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.

Achievement edit, Tactician
The achievement edit for Tactician is a word for word copy of the in game text. Jandraelune 17:29, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * And that is where you are incorrect. I'm looking at it right now, and I see what is on the page before you changed it. I have since resorted it, as I did the last time for the same reason, and because I checked it both times. Lancer1289 18:34, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #1
Removal fo confirmation power, addition on unsourced informaiton

Really?

http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=Powers_(Mass_Effect_3)&action=history
 * Um yes because that is exactly what you did. You removed sourced information and added unsourced information. Lancer1289 19:33, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why unsourced? All references is here


 * 11:45, January 7, 2012 Pragz (→Base Powers: https://twitter.com/#!/manveerheir/status/155561030322368512)


 * 11:36, January 7, 2012 Pragz (→Base Powers: https://twitter.com/#!/manveerheir/status/155458753238540288)


 * 11:31, January 7, 2012 Pragz (Talk | contribs) (5,148 bytes) (→Base Powers: http://i.minus.com/iVxig6HB1U7qs.jpg https://twitter.com/#!/manveerheir/status/155561094730100736)


 * 11:19, January 7, 2012 Pragz (Talk | contribs) (5,144 bytes) (→Base Powers: https://twitter.com/#!/manveerheir/status/155522110717042688)

Pragz 19:40, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * No it was not sourced because you added no sourcing information when you made the edits. When you added/modified the information, you did not add any sourcing information. All you did was modify the article and gave no reason for the modifications. It is not our job to so scrambling around the internet looking to where you got your information. It is your job when you add information to source it upon addition. It is not an unreasonable, irrational, or illogical request. The bottom line is that if you do not source the information when you add it. Do not come saying to someone after the fact, "I don't understand. Why unsourced? All references is here" as that is a slap in the face because now we have to go back and put the information back in when, if it was sourced, we could have just modified it to be in line with site policies. Yet, you did not source it when you added it, and that is a problem. Unsourced information gets removed on sight. Source your information when you add it next time, or it will get removed without question.
 * The fact you are presenting it now tells me something, and does nothing to change the facts. You added unsourced information, and then only when you are called out on it, do you present your sources. That is not how it is supposed to work. You add or modify information, you source it when you do. You do not present it after the fact after someone calls you out on it. Now I have to go back and put the information back in, correctly. Lancer1289 19:53, January 7, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #2
Hi I was notified that you edited the page regarding ME3's combat section on the main page ME3, and I want to apologize for editing with speculation. I was not aware of the rule regarding this and I understand why you saw that needed to be fixed. But I've done some research that contains proof of that what I edited was correct. Forgive me for not doing so before. The provided link will take you to a video on YouTube that shows that the Cannibal enemies are in fact a suppressor type enemy using projectile weapons. I hope this helps, and we can strive to make this wiki the best it can be. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK9okbVXLAA
 * Actually it doesn't even remotely help as it is immediately invalid. We do not under any circumstances accept leaked information, therefore the video is irrelevant. Even then calling it a suppressor-type enemy is completely subjective, and cannot be put into an article. Lancer1289 00:17, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Lancer1289,and for telling me about not posting leaked information. I'll keep that in mind in the future.--SovietKomodo 01:35, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

An overdue apology...
Remember way back when, when I flipped out at you? I've been re-reading that, and I don't even know what I was thinking. While you have a certain style with how you go about business that tends to rub people the wrong way, you do things differently and I have to respect that, even if it has irked me in the past. And, re-reading it again, I sounded like some rambling kid that didn't have his facts straight. I'd just like to apologize for criticizing you and such. I hope that this doesn't create any more tensions between us. :) LordDeathRay 02:40, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it being that, and the apology is accepted. I had honestly forgotten about it. Lancer1289 03:12, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

It's funny...
Because SlayerEGO1342 seems to be implying that, if you don't swear prodigiously on an internet encyclopedia based on a sci-fi video game, you don't live in the real world. Ah, the irony... Anywho, as someone who: A) Lives in the real world; B) Generally can't go four words without an obscenity in day-to-day conversation; and C) Somehow still manages to have the prerequisite maturity, respect, and self-control to restrain profane language when in an environ where such language is not appropriate or permitted, I find SlayerEGO's implication to be, at best, laughable. :) SpartHawg948 07:21, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes that is rather funny. Lancer1289 13:24, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between not being allowed to swear prodigiously and not being allowed to swear AT ALL. I, too, have the maturity, respect, and self-control to refrain from using profanities in such an environment, as you can well see. (in an attempt to waylay any disagreements with this fact, I'll point out that my brushes with the language policy have been for arguable, perceived insults, not profanities) My implication, however, is that this should NOT be an environment where such language is neither appropriate nor permitted. In fact, I think the very idea that such language is "inappropriate" on this website is counter-intuitive; if the game that gave birth to this website contains swearing (NOTE: not prodigious swearing as you mistakenly allege that I condone, but the occasional curse word which has become a mainstay of day-to-day conversation in the real world), then swearing is, by the very definition of the word "appropriate", APPROPRIATE on this website. SlayerEGO1342 18:16, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Specious reasoning if ever I saw. The game that birthed this site contains insults. Should we be free to insult one another? I'm not seeing anyone argue in favor of that. The game also contains numerous examples of capricious killings. Should we apply that to the wiki as best we can, making it acceptable for admins to permanently ban users on a whim? Of course not. "It's in the game" is not a valid defense here. As for the part about swearing prodigiously, you were encouraging Lancer "to accommodate people such as Hunter Zealot and [your]self". Hunter Zealot does swear prodigiously, if his more recent comments and statements are any indication. So yes, by advocating that Lancer accommodate someone who swears prodigiously, who you willingly grouped yourself in with, you were condoning prodigious swearing. No mistaken allegations involved, just your own words. It's called choosing wisely the company you keep. You should try it some time. SpartHawg948 21:49, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 2 Tweaks
 14:19, January 13, 2012 Lancer1289 (Talk | contribs) (44,915 bytes) (Undo revision 231227 by UbiSergei (talk)Formatted that way for a reason) (undo)

What's the reason exactly? That construction was redundant.
 * Why do people leave a link to something that they mention in the title? This always puzzles me because it is quote obvious what is being talked about, so why the link?
 * On the topic, the reason it is formatted that way is because to reduce the cram on the code that is in the tables. The way the pages work is that only the code is allowed in the tables, and if something else supports it, then another area is made to support it. The way you did it was counter to how the rest of the page works as it could have lead to confusion. Not to mention that it makes editing the code easier when there is no link there. Lancer1289 15:34, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the account mayham.
I'm sorry for the mess I made and appreciate you helping me sort it out. Sincerely--Echo-Scythe 00:45, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * It’s fine. Just remember that Wikia isn't like an MMO where you could create multiple characters or something like that. It's a one shot deal. Lancer1289 01:53, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * There are some wikis that are OK with it, but these tend to be exceptions --  Random Time  12:29, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the policy here though and I thought it was over the entire network. Apparently not. Lancer1289 12:33, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets alone aren't terms of use violations, using them to troll or vandalize are, however --  Random Time  12:44, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Except we don't allow one person to have multiple accounts. Under any circumstances. We define that as sockpuppety as well. Lancer1289 12:46, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine - you're allowed as an admin to make policies like that --  Random Time  12:48, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Except I didn't set that, Spart did when a situation came up where we had a similar problem. Lancer1289 12:50, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Equipment Page Revision
Right then. I don't know if you recieve updates about talk pages you've posted in, or if you have a solid feel on the wiki's pulse. Because you and I are, to date, the only involved parties, I wanted to make sure you knew about the fact that I did overhaul the Equipment page (in a sandbox) and post about it in the Projects Forum, as you suggested. I figured the most reliable way to make sure you knew was to message you directly. Because of my poor understanding of the Wiki sandbox system, it's located at User:FoxtrotZero/Sandbox/Equipment where it awaits reviewal and, hopefully, acceptance. The page for discussing that can be found at Forum:Overhaul_for_Equipment. I'd appreciate if you'd look those pages over when you have the time, and bring anyone you deem important into the loop (i.e., other admins and/or veteran members). -- Foxtrot Zero  23:51, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect Infographic Resources
Hello I just added two infographics I made for ME1 and ME2 displaying side missions in the mass effect galaxy. I was wondering if I could get them added into the wiki in the places they belong instead of just in a pile of 4k photos. I feel they might be useful.

VirtualAlex 17:32, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately they cannot be put into articles as they are fan created material. We already have this information covered in a number of places, UNC: Valuable Minerals being one of them, Upgrade Guide being another, along with individual articles, and a large graphic would not only break up the articles, as formatting would be a challenge, but we already have the information covered in numerous other places. And again, we don't accept material like that. Lancer1289 17:36, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

That's a bummer I thought maybe a downloadable/printable resource might be valuable.

216.161.26.184 21:14, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to post them on your user page for your own personal reference, there is nothing against that. I should also let you know that they are currently up for deletion and right now they will be deleted in a week. That is the only way I can think of for them staying on the site in some capacity. And please make sure you log in next time. Lancer1289 21:17, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

I owe you an apology...
And here I am to deliver it. I did post this on the page where the incident took place, but I don't know what pages you do or don't follow, and if you're like me, you don't follow any of them. You might not be like me, in that I'm not busy and I honestly tab to the "recent wiki activity" page every several minutes, hoping something has happened that might draw my interest. So because I want to be proactive and gentlemanly about this, I decided the way to make sure you recieve my message is to take it directly to your talk page.

