Elseweyr (talk) 21:17, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Rachni Song Edits
Hi, I was directed here by Temporaryeditor78 re: the reversion of my recent edits to the Rachni page. Basically, I'm just trying to get a line in there that unambiguously states that there is no factual connection between the "songs" heard on Luna, etc. & the Rachni. This is important because both the mention of these songs on the Rachni page & the phrase "commonly associated with the rachni" imply a connection. I'm not sure if your disagreement lies w/ my point or simply my implementation, but either way, please let me know. Thanks. Knives182 (talk) 20:09, September 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Commonly associated with the rachni' means just that: people commonly associate the sounds with rachni, and why shouldn't they? Like it or not, it is a fact that the sounds are present in the game, and it is equally (or more) problematic to go ahead and explicitly state that there is no connection. The sentence that mentions the possibility of shared aubio-libraries is more than enough to imply that the sounds may not have been intended as rachni songs.


 * Aside from needlessly stressing this lack of connection, the edit I undid also contained capitalised race names and an unnecessary link to whale sounds. The article should be fine as it is now. — Elseweyr (talk) 20:33, September 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * First off, my bad about the race capitalization. I'd definitely recommend mentioning something like this in your edit when correcting a new user in the future; not everyone is going to pore over the style guide before their 1st post.


 * As for the content in question, people can think theorize as they please. But this wiki shouldn't associate these songs w/ the Rachni, because there is absolutely no evidence that the two are related. It's nothing more than a fan theory&mdash;which is fine for a trivia section, provided it's clearly identified as such. But if it's not, we run the risk of propagating theory as fact, & that's serious business for a wiki, as I'm sure you know.


 * I think if we clarified the opening line to mention who exactly is associating these songs w/ the Rachni (fans), & tweaked the audio library bit so that it comes off as a stronger alternative&mdash;e.g., "However, these sounds may simply be the result of BioWare using the same audio library as..." then the overall tone of the section would be much more appropriate. Even if you're unconvinced, do such small changes really detract from the article? Seems pretty low-risk to me; low enough that if it prevents even a couple readers from misconstruing our information, it was worth it.


 * I've never asked permission to make such small, common-sense edits before, but given the situation I will wait for your feedback. Knives182 (talk) 03:00, September 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * No-one is expected to know all the rules from the start, but if you think you can start editing articles without knowing what you're doing and have each user who corrects them provide a tutorial on how it should have been done in the edit summary, you'll probably be disappointed. If you want your edits to stand, it is your responsibility to make sure they're valid, not other editors'.
 * You did the right thing in consulting involved users directly, but making any sorts of false claims won't help you (for example, in your first post you state that you were directed here by another user -- which you weren't, but you made it up for some reason).
 * I'm repeating myself, but the assumption you're making is: 'there is no proof of a connection' → 'there is no connection'. The current formulation only describes what is present in the game, as it should be, and there is no propagation of theory as fact, which is closer to what you are doing. Tweak it all you want, but accept that other users may disagree with you, in which case you also need to get the support of users who do agree with you. (A trivial issue like this might not be worth the trouble.) — Elseweyr (talk) 07:54, September 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * So just in the spirit of a healthy discussion of the core issue (that there's no proven connection, and therefore what should we do about it), I could see adding a short sentence towards the end of the disputed paragraph on the Rachni page to the effect of "It is unknown, however, whether any specific connection to the Rachni is implied by the presence of these sounds in these additional locations." Possibly right before the reference to Epic would work, or right after it. In other words I think a minor disclaimer toward the end, in this one central location, is a reasonable idea - whereas the substantial rewrite proposed by Knives seemed a little over-the-top in the disclaimer department to me. My 2 cents. Cattlesquat (talk) 14:24, September 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm with Cattlesquat on this one, a short disclaimer seems to be the right solution. --DeldiRe (talk) 15:37, September 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Shoorr. The edit I reverted was a 'multiple problems' one, and it's way down the history page now anyway. Maybe leave out links to whale vocalisation pages next time, though. — Elseweyr (talk) 18:17, September 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh most def - not arguing for the original edit. Just looking to save the IMHO worthwhile thought. Cattlesquat (talk) 18:25, September 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've added a line that reads "It is unknown, however, whether any specific connection to the rachni is implied by the presence of these sounds", as Cattle suggested, just before the audio libraries sentence. Many thanks to those who chimed in.


