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.

Missing Title #1
I don't stop by the wiki often, but I always seem to find a thread where multiple people harrass you for upholding site policy. I just felt inclined to let you know that I appreciate your dedication to following the rules(even though I sometimes break the language policy in a fit of nerd rage). Never let a bunch of a**wipes get you down for doing what is right. --CommanderCousland 05:26, October 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Lancer1289 14:33, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting
I recently discovered that I was banned for some time and I ensure you it wasn't me who did that "stuff", you can even chek with "Arby 'n' The Chief wiki" as I sent a message to XtranormalGeek. I don't care if you think I'm a c#@% all i ask is that you look at the evidence yourself and make a new opinion and I hope this "Incident" can be forgoten and we can forge a new friendship, what do you say? Also, you might notice that we are undergoing a few changes and I am now an admin of that site.

I hope you can see reason. --Blazingswords 02:56, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * So what is the evidence that I'm supposed to be looking at here, because I'm seeing a distinct lack of it? If it's the message that you were gone for two and a half weeks from that date, then your ban was put in place at least a full day before that. So far I haven't seen any evidence that you weren't the one doing it as it was under your account so unless you have other evidence to present, then the facts remain, and this is not an incident that I will forget anytime soon. The fact remain that the edits that were made were from your account, and with again no evidence that says it wasn't you. The messages and the pictures broke so many rules at once, including one that a user is still suffering a year ban from, that a two-week ban was IMO generous.
 * This is not something I can forget and will need extremely strong evidence that can conclusively say that you didn't do it, which I haven't seen. So unless you have new evidence that you haven't presented, I'm forced to deal with what is at hand, and so far, there's nothing that I'm seeing that doesn’t begin to convince me that you didn't do it.
 * I'm more than capable of reading and reanalyzing evidence, but when there is no evidence presented, then I can't do anything about it. That may be harsh, but that's the facts that are being presented. There's a lot of evidence against you and so far there hasn't been very much to eliminate it. Lancer1289 03:29, October 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Blazingswords, the fact remains, and it's abundantly clear, that your account was used to post pornographic images on this wiki. There is absolutely no evidence that it wasn't you who did this. None. A ban was a no-brainer. SpartHawg948 06:37, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

Collector's Edition dog
It totally is a FENRIS. I don't see how that's either irrelevant or speculation. --Lucius Voltaic 19:57, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * So where's your proof that it is a FERNIS mech apart from visual comparison. Lancer1289 20:01, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. I said it appeared to be a FENRIS mech. 2. Visual comparison is relied on all the time. Take, for a random example, Captain Bailey. He's listed as human. Does he ever say "By the way, I'm human"? He could be a midget Brobdingnagian or something, but there's not really reasonable doubt there. --Lucius Voltaic 20:53, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Incorrect and straight visual comparisons are not allowed on this site. Your trivia is not valid because you are making a visual comparison and that isn't allowed. It even states that visual comparisons are not valid trivia without some backup. Quote, "Note that straight visual comparisons in things that really are otherwise unrelated are not enough to justify trivia". You are making a pure visual comparison, and you don't have backup. FERNIS mechs are security drones, yet this is a robot companion. So either get some further evidence or it will not be mentioned.