On the talk page for Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer, I said Far as I can tell, Lancer hasn't ripped this down and made his case about sourcing as of yet. And you took offence when you read that. Which is fully in your right. I didn't mean to offend you when I said it, though. I guess I have a rough-about-the-edges personality, and I'm poor about second guessing that my good intentions might not translate in some of the more acidic ways I format them. What you percieved as an insult was a semi-literal interpretation of something you do that I praise.

When the random passerby posts content on the wiki that is unsourced or unconfirmed, you're very often the first person on to come by and remove the content. You're also very good about making sure the people responsible are familiar with the wiki's policy regarding these things, and while you've taken flak and labeled negatively because of what people percieve to be your iron-fistedness, it's actually your adherence to the wiki's policy and the fact that you're most frequently it's enforcer.

What you do is great for the integrity of the Mass Effect wiki. If it weren't for you, it would be in much worse condition, content wise. When I made the statement, my point was that you had yet to remove the content and claim it as unconfirmed, as you had done every time someone else had posted that quarians were confirmed, and often linked to leaked content. This time, you didn't. But at the same time, I couldn't clearly determine that you were convinced the content ought to be kept.

So I hope I've made it undeniably clear that I didn't intend to insult you. For past and future reference, if I want to insult someone, I'll make it absolutely clear, but I haven't had a reason to do that and nor do I forsee one. I'm probably going to say things in the future that will inadvertently offend people; and that person may well be you, because between your devotion and my eagerness, we bump into one another alot. It's all but certainly a problem with my communication skills, coupled with the fact that you're not the most familiar with my personality, and sarcasm or other inflections translate poorly over the internet. I just hope you can keep in mind that I mean no offence, and if anything I ever say does offend you, I should hope you bring it to my attention.

Regards,  Foxtrot Zero  04:03, January 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Broseph, I'm trying to be the gentleman here. Not to accuse you of otherwise, but I know you've been online since I've posted this, and I know wiki notifies you of new posts on your talk page. I kinda feel like you're ignoring me by not posting something, and after my attempt to make amends here, that feels like a slap to the face. -- Foxtrot Zero  19:03, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * And until now, I saw literally nothing that I saw that indicated a response was necessary. It was thought out, concise, and didn't seem like it needed a response, as nothing in the comment seemed to indicate that it did.
 * That said, I'm beyond furious right now for what you did on User talk:Jeff150‎‎. You took it upon yourself to interpret my comments and put words into my mouth. As stated on that page, that is the one thing I do not tolerate, I absolutely cannot stand, and hate beyond anything else. That to me is nothing more or less than a personal insult as it never ends well, and never goes the way anyone expects. Every time I do it to someone else, which happens very rarely, I most profusely apologize for putting words in their mouth that weren't supposed to be there in the first place. I feel quite ashamed of myself when I do it, which is why I try to avoid doing so in the first place, but it has happened way to often here and frankly it was first annoying, then a few incidents right in a row pushed it over the edge and turned a simple disagreement into a massive argument. Text based communication makes it easier to do, but it still something that creates a misleading representation of what I actually said, and paints what I say in the wrong light. Lancer1289 01:06, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel I did that. But frankly, when I happened upon the incident, you were having trouble articulating your point to him. He made it clear that his understanding of English was poor. I took it upon myself to cater to his linguistic disability, and I had to simplify my statement beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don't know exactly how proficient he is or isn't, so I had to bring the idea to it's simplest level. My emphasis was on making him understand what you said, not preserving the exact wording. So, again, I apologize if I've offended you, but if you were that concerned about it, perhaps you should have taken it upon yourself to simplify your english. I find your argument of I literally cannot simplify my language any further or I won't be able to read it to be rather difficult to believe, particularly since I was able to do it.
 * As for the 'response unnecessary', I can understand where you're coming from. It would be a lie to say people haven't become upset at me for not responding when I should have, because I simply didn't see it as necessary. But nonetheless, I think a gesture such as the one I made warrants at least an acknowledgement, particularly because this is the internet, and I have no way of knowing if you've even read what I've said unless you tell me so.
 * Furthermore, this is the exact sort of contingency I warned might happen. We're both relatively active members, you for your business and me for my eagerness, and we clearly have a difference of character. I understand if I've caused you insult, but again, that wasn't and never will be my intention, and I hope you'll bear with me in the interests of more than an argument between us. I feel like it's easy for me to upset you, and that's not something I like doing, but even at my best will happen now and again, and I think it's very important, and only fair to those around us, that we develop the ability to interact without conflict. -- Foxtrot Zero  04:13, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Garrus Trivia
This can be confirmed. You can only select that dialogue option on the Normandy. It is a mistake for him to say "here on Omega." --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:07, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated, it requires more because that usually leads right into some form of story dialogue and there are a few other issues. Because of that, a video to back it up to show that dialogue would be good. Lancer1289 01:12, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

This link will take you to the YouTube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54cG2GCpmVM It starts at about 8:03. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:20, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ok I watched the video from 7:00 until the conversation with Garrus ended. I'm not sure what you are talking about but I cannot find what dialogue you are quoting. I never heard "here on Omega". Lancer1289 01:28, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

No wait, Shepard says it. It is still a Garrus dialogue however, thus it would be better to keep it there, I think. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:33, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very leery of that as Garrus doesn't say it and I really can't call it an oversight per se, since more than likely, that conversation happens when the Normandy is still docked with Omega. Lancer1289 01:37, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

I did consider that, but it is possible to have that conversation anywhere else isn't it? --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:40, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * True and true. But I'm thinking that it was written that way to show a slip up. There are plenty of times where "here" could be used accidently when talking about a place, even if you aren't there. I've done it more than a few times. Lancer1289 01:44, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

True. I suppose it isn't necessarily a mistake on BioWare's part (because they are Gods), but possibly Shepard. I believe it is at least worth mentioning, with some tweaks. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:46, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then bring it up on the talk page and get some input about it because I'm fresh out of ideas. Lancer1289 01:48, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for your time. Now get back to somehow being everywhere at once :) --The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:53, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that feeling all too well, and not in a good way. Lancer1289 01:57, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #3
yo lancer i undid your edit of my contrib to the collector's edition

i dont understand why you seem to think the dlc is free when you PAID for the collector's edition which gave you access to the extra things.

the dlc isnt included in the game as you seem to think, its called DOWNLOADABLE content because its downloadable. and the key is only available to collector edition owners, just like in me2 with the cerberus network stuff
 * Seriously, can anyone read what I have posted at the top of my talk page. It's right there when you open the page?
 * As to the question, it is free because it comes included with the Collector's Edition of the game. If you had to pay for it separately, then you'd have a case, but you don't. You are paying for the game, and you just happened to get a few extra things along with it as a "thank you". Therefore, the content is free because it is bundled with the game. And is it so hard to ask for people to use proper grammar... Lancer1289 22:07, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #4
Hey there Lancer. i just joined this site. check out all the time but wasn't sure about getting into it. Anyway, i noticed you're certainly on the up and up about Mass Effect. i was contacting you because i saw you had posted the Morality Guide for the games. i had a question if it's ok. from what you put in the guide, you did confirm that you can't go through the game WITHOUT getting renegade points even if you are working solely on a paragon character? i noticed that i always come away with renegade points when i'm not trying to. anyway info would be greatly appreciated. thank you for your time
 * What edit are you referring to in particular? Because I'm lost as I've made a lot of edits. Lancer1289 17:33, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

it has to do with gaining morality points in Mass Effect 2. sorry. like i said, i just joined on here
 * Ok I'm still unsure, but I'll take a stab at it. If you are talking about the entire Morality Guide (Mass Effect 2) article, then yes, it is impossible to go through either game without getting at least one point in either paragon or renegade. You will always get at least one point in them through the course of the game, usually unintentionally. Many of the big decisions will be exclusive, but there are those side points that will give you a point here and a point there. Lancer1289 01:55, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Thank you for clarifying that for me though. I always created a pure Paragon Shepard through ME1 but always wondered why I unintentionally gained Renegade points. Again, thank you

IRC is a must
Hey there Lancer, I'm a Patroller on the Elder Scrolls Wiki. I see that this wiki does not have an IRC. This is not great, Mass Effect 3 is almost upon us, and many people will be wanting to ask for personal advice on levels. Advice they would like from Editors. Although the messaging system is great, everyone's talkpage will be flooded. We managed to activate IRC just before Skyrim, thank god we did. Just friendly advice. Commander Faol 19:16, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Every time the issue has come up, the issue dies because no one is interested in monitoring it, or participating it in. So calling it a "must" is subjective to say the least. Considering this has happened I think at least four times now. We just don't have the desire to open one, or to maintain one for that matter considering how quickly the matter dies. Always within three days. Lancer1289 19:25, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #5
Thanks for the message. I was wondering if you could tell me how to...

A - Add links to other pages B - create new titles for sections (e.g, A squadmates section in a tactics group.)

Thanks for the help!!!
 * Both of these things can be found just by looking at an article.
 * Links
 * Section Titles are either two, three or four "=" on both sides of the text.
 * And please don't point squadmate tactics into articles as they would be nothing more than a repeat of what is already in there. Lancer1289 21:04, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Why shift?
kenson's troops at the project base are indoctrinated and fighting to bring about the arrival. Why not shift their labeled faction?

