Mass Effect Wiki
Mass Effect Wiki
(reply)
Tag: Source edit
 
(63 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
{{archive-box
  +
|width=300px
  +
|border-color=white
  +
|background-color=#7289da
  +
|image-size=75px
  +
|title=<span style="color:white">Cattlesquat's Talk Archive</span>
  +
|
  +
* [[/Archive 1|<span style="color:white">"In Former Times" 2013-2015</span>]]
  +
}}
  +
__TOC__
   
== Making Edits ==
 
   
  +
== Thanks for communicating with me ==
Please, when making edits to an article, please try and do it in a few edits as possible. Making multiple edits clogs up the RC and makes it harder to patrol the edits and check them. Making one edit allows for easier checking. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289]] ([[User talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 00:08, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
:Okay, just saw this, will do. I assume you mean trying to just edit each single "section" one time (smallest thing that has an "Edit" box above it), as opposed to editing the entire page from the top link. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 00:47, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
::No, what I mean is that if you are going to make a large number of changes to a page, do it from the top link and not each individual section. This makes things easier to check and reduces clog on the RC. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289]] ([[User talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 01:30, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
:::OH! Gotcha. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 01:55, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Hello Cattlesquat!
== basic formatting 101 ==
 
   
  +
Thank you for communicating with me, unfortunately I have had problems before like this and the person who deleted it did not even read it because the minute I uploaded it he deleted it, I appreciate that you have contacted me but I do not know if I can contact him to upload it again due to to what happened
please take the time to familiarize yourself with wikia's formatting styles and this wiki's conventions in detailing out mission walkthroughs if you're to keep adding extensive notes on them. people are lazy in this wiki and the ones who aren't are bogged down trying to clean up rather than actively pursuing their own content-related projects.
 
   
  +
and I have to communicate that I did not know how but I left it back where it was, I am sorry but since English is not my main language I had that problem, I understand if they decide to eliminate it
firstly, wikia doesn't accept immediate line breaks. if you want to start your {{note|tips}} or next paragraphs on the next line you have to hit "enter" twice, not just once.
 
  +
I appreciate that you have contacted me, [[User talk:TobiNeko200|TobiNeko200]]
   
  +
== Request ==
secondly, images are still part of the walkthrough and are fitted snugly according to the text written before you edited. please make sure that your additions do not f--- with the formatting, the preview button is there for a reason.
 
   
  +
Hey Cattlesquat!
you can always consult the tl;dr guidelines and manuals of style underneath the community link in the top navigation bar for the rest. [[User:Temporaryeditor78|T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤]] ([[User talk:Temporaryeditor78|talk]]) 04:15, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
:For what it's worth I do actually preview them and thought they looked okay -- I may just have bad taste, lol. Sometimes it seems like a "Tip" just belongs at the end of a paragraph rather than starting a whole new one for example. I'll have a look at the style guide though for sure. Out of curiousity... do you intentionally use a sig/font that makes it look like the Matrix threw up on my screen, or do I just have a crappy system? [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 04:22, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
If my understanding is correct and you are interested in being part of the new administration of the wiki, would you mind scribbling something down under [[Mass_Effect_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship#Requests]]? For the records :)
yep, i left some of your tips at the ends of paragraphs intact if they fit better with the preceding text, but in some cases where you're apparently trying to put them on the next line i fixed em. along with other things that needed fixing. just please be mindful of how things were previously laid out, try fitting your additions in the same vein, and we're good.
 
   
  +
In the meantime, at least enjoy the rollback button! —[[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] <span style="font-size:0.9em;"><sup>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Elseweyr|stalk]]</sup></span> May 29, 2021, 19:14:58 <span style="font-size:0.8em;">(UTC)</span>
as for my sig, your computer is haunted. [[User:Temporaryeditor78|T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤]] ([[User talk:Temporaryeditor78|talk]]) 04:38, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:Done - hopefully correctly on my phone from Mexico, haha [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 20:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
== credit where it's due ==
 
   
  +
::Yes, all good. Congratulations and enjoy your vacation! —[[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] <span style="font-size:0.9em;"><sup>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Elseweyr|stalk]]</sup></span> May 30, 2021, 07:51:05 <span style="font-size:0.8em;">(UTC)</span>
[http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Jack:_Subject_Zero?curid=11769&diff=398429&oldid=398427 it's lilyheartsliara's]. just sayin. [[User:Temporaryeditor78|T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤]] ([[User talk:Temporaryeditor78|talk]]) 14:25, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
:Whoops, lol, the email's diff button tricked me. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 15:14, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:::Fun! For "my first official act" I updated the custom CSS user colors to reflect the current state of affairs :) Incidentally perhaps we should consider a color other than "bold white" for the admin color, since it actually blends in rather than stands out on talk pages. If you're amenable I'll figure something out. Like admins could be <span style="color:orange"><b>Orange Like Notes</b></span> and bureaucrats could be <span style="color:yellow"><b>Yellow</b></span> because it's less unatrractive than the current color :) Or there's <span style="color:#66ff00"><b>green</b></span> and the unending shades of <span style="color:#1545fc"><b>azure :)</b></span> and <span style="color:#e680fa"><b>lavender</b></span>... Thoughts? [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 15:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
== Location of Preparation headings ==
 
   
  +
::::Cheers. I personally don't mind the bureaucrat teal, but I suppose the admin silver could stand to be a bit more eye-catching. Feel free to propose something different and we can have a vote. The suggestions above are a bit aggressive on the eyes, so maybe go for shades that blend in with the overall wiki colors a bit better :) —[[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] <span style="font-size:0.9em;"><sup>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Elseweyr|stalk]]</sup></span> May 30, 2021, 19:00:30 <span style="font-size:0.8em;">(UTC)</span>
You say that you are moving the prep sections to the standard established by two walkthrough missions. If more pages are the other way around, isn't THAT the standard? [[User:Trandra|Trandra]] ([[User talk:Trandra|talk]]) 23:55, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:::::Idea 1 is <span style="color:#00a0a0"><b>Bureaucrat</b></span>, <span style="color:orange"><b>Admin</b></span>, and <span style="color:#00ccff"><b>Senior Editor</b></span>. Bureaucrat is the same hue but brightened up a bit. Admin is the same color we use in the wiki for e.g. {{note|Tips}}. Senior Editor retains its existing color. Or if you prefer the original Bureaucrat teal it can just stay the same.
:Well, yes and no. A few of the early missions had prep headers, and I followed those when adding some to a number of ME3 missions. Then I finally got to the last few missions, and ran into a batch where someone had (A) done a nice job on the walkthrough and (B) had a == prep section instead of a === prep section. So in other words a bunch of the ones that I'm going back and changing were created by me... so I didn't weight them as strongly. I sort of guessed that those late == ones were done by Lancer and so maybe more of a preferred format. Also when I went back and looked, I noticed that putting the prep before actually makes the outlines look a little less lopsided. So then I was faced with "hmmm, these are done two different ways" and decided to work on standardizing. I picked the == version because (A) they appeared in more complete, authoritative looking walkthroughs, (B) they made the outlines less lopsided, and (C) vague personal preference as a walkthrough "customer". Soooooooo, that said, I don't ultimately have super-strong feelings about which way other than they should probably be the same, and since I've been proofing through the missions as I do a playthrough I figured I'd gradually move them all over to one format. If important peeps would rather me put them all the OTHER way I'm happy to do that. Your faithful servant, etc. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 00:58, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:::::If the orange is too aggressive then other colors seen around the wiki include <span style="color:#7289da"><b>Discord Box</b></span>, <span style="color:#00dada"><b>Play Buttons</b></span>, <span style="color:#1492dc"><b>Main Headers</b></span>, and <span style="color:#01af3e"><b>Subdued Green</b></span> reminiscent of the edit sizes. I mean yes there's red too but that's more of an "error color" and pretty aggressive too. Of course if you want the highest possible clickthrough rate it turns out to be pink :)
== ME Talent names ==
 
   
  +
:::::My personal first preference is the orange & brighter teal, but I also like (in this order) Discord, Subdued Green, Main Headers. And I await ... OPINIONS! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 20:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
When you're doing the Prep sections for ME sections, please note the following links don't go to where you want them to go.
 