 * Also your analogy isn't valid because your saying that just because he doesn't say he's human, he isn't. How is that logic? In fact that is about the most flawed analogy that I've seen a person use to argue their point. If we did that, then we have to say that anyone who doesn't mention their species or say what they are, isn't that species. So let's start with the Councilors, Anderson, and Udina and go from there. We could even expand that to say that anyone in the games who doesn't explicitly mention they are a member of a species, then we can't put them into that species. So we can’t say that Wasea is an asari, we can’t say that Joker is human, we can’t say Niftu is volus, and I could go on for some time. Where in the world is the logic in that? It's nothing but pure illogical and one of the most ridiculous things I've seen anyone use to argue their point. The analogy has a fatal flaw that you are trying to exploit, but the thing is it fatally weakens your argument. Lancer1289 21:09, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * If the rules say that, then that's fine, but you're completely misunderstanding my analogy. I'm not saying that Bailey isn't a human. I'm just saying that even though we don't have explicit confirmation, we can still assume that he is. --Lucius Voltaic 21:14, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, your refutation of what you thought my analogy was is the point I was making in the first place: that we can use visual comparisons to a degree. --Lucius Voltaic 21:15, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * And again your point is that we can't assume anything, which is a completely flawed statement. Anything that isn't explicit, we can't mention, and that is some of the most ridiculous thinking that I've ever seen. We aren't using a visual comparison to say he's human, he obviously a human, based on a lot off evidence, and not just a visual comparison. Your analogy would say that he isn't because he doesn't say it. That is what your analogy is saying, not we make visual comparisons all the time. There are other things we use to classify things, but your way of thinking would make it so strict that we can't say anything unless it's so explicit that it has large neon signs around it. That is a flawed analogy, not what you say it is. Again, the analogy doesn’t help your case, it fatally weakens it. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. I KNOW that's absurd. That's my WHOLE POINT. I am AGREEING that it would be ridiculous to say that we don't know he's a human. I am pointing out that we DO know he's human DESPITE the fact that no one actually says it. Have I made myself clear yet? --Lucius Voltaic 21:33, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * And you clearly glossed over some of my sentences in my last comment. Lancer1289 21:38, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, what did I gloss over? Let me emphasize that my point is exactly not, as you said, "that we can't assume anything". --Lucius Voltaic 22:09, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mainly the sentence "There are other things we use to classify things, but your way of thinking would make it so strict that we can't say anything unless it's so explicit that it has large neon signs around it." However, the point you are/were making so you could get what you wanted in the article. We can't use visual comparisons as it is a violation of the MoS for things like that. Assumptions are backed up here and you are arguing to get your thing in, yet are trying to say something else. Lancer1289 22:36, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually trying to get my edit in any more, I'm just trying to get you to understand what I was saying. You mention your sentence about how my way of thinking was strict. But you're the one who took out my edit--does it make sense that I would be stricter than you? I was pointing out that such a strict interpretation of the rules would not make sense--NOT promoting it. --Lucius Voltaic 22:47, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except this isn't an interpretation of the rules, it is the rules. We don't allow visual comparisons on this site, and that was your only justification for the inclusion. Because there is no other reason, then it isn't valid because of the rule. It's not my interpretation, it's the rule. Plan and simple. We've removed trivia about Omega and High Charity I don't know how many times now and the only thing that was used there to justify the trivia was a visual comparison. You need evidence to back up a visual comparison and you don't have it. Lancer1289 23:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not arguing about the FENRIS thing anymore! I gave up on that hours ago! How can I make this any clearer? ALL I AM TRYING TO DO IS EXPLAIN MY ARGUMENT. The argument which I am not still trying to win with, in case you still don't understand that.
 * FACT. It is not explicitly said that Bailey is human.
 * FACT. It is, however, reasonable to assume that Bailey is human.
 * CONCLUSION. It is sometimes reasonable to assume something without it being explicitly said.
 * OPINION. It is reasonable in the dog's case.
 * That argument, right there, that is all I was saying. I am not still saying that it is reasonable in the dog's case. That is what I was saying at the beginning of the discussion. Also, when you say it "isn't an interpretation of the rules, it is the rules" that's not correct. The strict interpretation which I was referring to is the interpretation, which I do not agree with, and have never agreed with, that would have Bailey not listed as human. NO ONE IS PROMOTING THAT INTERPRETATION. NO ONE HAS EVER, EVER, EVER, BEEN PROMOTING THAT INTERPRETATION. --Lucius Voltaic 02:02, October 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it the same size as the FENRIS? Does it move the same way?  Does it make the same sounds?  Why don't we wait till we actually SEE it.--144.96.212.163 21:12, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * See my reasons above, and someone else's reasons below, for why it can't go in. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he meant that, to use/refer to Lucius's analogy, we can tell that Bailey is a human because he is the same size as a standard male human, his anatomical motions are the same as a human, and he sounds like a human, so he is a human. THe wiki contributor is just saying that we should wait for it to be released before we confirm what it is. Well, that's how I interpreted it at least. --CommanderCousland 21:54, October 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I'd be against mentioning that it's a FENRIS (whether or not it actually is; of course it's extremely likely that the Robotic Dog is a FENRIS, but BioWare could always throw a curve ball and call it a FENRIS 1XC or another name) mainly because I don't feel such a statement belongs in the article. The article for the CE versions of ME games are pretty much word-for-word from what info BioWare has given us. The contents of those CE's are explained in-depth in separate articles (where separate articles are necessary) and linked to in the CE articles. Once we learn more about the Robotic Dog (such as if "Robotic Dog" is its final name in ME3), we'll probably make an article for it. That article would be the best place for info about the RD. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:17, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll wait and see. Lancer1289 21:28, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #2
I was the one who edited Admiral Koris Vas Qwib Qwib, Admiral Xen vas Moreh. Why did you delete them, i was trying to put a link of a video but you delted them.
