Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave a message. Please sign all posts with four tildes (~).
Note: I reserve the right to alter any comments placed on any of my user pages and blogs in any way that I see fit, or to remove/delete them entirely.
A clean-up question.
Hey Commdor, you might have missed the questioned on my talk page. I'm planning to clean out and shift as much of the CSS from the templates and into MediaWiki:Wikia.css without major alterations to the template's layout/design. I'm wondering if is there's any limits as an admin to do this without needing to go through the projects page? 02:49, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
- It depends. If this is on the maintenance side of things and won't adversely affect anything or outwardly redesign anything, then it should be fine. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:14, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Glad to know. Thanks for the reply! 03:25, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
I put a post on Talk:Catalyst asking exactly what needs to be added for a Catalyst image before I added a new one. I worked pretty hard to get a clear, high-res image of the Catalyst and I don't appreciate it just being deleted without any input on why it's inappropriate or what would be appropriate. This kind of the behavior is why I've always been extremely hesitant to help on on this wiki. If you are going to remove a picture a user added, it would be both kind and helpful to talk to them letting them know why and what would have been a better image. Or at the very least, direct the user to guidelines. Otherwise, people will just keep adding pictures, attempting to help, and they will keep getting deleted. Xelestial 05:01, May 20, 2012 (UTC)
FTL - trivia
According to Style Guide, speculation is permitted in articles if there is evidence for this speculation. Facts from Codex: 1) The observed speed of Reapers' FTL travel is directly stated. 2) It is stated in comparison to Citadel ships' FTL speed. In my opinion these facts are evidence, concrete enough to state most likely maximum speed of average Citadel ship. If it is not so in your opinion, can you please explain why and what would be considered 'minimal required' evidence in this case? Or, if edit was deleted because of some other part of it, could you tell which part was the reason for deletion? --Phagonix 17:09, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that the facts we are given are a sufficient basis for any kind of speculation that could be deemed valid. The approximate ranges given for how fast Citadel ships can travel are far too wide, it might as well be guessing. I'll re-add the facts to the article, but the speculation is out. We can't set down uncertain numbers that may be wildly inaccurate, many will assume that those numbers are facts simply because they're in the article. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:52, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
Well, the given ranges are the only way to at least somewhat estimate possible FTL speed of Citadel ships. And relative error of ±11% is more or less acceptable in estimating average maximum FTL speed of massive variety of different ships. At least it provides concrete borders of maximum FTL speed - anything more or less will contradict Codex. But your reasoning is also valid, especially if this speculation is considered as precedent for future speculations of similar nature. So, would the following version be acceptable?
- According to Codex, Reaper ships travel at more than twice the speed of Citadel ships, travelling nearly 30 light-years in a 24-hour period. Therefore FTL speed of an average Reaper ship is approximately 8766 times faster than the speed of light. For example, travel from Charon Relay to Earth at FTL for them should take from 2,2 to 2,4 seconds even with Sol in-between. For Citadel ships this journey would take at least twice that time.
--Phagonix 18:31, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
Scratch that. Your version is shorter and would be easier to understand. =) --Phagonix 18:33, May 21, 2012 (UTC)
I and another user already undid the edits by an unregistered vandal, just thought it should be brought to your attention.--Nintendogeek01 17:23, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
- He's been blocked. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:25, May 27, 2012 (UTC)
Hi Commdor, I was wondering whether you could clarify referencing things for me, specifically with regard to the ME3 MP Bugs section that (as I thought might happen, I must be psychic #winning) got undone. For example, 2 of the other references for that section refer to Social Bioware discussion pages, and I presume that they are OK because Mr Priestly has commented on them and mentioned them specifically. However, as this bug is in a similar vein to that of #2, where players can fly and generally bug out if they used Biotic Charge at the wrong time, I was wondering if it needed a reference at all, since the aforesaid bug does not. Alternatively, must I raise the bug on the forums and wait for him (or a confirmed dev.) to comment? Apologies for my naïvety, SanjayBeast 22:16, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
- I believe those two unsourced bugs are allowed because users here have verified them. To have your bug added in the same way, you would need to post a discussion on the talk page and wait until two additional users state that they have experienced the same bug. Once that happens, you can mention the bug in the article. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:25, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic - and thanks for the quick response? Just out of interest, have you experienced this as that would be 50% done....if not, thanks again for the info, and I really do appreciate how neutral and calm you are on this wiki. SanjayBeast 22:28, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And no, I can't say I've experienced this bug myself. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:30, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I have posted the topic to its talk page - if i do achieve confirmations, how do I reference that so that it doesn't get undone? SanjayBeast 22:35, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
- When adding the bug to the article, just say in the edit summary that it was verified by the talk page discussion. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:47, May 28, 2012 (UTC)
Lash Page Vandalism
Don't know where to put this, some pillock has trashed Lash ([]) Mondrak 14:30, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Someone has fixed it, sorry Mondrak 14:30, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, haven't had access to a computer since Saturday. What did I miss? Anything big? New proposals I should be aware of? Thanks. Lancer1289 17:24, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
- Nope. Just the usual vandals and a resurgence of interest in blogs. I expect the Rebellion Pack and its contents will be the center of attention over the next few days. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:27, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
Hi Commdor, Just wondering about capitalisation of things not mentioned in MoS, for future reference. In the edit you just made to the MP Heavy Melee section, you capitalised Ex-Cerberus - is this because it is a group name, not a race name (that make sense to me). Also, since I was referring to the lash that they hold (not to be confused with the power), I left it uncapitalised so players would think that they used the power to strike the ground - does this mean we should capitalise other unique equipment (such a enforcement guantlets for enforcers) to keep this up? Regards, SanjayBeast 13:50, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- Cheers, I won't go and 'fix' all the pages mentioning gauntlets then.