BeoW0lfe 17:46, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not leave it as it was? It was originally put that way for a reason, because they are affiliated with "The Project" first and are allied with the Reapers. Therefore, their faction is "The Project", not the "Reapers". This comes directly from history where you can have multiple armies from different countries allied with each other fighting, but they are still ID'd by the individual countries. Using WWII as an example, "First American Army", "British Eighth Army", "French First Army", "German Eleventh Army", "Romanian Third Army", and so on and so on. Lancer1289 17:52, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * And in the future, hit the "Leave Message" button, rather than editing the whole page for reasons I give at the top. Lancer1289 17:53, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because im on an ipad. Whenever i click leave message it sends it to the page... Sorry bout that. :/

BeoW0lfe 17:57, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Which is another reason why I don't edit from my phone, I have more than my fair share of lists, in addition to the annoying small screen size. Controls often don't work they way they are supposed to, and I've noticed that for every non-full computer device. Tables, phones, or even tablet PCs at times. If that means I have to lug around my laptop. I'm fine with that. Lancer1289 18:11, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Counterargument though, once one has become indoctrinated, their loyalty shifts. Take saren, or the indoctrinated salarians on virmire, they were no longer loyal to the council or the STG respectively. These troops had no care for the project anymore, they were concerned with making sure the project WAS NOT finished. Instead offinishing the job, they had a total shift, trying to prevent shepard from completeing it.

BeoW0lfe 18:01, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) But, they aren't husks, or some variant of them that we've seen. If they were husks, then it wouldn't be an issue. The issue here is "The Project" switch sides, making them still members of the Project, but instead of being allied to I'd say the Alliance or the Council, they are now allied to the Reapers. It is really splitting hairs on how they are allied, but don't forget at the end, the Reapers abandoned them like they would any Allied Forces when they ceased to become useful.
 * Saren was allied to the Reapers, but he was still able to fight back. Only once Sovereign changed the stakes could be really be considered loyal. Don't forget though, that everyone else under him was loyal to him. Therefore Saren's forces are really allied with the Reapers as they use Saren as an intermediary. This would be no different than several examples I can drum up like a leader of a mercenary group being a council member in a town. His forces are allied with the town, but are not members of say its guard or militia, they are still mercs. Another example is the Heretic Geth. They were allied with the Reapers in the same way. Lancer1289 18:11, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Understand here, I'm not trying to be pissy, but werent the heretic geth loyal to Nazarra? I thought legion said something about them obeying saren exclusively for his knowledge of organoc tactics. And yes *groan* you are right, the project does still exist, simply with an ironic turn of objective. I'm trying to build a personal database pertaining to the tactical world war element of Mass Effect 3 when it arrives.

BeoW0lfe 18:22, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Side note while i have your attention, should "reaper" be included as a type? Being an organic-synthetic hybrid? I was considering editing the human reaper's page to add that.

BeoW0lfe 18:25, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the geth saw Saren as a profit for the Reapers, and obeyed him because of that. Were the heretics allied to with the Reapers? Yes, but they followed Saren because of his "profit" status. Legion does break it down a little further, I forget the exact dialogue, but they were allied with the Reapers, were allied with Saren, and followed Saren because of his status, and the fact he communicated directly with Sovereign/Nazara. Remember that Sovereign didn't like the geth or what they threw at it, Sovereign saw them as tools, like Saren, but Saren could do more than they could, and from the details we can gleam from the story, Saren found Sovereign first, then the geth joined them. We do know for Mass Effect 3 that Cerberus is allied with the Reapers, but is still an independent entity, like the Project.
 * As to Reaper being a type, I'm not sure what you mean. Lancer1289 19:11, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Reapers are neither synthetic nor organic. Would the hybrid type be called "reaper"?

BeoW0lfe 19:19, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I see what you are getting at. Currently, we haven't had a need to establish one yet, and that is something that we may or may not have to depending on what happens in ME3. If we have to, then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. We've only talked to Reapers so far, we haven't fought any directly...yet. Lancer1289 19:31, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #6
The Prothean Page Yea sorry, i assumed that since also a dev of mass effect tweeted about the new squadmate it could be ok, his twitter is CroGamer002
 * No it isn't because that is an unconfirmed twitter account. Because of the nature of social media, we will only take confirmed twitter accounts for sources. If it is unconfirmed, then it isn't valid for a source. And under no circumstances will we take leaked information, by site policy. Lancer1289 15:17, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Email
Hey Lancer, if you could check your email that'd be great. You should have a few from Spart about something we've been working on.

Cheers. JakePT 13:27, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting around to it. I usually check the wiki and then check my email. Don't worry they were on top, so I'll get around to them. No promises however about getting them before I have to leave for class as I have to leave in the next 15 minutes. I will read them however before 9:30 CST, or in the next two hours. Lancer1289 13:30, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, classes are more important, but the sooner the better, since we're trying to fast track something. Commdor's not up yet though, so you're in no particular rush. Cheers.JakePT 13:33, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Check your email, but it wasn't a hard decision, and I threw in a suggestion as well. Anyway, now I have to get going because it takes me a half hour to get to school and my class stars in 45 minutes. Lancer1289 13:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #7
I edited the http://masseffect.wikia.com/index.php?title=Alliance_News_Network&s=wl because I there is no proof that its "The Chinese Peoples Alliance" rather the Asian reporter is speaking Japanese not Chinese. There for as we know nothing about the Federation I changed it.

I know this because I speak Chinese and a little Japanese.
 * Seriously? Again? Can anyone follow simple instructions anymore? I ask people to make a new message, and yet people just edit the whole page. Why? And why do people keep posting links when it is obvious what is being discussed?
 * As to the question, I have only your word for that, and that isn't remotely enough. You need hard evidence, and so far you don't have it. Also see Talk:Alliance News Network. Lancer1289 15:32, February 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Lancer1289, A)Nothing happened before B)The Wiki update email sent me here. I am only pointing out that he is not part of The Chinese Federation, and we don't know enough of what Bioware have done for the story. But I do know... He speaking Japanese. Nothing about China or the Chinese Federation is talked about at all in the trailer. there for the information NEEDS to be changed.
 * And again, we have only your word on that, and that isn't remotely enough. Get some proof and then it can go in, but for now the best solution is already in place. Lancer1289 16:25, February 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, he IS speaking Japanese, not Chinese - where did that info come from in the first place? I do speak Japanese and he's saying 地球は現在、奇妙な静かさに包まれたのです. (Chikyuu wa genzai, kimyou na shizukasa ni tsutsumareta no desu. - Right now the world is shrouded in peculiar silence.) The headline says 防衛艦隊が撃破された可能性 (Boueikantai ga gekiha sareta kanousei - Military defence fleet possibly destroyed). I don't know what better evidence you demand than people actually knowing the language and saying it's Japanese. Knuff 10:14, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * If it helps anything, the languages that are spoken in the trailer are English (obviously, or does someone need proof for that?), French, German, Japanese and French again. I speak all of them if someone wants to add what exactly is being said but I don't see the need for evidence. Knuff 10:20, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * And again we have only your word that you speak whatever languages, and that isn't enough. I thought I made this clear two weeks ago. Get actual evidence, not "I speak this" as that isn't proof. Lancer1289 13:18, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. You won't find any official press release saying something like "Oh and by the way, that newscaster is talking Japanese." You not only have 'my word for it' but the actual text that is being said and the headline, put them into Google Translate or whatever and see for yourself, that it is 1. Japanese and 2. the exact same words from that trailer. I absolutely understand the need to source information but sometimes you just got to take our word for something as that is all the evidence you are going to get. 'And again' what source did you have for accepting China and even reverting Japan back to China again? Where does it say that? Knuff 21:36, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * No what is ridiculous is that you are asking me to take your word and your word alone. The reasons given for listing China are noted on the Talk:Alliance News Network page.
 * Either get a source for the information, or it won't go back in. End of story. Your word is not even remotely enough, nor is it in any case. Anyone can say they are anything and ask people to take their words for it. That has issues.
 * I will not comment further until you present a source saying that it is Japan. Lancer1289 21:43, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk page doesn't say why anyone ever came up with China in the first place. You won't (and I didn't) find any official source saying it's Japanese or Chinese, there's no need for that. I'm not simply asking you to take my word for anything, I encouraged you to check the text for yourself which you can do with e.g. Google without talking any Japanese - that's why I included the transcription as evidence. Well, I didn't want to argue about this, only wanted to help with some information. Knuff 10:10, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Human-Reaper Armament
we definitely need a source, but we need SOMETHING there more. He clearly has some kind of charge beam, but we need some specifics...

Your thoughts? Sorry for the delay, had class. BeoW0lfe 17:22, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually that has been the standard for quite some time now. Basically, if we don't know what the name of the attack is, then it is labeled as "Unknown". Visuals are not acceptable evidence in this case, nor any case really. Another example of how this is enforced is on the Harbinger (Collector) article. Three unknowns, because of that. Lancer1289 17:29, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, ill trust your wikiexp. It just really grinds my gears is all. BeoW0lfe 17:31, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Isnt his biotic attack warp thou? (not for edit purposes, for personal knowledge) BeoW0lfe 17:32, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm also certain I can find a few more as well, but that has been the standard. Get a good source, and then it can be changed.
 * As to the question that caused the conflict, I have no idea. Lancer1289 17:34, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, i didnt know this was a conflict. Would it be fair to say "unknown charge attack"? BeoW0lfe 17:41, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Which attack? All three he uses are listed. Video please. Lancer1289 17:47, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

I meant the human reaper. Cg is as detailed as it can currently be.BeoW0lfe 17:48, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * First what is "Cg" as I have no idea what you are talking about now. Second, "Unknown Charge Attack" implies that it is like Charge, and not what it actually is. Lancer1289 17:53, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Cg is collector general. And perhaps the human reaper wouls be listed as unknown charge beam? BeoW0lfe 17:59, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is why I try and use as few acronyms in conversation as possible unless I know for certin that the other person will know what I'm talking about.
 * Again though, it gives an incorrect impression as it clearly isn't one beam, but many. At this point, the name will remain "Unknown" until a source provides a better answer. Lancer1289 18:06, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

On the Early Access....
Just wanted to say Thanks for the directions regarding how to get my early access.