 * First I only removed the Kasumi Goto eidt, I didn’t remove the edits you are talking about. It was actually Commdor who removed your edits, and I don't know how you could get our user names confused. Second, it was removed because it was unsourced material and without a source, it isn't a valid addition and will be removed. However, if the video is the same one that Commdor is thinking of, then that isn't confirmation, rather it is speculation. No dialogue is used and therefore we can't confirm who they are. We need evidence, and the video, if it is the one I'm thinking, and that Commdor was thinking of, is not proof. Third, we don't allow videos up be uploaded to the wiki. If you want a further explanation of why those two edits were removed, then ask the person who actually removed them as I'm guessing here. I can only speak for one edit, and it’s neither one of the two you incorrectly told me I undid. Lancer1289 19:18, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know
There is a vandel by a user named Blehh vandalizing the DA wiki with porn. You may want to keep an eye out in case he/she comes hereSer Derek of Highever 18:39, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We'll keep an eye out. Lancer1289 18:41, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

House Divided
On the Trivia section of Legion: A House Divided, where it says the name might be a reference to Lincoln's speech or to Mark 3:25, I put a note that said Lincoln's speech was itself referring to Mark. You took that away--why? Do you want me to cite something? --Lucius Voltaic 15:29, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * To which I ask, did you read my edit summary? From your comment, I'm guessing not. Another question I ask, what was the point of adding it in the first place? Answer: Without devconfirmation on what source it is referring to, it is basically irrelevant as the line could be referring to either one. The only thing it did was bias a reader towards one part of the trivia, while saying the other was almost irrelevant. Because we don't know what it is referring to, we have to keep the trivia neutral when it could be referencing two or more sources, and what you did again was bias it towards one particular part of it. If you want it to go back in, then get devconfirmation that the line is referring specifically to Lincoln's speech, and it can be worked in accordingly. However, without it, we cannot bias trivia towards one particular item, as we don't know what it is referring to. It doesn’t matter what Lincoln was referencing, it matters what the line in the game was referencing, and given there are two equally likely possibilities, Mark may be even more so as that is where Legion gets its name, we have to consider both options equally and not bias the trivia toward one, which is again what you did. Lancer1289 17:10, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * How was I biasing the trivia? I was just making it clear that these were not completely separate sources. I would never say that Lincoln's speech is irrelevant, especially as it is now where most people know that line from. --Lucius Voltaic 21:52, October 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Read my last comment as it clearly explains how you were biasing the trivia with unnecessary and irrelevant details. When a piece of trivia could reference two things, then we must demonstrate a relationship between the thing being referenced and the thing being referenced. Any other details about them are irrelevant as they have nothing to do with the trivia and add only unnecessary details that could end up biasing the reader towards one piece of the trivia over the other. Either way though, it was irrelevant as it did nothing to enhance the reference between the line being referenced, and the possible sources. Lancer1289 22:00, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Revision 224431 to Mass Effect Guide 2 (Tali:Treason)
Although minor, the change I made was to clarify that Veetor will always be alive and present at the trial. However, he will only help if he wasn't interrogated by Cerberus. On the other hand, Kal'Reegar won't show up or help if he's dead.
 * Specific details like that belong in the guide page itself as the ME2 guide itself is really more of a very general overview. Lancer1289 20:58, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Pyjak page
The content wasn't valid unless you consider "Uberhaxor mudafukaa" as valid to Mass Effect. That's the text that was showing up on the front page.--144.96.212.163 16:50, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. The page is fine and there is no vandalism on it, a simple check of the page will show that. If you persist on removing valid content, you will be blocked.Lancer1289 16:51, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I only edited the page once, and I don't appreciate being threatened. I did perform a simple check, and the page looks fine now.  It was NOT fine when I edited it.--144.96.212.163 16:59, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, what you did was remove valid content, which is a bannable offense. That's not a threat, that's fact. The page was 100% fine when you edited the page and a check of the history will confirm that. The page before you edited it, and the page after you edited it. The history doesn't back you up as you clearly removed valid content and there was no vandalism on the page when you edited it.