   
  +
::::::Fancy colors seems to be to bold ;). I like the Idea 1 if you switch colors of bureaucrat and admins. Orange is too fancy for us IMO. Anyway, every choice suits me. [[User:DeldiRe|DeldiRe]] ([[User talk:DeldiRe|talk]]) 20:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
<code><nowiki>[[AI Hacking]]</nowiki></code> should be <code><nowiki>[[Hacking#AI Hacking|AI Hacking]]</nowiki></code><br/>
 
<code><nowiki>[[Neural Shock]]</nowiki></code> should be <code><nowiki>[[Medicine#Neural Shock|Neural Shock]]</nowiki></code><br/>
 
<code><nowiki>[[Overload]]</nowiki></code> should be <code><nowiki>[[Electronics#Overload|Overload]]</nowiki></code><br/>
 
<code><nowiki>[[Sabotage]]</nowiki></code> should be <code><nowiki>[[Decryption#Sabotage|Sabotage]]</nowiki></code><br/>
 
<code><nowiki>[[Carnage]]</nowiki></code> should be <code><nowiki>[[Shotguns#Carnage|Carnage]]</nowiki></code><br/>
 
<code><nowiki>[[Marksman]]</nowiki></code> should be <code><nowiki>[[Pistols#Marksman|Marksman]]</nowiki></code>
 
   
  +
:::::::My current favorite is <span style="color:#00a0a0"><b>Bureaucrat</b></span>, <span style="color:#7289da"><b>Admin</b></span>, and <span style="color:#00ccff"><b>Senior Editor</b></span> (after the Bioware guy posted today and lit the RC on fire with the gold color I changed my mind about orange!)
The biotic talents and powers are all on one page, luckily. [[User:Trandra|Trandra]] ([[User talk:Trandra|talk]]) 15:23, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
  +
:::::::Alternative <span style="color:#00a0a0"><b>Bureaucrat</b></span>, <span style="color:#01af3e"><b>Admin</b></span>, and <span style="color:#00ccff"><b>Senior Editor</b></span> [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
   
: Woofzers! Thanks! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 15:48, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
+
::::::::Alternative looks good to me for what it worth. [[User:DeldiRe|DeldiRe]] ([[User talk:DeldiRe|talk]]) 20:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
::::::::I'm also fine with "Alternative". —[[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] <span style="font-size:0.9em;"><sup>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Elseweyr|stalk]]</sup></span> June 5, 2021, 15:39:53 <span style="font-size:0.8em;">(UTC)</span>
::A couple other things for clarification:
 
::#[[Talk:Richard L. Jenkins#Finally, Dev Comment on Possible Reference|This is the official word on Richard L. Jenkins]].
 
::#Enemy pages are separate from the encyclopedic pages for some things, but not others. Thresher Maw and Krogan Battlemaster get separate enemy pages, but Kai Leng and the Shadow Broker do not. [[User:Teugene|Teugene]] tried to get [[Forum:Cleaning enemy characters pages|community input]] on possible lore vs. gameplay separations for these things, but it didn't go anywhere.
 
::Keep up the good work.
 
::[[User:Trandra|Trandra]] ([[User talk:Trandra|talk]]) 06:36, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
:::Cool tracking down that Jenkins dev-deconfirm. I don't have a dog in the fight on the Jenkins thing - I had just stumbled upon someone putting the trivia in w/ horrible grammar and cleaned it up since it sounded vaguely plausible, but then I happened to scan through the history and saw it was a long-running edit skirmish and so quickly pulled it back out hoping no one would ever even notice my grubby fingerprints on it ... oops! Gotta save my ammo for ''important'' things like Aeian T'Goni. :-) [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 14:55, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:::::::::Vive L'Alternative! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 15:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
== extra space advisory ==
 
   
  +
----
wikia seems to be forcing extra spaces at the end of all section-based edits lately, and since you're one of those who still bother to contribute i'd like to bring this issue to mind.
 
  +
I agree that simple bolding doesn't really call much attention to itself for the Admin status (and it feels weird that "senior editor" status stands out more, currently. In general I do favor subdued (cool end of the spectrum) colors but simple white bolding is a little ''too ''subdued. Another possible issue, I noticed that Tagaziel's name is a similar blue as the current "senior editor" status color; while Fandom staff do have an additional teal heart symbol to further separate them, maybe we want to avoid potential confusion that a senior editor is official Fandom staff. Also I think Yellow is for Developers/BioWare staff already, just pointing that out. Maybe a darker blue for senior editors, and say, purple-ish/lavender for Admin? Also like the "Discord Box" and "Subdued Green" colors. Just throwing it out. [[User:Ale89515|Ale89515]] ([[User talk:Ale89515|talk]]) 06:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  +
----
   
  +
== Pinnacle DLC ==
namely, check for any spaces at the very end of any edit you make. if there's any, backspace it. helps save time from having to correct oversights like this. thanks. [[User:Temporaryeditor78|T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤]] ([[User talk:Temporaryeditor78|talk]]) 15:10, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
I guess you'll have to settle for Anderson's apartment in the Citadel DLC. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 17:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
:Okay I'll keep an eye out for it, thanks. Gonna be out of town for a week so won't be producing entries for a bit. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 15:22, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:IKR?! That's a LONG WAY down a permadeath run to kick back a bit ;) [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 16:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
== FYI ==
 
   
  +
== Administrators and other Community page updates ==
Please stop giving out false information. Things that are to be taken to the talk pages are things like trivia disputes, major article changes, and things of the like. What ''is not'' is simple basic edits that do nothing but change the wording to mean the same thing. That is usually handled by a user talk page discussion, if it is even necessary.
 
   
A seven day discussion is also only to be used in those cases, not for what you think it is. There are still come clear gaps in your understading of site policies. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289]] ([[User talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 20:41, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
+
First, congrats on Admin status! I wanted to ask about updating pages like [[Mass_Effect_Wiki:Administrators]] this one so people know who's who. Is there a protocol about changing those? History shows only higher ups messing with it so I won't touch it myself. Thanks! [[User:Ale89515|Ale89515]] ([[User talk:Ale89515|talk]]) 20:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
:Nothing wrong with updating it accurately! After all you're higher up yourself now :) And it is helpful to have nudges to find the various Old Things and keep them up to date. I will eventually get to that page, but if you get there before me that's fine. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 20:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
:If the policy somewhere restricts what of a page's content can be taken to it's talk page, then that's news to me, and I'd appreciate you first educating me here by providing a link to where policy says that. I certainly can't find that, and since it's not the way Wikipedia works I'm pretty sure it would need to be spelled out explicitly as an exception here in our own policies. I'm sure that an ''option'' is to work it out with an editor on their talk page, however when there is obviously a dispute between two editors then as far as anything I can find the talk page for the article is not only acceptable it is the preferred place for taking a vote about what goes in the article. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 20:46, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
::Just as a heads-up: I mean to make some changes to that page soon, so don't hold onto local drafts for too long if you have significant changes in mind :) —[[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] <span style="font-size:0.9em;"><sup>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Elseweyr|stalk]]</sup></span> June 2, 2021, 16:37:28 <span style="font-size:0.8em;">(UTC)</span>
Addendum: I should also point out that there are times when things will not be done by consensus for various reasons. Contrary to your belief, there are times when things are to be done the way they are for a reason. Even if that eludes you. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289]] ([[User talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 20:43, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
:I'm sure there are times when something trumps "talk page consensus". I can think of a few off the top of my head, e.g. where something is incontrovertibly (not just subjectively in one person's interpretation) against policy and the policy would need to be changed first -- which, of course, is itself done by consensus, just in a different way and place. But in any event this doesn't appear to be one of those times. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 20:48, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
+
::Other than the one small cleanup I already made a few days ago, I am "not presently in the pool", so fire away! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 16:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
::And here comes that argument again. I knew it was overdue for a reappearance.
 