DLC material in the PS3 version
You'be deleted my edits regarding Katsumi DLC being included in the extended PS3 version. If you wanna call me a liar, feel free, but I'm holding onto the PS3 version that I bought yesterday and I spent 2 hours playing through the Katsumi DLC missions. If you need further proof: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/01/12/mass-effect-2-ps3-hits-psn-and-blu-ray-on-january-18th-more-than-a-simple-port/ 68.146.72.113 16:00, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

It may be in the ps3 version, but it's a hard copy of the dlc. (i hate saying this but) Lancer is right......again...BeoW0lfe 16:17, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * However, the issue you run into is the fact that the packs were included on the disk, and therefore they are still there, they are just installed rather than downloaded. If you read the Included Content section of the ME2 article, it talks about what comes with the PS3 version. Kasumi's pack is included, along with a few others. It’s just the medium that is different.
 * And if you can't comment without doing things like the second comment above, then don't. Lancer1289 18:14, February 3, 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Quotes
Lancer,

I know that you are probably busy, but I was wondering if you know how I could implement the quotes on this wiki onto another. I rather like the quotes from MEWiki, and was hoping to use them on Dante's Inferno Wiki. I am not exactly a code wizard, but if you know anything, I would appreciate the help.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 18:05, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * What quotes are you talking about exactly? The ones like at the top of Garrus's article? If that is the case, just use the blockquote template. It's standard on Wikia. Lancer1289 19:23, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Again, not a huge code wiz :) Thanks for the assistance.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 19:48, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Lancer1289 19:53, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Hey sorry to bother you, but it isn't working. I am having trouble implementing it and figuring out where the quote goes.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 20:02, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just link me to the page, and I'll take a look. Lancer1289 20:03, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'll need the quote as well. And I just made a discovery, and I fell like hitting my head over the nearest hard item. It's actually the Headquote template. My apologies. If it is still not working message me back. Lancer1289 20:06, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

I noticed :) I checked out the source page for Garrus, and added the quote to the wiki. I got it covered from here, a thousand thanks. And be sure to drink lots of Milk!

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 20:13, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Loki's Orbital Element Nomenclature
You removed the trivia line, and your reason supplied is incorrect. I started up a topic on the talk page to decribe in more detail. It certainly seems that such muck ups in the Mass Effect series are addressed as trivia, so it makes sense to me to mention it here. Both the idea that the terms mean the same thing and the idea that the "common" term is what is utilized is erroneous, and see no reason why it should not be mentioned on the page. --CrasVox 19:20, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why can't anyone follow directions anymore? I ask people to click the "new message" button, yet no one seems to listen.
 * I have already given my position on this, and it doesn't change. Lancer1289 19:25, February 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Your position is clearly wrong. And the fact that you feel your position should take precedent when demonstated as so is baffling.  You continue to disagree, your position is wrong, and I see no reason why that should validate your presistant un-do of the edit. If this is a wiki, why does an edit require approval anyway? CrasVox 02:42, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that my position should take precedent. I know for a fact I never said this so I call it what it is, a fallacy. I stated my opinion on this matter already and it hasn't changed. Lancer1289 02:56, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright then, you want to stick to literal interpretation, then I would expect you to not remove the edit when I post it up again. CrasVox 01:08, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly my position is lost on you. I will remove it again. I thought that would be obvious, but apparently not. Lancer1289 03:45, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * You stated your position as without precedent, so as I have already demonstrated as erroneous and without merit, any continued action to remove the edit would seem to counter the purpose of a wiki, or it is because you are irrational, and seem to not want to actually aknowledge the fact, or are incapable of doing so.

So I ask again, why does an edit that is not blatantly erroneous require permission or why your position takes precedent? CrasVox 16:33, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * So again I ask again, where do I say that my position takes precedent? Point that out. I never stated that it does yet you continue to force words down my throat, and I don't appreciate that. So stop doing it. As to the matter again, I stated my position and it doesn’t change. My position on this hasn't changed and all you state is your position on it. I have stated mine, so it's 1-1, and in that situation, nothing gets changed.
 * I also don't appreciate being insulted, which is against site policies. Lancer1289 17:12, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I am not putting any words in your mouth. I am commenting on your actions. I look at the banner and see this is a wiki site, yet your logic dictates that if you do not agree with something, then it shall not be posted. I brought this issue up here, and established a topic in the page in question's talk page to avoid an Edit War, which is what you want to drag this into. I saw something worth commenting on, looking at other pages here, it seems to me to fall in the catagory of Trivia. You removed it and stated your reason. Academically speaking, your reason is erroneous. I re-inserted the comment, you remove it stating your position is already clear. That demonstrates that your position as taking precedent. Words be damned, your actions is what I am addressing here. So turn it into an offense all you like, your logic creates a dynamic where if you do not agree, then an edit shall never be made, as it will always result in a 1-1 tally, and as you put it "Nothing gets changed"  Not only does it not makes sense, it seems to go against the very idea of what a Wiki is supposed to be. Your actions are contrary to what it says in site policies on what is regarded as neccessary for removal, and your response to the matter ventures on the beligerent.

So logic dictates again, since according to your own admission, that since your view does not take precedent, then when the edit is return to the page, it would not be taken down again, unless you can come up with a reason that is valid. I am not trying to read minds here or put words in your mouth. I can only go by what is done and what has been said. And right now, your actions are contradicting your claims in this dialogue. As in the spirit of how things tend to be done around here, I have stated my case in response to yours. The burden, as it is, lies now with you. And as evident by this lengthy reply, a simple statement re-emphasizing that you made an earlier remark, would not only be inappropriate, but is not even relevant anymore.CrasVox 18:47, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * And now you have actually broken the language policy so either watch your language or you will base a ban.
 * Second, the tally is one to one and nothing gets changed because of that reason. If you step back for ten seconds and look at it, then it actually does make sense. My position on it hasn't changed and you haven't presented the evidence to change my mind. Because someone has an issue with the edit, it isn't permitted, regardless of who it is. You returning the edit shows that you want what you want and don't care about someone else's opinion on the matter. Lancer1289 19:25, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to your direct reason for the edit. Both here and on the Loki talk page. And for convenience I will recap it here again. You said it is not a valid edit as Perigee and Apogee are the correct general terms for the Kepler elements of an orbit. I said this is erroneous. Anyone who has an understanding of Kepler knows this. Further and specific citation, I will in to Wikipedia, which certainly should be valid from one wiki to another

I will even quote directly the line contained within the is perteneant to the discussion: "Other orbital parameters can be computed from the Keplerian elements such as the period, apoapsis, and periapsis. (When orbiting the earth, the last two terms are known as the apogee and perigee.) "

That is as clear as it gets. As for chaning your mind, if you want to expand/amend your objection, then that can at least progress the disucssion further as opposed to this circuit that it appears to be trapped in now, but until then, your initial objection to be invalid, for it is flat out wrong. --CrasVox 20:44, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Quarian Edits
I just wanted to bring to your attention that Senor Action undid your edit on the Quarian again. I had to restore it, but it is turning into an edit war. --The Milkman | I always deliver. 00:56, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Turning into, it's been over for 5 minutes.--Legionwrex 00:57, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know, but I was afraid he would undo my edit again :)

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 01:03, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Legionwrex 01:04, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes, well he forced my hand. He has now been blocked for two weeks for edit warring. The problem here is that I doubt very much that he has any sort of handle on Mass Effect lore, or he wouldn't have changed it in the first place. Everyone knows that policy, and it actually works. I hope that in the next two weeks, he can get more of handle on the lore. Breaking site policy is never a good option, especially when he was warned twice by one user where he could possibly take his grievances. Yet he refused to listen, and now he has to deal with it. And now I have to go eat dinner. Lancer1289 01:08, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Kai Leng
I figured that I'd add Kai Leng to the ME3EnemiesBox Template, since he's amongst the forces Cerberus sends after Shepard. If it's like... not needed now or something, you can feel free to adjust or remove it. I don't care. LordDeathRay 16:13, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already removed it because the context is unknown. We don't know if he will be a commander, or you will actually face him. Either way, the edits were very premature. Lancer1289 16:15, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. LordDeathRay 16:27, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

block
last night you blocked an anonymous user due to rascist insults. i'm not here to protest. When you blocked him you also blocked everyone who lives in his building from editing or contributing to the mass effect wiki. Now I have it on good authority that this individual will not leave anymore rascist ininsultd on the wikis pages. If you could, please unblock the IP address. One man's stupidity should not punish everyone else in his dormitory.