 * And Elseweyr, to address your point 2. re: my "making things up", I took Temporary's blunt refusal to assist me, along w/ his poorly-worded comment re: "which actions were made by which", as direction to the other involved party: yourself. Hope that elucidates my thinking. Knives182 (talk) 01:31, September 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Your thinking is clear enough, but since you stressed your inexperience: engaging in invalid editing and ill-advisedly reprimanding other users for correcting you is time-consuming and irritating. To avoid this, simply do your homework. Please feel encouraged to keep contributing, however; when you're a hardened vet in six months or so, beginner's mistakes won't mean a thing. — Elseweyr (talk) 09:11, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

ME3 Guide
Saw your ME3 guide changes - there's a paragraph up at the top of that section that purports to explain the difference between a "progress-sensitive mission" and a "timed mission", and at least one of the ones you've changed to progress-sensitive seems to meet the definition given of "timed". BUT, that said I'm not a big fan of dividing things into two hardly-different categories especially when currently as far as I can tell only ONE mission (Tuchanka: Bomb) even fits into the timed category by the definition and NONE are currently marked as such. So I'm suggesting you might want to just whack the whole concept of "Timed Mission" as a label on this page to carry to a logical conclusion the implications of what you've already changed.

On a related but broader note, I'm personally pretty dissatisfied with the way the ME3 Guide's "side missions" section is organized - basically a big mess with lots of loosely-related stuff poorly grouped together with the marking of special cases seemingly the rule rather than the exception. So if you have any ideas for reorganizing that section I'd love to hear them - obviously we'd probably need to do some sandboxing and either a talkpage or maybe even a project vote. I haven't attempted anything myself yet partially because I haven't thought of a truly better idea, but wanted to mention my dissatisfaction since you've taken an interest in the page. Cattlesquat (talk) 14:52, September 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks for bringing that to my attention; I did edit in ignorance of this. Let me just investigate for a bit...
 * I've actually edited the page only once (today), rashly assuming I was correcting a consistency error. Undone now.
 * Unfortunately, I can't readily think of a clearly better way to arrange the missions than the alphabetic order they're already in (my eyes spot two seemingly accidental exceptions: Benning: Evidence and Citadel: Dr. Bryson). They could be grouped into 'Citadel missions' (the small ones you complete on the Citadel) and/or missions that can be acquired at a certain point but not completed before another -- if not for a couple of problems:
 * Many of the smaller Citadel missions' journal entry titles don't mention the Citadel at all, but instead the planet you need to scan or visit, such as Irune or Benning. Somewhat trivial, but rubs me the wrong way a little bit, since they can be acquired off-Citadel, if only completed there.
 * With several categories, many missions are going to fit in multiple ones, and I think we'd like to have only one instance of each mission on the page if possible.
 * As for the two progress types, definitely 'progress-sensitive' &ne; 'timed', though as you said, it seems only Tuchanka: Bomb meets the conditions of the latter. Not sure if it's a huge problem; maybe just remove the explanation from the beginning as the timedness of the Bomb mission is indeed unique. — Elseweyr (talk) 15:41, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

III
Hi there. Do you know of a way to view the n7hq leaderboards across all platforms. Since I play on PC, I can of course, only view the PC Leaderboards. I'd like to see the high scores on the xbox, ps3, and wii, however I don't own any of those consoles, so i'm stumped..