::We have said it time and time again, ''this is NOT WIKIPEDIA''. What they do there does not impact things here. We only use their policies if it is explicitly pointed out. If this is how you have been operating, then that explains a great deal. Article talk pages are for what I have said, big sweeping changes, and for minor disputes, are to be talked between the users themselves. This has been advocated by admins for quite some time now. If there is a minor edit, then the best thing to do is to go directly to them and ask why. This is to prevent clogging of article talk pages with unnecessary discussions, and to get users talking to each other, even if it is a short conversation. Small, basic things, are to be worked out individually, big sweeping changes, trivia disputes, questions about content, are what talk pages are for. Not what you think. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289]] ([[User talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 20:58, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
==Please delete my post==
:::Never claimed this is Wikipedia, but it does form the spiritual basis for all Wikias. Obviously if we have a policy that restricts what of an article's content can have challenge/resolution on its talk page, then I'm sure it says that specifically in ''our'' policy somewhere, in which case I for the third time invite you to educate me by providing the link. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 21:08, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
  +
I can't delete my forum post, I think a SYSOP or Moderator is the only one who can, thanks. [[User:Ale89515|Ale89515]] ([[User talk:Ale89515|talk]]) 18:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
::::You are correct in that a link was not provided, however it is written in the Community Guidelines under the General FAQ, in the talk page, and the Commenting on other users sections. When making an edit, check the history for a summary, if one is not provided, then talk to the user. However, the particular quote is "Commenting on another user’s edits should be done on that article's Talk page or on the user’s talk page. If you disagree with a user’s edits, particularly if they are major edits, discuss them with the user and use basic courtesy." That in conjunction with the "notify users of major changes to the article" and "suggest improvements to the article structure (i.e. posting a new table format)" tell that talk pages are to be used for major changes, and minor editing disputes are to be handled between users on their individual talk pages. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289]] ([[User talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 21:17, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:Done. BTW I notice you often accidentally post to user pages rather than user talk pages, like this time :) One useful mnemonic for knowing you're on a User Talk page is that it has an "Add Topic" button rather than an "Edit" button? Not a huge deal, just trying to help. Some folks get grumpy when their profiles get edited. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 19:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:::::You seem determined not to provide a link, so I'll provide some for anyone else who happens to be reading: [[Mass_Effect_Wiki:Community_Guidelines#Talk_Pages]] in which a relevant quotation appears to be:
 
   
  +
::No, not a huge deal and easily rectified, so maybe not worth a lecture at this time. Studying for an exam and currently crammed to the gills with "mnemonics." Like you note, people can get "grumpy." [[User:Ale89515|Ale89515]] ([[User talk:Ale89515|talk]]) 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Each article's Talk page exists to:
 
   
  +
:::Good luck on the exams! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 20:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:::::::-ask questions about the article
 
:::::::-draw attention to a particular edit or explain why a particular edit was made
 
:::::::-communicate with another user (to answer their questions, query an edit etc.)
 
:::::::-suggest improvements to the article structure (i.e. posting a new table format)
 
:::::::-notify users of major changes to the article
 
   
  +
:::: (Deep sigh) Thanks. A little stressed out as you can tell. Wish I was on vacation like some lucky people. You couldn't know, but your above comment was... ''precisely tailored'' to piss me off. Think I'm going to take a break from here for a while, in all honesty have been using it to procrastinate. [[User:Ale89515|Ale89515]] ([[User talk:Ale89515|talk]]) 20:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
:::::What I note there is that under "drawing attention to a particular edit" and "communicate with an other user" there is nothing that says only "major" changes to an article can be communicated about. Indeed "notify users of major changes" is clearly a separate and ''additional'' purpose.
 
   
  +
== Hey ==
:::::Meanwhile under the other section you mentioned, [[Mass_Effect_Wiki:Community_Guidelines#Commenting_on_other_users]] features as its very first two sentences the following:
 
   
  +
Hello! Thanks for reaching out!
::::::"Commenting on another user’s edits should be done on that article's Talk page or on the user’s talk page. If you disagree with a user’s edits, particularly if they are major edits, discuss them with the user and use basic courtesy."
 
  +
I didn't expect one, given how far away I had made my edit. But thanks again. I will make some edits on wiki now. :). [[User:Matachak|Matachak]] ([[User talk:Matachak|talk]]) 21:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  +
:Great! We used to have an automatic system for welcoming new users, but Fandom apparently retired it last year, so given we have a wave of new users coming in as Legendary Edition launches we thought we should go through and greet folks! (i.e. clear the backlog) Enjoy! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 21:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
== Thank you for your welcoming ==
:::::So in the first sentence we learn together that comment can be done '''''either''''' on the article's talk page or the user's talk page, with absolutely no mention of "majorness" or "minorness". Meanwhile in the second sentence we find that if one disagrees with a user, '''''"particularly"''''' if it's a major edit, nowhere does it say "only" if it's a major edit, as if disagreements somehow weren't worth communicating with other users about if they aren't major edits.
 
   
  +
A little late, but still, thanks
:::::And with that said, it seems quite clear to me that our policy does NOT restrict use of an article's talk page to dispute/discuss/resolve content in the article of any level that turns out to need disputing (and again, if the edit is so minor, I wonder why you felt the need to challenge it; and having challenged it, you should be prepared to defend your challenge and not say "it can't even be discussed"). The clear conclusion I am drawing from my read of the policy page (thanks for those helpful links by the way) is that '''''YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT WHAT THE POLICY SAYS'''''. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to get back to being friendly to novice users. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 21:45, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:Glad to have you! Fandom apparently retired our "welcome bot", so was going through and clearing the backlog. Enjoy! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 14:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
(EDIT CONFLICT - I'll be back in a moment with a reply to your above comment, but meanwhile...) Meanwhile, you have chosen to cross-post about this issue on the talk page of a novice user ([[User_talk:Epenthesis#Romance Page]]). For the record, if provided a link showing how my advice contravened policy, I would have been happy to amend my advice to Epenthesis (and perhaps even apologize depending on the egregiousness of whatever). However, exactly 9 minutes after post on my talk page about this for the very first time and stating that you'd like me to amend my advice or you'd be pointing out my (at this point still "alleged" in my view) errors, you cross-posted on her page anyway. Not a great way to treat a novice user in my view, and directly contrary to the notice you give on your own talk page about how much you hate cross-posted conversations, but there it is. And since that has happened, I'm going to copy what I said there here too, as a means of keeping as much of the thread in one place, and/or for posterity:
 
   
  +
== Community Roundtable ==
::Epinthesis feel free to see my own talk page User_talk:Cattlesquat#FYI for another thread currently going on about this so that you'll be aware of the full discussion. Over there I'm waiting to be educated about where policy restricts what of an article's content can be taken to it's talk page. If there really is such a thing, then I'll read it and perhaps consider opening a policy forum item to change it.
 
   
  +
Hello! We recently sent an email to your registered email account about a community roundtable event. We'd love to know if you're going to be able to make it. There's a link in the email to respond and RSVP if you're interested! Hope to see you there! [[User:HeyTots|'''HeyTots''']] https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/joeplayground/images/e/e5/FandomStaff.png [[User Talk:HeyTots|''(Contact)'']] 15:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
::Meanwhile since apparently we're all going to be discussing it here too, I'm going to say that what makes something "minor" is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. If it's truly minor nobody will feel the need to challenge it; or if it's challenged then nobody will feel it important to defend it. But if two editors really do disagree on a point of wording, then it's hardly fair to tell them there is no forum for appeal and the challenging editor just always wins. And when one particular editor reverts changes in volume, changes that are perceived by others to have been reasonable changes, then that's an even more compelling reason to need an appeal process and an even more compelling reason to use the appeal process.
 