Thank you
 * While I am familiar with the concept of people sharing IPs due to routers, I need more information on the situation, and the word dormitory is not one that I like to see personally for multiple reasons. Specially, what building and how this was discovered, which IP as I blocked two, and more information on what “good authority”. Then, I have to take into account that authority, and then the site's zero vandalism policy. Either way I need more information. I’m not about to lift a block for those actions so readily and to that, I do hope you understand. Lancer1289 18:36, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Spoiler tag.
I fail to see how the Illusive Man's first name is any more of a spoiler than all the other info noted in his introduction. By your logic, that info would have to be underneath a spoiler tag as well. Would it not be easier to simply put one spoiler tag for everything at the top of the page instead? It works for us at the ACWiki. -- Master Sima Yi 18:50, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Except we don't do that here, and I'd very very much opposed to that idea. The information there is extremely basic and doesn’t give away spoilers, and the information in that case comes more from Ascension than Mass Effect 2. Opening paragraphs are supposed to reflect when the character was introduced to the series, with as few spoilers as possible. In the case of say Joker, Mass Effect, in the case of the Illusive Man, Mass Effect: Ascension. The fact he has a real name is the absolute biggest spoiler in Evolution, and as such, has to be kept under the appropriate tag.
 * I should also note that I hate articles with a single spoiler tag. Because I keep reading, then I will possibly run across information that I don't want to read yet. I much prefer our system as I keeps spoilers contained until someone is ready to read them. Lancer1289 18:57, February 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not really agree with that way of writing, but fair enough. I prefer and am more used to in-universe biographies. Though seeing as articles still have spoiler tags for ME1, I am not really sure if your last statement makes sense. When would be the point that ME1 is no longer considered among spoiler material? -- Master Sima Yi 19:49, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Never. As explained by Spart somewhere, I don't remember where right now, there are still people who haven't played ME yet, so at no time will ME material be considered a non-spoiler. Lancer1289 20:18, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Curiosity
I have a quick question. I know it has likely been discussed thoroughly, and there is likely a good reason behind it. If you could sate my curiosity on just on query: why does this wiki not have a chat room? It seems pretty standard around Wikia and doesn't really carry any detriments. Just wondering why it wasn't on MEWiki, one of the best-kept wikis on Wikia.

--The Milkman | I always deliver. 04:18, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the issue has been beaten to death, multiple times over. Every time it has come up, it dies within two or three days because no one expresses interest in pursuing it, or monitoring it. The community here just doesn't show interest in the thing probably because no one wants to use it or has an interest in using it. I know I will have no use for it and I don't want to be bothered having to monitor it. Lancer1289 04:44, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 poster Characters
Would it be ok to put on Garrus and Liara's pages that they are(as they are in most videos/demos) the poster characters for ME 3, you could also put something on there about how Garrus has been a poster character twice. I can understand if you don't want to do it. Thanks.--Legionwrex 05:38, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * At this time, I have to say no because there is no "poster characters" for Mass Effect 3. It's just Shepard. Poster characters seem to be ones that are featured a lot. Garrus and Liara may be used in the majority of the demos, but Garrus, Ashley, Miranda, and Thane were also featured on the box art for their respective games. Shepard is alone on the ME3 box art, so I would have to say that they don't classify as "poster characters". Sorry for not getting back sooner as I think you left this message about one minute after I logged off. Lancer1289 13:54, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

M-451
Hello. What do you mean by "Not an acceptable source"?

How a game data cannot be a valid source? Kr3g 22:30, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

heads up, nobodys going to take you seriously unless you sign your posts.BeoW0lfe 22:13, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * First why would no one take anyone seriously if they don't sign their posts? Unless you can positively contribute to a conversation on my talk page, and not be incorrect, then don't comment.
 * As to the question, we don't take things like that as a valid source. You are interpreting game data. Everything is currently sourced from BSN from the devs, so unless that source changes, forget about changing the article. Lancer1289 23:07, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, from where do you think guys on BSN take they data if not from game-files? I mean c'mon, change that stat to let's say "5000",run game, and you will see you kill enemy's instantly... Can you give me an URL for BSN with that info at least? Kr3g 23:32, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * The data from BSN is directly from the devs. Where you are interpreting the game data and that isn't acceptable. Lancer1289 00:44, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

So you will not give me a proof that here should be "15"? ) Kr3g 12:19, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * And you are the one trying to change the article, therefore it is on you to present evidence to support your position. Lancer1289 13:14, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

I already told you where you can look for it yourself. Now it's your turn ;) Kr3g 13:53, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, what you gave me is an invlid source. You have yet to present a valid source. Lancer1289 14:46, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Why it's invalid? 15:04, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Read my previous comments. Lancer1289 15:10, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

What? This "we don't take things like that as a valid source"? Yeah, well, not really an explanation. Kr3g 15:54, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * No it is an explanation, you just left out part of it. We don't accept interpretation of game data as a valid source. Lancer1289 16:59, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

omg, I ask why. Kr3g 21:16, February 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but it seems like you've been asking the same question, again and again. Your answer is above. LordDeathRay 21:19, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * That is rather accurate. Lancer1289 22:50, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

No, i'm asking why you don't accept "interpretation of game data as a valid source" Kr3g 11:05, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * What? The word "interpertation" should be a clue. We don't accpet speculation, and that is what interpertation of game data is, speculation. Lancer1289 13:52, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

But you can't prove that i'm wrong, right? Kr3g 17:10, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * And you can't present evidence that isn't allowed by site policy. End of story. Either get new evidence that proves your edit valid and I will not respond until you do as you have been asking basically the same question for two days now. Lancer1289 17:36, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

Creating a Spoiler Template
Didn't really appreciate being told not to make something just because I might have done it incorrectly. I tried to follow the instructions on the site to make the new spoiler tag for Mass Effect: Infiltrator. Sorry if it didn't measure up, but there is no need to be harsh about it. We all have to learn somehow. Der Schreiber 02:44, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I agree that we all have to learn somehow, but because of the nature of templates, it is best if you don't know, then leave it to someone who does. Generally, templates are only created after discussion or after there becomes a need for it. Creating a template incorrectly will always cause more problems and generally more editing has to go into it before it is ready. That said, there is still work that has to be done before it is ready as I'm not finished yet. The rule I like, if you don't know, just ask and someone will do it. When it comes to things like templates, it is always better left to someone who knows what they are doing. Lancer1289 02:50, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, with that extra information it makes more sense. Do you put up the request in the forum section? And is there already a topic on this? Cheers! Der Schreiber 02:56, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally the admins, Commdor or myself, are good people to go to for requesting templates. Commdor more than myself. I know Dammej also has some template experience, but he isn't around as much anymore. Lancer1289 03:02, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I uploaded a little Cerberus symbol that could be used as the image for it. I thought it made sense since the game centers around it. Der Schreiber 03:04, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah we usually prefer images from the game/comic/book itself for the spoiler templates, not a general one. Commdor usually is good at taking care of that. If you really want to discuss this further, I'd recommend taking it up with him as he's the one who's worked on the Spoiler templates in the past. I also have no idea where that quote came from. Lancer1289 03:09, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #8
Hey Lancer, I'm kind of new to creating pages but I wanna start helping you guys out, hope I can be of use! :)
 * Please take a look at the Manual of Style, Community Guidlines, and really just look around to see how things work around here. Lancer1289 19:30, February 9, 2012 (UTC)

Source
I HAVE looked at the source. In fact, I was the one who used it. I was just fixing the sentences to be correct (grammar). There has to be at least a comma or a dash to separate the sentences, as the areas where I put them are where I would naturally pause while reading the sentence. LordDeathRay 21:03, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * And you full well know that isn't how it works. Lancer1289 21:05, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, whenever I see a grammar error on a page, I instantly try to replace it. Example: "Frighteningly intelligent, the Banshee are advanced pressure units usually found leading a Reaper strike force." Shouldn't it be: "Frighteningly intelligent, the Banshee is an advanced pressure unit usually found leading a Reaper strike force." or "Frighteningly intelligent, Banshees are advanced pressure units usually found leading a Reaper strike force."? In both options, it would be grammatically correct. LordDeathRay 21:08, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * And again, you know that's now how we deal with that kind of information. Lancer1289 21:10, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying, is that even if the sources have grammar typos, you'll put them into the article anyways? LordDeathRay 21:12, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm finding that I'm repeating myself a lot in recent days and it is getting annoying. Regardless, the sentence is correct, it's just not your definition of correct apparently. Lancer1289 21:14, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