SanjayBeast 13:55, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
- And for the record, "Ex-Cerberus" is a proper noun so it would be capitalized. Most race names like asari, vorcha, keeper, human, and so on are common nouns and so are left lowercase, while others like Reaper, Prothean, and Collector are proper nouns and must be capitalized. Race name capitalization is outlined in site policy. -- Commdor (Talk) 13:56, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
reverting the edit on the rachni
While I'd be greateful if someone wrote that bit of information about the "souring" of the rachni song better than I did, I don't think that the information should be entirely dropped, as it builds up the coherence and intergrity of the whole series. A foreshadowing in ME1, a hypothesis in ME2, and a straight confirmation of Reapers using the rachni in ME3. With the current debate of the deus ex machina ME3 ending, I believe that highlighting coherence in other aspect is certainly desirable. --Ygrain 14:40, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Renaming an image
Hi, Commdor--would you please rename File:Cerberus MP.png as File:Phoenix MP.png? I don't think it will let me unless I just re-upload it and ask you to delete the old one. Trandra 04:18, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Done. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:23, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
You beat me to that revert by a fraction of a second. Well Played. Is there some way to force users attempting to remove that and the one on the widow article to visit the talk page first? Like how on talk pages it says 'remember to sign'? I think it might be possible, but have never looked into it. Regards, SanjayBeast (talk) 23:14, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- Not that I know of. All we can do is revert any edits that remove the tag. It's a nuisance, but a manageable one. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:39, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
- I added embedded text so that will maybe prevent some edits, but past experience has shown that embedded text rarely works. Lancer1289 23:43, June 1, 2012 (UTC)
Project Phoenix vs. Ex-Cerberus vs Human Male
Hi Commdor, I was wondering if you could clarify something for me, relating to class names. On the me3 multiplayer page, the new cerberus MP characters are referred to as 'Project Phoenix' when talking about what powers they have. However, all power pages i've seen refer to them as Ex-Cerberus Adept/Vanguard etc. I think this came about as they were named from the Rebellion release in the same way they the Harrier Assault Rifle and Reegar Carbine Shotgun (see talk on them about move) were. As the in game name is Human Male (with references to project phoenix in their description, and the fact that they are ex-cerberus), we could instead call them Human Male (Ex -Cerberus)? All of these names make sense and are based on different sources, but they are very confusing. Surely we should refer to them on all pages with the same name, as some people might not realise that they are one and the same thing? If not, sorry to bother you. http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_3_Multiplayer/Character_Customization#Powers Regards, SanjayBeast (talk) 12:30, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- The in-game name for the characters is actually "Project Phoenix". The menu screen lists their race as human male, but if you check the additional information, they're listed as "Project Phoenix". We should go by this title to distinguish the characters from the original Human Male Adept and Vanguard. As for the "Ex-Cerberus" title, that originated from the BioWare Blog post that announced the Rebellion Pack, but does not appear in-game and so should be disregarded in favor of "Project Phoenix". -- Commdor (Talk) 15:58, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Fantastic, i'll go round an change that on all their power pages, unless you want to. --SanjayBeast (talk) 16:00, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
Hi Commdor, Sorry to keep bothering you, but you answer quickly and simply, so take it as a compliment. I was just wondering what classifies articles as stubs on this wiki - some others have it by word count, others by content/if there are empty sections. Thanks, SanjayBeast (talk) 22:44, June 2, 2012 (UTC) (as an example, look at the Combat (Mass Effect 3) page - is it a stub because some sections are blank? If so, I will happily try to fill them out) SanjayBeast (talk) 22:58, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict) There's no set-in-stone standard, but I usually tag an article as a stub if I think it is incomplete (missing important details, needs to be updated with newly available info, is a subject that we can't fully describe yet because the DLC/book/comic/game it's in hasn't released, etc.) or should be expanded (the summary of plot info is too brief, there are empty sections or sections that need to be added, etc.). Article word count/size alone isn't really a factor. If even a small article is for all intents and purposes complete, then it can no longer be classified as a stub. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:00, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- With the ME3 Combat article, yes it's still technically a stub because it has at least one blank section that needs filling in. Once that's done, the stub tag can be removed. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:02, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, i'll get to work on filling out the blank sections on those pages - should I ask for people to write player tips for all of the MP maps? Also, i'll go on jade & goddess and find out what the sections are called. (Does this wiki have a 'tasks needing doing page, and if not can i start one? It can often help new editors to find articles to edit, even if they have to be cleaned up later.)
