FANDOM

Cattlesquat

  • My occupation is Videogame Designer (games you've probably heard of, but not any of the ones I edit wikis for)
  • I am Male

Making Edits

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. 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. 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. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:30, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
OH! Gotcha. Cattlesquat (talk) 01:55, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

basic formatting 101

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.

firstly, wikia doesn't accept immediate line breaks. if you want to start your tips or next paragraphs on the next line you have to hit "enter" twice, not just once.

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.

you can always consult the tl;dr guidelines and manuals of style underneath the community link in the top navigation bar for the rest. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (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? Cattlesquat (talk) 04:22, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

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.

as for my sig, your computer is haunted. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 04:38, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

credit where it's due

it's lilyheartsliara's. just sayin. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 14:25, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, lol, the email's diff button tricked me. Cattlesquat (talk) 15:14, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Location of Preparation headings

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? Trandra (talk) 23:55, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

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. Cattlesquat (talk) 00:58, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

ME Talent names

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.

[[AI Hacking]] should be [[Hacking#AI Hacking|AI Hacking]]
[[Neural Shock]] should be [[Medicine#Neural Shock|Neural Shock]]
[[Overload]] should be [[Electronics#Overload|Overload]]
[[Sabotage]] should be [[Decryption#Sabotage|Sabotage]]
[[Carnage]] should be [[Shotguns#Carnage|Carnage]]
[[Marksman]] should be [[Pistols#Marksman|Marksman]]

The biotic talents and powers are all on one page, luckily. Trandra (talk) 15:23, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Woofzers! Thanks! Cattlesquat (talk) 15:48, May 18, 2013 (UTC)
A couple other things for clarification:
  1. This is the official word on Richard L. Jenkins.
  2. 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. Teugene tried to get community input on possible lore vs. gameplay separations for these things, but it didn't go anywhere.
Keep up the good work.
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. :-) Cattlesquat (talk) 14:55, May 19, 2013 (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.

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. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 15:10, June 8, 2013 (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. Cattlesquat (talk) 15:22, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

FYI

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. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:41, June 24, 2013 (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. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:46, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

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. 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. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:48, June 24, 2013 (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. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:58, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
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. Cattlesquat (talk) 21:08, June 24, 2013 (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. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:17, June 24, 2013 (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:
Each article's Talk page exists to:
-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
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.
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:
"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."
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.
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. Cattlesquat (talk) 21:45, June 24, 2013 (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:

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.
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.
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)

So there you have it. Cattlesquat (talk) 21:29, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

And here for completeness is my own cross-post about this issue, to a decidedly non-novice user. 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. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:05, June 24, 2013 (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. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:09, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.