   
  +
:I've replied and plan to attend. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
::Always open to be educated on the point of what policy actually says, however. With specific links to specific policies, that is. Cattlesquat (talk) 21:06, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
== Mordor Edition. ==
So there you have it. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 21:29, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
ROFL. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 20:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
And here for completeness is [[User_talk:SpartHawg948#Policy_is_again_being_.28loudly_and_heavyhandedly.29_misinterpreted_and_IMHO_used_as_a_cudgel..._now_featuring_a_novice_user_as_well.|my own cross-post about this issue]], to a decidedly non-novice user. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 22:03, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
:I am wrong? Wow, the fact you had to put that in caps, italics, and bold it tells me you just wanted to do nothing but rub it in my face and you do not care how the policies have been enforced. All you cared about was twisting things so that you came out on top. Nothing more or less. So let me further educate you and then I will end this conversation because I will not discuss it further with someone who does not care about policies and their enforcement, rather they just care about finding something to embarrass someone, even if the policies, precedent, and past enforcement history is on their side.
 
:The way the policies have been enforced in the past, and currently, is that any minor disputes involving edits are to be discussed between individual users to prevent cluttering of article talk pages. Big changes for an individual article are to be discussed on that individual talk page. Major editing disputes are to be discussed on the individual talk page. Major overhauls of multiple pages are to be in the projects forums. That is how the policies have been, and are enforced.
 
:End conversation. I will not drop to your level of insulting behavior. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289]] ([[User talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 22:05, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:One does not simply WALK into Mordor... [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 21:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::(EDIT CONFLICT) This being my own talk page, after all, I'm going to feel free to post a reply to things you post here - if you really want the conversation to end then I guess you can just not reply. I'm not the one twisting anything! I went and found the policy article and discovered that it mainly supports my point of view - no twisting was necessary in fact. If there'd been something in there that said "please don't use an article's talk page to discuss minor edits to the page, only major edits" or something close to that, then I'd have said "wow, my bad, didn't realize that", amended/withdrawn my advice to the novice user, and then ''perhaps'' considered opening a policy amendment after I thought about just how much I disagreed with said hypothetical policy. But that's not how it turned out. Meanwhile what *I* see as an important issue is that you have built a considerable and documented record of using policy as a cudgel, interpreting policy unilaterally and heavy-handedly, and in general provoking unnecessary fights. Something that in my view constitutes extremely unworthy behavior for an admin. And ''that'' is the basis and reason for my continuing conversation with SpartHawg948. Meanwhile since you have just stated you are abandoning our conversation, I maintain my advice to the novice user which you for whatever reason took offense at. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 22:28, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
::Exactly, that's why you take a tank. [[User:Neo89515|Neo89515]] ([[User talk:Neo89515|talk]]) 21:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
:Addendum: Your behavior, and your lack of waiting for a reply tells me that this was never about policy, it was rather about you looking for something to prove me wrong, even when I know I am not. It is truly behavior like this that make me want to leave forever. You cannot even give me the dignity of replying to your comment before you go running off. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289]] ([[User talk:Lancer1289|talk]]) 22:09, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
:::Damn it, Neo got in before me, busy pulling Eve out of Sur'Kesh. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 22:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
::Lancer you have to understand that we do not want to prove YOU wrong, we just want a real respect of the policies and also a "human" enforcement of it. Do not forget that a wikia is a GAMING COMMUNITY (the two words have their importance). --[[User:DeldiRe|DeldiRe]] 00:40, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
== Easter Eggs ==
::(Edit Conflict)Lancer, your personal preference regarding how to discuss something is just that, your preference. Cattlesquat is absolutely correct that there is no policy regarding supporting your position. I personally find the idea of opposing discussing 'minor' conflicts on the talk page in the interest of avoiding "clutter" ridiculous. That's what archives are for. You are also using an obscure and spoken convention (which I have before now never encountered) to support your point. That's very weak grounds.
 
::Now; you have (once again, I've seen you do this a lot) attempted to scuttle a discussion by reverting to petty remarks regarding others conduct/behaviour/motives ect. Cattlesquat's use of bolded text was not a childish insult, it was making a point clear. You do have a tendency to ignore when you are proved wrong, something which you proved excellently above. In this instance you are wrong, you should concede the point, apologise for what I feel is a fairly ridiculous overreaction and for the complete lack of respect with which you have interacted with those concerned, and let it drop. [[User:Phalanx-a-pedian|Phalanx]] ([[User talk:Phalanx-a-pedian|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Phalanx-a-pedian|contribs]]) 22:34, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
Over on [[Kasumi: Stealing Memory]], you added a couple of comments about seeing the talk page before commenting about the ogre statue. I think it would have been helpful to mention it is in the archives of the talk page because I almost missed it. Then, when I did find it, what I found was a long, ranty discussion that didn't end in a conclusion and there's nothing in the MoS, either. So, what I would suggest is doing what we do in the Dragon Age wiki, which is have a separate page for easter eggs, one per game see ([[w:c:dragonage:Easter Eggs|Easter Eggs]]) and then rigorously boot easter eggs out of trivia. On each easter egg page, we separate the references by what media they reference, For example, in a room in a palace in DAI, there are a number of Mass Effect references ([[w:c:dragonage:Easter_eggs_(Inquisition)#Mass_Effect|Mass Effect Easter Eggs in DAI]] including that there are clearly what are Krogan heads in a room in a palace. That the easter eggs never went in the other direction, from DA to ME, seems implausible. I also don't agree with the criteria of dev comments as that is just too high a bar. The devs simply aren't (as people in that thread said) going to comment on every easter egg ''especially because the joy of easter eggs is in finding them''. Dev comments would ruin the whole effect in most cases. I make these points because a wealth of easter eggs is something BioWare does deliberately and also because they add some fun and added value to the wiki. There is fun in discovering them and in writing them and there is fun in reading something and realizing one would never have made that connection, but there it is. All of this contributes to a healthy wiki community in ways that being super strict about sourcing does not. Cheers. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
::What you describe as "running off" I describe as the proper reporting procedure for what I genuinely believe is an admin abusing his position. This is far from the first time this has come up with you, and I have already been documenting what I believe is a pattern of heavyhanded behavior unworthy of an admin. A one-off mistake is one thing, but a pattern of behavior needs to be reported, and by the time I made my report we were well past the point, in my view, of lines being once again crossed.
 
  +
:Hi there! What happened was I found that comment orphaned elsewhere on the page, far away from its original place, and I just moved it back to near where I thought it was originally intended&mdash;I wasn't actually aware of any of the original issue or discussion points (and have not actually read the talk page discussion myself). As you probably know, all non-dev-confirmed trivia/Easter egg/etc items tend to be a bit fraught around here, at least traditionally. If we wanted to change policy on that, it would require discussion and consensus in the Policy forum - and you're certainly encouraged to begin a discussion there. Your thoughts on the subject certainly seem cogent. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 00:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
::Just to weigh in here:
::As far as "leaving forever", I've largely found the content you've added to articles to be laudable, but I've found your behavior as an admin to be significantly reprehensible, unnecessarily heavy-handed to other editors including novice editors, repeatedly wielding policy as a cudgel - often incorrectly at that, and other things that I and others have documented previously. Now I've never asked you to leave, but I will say that the wiki in April and early May when you were away sure seemed to operate cordially and efficiently, so if you're going to make threats about leaving forever don't hold your breath for me to beg you to stay. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 22:33, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
 
  +
::While Easter eggs are a subcategory of references in general, I agree we could have a more explicit note about them in the MoS or Information Sourcing guidelines. I also agree dev confirmation is problematic, since Easter eggs are essentially tacit inside jokes. The challenge, however, is drawing the line between Easter eggs, coincidences, and shared resources. Some model or skybox or sound library may have been reused between the two franchises, evoking a sense of connection, but this may not be the ''intent''. This makes is problematic for us, since "Easter egg" implies a deliberateness on the behalf of BioWare, which we unfortunately cannot claim unless they specifically, well, confirm it.
  +
::Because of this, we stick to the safer "reference", which does not take a stance on intent, but acknowledges the presence of the parallel. I will clarify this in the new MoS version I'm working on.
  +
::And as Cattlesquat said, creating entire pages dedicated to Easter eggs is a different beast that would require not only a policy change but a [[Forum:Projects]] proposal. [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] <span style="font-size:0.9em;">([[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Elseweyr|stalk]])</span> 09:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
   
