Welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Edit
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Missions page.
If you haven't already, please sign in and create a user name! It's free, and it'll help you keep track of all your edits.
If you're new to wikis, please read the tutorial at Wikia Community Central.
Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started. In particular, be aware of our policies concerning the capitalization of alien race names and information sourcing.
Missions Page Edit
I saved by mistake the second time; I meant to ask about the deletion first. Wasn't my intention to get into an edit war.
I don't understand the rationale for having only two sections for missions (three with DLC). It's not user-friendly in the slightest to have no distinction between fetch quests and quests with real gameplay and content; perhaps they're all treated the same way by the quest log, but that seems a poor reason to replicate it on Wikia. Epenthesis (talk) 19:37, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
- It is set up that way because they all fit into that category. What you do is not ok because it is more for opinion than for actual content. Missions and assignments are organized by what they impact, in this case, all impact galaxy at war, not what you did. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:38, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Epenthesis - also check the guides for each game, i.e. Mass Effect Guide, Mass Effect 2 Guide, Mass Effect 3 Guide. They provide a different organization of much of the same stuff you're talking about, as opposed to the Missions page which is more of a laundry list. They aren't perfect - I personally would prefer to see the ME3 Guide do better distinguishing the side missions that have "real gameplay and content" as you put it from those that do not (unfortunately IMHO, ME3 eliminated the concept of "assignments" which used to keep a lot of the low-content material in a different category) - but changing it would require mustering a community consensus and vote and stuff, and so far those waters have not been tested. In any event I personally use the guides more when I'm doing a playthrough for the reasons you describe. And I certainly think it's fine to offer several different lenses through which to view material on the wiki. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:23, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Cattlesquat. I don't agree, but I understand and will respect the philosophy behind the page construction, and confine myself to uncontroversial grammatical edits and so forth.Epenthesis (talk) 20:30, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Heck no! Don't give up just because you're new and stumbled on like your second edit! Do some grammatical edits for a while by all means, but we totally need organizational-minded folks like yourself to pay attention and make suggestions. And the standard wikia principle of "BOLD, revert, discuss" begins with bold! You were bold, then it got reverted, now we're discussing - nothing improper or embarrassing about that. If you hang around for a while, you may be able to influence consensus on some of these things you disagree with. FWIW, I was the one who managed to get italicizing the "minor missions" on the ME3 Guide page to stick - as a user of the page I was coming from the same place you are. So anyway hang in there, we'd love to have you! Cattlesquat (talk) 20:47, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the encouragement! I'll keep contributing, don't worry, just with a little more caution and good sense. Excellent move on the guide page there. Epenthesis (talk) 03:09, June 20, 2013 (UTC)
Romance Page Edit
Looks like you're having some trouble getting edits (at least one of which looked perfectly good to me) to stick on the Romance page. When something like that happens (your edits getting reverted) and you still believe in your edits, the next step is to go to the talk page for the article (e.g. in this case Talk:Romance), click the "Add Topic" button, and state the edit you'd like to make and the reason you'd like to make it. That opens up a 7-day discussion period for the change during which editors can come by and weigh in on the discussion, plus give an opinion/vote yea or nay. At the end of the 7 days, if the consensus comes out in your favor, the edit officially gets to be re-added. Takes some time, but it's the way to both get community input and deal with an issue where you and one other editor just plain disagree. Since you seem new-ish, here are a couple of examples of similar situations recently resolved. Also, since you're new here you may not yet have found this page which is the "Recent Changes" or "RC" page - which is my favorite way to find threads that need me to weigh in on them. Again glad to have you on the wiki! Your faithful servant, etc. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:12, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate the advice, and will happily put it into practice for something I feel strongly about. But I'm kind of puzzled given that the last reversion was just a grammar cleanup. I'm a professional copyeditor; I clarify language for a living, and I know for a fact that all I did was make a sentence more direct. I can understand a substantive change being refused, but when this kind of thing happens it makes me feel like my help isn't wanted.Epenthesis (talk) 20:27, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm baffled why you're having an issue too, which is why I'm suggesting it probably deserves a Talk Page vote and that you would be very likely to prevail. It's unfortunate, but this kind of thing often seems to happen with new editors, whether it's human nature or whatever, and if you don't stand up for your edits it will tend to keep happening. One of the "missions" I undertake for myself here is to be a bit more welcoming to promising new editors, and thus walk them through some of this. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:39, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh and I meant to add - also it's good to try the process for the first time when you feel you are on really solid ground, which a relatively minor edit can be good for. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:41, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
Let me correct some falsehoods that have been presented. Talk page discussions are for major article changes, things like trivia disputes, major article formatting change, and the like. They are not to be used for basic editing changes, which if anything are to be handled by user talk page discussions if anything.
Seven day discussions are also only to be used in the same situations. There are times when things are done the way they are done for various reasons. If you do not know why, then ask. Do not start a discussion for small things as it does end up being a waste of time.
As to what you say you do, I really do not care what you say you do for a living as we have had people say literally everything at this point. That is not meant to be insulting or anything. It is merely a fact. What matters is what you are doing here, not what you do outside. It has been discovered over time that people will say and do just about everything, and often they are proven to be false claims. That is the history and the fact.
As to the edits, changing a sentence to read "cleaner" is merely a matter of perspective, which is often things like that go unchanged, or get reverted because there are literally so many ways of writing things that if someone wants to use language like that, then it is fine. Grammar cleanups are only to be used when it is really egregious grammar that is either so localized or no one can understand what it is saying. Often times, we tend to use more formal grammar when it comes to necessary story elements to ensure that the content does not get lost. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:50, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Epinthesis, as I DO care about what you do in your real life because it is a worthy skill for our wiki, I would like to ask some help on one of my projects. I made a lot of addition on Mass Effect Infiltrator but English is not my native language and then it could be great if you can have a look on some of the pages I wrote (just go on my use page, you will find a link the the MEI project). Thanks in advance. --DeldiRe 00:45, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
Lancer1289, I can understand your skepticism regarding who I say I am; I won't try to convince you.
However, if your position is really that grammar should only be changed to correct egregious errors, I'm concerned. Those of us who value the use of clear language don't make edits for that purpose if we don't know what we're doing, and there's certainly a process in place to prevent harmful changes from slipping through. Is there no room for interpretation on this matter?
Cattlesquat, I'll check out your talk page later on tonight; I'm sure I'll have something to say. Epenthesis (talk) 22:46, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Then you'll find there the reasons I not only maintain but in fact redouble my earlier advice. Although at this moment another editor has stepped in and restored your edit to the article; not sure it will stick, but if it doesn't a talk page discussion to make it stick. Cattlesquat (talk) 22:49, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Well Lancer would be out of line were he to revert it when it's clear that there are at least three users supporting it. Given that I expect it to stick. Epenthesis, just use your common sense. There is nothing wrong with correcting grammar/wording; Lancers opinion is his own and is not policy. Phalanx (talk|contribs) 23:23, June 24, 2013 (UTC)
LGBTQ podcast specifics Edit
can you please specify the approximate time where they mention the kaidan bit? for convenience's sake, since there's bound to be tons of stuff to sift through in a 90-minute recording. direct link to the podcast, i think, is http://media.blubrry.com/ratedna/cdn.nerdappropriate.com/podcasts/LGBTQ-Character-Discussion.mp3 . T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 01:26, September 18, 2013 (UTC)
Sure; the question begins almost exactly at the 36 minute mark. I'll fix the page.Epenthesis (talk) 01:37, September 18, 2013 (UTC)