 * Regardless, removing valid content is a bannable offense and that is clearly outlined in the Community Guidelines. Lancer1289 17:05, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * The page was hacked, Lancer. Two different editors including myself saw it.  I was in the middle of fixing it.  I removed the line, whatever it was, that was causing the wrong text to appear.  As I said in my edit, the edit text and the screen output didn't match.  Now you can either take my word for it as a fellow editor and be on the lookout for this in the near future or you can continue to bluster about bans and Community Guidelines.--144.96.212.163 17:11, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * The page wasn't hacked as it showed up quite clearly the first time I logged on this morning. The vandalism was removed 9 hours before your edit and I don't know what the problem was, but the facts are not in your favor here. I have actually never seen this happen except during a database lock and there wasn't one today. I can only go off the evidence at hand, and the evidence is not in your favor. Lancer1289 18:31, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks as though the unregistered users were viewing a cache page instead of the current. Why?  Don't know, but I do know I'm no liar.  We could've figured this out without all the talk of banning and rule breaking, Lancer.  I was just trying to fix what looked like vandalism to me.  You know I've heard several times about how the admins here have to deal with alot of vandals and such, but it seems to me like you wouldn't have so many things to fix if the editors felt empowered to fix things.  As for me the next time I see vandalism of any type, I'm not doing anything to help.  I don't want to be banned and have to defend myself against your implaccable "evidence".--144.96.212.163 18:50, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * So you can't look at things from my perspective then can you? From your last comment, and you attitude, I'm guessing not. I can only go by the evidence at hand, and given what I can see, the removal of valid content twice, despite the fact the vandalism was removed over 7 and 9 hours before the edits were made, I can't ignore that. I've never seen, or heard of an instance where Wikia permitted the editing of a cashed page over the current version, and the only thing I think that could cause that would be a database lock, and there wasn't one that day. But, during a database lock, there is no editing. Again the evidence doesn’t support your version of events given the evidence I have to go on. The evidence says one thing, you say another, so what do I have to go by, what I can see. We've heard just about every excuse in the book, so the physical evidence is what we have to go on.
 * The bottom line is that the Evidence, not the "evidence", doesn't support your version of events, and that's all I have to go on. The warnings are standard procedure when this occurs and that is also something you didn't, or can't, consider. Lancer1289 18:59, October 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove anything twice, Lancer. I removed it once and was in the middle of putting it back.  I see your side just fine; all I'm looking for is for you to acknowledge that maybe I wasn't acting maliciously.  "Alright buddy, No harm no foul, sh*t happens,..."  Anything that let's me know I'm talking to a person I can maybe trust and not some rules-bot looking to ban me at the drop of a hat.  You should think about altering "standard procedure" a bit so that people aren't immediately thrown on the defensive regardless of their intentions.--144.96.212.163 18:19, October 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * When did I say you removed it twice? Please indicate where I made that statement because I stated that it was removed twice, but did I ever say by you? Answer, no. You again realize that when someone removes valid content, a warning about them being banned is standard procedure? It doesn't remotely matter if you like it or not, support it or not, that is procedure and I, and any other admin will do the same thing. I have to go with the evidence here and evidence says you removed valid content. I don't look for reasons to ban people, despite your very inaccurate, accusatory, ridiculous, and inflammatory claim, as we are more than capable of leaving a warning about it, and leaving it at that. That is where it almost always, like 98% of the time, ends with the person receiving the warning either dropping it, or just saying it won't happen again.
 * Yet you are the one who persisted on continuing a conversation that has long sense been dead of any meaning and at this point, its more like you complaining about how I followed site policy, and you don't like it. Procedure is procedure, and I doubt it will change as removing valid content is a serious offense and if it persists, then someone will be banned because of it. The page wasn't vandalized when you edited it, as it was removed over nine hours beforehand. That is what the Evidence in this case says, so let's take a closer look at that.