  +
== Alternate vs. Alternative ==
:::Once more, the same discussion. Lancer think he is right and then, if we follow him, it IS site policies... About this discussion, I would like to add something that nobody raised. Lancer said : we use talk page only for major edit and not for minor one. This sentence seems strange to me. First, as we saw, it is not correct even if it can make sense if we speak about grammar issues. Secondly, who decide if a specific point is a minor or a major one ? Is that a fact ? NO, once more Lancer, you will think that your advice is a FACT which can be clearly wrong. Well, I will stop here or I (we?) will be accuse of vendetta ! And yeah, lancer, as you said if we have an edit problematic, just put it on the talk page of the user. I can agree with that for some issue. In fact, It is what I did about my opinion on your classical "editing procedure" and what happened ? You deleted my two posts without any answer despite the fact that I only came to discuss. --[[User:DeldiRe|DeldiRe]] 00:11, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
If you really want to use one over the other I don't mind, but technically they are interchangeable: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternate . [[User:Neo89515|Neo89515]] ([[User talk:Neo89515|talk]]) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
== two things ==
 
   
  +
== "Act 1" ==
*there's nothing wrong with taking the initiative to edit other people's sandboxes, but as a matter of form i would advise you to ask permission first from the author in the future. we do have rules stating we need other people's permission for things that invade their personal space. i'm going with the assumption hellfire gave you his based on his reply, but again, next time.
 
*[[Mass_Effect_Wiki:Manual_of_Style/Adversaries#Mass_Effect|ME adversaries don't have capabilities-offensive-defensive. just plain tactics.]] [[User:Temporaryeditor78|T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤]] ([[User talk:Temporaryeditor78|talk]]) 03:38, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
The "Act" references on [[Planet Scanning]] were likely referencing the terminology used in the [[Mass Effect 2 Guide]]. Not saying that's the better way, in fact since a lot of people may not read that guide I don't prefer it, just pointing it out. If the Act references are used at least I think there should be a {{note}} explaining and linking the Guide, maybe. [[User:Neo89515|Neo89515]] ([[User talk:Neo89515|talk]]) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
:* He did actually give permission (it's in the top comment, which he made later and then moved to the top so I totally get why you missed it).
 
:* Cool on offensive/defensive, I'll go nukulate that. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 03:41, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
   
  +
: I would vote for removing them from both places because the acts are artificial constructs of the wiki, not something the game itself uses. By way of contrast, another BioWare game, Dragon Age II, does explicitly use a three act structure. So I think if BW wanted ME2 to have acts, they would have done so. <span style="font-weight:bold;font-size:100%;background:-webkit-linear-gradient(330deg, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">[[User:DaBarkspawn|DaBarkspawn]] ([[User talk:DaBarkspawn|talk]])</span> 16:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
== Citadel Ambush ==
 
Oook. After going back to citadel ambush page I noticed my changes were undone even after some revisions. So what's the deal? I'm adding input with an insanity run, playing as I go and minimizing my game to jot some things down... I don't even know why my edit was removed. I believe I included dominate as a helpful bonus power (going to assume that's what this fuss is about?), but after redoing the mission a few times, just to see the different dialogues and testing out different powers, I found drain shield to allow Shepherd to survive a whole great deal better. So in the mindset of insanity run I expanded some need to know info down. It is after all on the preparation section.
 
   
  +
: While searching for the chart in the wrong place (the Assignments article and talk page), I came across an old conversation I'd had with an admin-from-former-times where at one point there were thoughts of using "Act 1" and "Act 2", but then the current article shows "Freedom's Progress" and "Horizon", and there was some discussion about how Act 1 and Act 2, though they are definitely canon ME3 terms, aren't quite as official (or maybe not official at all, depending on whether the Prima Guide said something about it -- I have that ''somewhere'' in my basement I'm sure). Anyway, since is already done that way in the Assignments Page it seemed right to do it here since there's enough horizontal room, and seems IMHO to make it more clear. I at least ''prima facie'' agree with DaBarkspawn that it should probably be updated in as many places as possible, though I haven't looked specifically at the details of the ME2 Guide e.g. for why it was done that way. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 16:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
... I just checked how things looked after publishing this on this page. And there's no time stamp, info, etc. It's even more anal having to "Publish" a msg write back to get things in order. Jeez. Anal power away!!!!!!!!!!. Hell I certainly hope it's not going to one of those opinion vs opinion, or it'll basically boils down to wikia account user powers vs acc power. If it's something like that I don't even know what's the purpose of wikia anymore. I initially thought it's a place to help others with helpful info from individual perspectives -- 20:27, July 30, 2013‎ (UTC) 69.121.15.159
 
   
  +
:: I used "Act" references when overhauling the Squad Members Guide Pages and there were no objections at the time, but I made them <u>explicit links</u> to the ME2 and ME3 Guide pages so people who didn't know what the terms meant could easily find out. [[User:Neo89515|Neo89515]] ([[User talk:Neo89515|talk]]) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
:Ah, hi there. So what I remember from your Citadel Ambush edit (check history if I'm wrong about it) were several things... (a) several words misspelled like especially Shepard, (b) removed some text I thought was relevant (for example it originally explained why Dominate was a useful power, and you removed that in favor of just mentioning the power) (c) There was a "note" added in the preparation section that didn't really relate to preparation choices. (d) a few other probably grammary things that slip my mind. I tried to save some of the stuff you'd added that I thought was either relevant or cute or whatever (many editors would have just reverted wholesale), but the rest I took back out which is standard procedure for an edit with "multiple problems".
 
   
  +
::: Yeah it may sometimes come down to the convenience factor -- having now looked at the ME2 Guide it would be a bit of a mess to just cut and paste e.g. "After Freedom's Progress" everywhere it currently says Act 1. Maybe it could be reorganized, but I'm not sure it's worth it. So I'm feeling less hard core about that now. But I think the terms actually used in the game should be preferred when they aren't completely inappropriate to the format. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 17:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
:The way it normally works when someone disagrees is... you're definitely free to propose a new version of your edits at least once, but you're not supposed to just put your original edits back into the article without any discussion (which is what you did and I then reverted the second time). The normal way forward is... you can open an article, usually on the Talk page of the article in question, so e.g. [[Talk:Citadel_Wards:_Ambush]] and you'd want to state (a) the changes you'd like to make and (b) why it makes sense (c) it's also entirely traditional to say something mean about me as the person who challenged your edits, but wholly unnecessary and not actually recommended in terms of increasing your likelihood of success.
 
   
  +
::: Also -- which page were you referring to about Squad Members Guide? I couldn't find Act 1 / Act 2 references in [[Squad_Members_Guide_(Mass_Effect_2)]]? [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 17:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
:That way we can not only discuss publicly the merits or your proposed changes, we can see where the "community consensus" falls. Basically if you get more people to agree than disagree, your change wins - yay! In the fairly theoretical case that there's only general apathy and it ends up being just you and me, then you'd have to convince me because the onus is on whoever wants to make a substantive new change to demonstrate consensus - tie goes to the status quo.
 
   
  +
:::: It's mainly in the ME3 squadmates guide [[Squad Members Guide (Mass Effect 3)]], in the ME2 squad guide I just embedded the links in the phrases "Very Early" or "Mid-game" etc. under Availability. [[User:Neo89515|Neo89515]] ([[User talk:Neo89515|talk]]) 17:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
:So anyway you're also welcome to talk to me here and put out some proposals for changes (preferably solving some of the problems I've mentioned) and maybe we'll just work something out between us. OR you can open something on the article's Talk Page and we can discuss it there - one of the advantages I personally find in this route when a revert happens to me, is that it's more likely to draw folks already interested in the content of that page (people that might not find their way to my boring talk page, but may care about the article, etc).
 
 
:One note that you may want to be also aware of... your current method of editing the same article 4-5 times in a row making a few changes at a time makes things a bit difficult for the rest of us - it for example made it a bit harder for me to try to integrate some of your stuff that I wanted to keep. It's best (if not always 100% possible) to attempt to make all your intended changes to an article in one edit. Takes a bit of learned discipline, but it's a point of etiquette.
 
