Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a new message to start a new conversation. Please do not edit the entire page, just click the "New Message" just above and to the right of this message.

PLEASE, if I left you a message on your talk page and you wish to discuss it, whether in part or in full, then please DO NOT leave me a message about it. Please reply on your talk page, don't worry I see it, as I do not like cross page conversations. If you do respond here, the comment will be removed and placed on your talk page where I will respond. Thank you in advance.

Note that if there is any swearing or inappropriate language in your comment, it will be deleted without being responded to without warning or explanation. This goes for anything inside my user space. Blogs, sandbox talk pages, anything.

Welcome to My Talk Page. If you don't find an issue that you have brought up with me in the past, then please check my archives because I have moved a lot of it to there. However I ask you to NOT edit there, just drop me a new message to bring up the discussion again. To leave me a message, please click on the "Leave message" button above, rather than just editing the whole page. That way I know what to look for. Thanks.

Please do leave me a new message unless there is a conversation that is already in progress that you wish to comment on. If you have a question that has no bearing on a conversation that is under a heading, then please don't edit there. Just leave me a new message. For example, if you see a section called Help, but your question doesn't relate to what the conversation was about, then PLEASE don't edit in that section, just leave me a new message. The comments will be moved to the end and I'll create a new section for it.

My Talk Page Archives



User created the following page. might want to delete and ban asap.

Avg Man (talk) 19:46, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Already done. (Psst, remember to follow his talk page instructions in the future and leave a header.) Trandra (talk) 19:49, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

My bad about the header, I thought I did that. Thanks though Tranda. Avg Man (talk) 19:51, March 13, 2013 (UTC)


do you play mass effect at pc or xbox, if xbox can you give me you gametag?--Perkins98 (talk) 20:05, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

After several incidents, I cannot or will I give out my gamertag to someone I have not meet in person and I trust. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:05, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, i understand that :), if you want to add me in the future here my gamertag: Pivate Perkins9 --Perkins98 (talk) 22:14, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that changing any time soon. Lancer1289 (talk) 22:42, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

this need closing.

Hey Lancer, just a heads up but this needs officially closing now as the voting period is up. Garhdo (talk) 16:32, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Really? Because according to site policy, there are still over 7 hours left in the voting period. So I will not do anything. Lancer1289 (talk) 16:35, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Now it needs to be closed. Thanks, and sorry for my confusion earlier. Garhdo (talk) 01:26, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

"Cover" article Merge

Hey, just to let you know, the proposal to merge the cover and combat articles looks to have passed, and the voting needs to be closed. Thanks. TheUnknown285 (talk) 18:23, March 14, 2013 (UTC)


Hey my friend this guy just left whole load of inappropriate image spams on Milkman's Citadel blog. Garhdo (talk) 09:40, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Actually it seems like we have a few vandaalising different pages. So far me and Lksdjf are on top of it. Garhdo (talk) 09:55, March 15, 2013 (UTC)


On the Milkman's review of the citadel DLC, some joker posted a ton of photos of a naked fat asari. The image isn't really easy on the eyes, and I'm sure the Milkman won't appreciate it at all. --DeadpoolN7 (talk) 13:27, March 15, 2013 (UTC)deadpoolN7

UPDATE: 08/15/2013- It looks like someone beat me to the punch with the comment right above mine. I apologize for this post.--DeadpoolN7 (talk) 13:29, March 15, 2013 (UTC)deadpoolN7

ME 3 datapad

I seems like you add/remowe most and wanna hear a thing from you Should we add Me3 datapad informations on planets+ pictures? --Perkins98 (talk) 22:55, March 16, 2013 (UTC)


what is mos, give me a link, the il read the whole d**m site rule, editor tips, etc :) --Perkins98 (talk) 19:13, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Really? Just Really? The link is right on your talk page at the top in the welcome message. The fact you haven't read it before now tells me a lot and explains a lot. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:14, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Manual of style, i have learned alot...--Perkins98 (talk) 20:30, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Charles Saracino's user page

I'm wondering if you're aware about the flattering comment about you on Charles Saracino's user page. 03:00, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Kolyat's scene in ME3:Citadel