```` thanks,

Screenbetween


 * Sorry, can't reliably help you with that. (Since an N7 HQ account is linked to a specific gamertag, I'd say no.) — Elseweyr (talk) 17:36, September 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * You can see the leaderboards of all platform via the button on the right side (top) of the N7HQ page--DeldiRe (talk) 18:28, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

Told you :p — Elseweyr (talk) 18:32, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

Cerberus Daily News
It's golden, I have a few to show you :p--DeldiRe (talk) 12:19, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

OMG, I did forget a clue -> De-MEL-Isher is soooo similar to demolisher :D--DeldiRe (talk) 15:01, September 25, 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't say Elseweyr (talk) 15:01, September 25, 2013 (UTC)

you undid my changes
i just beat the game on my Wii U. it's all true.. i found the Ladon gun in two places and not even in the academy level. and the firepack bundle... look my most used guns in the game were the Adas electric gun and the blood pack gun. Also the others. i can't prove it to you but if you want it to be accurate you can also verify yourself. why would i make it up. im astonished this is indeed unknown 'in the internet'. ridicilous.


 * Adding information that contradicts all other official information available (especially in the source you listed) is unconfirmed content, which is certainly not validated by 'why you would make it up.' Nowhere, not by BioWare or anyone else, is the 'firepack bundle' (aka. Firefight Pack) listed as part of the DLC included in the Special Edition. While technically it could be, since the pack was released before the ME3:SE, you'll need more to back it up.
 * Which is the problem with the Wii U version in general: that there aren't enough players (and therefore wiki editors) to add content without confirmation from multiple users or some other proof. Finding the Ladon in several places is definitely more plausible, but you could just as easily assert that you found a Hades Cannon in the Captain Cabin's fish tank, and it's not as easy to confirm as true or false as it is for the other platforms. Do you see what I mean?
 * There is regrettably little activity here right now, but I'd recommend you bring these matters up for discussion on relevant Talk pages. Any efforts at providing other evidence would of course be greatly appreciated, as well.


 * Minor disclaimer: I'm no expert in this area and these are my own opinions, but I'm pretty sure they agree with the community's stance. Elseweyr (talk) 06:31, September 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. Look, you obviously care about Mass Effect and invested a lot of your time into this. If you want the wiki to be an unreliable joke then, then go ahead. You are right there is a problem of Wii U owners apparently, and here I am, someone who played the Wii U version. I didn't even realize these weapons were "DLC". I got the Indra email in my private terminal. I used the Adas gun throughout the campaign. I can't imagine playing the game without it. I also constantly equipped the BloodPack machine gun. In fact, 90% of the weapons I used were apparently from this "FireFight Pack" whatever. So you want me to upload a Youtube video of me playing it from the GamePad? I guess I can do that, although I have no idea how to do it other than from an off TV angle. Still, it's just so stupid. I'm trying to bring you the actual truth from the game and you reject it. Not to mention that thinking that the Ladon gun is only in one stage is completely anal. In fact, it is probably in more stages and I just missed it, which happened to me in the Academy level.

Like I said, it's your unreliable joke. Have fun with your make belief wiki then.


 * As Elseweyr said, bring your discoveries in the talk pages because we need to find a way to introduce those difference into our articles. Your experience could be a great addition to this wiki. Elseweyr's attitude was only to ensure that the provided information was relevant to protect wiki's quality. As she said, she is not expert in that matter but she acted in good faith and invited you to continue the effort. You can be sure that she will help you to implement your information is you ask and is she can. I hope then that you will stay here to provide your wii experience.--DeldiRe (talk) 09:50, September 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * If you understood what I said, there was no need for you to turn it into a personal insult and resort to naughty words. On a personal level I'm inclined to believe you, but please understand the simplicity with needing reliable proof for unconfirmed content that might even contradict official information. How that principle implies make-believe and unreliability unfortunately escapes me.