- Filled out the Squad section of Combat (Mass Effect 3) to the best of my ability, if you could take a look at it it would be much appreciated - the sections for the ME1 and ME2 combat pages are just copy pasted from one another, and I didn't want to do that....SanjayBeast (talk) 23:31, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. As for the map articles, I think it's odd that they aren't getting the same attention as the weapon articles, but there's no rush to get more notes. I'm considering reorganizing the map articles to remove or reduce notes sections anyway and focus more on descriptions/details of the actual locations. If you could get the locations for the two new maps, that would be great. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:36, June 2, 2012 (UTC)
- Cool, will do that today (but not immediately, have got guests to cook for). I'll remove that stub tag (if thats ok) and start filling out player tips for all the maps. And can I make a 'jobs that need doing' page? Because i think lots of people just don't look at the maps pages, so they don't get edited.
Sorry to keep pestering you, but..
... i have just taken a look at the 'move' tag detail. In it, it says 'If you disagree with the move, please explain why on its talk page'. This seems to imply that you have to have a statable, justifiable reason to oppose a move, in the same way that you cannot propose a move for no reason. I'm not saying that we should question peoples voting reasons on the move page, but it makes sense that they should all say why they support/oppose a move, as that agrees with this tag info. Or, we could remove the info from the tag, but that would make it so that there wouldn't have to be any reason given for a move proposition, which is stupid. Comments? Regards, SanjayBeast (talk) 13:07, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't "imply" that you have to have anything, it's merely a request that you should share any reasons you have for opposing, as a courtesy.JakePT 14:22, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Why has everyone been so defensive and aggressive about reasons for voting then, if it is simply courtesy? SanjayBeast (talk) 15:47, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't been involved in a move debate recently, so I haven't experienced what you're talking about. Was there a specific example you had in mind, so I could check it out? JakePT 08:08, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Why has everyone been so defensive and aggressive about reasons for voting then, if it is simply courtesy? SanjayBeast (talk) 15:47, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Names of Citadel Ward Arms
Hey Commdor, just to let you know that the edit I made on the Citadel article about the names of the Citadel Ward arms was with merit and was actually missing from the information on the station. Here's my proof:
 Go to 3:48. You can clearly see from the subtitles: "C-Sec VI: Civil unrest has been reported in the Presidium, Zakera Ward, Tayseri Ward, Bachjret Ward, Kithoi Ward, and Aroch Ward."
And, to add, there is nothing about the names in the "Ward" section. (I remember there possibly a year or two ago a subsection detailing Zakera Ward in ME2, and another detailing how Sovereign's remains decimated Tayseri Ward, but this was erased since then.) Hope this clears it up. PARAGADE74 01:50, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
- If you check my edit summary for the undo, it states that the names of the various Wards are noted in the Wards article, which is linked to in the section titled "Wards" in the Citadel article. The Wards article should cover all of the specific, in-depth info about the Wards, rather than the more general Citadel article, which covers the whole station. I've updated the Wards article with info about Aroch Ward (which, inconveniently for us, happens to conflict with other ME3 info that says the Citadel's fifth ward is named Shalta. Looks like another oversight on BioWare's part). -- Commdor (Talk) 02:53, June 4, 2012 (UTC)