Hi, concerning the revert to the link I put to Thane's page on Kolyat's ME3:Citadel link, please see Kolyat's talk page, I've explained the reasoning behind putting a link instead of a full write-up (which I had in fact started but scrapped as explained on the talk page) there, would love to know your thoughts on the alternatives to solving this conundrum. --Zeta1 (talk) 17:03, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Cattlesquat's edits

Could you have a word with Cattlesquat regarding the edits they are making to mission pages? There's numerous issues with their edits, including:

  • very poor formatting, with the insertion of "Insanity Tips" everywhere, most of which state information that is perfectly valid on any difficulty or reiterate information that was already stated elsewhere on the page
  • lack of proofreading, such as the Jacob: The Gift of Greatness page where they left an improperly-done note template
  • removal of valid information just because they do not agree with it, such as on the Collector Ship (mission) page

Not only are they ruining the wiki's image with low-quality writing, they are adding poor information and removing good information from the wiki. They've made many edits of this nature, and I'm hoping that someone in charge can have a word with them. 17:28, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

An idea.

Hey. For starters, welcome back. I noticed you were gone/less active for some time. I can't really blame you, what with Easter and all.

Anyways, I had an idea I just wanted to get an admins opinion on before I tried anything. As I'm sure you have noticed, it has been a year since Mass Effect 3's release and people are still arguing over the ending.... except it is never arguing and is always petty flamewars, insults, and just uncivil and hostile behavior in general, not to mention it almost always clogs the RC. What I am thinking of doing is drafting a policy prohibiting any sort of argument between users about the endings, at least on the main wiki. If they want to have their p***ing contests than there are far better places than on blogs, such as PM in Chat or even different websites all together.

Do you have any thoughts on this?--Legionwrex (talk) 18:37, March 31, 2013 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't be a bad idea. It has caused nothing but problems since day one. Discussion at first was fine, but at this point, it is beating a dead horse that has already been dead for years, been run over by several vehicles, blasted into space, ejected out of an airlock, thrown back through the atmosphere...I'll just stop there. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:25, March 31, 2013 (UTC)


AS the writer of the page LV426, was "laziness" directed against me ? I'd just like to know... --DeldiRe 19:24, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

All articles with the exception of game articles (Mass Effect 3), Walkthroughs (Dossier: Archangel), DLC articles (Kasumi - Stolen Memory), or other articles of that nature, are required to be written from an in-universe perspective. This includes all character articles (David Anderson), planet articles (Noveria), cluster articles (Widow), system articles (Boltzmann), the Timeline, Storyline, Comic summaries (Mass Effect: Redemption), and etc. This is written into site policies. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:31, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
does it give you the right to insult me ? --DeldiRe 19:38, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
It is subjective, but I can see your point. I do apologize, but when one has to constantly fix these issues despite telling people over and over, and mentioning it over and over, it becomes tedious, not to mention annoying. A simple inspection of site policies would have prevented the problem. Lancer1289 (talk) 19:39, April 1, 2013 (UTC)
I accept your apologies but you should stop judging people is so short notice (especially with new comers that you treat without respect). And, to quote you, "a simple inspection" of the work i have accomplished with the help of Trandra and TE78 (+ some others editors) on MEI content would have showned that it was far from "laziness"...--DeldiRe 19:45, April 1, 2013 (UTC)

Those articles suffer from the same problem & (simply need a date reference for this one). But i'm not sure about the actual date of the events. How can we fix this ? --DeldiRe 08:13, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Vote needs closing.

Hey Lancer this needs closing because the voting period is up. I would do it myself but I don't know how. I would like to learn however if you can tell me. I've seen Temp say that it just requires a header to be added - is that right? Garhdo (talk) 00:08, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry actually I've checked the other policy pages and I know what to add, so I'll sort it. Garhdo (talk) 00:47, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Valid accounts.

So I tried to ask you this just now in the chat but you left before answering. Is an account only considered 'valid' after making an edit? because in that case we have actually reintroduced the edit restriction, which was lifted by the community. Xeno has had a username and account for a while now, confirmed by myself and another editor, and yet you insist on removing him because he only recently made his first edit.