 * If the silliness of providing video material of all the weapons of the FightBundlepackFire to show they are indeed present in the Special Edition is beneath you, well... damn shame. Elseweyr (talk) 11:31, September 24, 2013 (UTC)

Randall
So ?--DeldiRe (talk) 08:45, October 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have acquired the device. Will start infiltrating once I've had my SIM shrunk :p Elseweyr (talk) 09:12, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Feedback for changes undone to Citadel: Shore Leave page
Hi! First of all, I want to express the respect I have for the work you carried out on the Mass Effect Wiki. Second, sorry for the recent numerous edits made on the Citadel: Shore Leave page - I'm kinda' new at wikis - Promise I'll try to get better.

I'm really puzzled by your conclusion that my last edit was "gender biased + not entirely accurate" - can you please elaborate? Your answer is important to me, as I would have LOVED to know the information I was trying to add to the wiki prior to starting this DLC. I'm betting there are others that could also benefit from this information.

Thanks for your understanding and consideration! w1cx3d


 * Thank you, that does warm my heart! No need for apologies: you have done nothing wrong in terms of behaviour, although you did remove a lot of valid content which I restored.
 * I actually agree there could be some note about squadmate availability, although it should be somewhat self-evident that Tali won't be able to join you in the Citadel DLC before her war is dealt with and she has become a squadmate (just like she is unavailable in the main game). As for the other characters you can meet up with, it is a bit misleading to instruct players to save the DLC until just before the last battle for this purpose – as soon as you have done the main game missions where you rendezvous with previous squadmates, they become available for interactions on the Silversun Strip regardless of when you have done the Citadel mission. There are also some other mechanics and requirements underpinning this process (see Silversun Strip).
 * Gender bias just means Shepard was referred to as a male ("Shepard will be able to interact with all the members of his crew"), which we never do in situations that apply to Sheps of either gender. You might want to familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style if you wish to help further.
 * I am also a learner yet, but don't hesitate to ask if anything is unclear and you can't find an answer in the guidelines. Happy editing! Elseweyr (talk) 19:43, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Gender bias should have been an obvious one.

When I first read the wiki for this mission, it wasn't actually clear that I would be engaging in the entire Citadel DLC. Thus I considered it important to explicitly specify this in the wiki: "This is the first mission in the Citadel DLC pack."

As for the rest of my original edit, all I'm saying is that at the party concluding the DLC - I think the developers intended for ALL Shepard's friends to be present, for everyone to have made it into the group pic (I don't mean to second guess the devs, it's just that they provided the possibility). Also, during some of the missions in the pack, esp. those involving tracking the villain, Shepard's actions are at some point appraised by each member of the crew. I just wish I would have known that the pack involved interactions with all Shepard's friends before starting it - and that I would have found this out here.


 * There could probably be a Preparation section added to the beginning of Citadel: Shore Leave, but it would have to be worded right. On a related note, the Preparation section for the next mission, Citadel Wards: Ambush, is completely redundant unless you read the walkthrough two missions ahead of where you are in the game, since you'll be unable to do anything about the things mentioned there once you leave the Normandy. I think we'd have to move at least some of the prep from Ambush to Shore Leave and add some of the squadmate info you're calling for.