I have realized that you've been repeating yourself in recent days, and I pity you. Regardless, the sentence is correct, but it is referring to Banshee in an incorrect context. "[...] The Banshee are [...]" Just look at this excerpt. Take some time. It doesn't seem/sound right. From what I learned in grammar, either replace the "are" with "is", or add an "s" after "Banshee". And this isn't my version of being correct. This is supposed to be the grammatically correct way. LordDeathRay 21:20, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * No actually it can be written that way. There are cases where things have to be written like that because of the way things will sound or look. Even out of context that sounds right having seen things like that written that way multiple times. Lancer1289 21:25, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Looking at it in your perspective, I see my error. In that case, I apologize for being another annoyance to you. And sorry for my grammar verbatim, it's just that I plan on being a writer, and it seems like I was annoying while debating about this (due to my dreams of being a writer influencing what I was saying). I still don't think that the sentence is correct, but I'll deal with it so that you have one less problem to worry about. LordDeathRay 21:30, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's one of those cases where the plural form has to be written like that because of double "e" at the end. Double "e" can be tricky to handle as there are a number of obscure rules regarding it. I've seen them with "s" and written "the (insert word here)". Neither is incorrect and it more falls to other factors. Lancer1289 21:45, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never dealt with double "e"s before. I think that's why I screwed up. I tried dealing with it like a regular "e", but I guess that's not the case. Anyways, thanks for clearing this up, and I hope that you don't encounter as many dim-witted individuals next week as you had this week. =D LordDeathRay 22:14, February 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure...
Earlier an anonymous user had edited the Miranda and Jacob articles with info that was, while correct, weren't properly cited or wordy (redundant?). I undid them when I noticed that but then I realized I may have done so prematurely. I think the guidelines mentioned something about contacting other users to avoid an "edit war" (I don't think it's become one yet) so if I was premature in my undoing, I apologize.--Nintendogeek01 02:22, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Had I noticed them, I would have removed them. That kind of information is really unnecessary and irreleavnt. We don't list what trailers character so-and-so appeared in. What's relevant is if anything was added that wasn't known before. If not, then nothing gets added. And if there was an "edit war", the user would be the one in trouble not you in that circumstance. Lancer1289 02:24, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a relief, would have boded ill if I had already made a violation on my first day with an account. Thank you.--Nintendogeek01 02:26, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
I understand why you reverted two of my edits, the first one (the Dr. Pepper codes) I am looking for something I can cite as I only know that from personal experience, as I redeemed my Dr. Pepper codes on 29-2-12 and so I know those Dr. pepper codes still work; as for the second one (the AT-12 Raider) the AT-12 Raider Shotgun was an exclusive pre-order to Origin, therefor anything pre-ordered through Origin, including the Mass Effect 3 Collectors edition, receives that pre-order, thus my reason for adding it.--Clockwork 777 20:17, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you redeemed the codes when you said you did, then you must have come from the future because it isn't February 29th yet, and there is only twelve months in the year. As to the second edit, we have had confiscating reports about that. Lancer1289 20:22, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously it was a typo, no need to get like that. Also, the reason I originally removed the Raider from Origin, which is why it wasn't there when you added it, was because the Press Release was pretty explicit about it being for the Origin service, not the store.JakePT 20:27, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * And there is no need to blast me for it. Jeez. Lancer1289 20:30, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I meant 1-29-12--Clockwork 777 20:24, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if you think I was being derogatory towards you, I was just trying to explain my position, and since I have no way to prove anything I will defer to your judgement. Also I appreciate you for explaining things so clearly and for your prompt replies.--Clockwork 777 20:36, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * My 'Get like that' wasn't directed at you.JakePT 20:38, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * My second comment wasn't directed at you. Lancer1289 20:40, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys I am really new to editing anything at all so please excuse me if I do anything wrong or just in general act like a bumbling fool because as you can see, I really need to look at the signatures. Also I have a tendacy to write my dates day month year instead of month day year--Clockwork 777 20:45, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

ME3 Multiplayer
Hey, when you start the multiplayer part of the demo, make sure to take down the name and description of the free starter item pack you get. I missed my chance to add it to the Store section of the multiplayer article. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:50, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Willco. But it will be sometime tomorrow as I need to take care of some things tonight. Also I hate when Wikia doesn't cache right and it looks like I have a blank talk page. Lancer1289 03:52, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Butting in here--I updated the multiplayer article with the starter pack info per this Youtube video (right at 2:24). Trandra 04:07, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Edit on Ogrinn page
Hi. Not entirely sure why you reverted my edit about one of the comments Ogrinn makes. He definitely mentions one of his buddies being driven out of business by Archangel if you walk past him enough times (I literally just heard him say it prior to making the edit).

Now, the part about being indirectly connected to criminal activities is deduction (Archangel targets criminals, so the friend must have been involved in criminal activities), so I can understand why you wouldn't want that. Remove it if necessary. But the simple fact of Ogrinn mentioning Archangel is not speculation. It's also more pertinent to the game than his comments about Afterlife drinks tasting bad, IMO. Nilfalasiel 16:19, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I should point out that in all of my time playing ME2, and looking through a number of videos on several sites, I have never seen this before nor could I find any information to support it. Now it is possible that it could have missed, but I doubt something like that would have been missed for so long.
 * As to the second part, yes that is exactly speculation. His friend, if this is true, could have just been shipping legit supplies to say the Eclipse and Garrus busted him for it. Saying he was a criminal is speculation as we lack context. Lancer1289 17:20, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I said, feel free to remove the part about the criminal activities, I admit that it was probably overkill on my part. But I am absolutely positive I heard him say "Archangel drove my buddy out of business". I'd never heard the line before either (and I have 6 different Shepards, so I'm very familiar with the game), but I just decided to run past him several times this time around, and lo and behold, he said it. Not entirely sure how else I can prove my good faith. He ran through a couple of his other quotes before saying it. There was "a mate and a ship", then "drinks taste like crap anyway", then something like "I've tasted better stuff at the back of a garbage truck", then "Archangel drove my buddy out of business", then "move along, pal". Next time I passed him, he restarted with "a mate and a ship". I'll try to go run past him again and take a pic later, if you like. Nilfalasiel 17:31, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Curious indeed. Probably something no one came across because it is that deep in the chain. I can look myself in about two hours to see, as I'm currently in school. If you can get to it before then, then fine, but I want to see this for myself anyway. Now which Shepard is on Omega again...the issues of having 36 saves. I can't remember which one is where. Lancer1289 17:38, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

36? Wow, yeah, I can see how that would be problematic. Anyways, I tried checking with one of my old Shepards on a post-game save, but Ogrinn evidently reacts to Garrus being recruited, as that quote of his changes to "I hear Archangel's dead. Good for him." Fortunately, my newest Shepard is in the middle of recruiting Mordin, so I just need to remember to take her to Ogrinn again before setting out to get Garrus. Won't be able to do it for the next few hours though, so you might manage to check before I do.

EDIT: Alright, managed to snap both quotes. Sorry for the blurriness, taking pics of the tv and all that.

Here's the "buddy out of business" quote. He'll say this anytime prior to recruiting Garrus. And here's the "Archangel's dead" quote. He'll say this one after Garrus is recruited. Nilfalasiel 12:46, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot about this yesterday in all the chaos that erupted. Anyway, I'll work on getting it back into the article. Lancer1289 13:49, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

RE: Noveria
Think I understand why you reversed my edit, but on the planetary info that is from Mass Effect, it is listed as a human planet. The section is 'Human Worlds' not 'Alliance Worlds', which is why i added it. If it is meant to be Alliance World, then planets such as Horizon shouldn't be included on the list as they are in the Terminus Systems. Another thing I've noticed about Noveria is on the Attican Traverse page, it is listed as being in that region, although the Mass Effect 3 demo shows it as being in Alliance space and not in the Traverse. Does that need changing? CoalitionofIndependantRepublics 17:02, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what does it being listed on a page have to do with anything? Answer, nothing. It doesn't matter where a planet falls, it matters where it is. Noveria isn't under control of the Alliance, nor it is a human world. It is a private planet managed by the Noveria Development Corporation. It is on its own.
 * Also, and why I have to say this I don't know. What evidence to you have to say the information from ME is inaccurate? Or that it isn't relevant anymore? Answer to that, there has been nothing in canon to say that Noveria is under Alliance control, or could be classified as a human world. Unless we've had evidence to the contrary, it is accurate, relevant, and what we go on. Lancer1289 17:09, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is what I was going off. On the Noveria page, in the section where it has all the statistics about the planet (i.e. radius, day length etc) underneath that in the colony's stats it says 'Species: Human'. I assumed that was taken from the game. The point I was making about the planet's location was meant to be a separate point. I wasn't trying to base my argument on that. CoalitionofIndependantRepublics 17:24, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't pulled from the game and because it really isn't dominated by one species, it shouldn't be there. It will be removed. Lancer1289 17:35, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

C&C - Kasumi?
Hey, this is 13621. I'm sorry I have to disagree, though I would like to see your reasoning as to why Kasumi's comment isn't a refernece to C&C. Present and Gift are synonymous, and both comments refer to something explosive, or at least explosives-related.
 * And I still have to say that it is a stretch because it is prelevant in multiple forms of media today. C&C is just one of those. Lancer1289 00:06, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, I accept that argument. However, the Thane comment you cannot deny. Cary Elwes ("Dread Pirate Roberts"/Wesley) said to the Giant (whose name escapes me) "I do not envy you the headache you will have when you awake, but for now, sleep well, and dream of large women." akin to Thane's comment of "Sleep well and dream of bulbous women".
 * Actually yes because they are different. That one needs a source, and we've been saying that for over a year now. Lancer1289 00:52, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Character Boxes
Hey Lancer. I'm not questioning you or anything, but how is adding character boxes inappropriate for those articles? LordDeathRay 20:47, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because none of them really fall into the same categories as the others with the template. James is really the only one that fits because of his squadmate status. Grayson doesn't fit because if the image we use isn't cropped from the book, then we couldn't have a template anyway. ANd not to mention that his role isn't as big as others when you put it side by side. Nihlus lasts, what about ten minutes. We don't know enough about Kai yet to make a decision, but someting tells me that he won't get one. Only Squadmates and major NPC gets a box at the moment. Lancer1289 20:55, February 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. And with Kai, I just have that feeling in my gut that he's going to be pretty major in the game. I added it to Nihlus because I thought that he was major, due to being a Spectre and all. And with Paul, he was the protagonist/antagonist of Ascension and Retribution. Anyways, you want to play some ME3 Multiplayer later? I'm going to be taking a rest in a few minutes, so I figured I'd ask. LordDeathRay 21:02, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Missing Title #9
Hey Lancer,

What do you changes do you think Bioware will make to the New Normandy SR1. Elevator Interactive Crew Mining Accessible Cargo Hold If you can message me back great if you don't no worries. Also what did you think about the demo, Sudden Beginning Character Models/Graphics