So is there an edit restriction, or not? Garhdo (talk) 01:01, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

The two week valid account was instituted so that a user would have the two weeks to familiarize themselves with the wiki. There is no edit restriction, however they have to have a valid account for two week. We cannot spend time tracing accounts all over wikia to check to see if it is valid or not. Therefore what is used is the time indicated at the top of the user page. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:04, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
And I will not respond to you any further since this is quite clear and I have no desire to talk to someone who has insulted me. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:04, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
If we use the date at the top of their page we are in effect enforcing a one edit restriction, which goes against the current policy. I simply want to make sure I am doing this right.
And describing your actions and attitude is not insulting you Lancer. I am trying to work with you to help contribute to this wikia, and yet you are obstructive at nearly every suggestion made by the community and even other admins. For example the recent trivia additions, that 'joke' in the wwalkthrough a while back, the language policy votes, Xeno in chat. Act like an adult, contribute to a discussion sensibly, instead of acting like your word is law, and you may get some more respect and support from this community instead of everyone seeming to be at your throat.
It's no way to live my friend. Garhdo (talk) 01:13, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Armax Arena/Pinnacle Station

You are being entirely unreasonable regarding this. I find it truly incredulous that you could think that likening one combat simulator to another to be in any way "stretching it". The addition of that link was a good faith edit. You removed it based on your own opinion, not because of it violating any rules or regulations. That means that the burden is on you to give a good reason for why it should not be there and your removal is the first edit relevant to this conflict. Regardless of whether you think it should be there or not, that is just your opinion, one which is clearly opposed by at least two users. The fact that you are an Admin makes no difference in this case. Either you make your case and convince myself or others that the line should not be there, or let it go. It's a small thing, it's not important, but it was clearly a good faith, constructive edit which served a purpose. I'm going to re-add the link now, please don't start edit warring by removing it again for no good reason. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 17:08, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

No that is not how it works. You are the one who will be edit warring, you are the one who has to justify the inclusion, you are the one who if there is a problem to take it to the proper place. Not me. That is not my job. This is how it has always been. If there is a conflict, it is the job of the person adding the information to justify it, and if there is a conflict, then it is their job to go to the appropriate place.
As to the point there are a number of differences, with the only similarity being a simulator. There are a number of other differences that do not justify the connection. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:15, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Did you even read the context of the sentence?
"The Arena features a huge rectangular room that can project fully-immersive holographic environments and scenarios, just like Pinnacle Station."
In other words, they are both combat simulators. That's it, that's the only thing that needs to be considered when deciding if the comparison is valid. They are both near enough the same thing, the only difference really being that one is military and one is commercial.
Yes, that is how it works. I am not the original author of the edit. As with any contested edit you make it most certainly IS your duty to explain it and address any concerns. It is the job of the instigator of the conflict to "go to the appropriate place" in this case, as with the BSG trivia on the Traynor page, that individual is you. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 17:35, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
No. Not even close. That is YOUR job, not mine. I am going off of how this policy has been done and enforced in the past, which is exactly opposite of what you think it is. It is your job to justify the inclusion, which is stretching it to say the least, not my justification for removing it. Lancer1289 (talk) 17:41, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
I HAVE justified the inclusion. You have not even come close to explaining why it is not justified beyond a single word. I cannot think how it could be stretching in in any way shape or form. Opposing the inclusion of that link, especially for the very lacking reason you have given is a really rather silly position to take. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 17:47, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
And how many combat simulators are there in the ME universe? The note makes it seem like it is just two, the ones that we see. We have no way of confirming that, and it probably is not even the case. The point is that while they are simulators, the inclusion gives the impression that those are the only two combat simulators in the entire galaxy. They are also complete different in terms of what they are used for. One is used for High End operative training available to only the elite of the galaxy by personal invitation, the other for entertainment which anyone can partake in. Objectives are quite different and so are the arenas. Not to mention that one is classified and no one knows about it except those high ranking officials. Therefore mentioning that it is similar to a common instillation in an in-universe perspective article makes no sense. No one would know about the highly classified instillation, so making the comparison is stretching it because of the multitude of differences between them, once you get past the classified nature of Pinnacle Station. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:00, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? You just defended your position using almost entirely speculation and a really rather bizarre interpretation of the term "just like". It really really does not give that impression. The fine details of how they are used are contextually irrelevant. Nowhere else on this wiki am I aware of information being excluded because most people in the galaxy would not know about it (not counting things due to spoiler tags). All the sentence says is basically 'here is another similar thing we know of that you may be interested in'. There is nothing wrong with that and you are massively over analysing the (debatable) implications. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 18:08, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Except that all articles are to be written in from the perspective of an in-universe point of view unless that is not physically possible. Examples of this are DLC articles, Game Articles, walkthroughs. The Arena article is written from that point of view, and therefore mentioning a classified installation in the body of the article is not acceptable. People would have no knowledge of the installation since it is clearly mentioned that it is classified. I am not over analyzing the anything, I am pointing out key differences that do not justify the inclusion.
However, if you are so insistent on putting it in as you seem to be, then perhaps a "See Also" section could be added to the article with a link and a short description about what it is and that key difference I mentioned. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:17, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
I have never seen infomation limited anywhere before on this wiki because an in universe lay-person probably would not know about it. The simple fact that we openly talk about Liar being the shadow broker (behind spoiler tags of course) shows that we do not. The pages are written in-universe yes, but they are from the perspective of someone "in the know".
That seems like a reasonable compromise, and is more like the sort of thing that I would have done had I been the original author. Thank you for actually explaining your position and interacting with me constructively, though I would appreciate it if you did not utilise snide remarks when doing so. Phalanx (talk|contibutions) 18:33, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
I support the addition of the link because of those similarities :
  • 2 Fight similator
  • Introduced with a DLC
  • Do not add gameplay just a way to increase the life of ME
  • You can choose your own equipment, map, objectives , ennemies
  • Holo ennemies and holo map
  • Similar map (little holo map with in game background)