 * Since there is indeed no turning back once you visit the Apartment, only squadmates that have been made available in the main game can join the clone hunt, but note that you can leave the Strip as soon as the clone is dealt with and complete main game missions if you wish. As with most other missions, the party can only be thrown before launching Priority: Cerberus Headquarters. The mechanics of squadmates' party availability are already covered in Citadel: Party, as they should be. Elseweyr (talk) 08:33, October 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd support a message (Preparation, or otherwise) in Shore Leave mentioning that once you start it you're locked into DLC through several more missions, but wouldn't support moving the prep from Ambush (a combat walkthrough) into Shore Leave (a non-combat walkthrough), as we generally keep the combat choice information on combat missions. I know that's where I look for it, wouldn't have ever thought to look in Shore Leave once I was having trouble in Ambush or whatever. Cattlesquat (talk) 13:11, October 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right in that the prep deals with combat, of course, but the preparations themselves need to be made before launching Shore Leave, even though the combat only starts once the journal entry changes to Ambush. And it might be self-evident to one who has already played through the DLC, but certainly not for a first-timer, which I think needs to be considered in the walkthroughs. Elseweyr (talk) 13:21, October 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * But that indicates that the if anything the full-DLC information should probably be duplicated in both articles - out of an abundance of caution, and since these bits don't really cost money. Alternately you could have a link from one to the other pointing out where to find it if you're looking for it, but for 1 short paragraph of information I'd just put something in both places. My preferred version would be Shore Leave having a prep that said (a) no turning back once you start this, and (b) see Ambush#Prep for possible combat preparations. Cattlesquat (talk) 13:57, October 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, why not. Definitely the no-turning-back mention at the start of Shore Leave, and to avoid unnecessary dupe info maybe the link would suffice, just like you said. Elseweyr (talk) 14:35, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

HEY
What do you think you're doing? That BELONGED there in the trivia section of Purgatory. I'm getting really tired of...ahhh fck it. Draven Mephilés of Faerûn (talk) 19:50, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I recommend reading the article. Elseweyr (talk) 19:51, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * yeah sorry. Draven Mephilés of Faerûn (talk) 19:52, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * 's alright :p Elseweyr (talk) 19:54, October 7, 2013 (UTC)

Reversions of edits
Hello - I was recently made aware you had made a number of reverts to my edits, with summaries labelled "copyediting". While labelling them as such is perhaps inaccurate, I believe the edits are improvements in stylistics, and I am not entirely sure what caused you to revert them. As well as this, you did not notify me of any systematic error in procedure.

I found this particularly offensive and somewhat contrary to the nature of wikis, especially the general wiki consensus (eg this wikipedia article, which while not binding on this wiki, I feel is relevant |on ownership of articles).

I may partially edit over your reversions in an attempt to reach a consensus, but I would like to hear your rationale for your reversions as well so that this conflict can be understood. Techhead7890 Talk 14:29, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not my responsibility to "notify you" of possible errors, but alright. Could you perhaps provide me with a link to said edits, or at least tell me which pages are concerned? Elseweyr ( talk ) 14:38, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Special:Contributions/Techhead7890:


 * Vanguard Guide
 * Throw
 * Rachni Soldier
 * (UNC: Listening Post Alpha - although I can agree with your edits there)


 * While I agree that it is not a requirement of standard editing, you were systematically involved in reverting several edits made the same editor. Generally speaking I felt it would be a courtesy to notify them that they were making errors at some point, especially if you were wikistalking their contribs.


 * Regarding each, it seems to me that the main sticking point is that you disagree with the fact that they were copyedits, which I acknowledge may be the case. However, I would contend that they were fine as general edits and did not see why they warranted reversion - therefore leading to this. Techhead7890 Talk 14:43, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The more I look at it, the more reasonable your reverts become, especially as I reread the diffs and summaries, and realise how late it is at the moment (and how unclear my current thinking is). I think I may have over-reacted when writing this - that being said, I'm still shocked that you made four edits against another editor's without noticing it was the same person. Techhead7890 Talk 14:52, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

First off, monitoring the RC &ne; "wikistalking" someone's contributions (and technically I don't "revert", but undo since I don't have rollback powers). I only had time to look at the Vanguard Guide edit since you posted again, but that edit was essentially a "multiple problems" one and to be honest, I don't think there was much to save.

If you're not clearly improving or correcting articles but instead make subjective changes – such as changing acceptable wording or spelling to also acceptable wording or spelling – others are much more likely to disagree with them, which makes it inadvisable to engage in such editing in the first place. If someone makes an edit and someone else disagrees, the burden of proof lies on the one who wants the change, not the other way around.

If you want to justify your edit, you bring it up on the relevant article's Talk page or, if you wish to know exactly why it was removed, you can contact the user directly. Elseweyr ( talk ) 15:06, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough on RC, the quality of the edit itself, and subjective changes. Thank you very much for your response. However, I'm confused with what exactly you meant in the last paragraph about responding to undos - I assume you mean that the onus is on that editor to find the other (undo-ing) editor and ask them if they want a reason/comment? Techhead7890 Talk 15:15, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * "The burden of proof lies on the one who wants the change" – when a page is edited, a change is made and the page is no longer in its initial state. When an edit is undone, the page returns to its initial state. Therefore, "the one who wants the change" refers to the one who makes the edit, not the one who undoes it.