 * So what does the evidence say. You say one thing, and the evidence says another. Who should I believe? You, someone who has had a problem in the past with policy, specifically the voice actor trivia policy and complained when you didn't get your way, or the evidence, a.k.a. the page history? Everything I know about how Wikia works, and how the editing process works, tells me to believe the evidence because of what I stated above. The evidence doesn't support your version of the events, while the evidence supporting the other side does. If I was looking to ban you at the drop of a hat, then you would already be banned and we wouldn't be having this conversation, yet you aren't banned and I left a warning about it, as is site policy. Am I capable of thinking that someone wasn't asking nefariously, yes, but when the evidence says something else, then I have to consider that as well. If we just took people's words, then we wouldn't be very productive and we'd be having so many problems, that we'd look like a joke.
 * Again I have to go with what the evidence says, and the evidence says that you removed valid content. Am I willing to admit there might have been an issue, yes, but the fact of how the editing process works, not allowing users to edit an old version of the page, says otherwise. Even when there is a database lock, the RC and WA can jump around often, not showing more recent edits, but the page histories, and if you manage to get an edit screen, show the current version of the page, not an old one. Lancer1289 18:56, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Let this go guys. There's enough right on both sides to continue this argument indefinitely.--Captainhu 03:38, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

sorry to spoil
ha 23333 edits
 * I'm perfectly capable of reading my own edit count. I don't need a little reminder of things like this. Lancer1289 00:21, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
Sorry, I didnt realise it was a violation of MoS on System Pages. User:JediSpectre117 17:21, October 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that kind of thing isn't permitted on those pages as it breaks the in-universe feel of the article. Things like that are noted in the planet articles themselves, and on the Planet Scanning page. Lancer1289 16:28, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dude.
I'm new on this wiki...Is there a IRC chat We can talk on or....Is it just messages. Commander Faol 23:03, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, welcome. As to the talking part, we use talk pages here. We don't have an IRC channel. If you prefer something more private, we use email, which you can access here. Email will only work however if you have a validated email account with Wikia. Lancer1289 00:03, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #3
Just wondering why you deleted my edit about the Dr Pepper promotional items for ME2. That promotion has restarted, and those items are available again. I thought that information should be out there for the people who didn't (or didn't get a chance to) get them the first time around. 75.75.41.174 13:42, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had read my edit summary you would have found your answer. The answer is simple, a source is needed for that information. Since you didn't provide one, the undo was simple. Lancer1289 13:50, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * The source was the official Dr Pepper promotions page I linked to. If that's not enough, though, here's another one. If it wasn't up to snuff, maybe you could have edited it instead of deleting it outright? 75.75.41.174 01:27, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) First I don't see any of the DLC that was offered. I should also note that at times over the course of the last year, we've heard several reports of it being avaliable again, and when we go to the page, even if they are listed, which has happened in the past, no one can access them. This time however, they aren't even showing up. Second, that source is not even remotely an acceptable source. Fan sites like that are not acceptable. Get a better source.
 * So it wasn't even close to being acceptable and therefore removal, rather than modification was the only option. Get a source that is more reliable than a fan site and then we can talk.
 * As to the source you added which caused the edit conflict, that is also not an acceptable source. Lancer1289 01:40, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Screenshot proof in an imgur album: link 75.75.41.174 02:53, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Still not good enough. Lancer1289 02:55, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be good enough? 167.64.57.21 14:28, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit mean lancer 153.107.97.161 03:26, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * What is, asking for a reasonable source? Or informing him that a source he provided isn't good enough? Both are quite reasonable and unless you have something to contribute to the conversation, a.k.a. a valid source, then please don't contribute. I prefer to keep conversations on topic as much as possible and this had nothing to do with the topic at hand. And I find myself having to say this again, for the umpteenth time, reading text is subjected to so many factors that what you read, may not be what someone else reads. Lancer1289 03:32, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * What Lancer is referring to is a magazine source (e.g. OXM magazine) or another reputable source that contains dev confirmation regarding the presence and ability to attain these promotional items. Yes they were available before, but this particular instance requires the necessary sources I just mentioned. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 15:27, November 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I followed the link and clearly saw the promotion with the availability dates of 12/31/2011 and 1/31/2012 for redemptions. However, these same dates apply to all the codes for all the games, so there isn't anything that says this is definitely for the ME2 stuff.  It seems obvious that these dates apply, but the level for confirmation around here is always extremely high.--144.96.212.163 21:51, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

RE:Question
''Just a few links about the issue with DE at hand but basically, we're discussing how his treatment is justified by his actions. The last link probably explains everything the best but most are just examples of some things he's done. He hasn't done anything to affect this site in any way though so it's really nothing to worry about. I simply felt he needed to be called out on his comment.''