Nevertheless, we can turn our sentence to show that they are not the only similator in the universe and add that pinnacle station was "secret facility training" or something else. Pinnacle station is not known by the player (maybe for good reason) but it is a good way to show this specific content. --DeldiRe 08:38, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism again

I'm sure that you already seen it but this user is throwing naked fat Liara in blog comments. Thank you for further actions. --DeldiRe 08:28, April 3, 2013 (UTC)


Someone just voted against the Forum:End Policy, using Freedom of Speech as the reason. Isn't that grounds for a removal, since it's pretty much completely unrelated?--Legionwrex (talk) 06:02, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think the user is saying that from preventing him saying exactly what he wants about it you are limiting his freedom of speech. Although I've never seen this user before lol. Garhdo (talk) 06:05, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
Do not know why you say that it is completely unrelated. This is the essence of your proposal, a restrain in freedom of speech to avoid flamewar. As already stated, the goal is noble, the means is out of proportion. --DeldiRe 08:00, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
Because freedom of speech doesn't apply on this wiki. Hence why bad language is banned as is insulting other users.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:48, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
I also don't see how it is unrelated. Regardless of whether or not you believe his(?) argument, the policy does involve limiting expression, so invoking freedom of speech is not an unrelated argument. TheUnknown285 (talk) 15:53, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Users can vote however they want for whatever reason they want, even if that reason is seemingly illogical, as long as they don't somehow violate existing policies in the process. Users are also not obligated to provide an explanation for their votes. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:40, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure on the last Chat Policy thing Lancer said he would remove votes if a user was misunderstanding it....or something like that.--Legionwrex (talk) 20:16, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate Commdor's point, users most certainly can vote however they want for whatever reason they want. We're not in the business of deciding what is and isn't an "acceptable" reason for voting. Perfect example - someone voted to demote me because they thought it would be funny. I can't recall anyone saying that vote shouldn't count because of the dumbass reason given. (I could get used to this new language policy, btw...) And Lancer himself is pushing a proposal to eliminate comments in the voting section. That'll increase the number of people who vote without providing any rationale. How would we judge their motives? As far as I'm concerned, the only valid reasons to remove votes (that I'm aware of, anyways) are sock puppetry and canvassing. Not because someone thinks the person voting is doing so for the "wrong" reason. SpartHawg948 (talk) 12:39, April 6, 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for dealing with the flame war situation, it has to be done, we are all sick of endless and useless discussion who end into a flame war. I remark that this "discussion" was not about the ending so it seems that a particular topic is not the cause of such behavior. I'm glad that you warned everyone who take part in the discussion. However, I'm a bit sad that Nord Ronnoc is the one who paid for everyone even if he broke site policies. I know that you are a "to the word" admin and I can respect that but Nord had a cool attitude (see lily blog) in the beginning and was just irritated by others behavior (and I can understand that). Never mind, it is your call and there nothing I can do about that but I just wanted to tell that I'm sure that he was not the guy to blame more than others especially when editors whith responsability are concerned.