 * You make an edit and someone undoes it, it's up to you to explain why your edit should stand. If the one who undid it doesn't yield, the one argument for the edit is cancelled by the one against it. In that case you'll need more support, which is gained by posting on a Talk page or sometimes by someone else stepping in to defend your edit directly. "Revert*****" out. Elseweyr ( talk ) 15:49, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * I see, and that makes sense in a roundabout way.
 * Regarding that comment - it was not directed at you in particular, but as a reflection at my fustration with every/anyone using the burden of proof system which is employed by many editors (which, admittedly, include yourself) at this wiki. Which is not a common system from what I'm aware, but I assume it has its merits if you have active users, being very effective in maintaining article quality. That being said, I am still saddened my edits are not considered helpful. I am not ready to scrutinize my edits for the quality required here, and I am in no position to change either the culture of editors; and so to avoid these conflicts (which as he pointed out, annoy everyone) I have resigned myself to having to leave. With a certain amount of regret and emotionality on the side. Techhead7890 Talk 16:03, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't I who made it up, and I'm not following any "burden of proof system;" it's just a principle that happens to apply pretty well to editing, among other things.

Very touching valediction, but if you are the sincere newcomer you claim to be and merely aggrieved at not being considered helpful, at least have the wits to remove the profanities you spewed on that other user's talk page. Elseweyr ( talk ) 21:35, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had reached a conclusion that that comment was unnecessary and uncalled for, especially as it was the result of an overreaction/momentary lapse in judgement. My apologies to you as an editor upholding the policies this wiki's community has ascribed to. While I do not personally agree with the use of this principle nor the fact that it is not clearly pointed out to new editors, I can respect the use of the principle as one with merits, and one that the ME Wiki community has chosen.


 * Thank you for your civil handling of this matter - I can say it has been the most helpful of all dispute discussions in identifying the root problem (ie, key points of difference in this wiki's policy). I have investigated the issue more thoroughly and will return at a later date when I am ready to actively correct my newbie mistakes and make such improvements to my editing, as implicitly suggested per your final reply to the User_talk:Elseweyr thread above. Again, thank you for your considered reply to this, and apologies for the time spent and problems caused. Techhead7890 Talk 22:27, November 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * Despite the comment you posted – for which there was no excuse – I'm going to assume good faith and accept your apology.
 * I'm in no position to tell you what to do, but my humble advice is to avoid the type of edits you've made recently: they are substantial in that loads of words are replaced with others, and though some changes might have been slight structure or fluency improvements, you did change some meanings and omit some valid information for seemingly no reason. This can be difficult to detect when reviewing differences between page versions, and verifying or cleaning up after such edits is tedious and time-consuming work.
 * Bottomline: unless a text is clearly ungainly and hard to follow, it might be better to stick to correcting more obvious errors for now. Don't worry too much about making mistakes, however; the only thing that matters is whether you learn from them. Elseweyr ( talk ) 11:10, November 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would not - and do not - accept that standard of insult, regardless of fustration or circumstance. Sadly, what's done is done, but I thank you for your magnanimosity.


 * I am also in agreement regarding the type of edits that I should be making, and I think it may be worth going into more substantial cleanup rather than opportunistic editing, especially on the regard of hasty changes resulting in unwanted changes. I can see now why reversion and burden-of-proof principles are so common - I am used to editing on articles less frequented by editors (backwater wikis, uninteresting topics to the general public on Wikipedia) where opportunism is welcomed. I had a similar conflict when editing on Wikipedia for the first time quite recently and was enlightened to see the explanation given by that editor regarding my word choices and their implications. Kudos to you and your fellow editors for being so diligent in that regard! I will take your advice wholeheartedly on board. Techhead7890 Talk 02:31, November 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal, but thanks, regardless. We're short on regular editors at the moment, so any contributions and improvements are welcome.