Kindly,

Dryden2929

--Dryden2929 01:37, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * This is really the kind of thing that belongs in the forums or a blog post. I've had topics like this on my talk page before and they tend to get out of hand very quickly. Therefore, I don't like them here as usually everyone has to voice their opinion. If you put it on a forum, I will probably stop by, but please not on my talk page. Lancer1289 01:41, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

inter-wiki relations
I recently asked about the "Affiliated Wikis" section on the main talk page, and I thought I should tell you why. I think that the incorporation of the Fallout wiki (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki), Nukapedia, would be extremely beneficial to both wikis, and that their "achievement" system would be a wonderful addition to this wiki. Just wanted your opinion on the matter. Thanks in advance. --This text has been approved by Murfitizer 05:53, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * This would have to be something that would have to be discussed between the admins of both wikis. We just can't add names to it without their permission, and without the permission of the community.
 * Not to mention that I hate that achievement system. It looks childish and ridiculous. But my opinion is irrelevant. If we wanted to active that, then there'd have to be a vote, and I don't think there'd be much support on it. Lancer1289 14:30, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

User:Shadow Guys
Apologies if someeone else has broght up this concern already, but is the user Shadow Guys a vandal? He deleted the content in ME3, replacing it with <, and I'm seeing similar edits in his history.--Darth Something 17:07, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * He's been blocked already. I don't know what makes people go off at times... Lancer1289 17:09, February 17, 2012 (UTC)

Cerberus Sniper/Nemesis
I thought that the reason I gave for me re-adding that note made it clear that I was indeed aware of the reason given for removing it, and that I was addressing it. The link is so that if people want to see the Nemesis page but are unaware of it's name and simply search the logical descriptive name, "Cerberus Sniper", they would have a quick and easy way of getting to what they are looking for. The two enemies are spectacularly similar. Both ware black, have the same general proportions, work for Cerberus, are snipers, use a red targeting laser ext. The fact that the official names are so different is irrelevant to someone unaware of this and the fact that the name of one is the simplest way of describing the other means that confusion is likely. To not include some reference to the other in each article would feel lacking. Having that link at the top of the page has no negative effects yet is a simple and easy way of preventing confusion and increasing the user friendliness of the wiki. Looking at the history of the page between the original addition of that note at the top and my re-addition I can see that an editor made the very mistake the note would have prevented. Phalanx-a-pedian 23:40, February 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I don't think that it is valid enough. They are not similar in any way, or at least beyond the fact they both use a sniper rifle. They are two completely separate enemies and named completely differently. If they were similar in name, then you would have something, but they aren't. Lancer1289 23:57, February 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * The point is that not every user will know the difference in name, case in point the user who mistakenly changed the name in the info box to "Nemesis" before realising their mistake. The fact that the most logical term to use if someone is unaware of the actual name of the Nemesis is "Cerberus sniper" and that there is another, remarkably similar enemy, with this exact name means that it really doesn't matter what the Nemesis is called, there will still be confusion. I myself player through 2 goes of the multiplayer and only realised that they had a name other then "Cerberus sniper" when I came on this wiki.
 * As for the "not similar in any way" I simply cannot agree with this. Like I said above, both have form fitting black armour, both are female (not sure if you get male Cerberus snipers in ME1, but I don't remember there being any and can't find any pictures), both are snipers, both work for Cerberus, both use red laser targeting and so on and so on. The only real differences between the two are the make of the armour and the rifle they use and the game they are in. I'm not trying to suggest that people will think that they are the same for any more then the time taken to skim through one of the articles, only that some people will find themselves on the Cerberus sniper page while looking for the Nemesis page. There is an easy way of addressing this potential problem and I can see no reason to not include it. At the very least there should be a section in the trivia explaining the similarities and differences. Phalanx-a-pedian 00:25, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is what you are sighting as evidence, then I can counter with numerous examples that show people will do what they want anyway. I'm sure we will have someone changing the Nemesis article before long. You again say they are the same name when they aren't. Do they have similar functions, yes, but so does the Geth Sniper. You are describing similarities that I can go to many enemies in the game and say the exact same thing. This doesn't warrant a mention, and is just needless. Lancer1289 01:09, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, not to mention, they have completely different body models and weapons. While yes, a Nemesis DOES function as a Cerberus Sniper, doesn't mean that it is THE Cerberus Sniper from the first game. LordDeathRay 02:24, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this topic has already been brought up, I suppose I'll throw my two cents in. Whether or not the Nemesis and a Cerberus Sniper (title) are identical as characters is irrelevant. What DOES matter is that the Nemesis is a Cerberus sniper (function, designation). That's what most people will call it. That's what everyone I've talked to has called it (and most of them don't even have the investment to include the "Cerberus"). Those of us that know enough about the series to edit this wiki, we're all probably on top of the technical differences. That does not hold true for the casual fact checker looking for a strategy. -- The Gunsmith 02:48, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And what people call enemies is in all honestly irrelevant here. We call enemies what they are, not what everyone tends to call them. If we did that, then we'd be calling a number of things differently. The fact remains that they are called "Nemesis", not "Cerberus Sniper", and therefore they are different. Your justification for the edit is "all of my friends call it this" and that is not a valid reason. Again, what people call an enemy is irrelevant. What matters is what they are called, and while they are snipers, they are called different things. Lancer1289 02:54, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was a Geth Sniper or Mercenary Sniper, I would completely agree with you. This, however, is a case of two enemies that are extremely similar in both gameplay function and in the story. There's enough similarity and potential for confusion there to justify this. --The Gunsmith 03:03, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have to disagree. There is no reason for the tag as it is because of the differences. There are plenty of differences between them to distinguish them from one another. Lancer1289 03:08, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Then let me ask this: Will you list off some of those differences? I'm having trouble seeing any of any importance beyond the name. --The Gunsmith 03:13, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Let us start with the display method for them. The bars to represent health and shields are completely different. They behave differently. A Nemesis is always in cover and only pops out to shoot and will duck back in if they get hit. Cerberus Snipers will not take cover as much and hold position longer. They will also usually keep shooting if they are hit. Snipers also have a completely different armor type than a Nemesis does, and they look a lot different. Their method of attack is also different. You will always see the red light from a Nemesis. That is not always the case with the Sniper. In fact you will see it very sparingly, if at all when they attack. More often than not, you will just lose a massive amount of shields and health and not know where it came from. Another thing, Snipers actually talk during, a Nemesis does not. A Nemesis will usually run from players, a Sniper will try and keep fighting. There are plenty of differences and doing something jsut because the "fans" call it that, we already do not do. I cannot count the number of times we've removed something that said "the fans call it" or "as the fans on ___ call it". We do not allow that kind of thing here. If we allow this, then we have to allow all forms of alternate names, and that does not work. Lancer1289 04:02, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Although almost all of those differences I would count as trivial ones based on the changes in engine and combat from 1 and 2/3 (and I have had the exact opposite experience regarding the laser sights on Assassination), I'll concede simply because, like you, I don't want there to be a disambig page called Cerberus Ninja with links towards the Phantom and Kai Leng. I do still think this is a special case and we won't wind up on a slippery slope, but clearly I'm not going to win this one --The Gunsmith 04:16, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not claiming that most people will think that they are one and the same, mealy that many people while looking for the Nemesis article will come across the Cerberus Sniper one. The two enemies are similar enough to generate confusion (especially as story wise it is likely that the two are the same with the Nemesis being what the Cerberus snipers became after being given better equipment/training). If they weren't both human snipers with similar coloured and formed armour working for Cerberus that I would agree that they were different enough for this to not be an issue. I'm not saying that this should be included just because that's what fans will call it, but like "The Gunsmith" said, this is a special case. If the Cerberus sniper had any other name it wouldn't matter but as is it will cause some minor confusion and there is a simple way of avoiding that that I see no reason not to include. What I don't get here is that adding the note at the top of the Cerberus Sniper page would improve the utility of this wiki, and I can see no reason not to include it. So far the only reasons I've been given is along the lines of 'they aren't the same enemy' or 'they have different names'. This wiki is supposed to help people who want to know more about Mass Effect, I've never understood people resisting the inclusion of little links or bits or information on the grounds that readers should know anyway. Phalanx-a-pedian 08:47, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet nothing I've said before means anything apparently. You can easily call a number of enemies the same thing yet we are not going to go running around and place tags on every article like that. We would end up with hundreds of them and they would be as long as can be. I have stated what I said above for good reason and the fact you ignored it is nothing but a slap in the face to me. I see no reason to include it because of the aforementioned reasons. So far, the only justification you have for putting it in is "the fans call it this", and that is immediately an invalid reason. Lancer1289 15:28, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I have seen the reasons you removed the note from the top of the page. However, there has been little to no substance to it. All I have really been given is a statement of the blatant fact (one which I am well aware of) that the two units are not the same and have different official names, as well as an opinion that that the two units are not similar enough for there to be confusion. However, I do not feel that either point is a valid reason for removing the link.
 * 1) "The two units are not the same" & the opinion that they are not similar enough to generate confusion - Clearly they are not the same, but they are also clearly very similar. It is also clear that they are similar enough to generate confusion as evidenced by the fact that another user made the exact mistake only an hour and a half after you removed the note.
 * 2) "They have very different names" - This is true. However, many readers will not be aware of this. The best and simplest way of describing the Nemesis is to call is a "Cerberus Sniper". As a result many people when trying to research the Nemesis will refer to it as a "Cerberus sniper". Coincidentally there is a different yet similar unit with that exact name. The result is that there will be a fair amount of traffic to the Cerberus Sniper page from people aiming for the Nemesis page.
 * I have indeed paid attention to your arguments! However, I am not suggesting that we add this sort of tag to every article, only that we do so for this one example. This is a special case because of the following reason;
 * "The name of one unit is identical to the simplest and most common descriptive term used for another, remarkably similar unit".
 * We can simply and easily resolve this before it causes any problems and allow readers to realise their mistake quickly and easily. The note is unobtrusive, does not detract from the page in any way (it does not make it more confusing nor does it mess up the formatting) but it is helpful. We should be striving to maximise the user friendlessness of this wiki, not deliberately exclude things that could be useful on the assumption that anybody who would have a look would already know what has been excluded and why. Besides, even if there was no confusion involved, I would appreciate the ability to quickly compare two very closely related units via a link from one to the other. So I have looked at the reasons given and I have decided that they are not valid. I will be re-adding the note to the page, please do not remove it again unless you can supply me with a valid reason for doing so that does not rely on users already knowing what the page is supposed to tell them. Even if you come up with one, please tell me about it before removing the note again. Thank you Phalanx-a-pedian 18:05, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * And I have looked at the reason you want it and it isn't valid. The fact you keep readding it, and flat out said you would, despite the fact it is under discussion tells me that you want what you want and you could not care one iota about anyone else's opinion. If you do not get what you want, then you will do anything until you do. That isn't how things work here, despite what you believe. I have removed it again because you have yet to give a valid reason for including it. So far, the only reason is "the fans call it that" and that isn't enough. Two units that while sharing a similar function, are quite different and have enough differences to tell them apart. There is no reason to make a note because of fan calling it this. The bottom line is that they are quite different, have multiple differences, operate completely differently, and are even called different things. Therefore, no note is needed for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, I will ask you to not add it again. Lancer1289 18:46, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on now! I kindly ask you to stop with the personal insults and accusations of immaturity. To claim that I am the one being out of line here is simply unfair. In reality you have reverted the edits of two users a total of eight (8) times now. I have only made four (4) edits to the page. Let me turn what you have said on it's head; "The fact that you keep removing it, despite the fact that it is under discussion tells me that you want what you want and you could not care one iota about anyone else's opinion. If you do not get what you want, then you will do anything until you do. That isn't how things work here, despite what you believe." With only one word changed and a small side note removed, all of that can be very easily applied to yourself. I can see that you have done the same with a simply insignificant change of wording on the Shadow Broker page (which for the record, did mean the exact same thing and made it clearer), so clearly this is how you are. For the record I was the one who started this discussion as soon as you reverted my edit. I did not respond by undoing your undo. Instead I gave you a chance to explain why it was important for that disclaimer to not be included. Once I read your reasons I decided that they were not valid reasons for the removal of what I consider a simple yet very useful addition to the page, and as such I re-added the information. I also gave you the courtesy of informing you of what I was doing and why, and asked you not to respond by simply removing the edit. You responded by removing the edit again and demanding that I do not respond with the equivalent of what you yourself had just done. Trying to portray me as entirely in the wrong here is simply hypocritical as you are (at least from my point of view) more guilty then me.
 * I gave some very valid reasons for the inclusion of the link while all you have responded with is a sweeping denial of the validity of my arguments (in spite of me actually giving evidence) but no reasons as to why the link should specifically not be there other then 'if we did this on every page we would have a lot of links,' which I responded to by pointing out that I was only including the link for this single special situation. You do not get to simply prevent other users from adding content simply because you... what exactly? I still do not understand why you feel that it shouldn't be there.
 * Do you not understand why I added it. I am not suggesting that we change the name of the Nemesis (enemy) page to "Cerberus Sniper", all I'm saying is that it's a fact that (possibly most) people call the Nemesis that and coupled with the fact that there is already a page with that exact same name we have a problem. The fact that the two are remarkably similar (which indeed is the exact reason that the term used by many for one is identical to the name of the other) is a coincidence that only serves to further the need for some clarity. I am suggesting that we make things a little easier for people who don't know exactly what they are talking about, something that I was under the impression was the entire purpose of this wiki. We are going to have to agree to disagree about the level of similarity of the two units, however this makes little difference to the fact that others still see them as similar. The link is help full. A wiki is supposed to be helpful. Removing the link is not helpful. This is not a case of "the fans call it that", it's a case of "here's a chance for confusion, lets be helpful and prevent it". That's it, this is simple. Having the link there is good, not having it there is not bad, but it's also not better then having it.
 * So, moving on from the hypocritical/baseless personal jibes, the fact remains that I have indeed given valid arguments for the addition and retention of the link and that you have given absolutely no reason what so ever for it's removal and exclusion from the page.
 * In closing. I reject your accusations and personal attack and while I admit that I have to a very minor extent (that of a single edit or two) been guilty of participating in an edit war, I however point out that you are in fact more guilty of everything you accused me of that was even slightly true. I then point out that I have considered your arguments, given reasons for why I think they are invalid, and given my own arguments and support for why mine are valid. This is also a notification that I will, for what I hope is the last time, be adding the link back in. I ask you to please not remove it this time and if you have any further objections then to tell me them (allowing time for a response) before taking down the link. If you make a valid reason for why the link should not be there, one which is not dependent on the assumption that readers all ready know all there is to know about the Nemesis (including the name), then I will gladly take it off myself. Phalanx-a-pedian 19:48, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * If I may return to the conversation (this time as a neutral party), maybe bringing this up on the Sniper's talk page would be a good idea? Open it up to the public and not just a few of us who are (despressingly) passionate in our opinions on the matter. --The Gunsmith 19:16, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea, I'll do that now. Phalanx-a-pedian 19:48, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

