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)


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)
(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. Cattlesquat (talk) 22:28, 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)
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). --DeldiRe 00:40, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
(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. Phalanx (talk|contribs) 22:34, June 24, 2013 (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.
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. Cattlesquat (talk) 22:33, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
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. --DeldiRe 00:11, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

two things

  • 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. Cattlesquat (talk) 03:41, July 28, 2013 (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.

... 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)

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".
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.
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.
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... 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. 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 ~~~~ 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 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). Cattlesquat (talk) 13:56, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Overload and Sabotage

I noticed you edited a walkthrough in accordance with my edit to the Saren (enemy) page regarding the blasting of fuel tanks. Although it isn't noted on the Overload page itself, it actually seems to do pretty much the same job as 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. 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. 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. 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? --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 :-) Cattlesquat (talk) 01:00, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Opinion request

As one of the few currently active editors, could you give your opinion on this topic please ? Thanks in advance --DeldiRe (talk) 14:54, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

come back soon

Sorry to see you go, Cattles – if only temporarily. Your helpful and constructive attitude is an asset to the community. Elseweyr (talk) 07:31, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Same here, I hope to see you back. --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, Techhead7890Talk 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. 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. Techhead7890Talk 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. Techhead7890Talk 10:30, November 6, 2013 (UTC)

Joker's sister

Last bullet, in case you hadn't noticed (: Elseweyr (talk) 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! 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! Elseweyr (talk) 20:22, November 18, 2013 (UTC)

T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 15:21, November 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well okay then! Cattlesquat (talk) 15:30, November 28, 2013 (UTC)


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. 

--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. :-) Cattlesquat (talk) 22:02, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Category issues

Hey Cattles,

Could you tell me if this happened without you removing the categories in the previous edit? Thanks. Elseweyr talkstalk 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 :-) 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 :) Elseweyr talkstalk March 18, 2014, 13:25:30 (UTC)


Hi Cattle, could you come on the chat these days? I'd like to talk to you 2 minutes ;) Thanks --DeldiRe (talk) 10:45, July 16, 2014 (UTC)


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. -Sophia (talk) 18:19, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.