 * here (Removing content from another user's page)
 * here (admitting to plagiarism from Mass Effect Universe)
 * here (Quoted insult and admittance of sockpuppeting plus user response)
 * here (Moving article to inappropriate name)
 * here (Admin's response to one of many sockpuppet accounts)

--DeadDATA 04:04, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting and I thank you for the links, but in the future, could you please respond on your talk page like I ask at the top of mine. I despise cross page conversations. Lancer1289 04:17, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, if you have an Email, I would like to talk with you about this on friendly terms. No doubt that the other Admin teams have, most likely, already told you stories about me from their point of view, but I have no beef with you, you've never steered me wrong, so, if possible, I would like to talk with you on this on a mature, man-to-man level. You do understand most of these events are complete misunderstandings and the background leading up to said events happened several years ago. Just take note, this entire fiasco could and would have been avoided entirely if DeadDATA had just left well enough alone and let sleeping dogs lie, it is him I am angry at, this is a message of peace. Please consider it from an unemotional, rational, neutral standpoint...please. I am begging you. Just hear my side of the story out for a moment. --Dark Energy: The forces of the universe bend to me. 01:03, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now I am extremely hesitant to give you my email, or the link to it. Your conduct both on the blog and on DeadDATA's talk page are...disturbing to say the least. To that end, and the evidence presented, FYI I haven't done any contacts yet, there are some disturbing trends in your behavior and your recent conduct hasn't done anything to elevate that.
 * So what I'm saying is that you need to convince me that you will not extend the behavior you have demonstrated on the blog and on DeadDATA's talk page, being mad at him doesn’t in any sense of the word excuse your behavior, to an email. Is this a no for giving you the link? No it is not. What I want is for you to convince me that I should provide a link, rather than having you discuss it in the open. I also want your assurance that you will not continue this behavior if I do give you the link because if I see it once, and only once, then I will not hesitate to break off all communications because you will have done nothing but repeat behavior which is unacceptable, rude, and insulting. And doing it behind someone's back is even worse. Not to mention you will only confirm my suspicions about your behavior. Lancer1289 02:36, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't act that way to you. I never get psychotic like that when it comes to tender situations such as this, not to mention this is serious, I'm only like that around people I dislike or have personally attacked me (If you notice I did not attack anyone else--no excuse--just example), you are neither, and worry not, I wasn't trying to be excused of anything, I was coming to you with a matter of diplomacy, not excuse. I realized the situation was getting out of hand rather quickly so I took it to the Administration. You will find that was my original intentions in coming here, to convince you, diplomatically, of my ability to reason, which, again, you will find are well beyond what you may believe based on outside perspective of impression and experience. Me coming here in the first place was my assurance that I would cease confrontations on all fronts, it would be detrimental to my cause. --Dark Energy: The forces of the universe bend to me. 03:10, November 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well. I still have reservations, but here. Just remember, one insult towards me or someone else, one anything, and it's over. Lancer1289 03:56, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

Missing Title #4
Quick question: A while ago, I put down on the ME3 Multiplayer page that there wouldn't be splitscreen and said I learned this on xbox360achievements.org (It was in a interview) and you removed it saying the source wasn't good enough, and now, somebody has added Quarian to the list of playable species but didn't give a source or anything to prove this, but you haven't removed it yet, why not? I added a FACT from a interview on a game news site, and you removed it but you haven't removed something which hasn't been proven or given a source to prove it.
 * First, you couldn't leave a new message and follow simple directions like I ask at the top of my talk page? This is done so that it makes it every so much easier for me to communicate. To that point, I specifically ask that people not edit sections that have nothing to do with what they are talking about, like you did.
 * Second, no source was provided for the information and because there was no source, the information will be removed. I do not have time to go hunting through a site for information and it is up to the person who adds the information to source it. This is not an unreasonable request, but yet one that is often not followed and results in this. You must provide a source for your information, not just "I got this information from (insert site name here)", and since you didn't, information will be removed as unsourced information. Lancer1289 14:43, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Possible co-op Splitscreen local splay
There was rumor and im wandering i'd love to play with little bro and it comes out on his b-day so yeah?

--Commander Elijah sheperd 02:19, November 6, 2011 (UTC)