The Shadow Broker
Regarding rephrasing the sentences, i'm going to leave a message here as opposed to responding via edit-war on the page. I stumbled for a moment the first time i read what was there, and so rephrased it. Simple rewording, clarifying what what Broker's deal with the Collectors was. Any particular reason you're insisting on reverting it back? ~Pteraclaww 18:20, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I made a different revision what clarifies everything. Look good? ~Pteraclaww 18:42, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason is I found your version much harder to read as it was chopper wording. What one person called "easier to read" may not always be the case. There was some weird phrasing. As to what it looks like now, only some minor clean up is necessary with the link but it looks a lot better. Lancer1289 18:49, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Olkie dokey. My English can be a bit weird sometimes, so sorry about that. I also tend to mess up the links a lot, as i'm not completely used to the wiki format yet, so thanks for fixing them for me. I'll get the hang of what's what before too long, methinks. ~Pteraclaww 19:58, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it. It just takes time. Lancer1289 20:01, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Your Opinion
Would you mind looking over this user's comments on Talk:Brute? I'm certain I'm being trolled. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:58, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the comments earlier, but was a little busy to deal with them. I can certainly see it both ways. But, considering that that particular IP has never edited here before, I would probably have to agree that the user is trolling. Lancer1289 19:02, February 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's an unpleasant situation, knowing someone is doing something wrong without him really doing anything wrong. Guess I'll ignore him for now. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:10, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably for the best. Lancer1289 20:02, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Also, this is unrelated but important (apologies if this causes an edit conflict): over the past couple days there have been two cases of contributors referencing YouTube videos that contain ME3 audio that has most likely came from leaked copies of the final game. So yeah, we get to look forward to probably being spoiled a few times over the next two weeks. I kind of wish there was a "red-alert" button to hit. :P -- Commdor (Talk) 19:16, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, just what we need. Lancer1289 20:02, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to throw in here that EA are running a competition of sorts that could lead to people getting a copy of the game a week before release. That, coupled with the new The art of the Mass Effect Universe book having been released recently what has concept art from the third game, could lead to a fair amount of spoilers popping up now. ~Pteraclaww 20:13, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * We are already well aware of this and have it noted in the ME3 article. Lancer1289 20:17, February 18, 2012 (UTC)

Charon relay
It's not speculation, you can clearly hear that lady from the Alliance committee say "We've lost contact with everything beyond the Sol relay" in Mass Effect 3 demo. Will-O-Wisp
 * Ok so where is your proof that they are talking about that Relay? Because I'm seeing a distinct lack of it. Every time that the relay in the Sol System has been mentioned to date, it has never been called the "Sol Relay", it has always been the Charon Relay. I doubt very much that there would be an exception now. Lancer1289 14:47, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no other relays in the Sol system, and the word "Sol" is kinda a giveaway. Will-O-Wisp
 * And again, the proof you provide is not enough. For all we know, the Sol relay is the relay in the Arcturus system that leads to Sol. Again, you need proof that the Charon Relay is also called the Sol relay and so far, you haven't presented any conclusive evidence. Lancer1289 15:05, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things
I feel you have made a mistake in removing my edits concerning the Cerberus Assault armour. Please view the talk page section here. In addition, can I please have a response concerning the Cerberus Sniper/Nemesis either higher up on this page or on my own talk page. Phalanx-a-pedian 21:07, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not need to be told what to do. I have already responded on one issue, although my edit summary was more than enough. Lancer1289 21:14, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not telling you what to do, I was simply asking. I did read your edit summary but I feel that you are mistaken. I used this to draw your attention to it because I saw that somebody else had made the same edit and when they turned to the talk page received no reply, so I was just making sure. I mentioned the other because there has been a fair amount of time between my last comment on it during which you have been active and I do not feel ready to drop the subject. Phalanx-a-pedian 21:27, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Deleting files
Could you try deleting one of the files marked for deletion? I was about to do a cleanup run, but none of the files can be deleted and I get an error message about the server not being writable. This has happened a few other times over the past week, but refreshing the page usually cleared it up. Now, I've tried for the past hour to delete files with no success. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:25, February 20, 2012 (UTC)