 * Since you have been targeting a couple of class guides recently (which are clumsy and can definitely benefit from smoother and clearer wording), you might want to check out a current project to improve them a little bit. Input and comments are appreciated :) Elseweyr ( talk ) 09:33, November 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made some replies (and am praying TE78 doesn't rip into them). I have multiple issues with the MOS as is probably visible. I am indeed very much interested in guide writing and have been analysing a number of them in preparation for writing my own personal ones - Per Jorner's Fallout 2 ones are quite impressive; WoW theorycraft is extremely deep; High-school academic notes are sometimes succinct, sometimes rambles. I think it's quite important to keep a strong interest in mechanical analysis as a basis for guides, as well. Techhead7890 Talk 10:14, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Warning the Newbies
While I sympathise with the shortage of regulars, I am quite concerned with the almost blatant disregard for newbies that borders on. The "don't bite" approach used by Wikipedia is specifically designed to increase accessibility and so editor recruitment. My main concern with the wikiculture here is seen in the the section "Ignorantia juris may excuse". While I agree that opportunistic editors' disruption is to be avoided and removed - it seems that editors here are quick to revert without warning, making the editors and environment appear harsh to newcomers. I think it would be helpful to create some informative templates so that warnings can be distributed to newbie talk pages easily, in the event that they create edits that are contentious (for example, synthesis in cleanup edits). As well as this, informing newbies of the "law" and the more direct (and very efficient) systems of the wiki should be a priority. I'd be happy to make some up if you think it's a good idea. I might also ask User:Cattlesquat about this, as he seems to be interested in getting new editors. Techhead7890 Talk 10:14, November 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * We have that template and those "laws" already: they're called the welcoming message, the Manual of Style, and the Community Guidelines. I don't see editors "get bitten" here except when they behave badly on their own accord or persist in breaking policy despite being informed of it.
 * While no-one's expected to know all the guidelines, they're really not that hard to find and having glanced at them before you start editing is really not that much to ask. If someone's edits are reverted, it's no big deal: one can always ask why, and the answer is usually in the guidelines, anyway.
 * If some user has been editing along undesired lines, it's happened that a reg or admin has taken the initiative to post pointers on said user's talk page. Nothing is stopping you from making or using a warning template, but I personally don't see the need for it – and I can't say I like the idea of handing out "warnings" to newcomers just because they don't get it right immediately. All the information and help you need is never more than a couple of clicks away; making use of it requires very little effort. Elseweyr ( talk ) 10:06, November 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * I mean no disrespect for the policy - I just couldn't find the word for it - but I think there's a certain step from random passers-by (who are potential editors) to involved people. That step being to actually read the policy as above. There's very much the potential for perspective difference - the many whinings about reverts being a prime example. "Bad behaviour" is very subjective from a personal POV but not at all from the wiki-guidelines' perspective. And so making sure everyone's on the same page (and policy) is something quite important for the community to function.


 * No, more importantly, the reason why I want to create templates is to provide a quick basis on which to resolve these issues more efficiently for everyone; in less time, and with less conflict/personal outrage. I personally had such a moment, as you most likely recall. Many a newbie is confused at the least - offended, at the worst when someone reverts their edits without explanation. While not necessarily a warning, an explanation can be very useful in clarifying the situation, and providing a template makes the task of easier. I imagine you regulars have far better things to do than go around explaining policy to newbies. And while the process of asking and inviting dispute sometimes leads to development of editors - simply letting them study it for themselves can be equally as developing, as you've pointed out. The point is to improve the process for everyone - putting information in the minds of newbies, making it hassle-free for regulars in their daily cleanups. I guess I should get started making one in my userspace. Techhead7890 Talk 04:02, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Hi
I left post on one of your blogs and forgot to introduce myself. I'm Echolett and I'm pleased to meet you. :)