 
:Finally... welcome to the wiki! Believe it or not, truly happy to have you here especially since you're doing insanity runs and you care about walkthrough content. One advantage if you make yourself an account... you'll get an email when someone edits a page you've edited, so you won't have to check back manually for changes. But I'm still an anon on wikipedia after all these years, so I totally get the mentality. Happy editing... [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 02:05, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:I don't think the recent edits improve Cattle's version in any way, so for the time being, it should stand. Assuming you sincerely want to help, your contributions are welcome, but improper behavior in terms of editing and otherwise won't benefit anyone, least of all yourself. Fortunately for you, this time you've run into one of the most co-operative and encouraging users of the wiki, so if you for some reason don't accept his offer to help with this article, at least follow his advice in future editing. [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] ([[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]]) 08:34, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::Cattle's version is based on my changes where he favors domination, whereas I'm emphasizing Drain Shield would be more preferable in surviving 1 hit deaths of cluster bombs or Ai drones that will destroy Shepherd's entire shield bar. And Fighting back against 5+ enemy Cat's with infinite respawns (initial battles) while trying to flank Shepherd. Survival is more of an issue. I would favor sucking enemies shield to regen Shepherd to be more helpful. Anyway the many revisions I did was just grammar mistakes I changed after I caught them and some minor rewordings throughout the course or some newer info I added '''while''' I played the game testing out new powers on Insanity run. You're making it sound like I'm purposely screwing around. I'm not sure which revisions either of you read, the latest one I tried to get through ommited the "If you don't have Overload natively..." and "If you can arrange to be able to self-detonate tech bursts (e.g. Disruptor Ammo plus Overload or Energy Drain) that will help a lot throughout the DLC. " that Cattle was debating as Preparation worthy info, much like the same way he's pointing out how I shouldn't add in enemy power capabilities warning the player to flee or face seeing the death screen. How's that not Preparation info telling players to be wary, to watch out for?
 
 
::Since we're at it, I'm curious on what you two had to say from TemporaryEditor78, where he deleted entire entries on how to beat the leading scores in Shattered Eezo and Relay Defense arcade games on [[Castle Arcade]] ? Enlighten me in why that should be removed when there's no entries written there advising players how to win those difficult games. --09:34, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:::I finally understand what you meant earlier about the time stamp. You can fix that problem by signing your post with four consecutive tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> which will convert to a signature including a timestamp.
 
 
:::On TE78's edits to Castle Arcade you'd have to ask him, after all he's an admin and therefore liable to ways inscrutable to the plain ole editor. It's possible he decided that the arcade article was what we call an "in-universe" article (which all of the articles except walkthroughs and enemy tactics sections are supposed to be) and so was supposed to be written from an in-universe perspective. I do actually lean toward your point that there ought to be a place for how-to-win, and if you end up opening a talk page article over on [[Talk:Castle Arcade]] appealing that revert then I'll try to stop by and say as much. There may be points to be negotiated like the style in which we put the tips to minimize the in-universe issues.
 
 
:::Now onto the [[Citadel Wards: Ambush]] stuff. I realize you're playing this on Insanity, but then again... so am I! Multiple playthroughs with multiple classes, and favoring the versions where I never died at all during the missions. Current article does, in my view, already emphasize Energy Drain as the number one power to equip. I don't think I wrote that first sentence, but I agree it's probably the overall best ... UNLESS you already have Overload e.g. you're an infiltrator/engineer/sentinel, in which case the overlap makes it a bit redundant and an alternate power (like Dominate) might make you better prepared. I could imagine rewording that first sentence a bit if it's bothering you, e.g. "Consider equipping [[Energy Drain]] as your bonus power for the duration of the DLC content: almost [[CAT6|everyone you fight]] has shields -- although if Shepard's class already provides [[Overload]] natively you may want a stronger contrast for your bonus power." That's longer and so possibly less "efficient" but moves the mention of Energy Drain straight up to the beginning. I could be talked into going that route.
 
 
:::Keep in mind there's a subtle distinction here in this prep section - the first paragraph is dealing with the issue that whatever bonus power you take will be present not only for this single mission but for the entire Citadel DLC (fighting fake Shepard, etc). The second paragraph is a more traditional preparation section - referring to THIS mission only (which is the only one where you're unarmored, unequipped). [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 13:56, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
== Overload and Sabotage ==
 
 
I noticed you edited a walkthrough in accordance with my edit to the [[User:Hellfire101/sandbox/Saren Arterius (enemy)|Saren (enemy) page]] regarding the blasting of fuel tanks. Although it isn't noted on the [[Electronics#Overload|Overload]] page itself, it actually seems to do pretty much the same job as [[Decryption#Sabotage|Sabotage]] when it comes to blowing stuff up: Overload and Sabotage both work at least for fuel tanks and the various containment cells. I've been playing experimentally for a couple of days, but no clear-cut case--where only one would work and not the other--has come up.
 
 
I'm a bit surprised this has been largely overlooked so far, as it is hardly completely insignificant. As for the walkthroughs, it might not be that big of a deal when blowing containers up is just a small tactical tip, but when a preparation section specifically instructs the player to bring someone with Overload for this very purpose, it's borderline misleading--as Sabotage would work just as well. (Or the other way around, though I seem to recall Overload being mentioned almost exclusively.)
 
 
I just thought I'd inform you of this, since you are something of a walkthrough specialist here, but I'll probably edit it on the Overload page at least. [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] ([[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]]) 13:10, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:Ah, so it's both after all. I was surprised when I saw your original note about Sabotage, but then checked the articles for the ME powers and found they mentioned only Sabotage as a blow-up-container power. Whereas in ME2 of course it's Overload specifically. Also I was definitely using Overload in ME and at least getting them to blow up (had not checked to see if they were doing any bonus damage, but it seemed effective) when I was mentioning it in various places.
 
 
:SO... if Overload and Sabotage both work, then this should for sure get a mention in Overload's article as well as Sabotage's. And then at that point it would be time to gradually track down all the walkthrough mentions of Overload or Sabotage (for the purposes of blowing up containers) and put both as options. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 13:17, July 31, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::Yep, I have dealt with the Overload page and a couple of walkthroughs. After some more experimental playing I still haven't come across a container that would only blow up with one of the powers and not both, so I guess it can be assumed that either of them works, at least until proven otherwise. [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] ([[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]]) 09:15, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
== I had to ask ==
 
 
Why are you separating some of the antagonists' pages into the non-enemy and enemy parts? --[[User:Nord Ronnoc|Nord Ronnoc]] ([[User talk:Nord Ronnoc|talk]]) 23:25, August 13, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:No problem - you can read all about it here - [[Forum:(enemy)_pages_for_all_major_named_adversaries]] :-) [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 01:00, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
== Opinion request ==
 
 
As one of the few currently active editors, could you give your opinion on [[Forum:Infobox adversaries MEG|this topic]] please ? Thanks in advance
 
--[[User:DeldiRe|DeldiRe]] ([[User talk:DeldiRe|talk]]) 14:54, September 19, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
== come back soon ==
 
 
Sorry to see you go, Cattles &ndash; if only temporarily. Your helpful and constructive attitude is an asset to the community. [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] ([[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]]) 07:31, September 27, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:Same here, I hope to see you back. --[[User:DeldiRe|DeldiRe]] ([[User talk:DeldiRe|talk]]) 12:14, September 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
== New Contributors and Guides ==
 
 
Hey! Nice work with the Walkthrough page earlier this year! I unfortunately don't come solely for good news - I note there have been some quite persistent problems with newbies and reverts on this wiki (per my post here:[[User_talk:Elseweyr#Warning_the_Newbies]]) and I heartily agree with your disappointment at Wikia's lack of engagement on the issue. I was wondering if you had any ideas or considerations about some of those ideas, such as informative templates for common mistakes, and the jump from Wikipedian policies. I would appreciate it if you could write a short response on that post. Thanks in advance for your time, <font color="white">[[User:Techhead7890|Techhead7890]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Techhead7890|Talk]]</sup> 10:30, November 6, 2013 (UTC) (nice edit count, btw, 1337!)
 
 
:I certainly agree with your sentiment, but right now there doesn't seem to be a critical mass of community to make any progress on those issues. Almost all the admins have gone inactive, and the bureaucrat who had a fairly good sense of perspective on standard admin/editor tensions has disappeared as well. Maybe when ME4 comes out that will change the dynamic but who knows. [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 15:56, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::I see. Well, while it may be difficult to make policy changes, what do you think about the template explaining newbie edits being reverted? It seems like a good first step in making these sorts of changes in that regard. <font color="white">[[User:Techhead7890|Techhead7890]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Techhead7890|Talk]]</sup> 04:05, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
==Tactical Guides==
 
 
On a secondary note, what do you think of the class and weapon tactical guides for the wiki? Do you think they are sufficient as they are? I have been trying to get to grips with using non-combatbased classes in my thinking and analysis regarding them. I noticed you said that Adept was the easiest (and you hadn't played Vanguard!) - while I agree that biotics are very powerful, why is that? I would be glad to hear your thoughts here too. <font color="white">[[User:Techhead7890|Techhead7890]]</font><sup>[[User talk:Techhead7890|Talk]]</sup> 10:30, November 6, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
== Joker's sister ==
 
 
[[Aeian T'Goni#Trivia|Last bullet]], in case you hadn't noticed (: [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] (<small>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]]</small>) 19:57, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:Yes I *did* see that as I lurked by recently. :D Duly celebrated and +1 karma point marked for wiki community. Thanks for stopping by though! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 20:17, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
::Just wanted to make sure since you hadn't updated your user page. Which I can see has been amended now! [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] (<small>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]]</small>) 20:22, November 18, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
== http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalocalypse ==
 
 
[[User:Temporaryeditor78|T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤]] ([[User talk:Temporaryeditor78|talk]]) 15:21, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
:Well okay then! [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 15:30, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
 
 
== Sorry! ==
 
 
Alright, I apologize - it's been years I completely forgot xD
 
 
I'm known for my contributions and videos for the Halo wiki, I assumed the policy would be the same for this wiki as well.
 
 
--[[User:Cameron.Vickers.Vicks007kid|Cameron.Vickers.Vicks007kid]] ([[User talk:Cameron.Vickers.Vicks007kid|talk]]) 21:55, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
:No prob - just wanted to slow you down before you drew too much admin ire. :-) [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 22:02, January 6, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
== Category issues ==
 
 
Hey Cattles,
 
 
Could you tell me if [http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Jack:_Subject_Zero?diff=next&oldid=437220 this] happened without you removing the categories in the previous edit? Thanks. [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] <span style="font-size:12px"><sup>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Elseweyr|stalk]]</sup></span> March 18, 2014, 10:32:33 (UTC)
 
 
:No, THAT one happened when I manually removed categories "thinking they had been auto-added on me", which happens to me on a regular basis, but then it turned out I had been editing the whole article so the categories were actually supposed to be there and stay. So it was my mistake, partially induced by the thing/bug where when I edit a subsection of an article it often surreptitiously adds in categories w/o me wanting it to. Hopefully that answer makes sense :-) [[User:Cattlesquat|Cattlesquat]] ([[User talk:Cattlesquat|talk]]) 12:43, March 18, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
::Alright, good. The duplication of categories under certain circumstances is a known issue, so don't sweat it :) [[User:Elseweyr|Elseweyr]] <span style="font-size:12px"><sup>[[User talk:Elseweyr|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Elseweyr|stalk]]</sup></span> March 18, 2014, 13:25:30 (UTC)
 
 
== Chat ==
 
 
Hi Cattle, could you come on the chat these days? I'd like to talk to you 2 minutes ;) Thanks --[[User:DeldiRe|DeldiRe]] ([[User talk:DeldiRe|talk]]) 10:45, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
 
 
== Hola ==
 
Hi Cattlesquat! I know you've been staying away for reasons, but I just wanted to say that it's nice to see your phosphors around the place again. [[User:-Sophia|-Sophia]] ([[User talk:-Sophia|talk]]) 18:19, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
 

Latest revision as of 17:53, 19 July 2021

Vista-file-manager.png
Cattlesquat's Talk Archive



Thanks for communicating with me[]

Hello Cattlesquat!

Thank you for communicating with me, unfortunately I have had problems before like this and the person who deleted it did not even read it because the minute I uploaded it he deleted it, I appreciate that you have contacted me but I do not know if I can contact him to upload it again due to to what happened

and I have to communicate that I did not know how but I left it back where it was, I am sorry but since English is not my main language I had that problem, I understand if they decide to eliminate it I appreciate that you have contacted me, TobiNeko200

Request[]

Hey Cattlesquat!

If my understanding is correct and you are interested in being part of the new administration of the wiki, would you mind scribbling something down under Mass_Effect_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship#Requests? For the records :)

In the meantime, at least enjoy the rollback button! —Elseweyr talkstalk May 29, 2021, 19:14:58 (UTC)

Done - hopefully correctly on my phone from Mexico, haha Cattlesquat (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, all good. Congratulations and enjoy your vacation! —Elseweyr talkstalk May 30, 2021, 07:51:05 (UTC)
Fun! For "my first official act" I updated the custom CSS user colors to reflect the current state of affairs :) Incidentally perhaps we should consider a color other than "bold white" for the admin color, since it actually blends in rather than stands out on talk pages. If you're amenable I'll figure something out. Like admins could be Orange Like Notes and bureaucrats could be Yellow because it's less unatrractive than the current color :) Or there's green and the unending shades of azure :) and lavender... Thoughts? Cattlesquat (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Cheers. I personally don't mind the bureaucrat teal, but I suppose the admin silver could stand to be a bit more eye-catching. Feel free to propose something different and we can have a vote. The suggestions above are a bit aggressive on the eyes, so maybe go for shades that blend in with the overall wiki colors a bit better :) —Elseweyr talkstalk May 30, 2021, 19:00:30 (UTC)
Idea 1 is Bureaucrat, Admin, and Senior Editor. Bureaucrat is the same hue but brightened up a bit. Admin is the same color we use in the wiki for e.g. Tips. Senior Editor retains its existing color. Or if you prefer the original Bureaucrat teal it can just stay the same.
If the orange is too aggressive then other colors seen around the wiki include Discord Box, Play Buttons, Main Headers, and Subdued Green reminiscent of the edit sizes. I mean yes there's red too but that's more of an "error color" and pretty aggressive too. Of course if you want the highest possible clickthrough rate it turns out to be pink :)
My personal first preference is the orange & brighter teal, but I also like (in this order) Discord, Subdued Green, Main Headers. And I await ... OPINIONS! Cattlesquat (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Fancy colors seems to be to bold ;). I like the Idea 1 if you switch colors of bureaucrat and admins. Orange is too fancy for us IMO. Anyway, every choice suits me. DeldiRe (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
My current favorite is Bureaucrat, Admin, and Senior Editor (after the Bioware guy posted today and lit the RC on fire with the gold color I changed my mind about orange!)
Alternative Bureaucrat, Admin, and Senior Editor Cattlesquat (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Alternative looks good to me for what it worth. DeldiRe (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm also fine with "Alternative". —Elseweyr talkstalk June 5, 2021, 15:39:53 (UTC)
Vive L'Alternative! Cattlesquat (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that simple bolding doesn't really call much attention to itself for the Admin status (and it feels weird that "senior editor" status stands out more, currently. In general I do favor subdued (cool end of the spectrum) colors but simple white bolding is a little too subdued. Another possible issue, I noticed that Tagaziel's name is a similar blue as the current "senior editor" status color; while Fandom staff do have an additional teal heart symbol to further separate them, maybe we want to avoid potential confusion that a senior editor is official Fandom staff. Also I think Yellow is for Developers/BioWare staff already, just pointing that out. Maybe a darker blue for senior editors, and say, purple-ish/lavender for Admin? Also like the "Discord Box" and "Subdued Green" colors. Just throwing it out. Ale89515 (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


Pinnacle DLC[]

I guess you'll have to settle for Anderson's apartment in the Citadel DLC. DaBarkspawn (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

IKR?! That's a LONG WAY down a permadeath run to kick back a bit ;) Cattlesquat (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators and other Community page updates[]

First, congrats on Admin status! I wanted to ask about updating pages like Mass_Effect_Wiki:Administrators this one so people know who's who. Is there a protocol about changing those? History shows only higher ups messing with it so I won't touch it myself. Thanks! Ale89515 (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with updating it accurately! After all you're higher up yourself now :) And it is helpful to have nudges to find the various Old Things and keep them up to date. I will eventually get to that page, but if you get there before me that's fine. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up: I mean to make some changes to that page soon, so don't hold onto local drafts for too long if you have significant changes in mind :) —Elseweyr talkstalk June 2, 2021, 16:37:28 (UTC)
Other than the one small cleanup I already made a few days ago, I am "not presently in the pool", so fire away! Cattlesquat (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please delete my post[]

I can't delete my forum post, I think a SYSOP or Moderator is the only one who can, thanks. Ale89515 (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. BTW I notice you often accidentally post to user pages rather than user talk pages, like this time :) One useful mnemonic for knowing you're on a User Talk page is that it has an "Add Topic" button rather than an "Edit" button? Not a huge deal, just trying to help. Some folks get grumpy when their profiles get edited. Cattlesquat (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
No, not a huge deal and easily rectified, so maybe not worth a lecture at this time. Studying for an exam and currently crammed to the gills with "mnemonics." Like you note, people can get "grumpy." Ale89515 (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Good luck on the exams! Cattlesquat (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
(Deep sigh) Thanks. A little stressed out as you can tell. Wish I was on vacation like some lucky people. You couldn't know, but your above comment was... precisely tailored to piss me off. Think I'm going to take a break from here for a while, in all honesty have been using it to procrastinate. Ale89515 (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey[]

Hello! Thanks for reaching out! I didn't expect one, given how far away I had made my edit. But thanks again. I will make some edits on wiki now. :). Matachak (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! We used to have an automatic system for welcoming new users, but Fandom apparently retired it last year, so given we have a wave of new users coming in as Legendary Edition launches we thought we should go through and greet folks! (i.e. clear the backlog) Enjoy! Cattlesquat (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcoming[]

A little late, but still, thanks

Glad to have you! Fandom apparently retired our "welcome bot", so was going through and clearing the backlog. Enjoy! Cattlesquat (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Community Roundtable[]

Hello! We recently sent an email to your registered email account about a community roundtable event. We'd love to know if you're going to be able to make it. There's a link in the email to respond and RSVP if you're interested! Hope to see you there! HeyTots FandomStaff.png (Contact) 15:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I've replied and plan to attend. Cattlesquat (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Mordor Edition.[]

ROFL. DaBarkspawn (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

One does not simply WALK into Mordor... Cattlesquat (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why you take a tank. Neo89515 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Damn it, Neo got in before me, busy pulling Eve out of Sur'Kesh. DaBarkspawn (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Easter Eggs[]

Over on Kasumi: Stealing Memory, you added a couple of comments about seeing the talk page before commenting about the ogre statue. I think it would have been helpful to mention it is in the archives of the talk page because I almost missed it. Then, when I did find it, what I found was a long, ranty discussion that didn't end in a conclusion and there's nothing in the MoS, either. So, what I would suggest is doing what we do in the Dragon Age wiki, which is have a separate page for easter eggs, one per game see (Easter Eggs) and then rigorously boot easter eggs out of trivia. On each easter egg page, we separate the references by what media they reference, For example, in a room in a palace in DAI, there are a number of Mass Effect references (Mass Effect Easter Eggs in DAI including that there are clearly what are Krogan heads in a room in a palace. That the easter eggs never went in the other direction, from DA to ME, seems implausible. I also don't agree with the criteria of dev comments as that is just too high a bar. The devs simply aren't (as people in that thread said) going to comment on every easter egg especially because the joy of easter eggs is in finding them. Dev comments would ruin the whole effect in most cases. I make these points because a wealth of easter eggs is something BioWare does deliberately and also because they add some fun and added value to the wiki. There is fun in discovering them and in writing them and there is fun in reading something and realizing one would never have made that connection, but there it is. All of this contributes to a healthy wiki community in ways that being super strict about sourcing does not. Cheers. DaBarkspawn (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! What happened was I found that comment orphaned elsewhere on the page, far away from its original place, and I just moved it back to near where I thought it was originally intended—I wasn't actually aware of any of the original issue or discussion points (and have not actually read the talk page discussion myself). As you probably know, all non-dev-confirmed trivia/Easter egg/etc items tend to be a bit fraught around here, at least traditionally. If we wanted to change policy on that, it would require discussion and consensus in the Policy forum - and you're certainly encouraged to begin a discussion there. Your thoughts on the subject certainly seem cogent. Cattlesquat (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Just to weigh in here:
While Easter eggs are a subcategory of references in general, I agree we could have a more explicit note about them in the MoS or Information Sourcing guidelines. I also agree dev confirmation is problematic, since Easter eggs are essentially tacit inside jokes. The challenge, however, is drawing the line between Easter eggs, coincidences, and shared resources. Some model or skybox or sound library may have been reused between the two franchises, evoking a sense of connection, but this may not be the intent. This makes is problematic for us, since "Easter egg" implies a deliberateness on the behalf of BioWare, which we unfortunately cannot claim unless they specifically, well, confirm it.
Because of this, we stick to the safer "reference", which does not take a stance on intent, but acknowledges the presence of the parallel. I will clarify this in the new MoS version I'm working on.
And as Cattlesquat said, creating entire pages dedicated to Easter eggs is a different beast that would require not only a policy change but a Forum:Projects proposal. Elseweyr (talkstalk) 09:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternate vs. Alternative[]

If you really want to use one over the other I don't mind, but technically they are interchangeable: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alternate . Neo89515 (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Act 1"[]

The "Act" references on Planet Scanning were likely referencing the terminology used in the Mass Effect 2 Guide. Not saying that's the better way, in fact since a lot of people may not read that guide I don't prefer it, just pointing it out. If the Act references are used at least I think there should be a Note: explaining and linking the Guide, maybe. Neo89515 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I would vote for removing them from both places because the acts are artificial constructs of the wiki, not something the game itself uses. By way of contrast, another BioWare game, Dragon Age II, does explicitly use a three act structure. So I think if BW wanted ME2 to have acts, they would have done so. DaBarkspawn (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
While searching for the chart in the wrong place (the Assignments article and talk page), I came across an old conversation I'd had with an admin-from-former-times where at one point there were thoughts of using "Act 1" and "Act 2", but then the current article shows "Freedom's Progress" and "Horizon", and there was some discussion about how Act 1 and Act 2, though they are definitely canon ME3 terms, aren't quite as official (or maybe not official at all, depending on whether the Prima Guide said something about it -- I have that somewhere in my basement I'm sure). Anyway, since is already done that way in the Assignments Page it seemed right to do it here since there's enough horizontal room, and seems IMHO to make it more clear. I at least prima facie agree with DaBarkspawn that it should probably be updated in as many places as possible, though I haven't looked specifically at the details of the ME2 Guide e.g. for why it was done that way. Cattlesquat (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I used "Act" references when overhauling the Squad Members Guide Pages and there were no objections at the time, but I made them explicit links to the ME2 and ME3 Guide pages so people who didn't know what the terms meant could easily find out. Neo89515 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah it may sometimes come down to the convenience factor -- having now looked at the ME2 Guide it would be a bit of a mess to just cut and paste e.g. "After Freedom's Progress" everywhere it currently says Act 1. Maybe it could be reorganized, but I'm not sure it's worth it. So I'm feeling less hard core about that now. But I think the terms actually used in the game should be preferred when they aren't completely inappropriate to the format. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Also -- which page were you referring to about Squad Members Guide? I couldn't find Act 1 / Act 2 references in Squad_Members_Guide_(Mass_Effect_2)? Cattlesquat (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It's mainly in the ME3 squadmates guide Squad Members Guide (Mass Effect 3), in the ME2 squad guide I just embedded the links in the phrases "Very Early" or "Mid-game" etc. under Availability. Neo89515 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)