Thanks again for the quick reaction. --DeldiRe 07:46, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Nord won't be a scapegoat, but he is the one who did throw the first punch and did end up breaking site policy not once but twice. That cannot and will not be excused or dismissed. I am currently considering punishment(s) for someone else who was at equal fault and who did inflame the situation. I will render my decision on that this afternoon. Lancer1289 (talk) 14:59, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

can you delete this blog?

Because obviously, things have gotten out of hand... --TW6464 (talk) 13:09, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Done. Lancer1289 (talk) 14:59, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
thank you very much.--TW6464 (talk) 15:17, April 10, 2013 (UTC)


Since TW had you delete the blog, I'll re-ask this here. Why exactly did I get a warning? I mean, I'm not mad or anything, and I do realize that sometimes I escalate situations, but on that blog I didn't really do anything out of line and I feel as though maybe I was grouped in with others who did.

I was civil throughout the whole, relatively small (I only had like 4 short replies) comment string and I even said "most PC gamers are fine", I was only talking about the minority who talk down to console gamers.--Legionwrex (talk) 15:20, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that you posted a comment that you knew would generate a harsh response and people would go crazy over it. You should have known better. Lancer1289 (talk) 18:04, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Except no one went crazy over it. There was no flamewar regarding it. The one person who complained (Bluegear), I apologized to and clarified my position.--Legionwrex (talk) 18:23, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Lancer has a point. Another user even warned you that it looked like you were going for an argument. I get that your posts were tongue-in-cheek, but I can see where lancer is coming from here. Garhdo (talk) 18:26, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Did you see my above comment? I apologized to Bluegear on the comment string and said I wasn't looking for an argument. In retrospect, maybe it wasn't the best idea, but hindsight is 20/20, at the time, I didn't know it could generate a flamewar (which it didn't, hence my confusion on the warning I got).--Legionwrex (talk) 18:29, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
I saw it but only after posting. Sorry about that. I must admit I'm not really sure where people are seeing a flamewar here. All I saw was Nord and Alek going off the handle at each other, for absolutely no discernable reason I could see. Garhdo (talk) 18:42, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

exact time of chat entrance

I was just wondering what time I am allowed into live chat its April 12 right?--Xeno126 (talk) 15:36, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I thought SpartHawg had already ruled you could use chat? If not then yes its April 12th. Garhdo (talk) 16:44, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Hey I had a thought

After voting (and therefore commenting) closed on your Voting Reform policy, I had the following thought - if the issue is people leaving really long voting comments, I would totally support a character limit on pre-signature "quick voting comments" - e.g. the famous Twitter 140 character limit or be more generous with 256. There were reasons pointed out in the discussion why (at least many think) there is some value in having the comments, but at the same time I can totally see an argument for a character limit. Since the voting was narrow on this I suspect a character limit might pass. Just a thought. Cattlesquat (talk) 14:03, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

No the issue is that voting sections are for voting, not for commenting. In almost every forum discussion with voting, with only a handful of exceptions, there has been a comment left in the voting sections, and someone has asked about it, commented on it, or addressed it in some way, shape, or form. Comments should be left in the discussion/commenting section, no matter what they are. A vote is a vote, not a comment about why you are voting that way. If you want to say why you voted, then voice why in the discussion section. I will repropose it on Friday and reword the proposal to say that. The issue is people leaving a comment, and then either not coming back to address a response to it, or leaving an inflammatory comment. Quite a few people, including myself are guilty of that. Lancer1289 (talk) 14:21, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Planetary maps loading issue

Hi, I would like to announce that the planetary maps of mass effect doesn't load. The minatures on the main page are visible but when clicing on them the map doesn't load.

Best regards, Kindersatan

That may be due to an issue with your computer and/or internet connection rather than anything wrong with the site that we can identify and fix. Right now, all images I click on are successfully loading like normal for me. If you're referring to the Mass Effect Galaxy Map on the Milky Way article, that does not "expand" when clicked on like other images because it's being used as a map; you can click on the different clusters in that image to navigate to those articles. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:32, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Where Are All These Vandals Coming From

I used to be a named user here but stopped coming on the wiki around February, anyway can you tell me where all this vandalism is coming from? I come back and its just weird, I don't remember all this from a few months ago.

I knew who the vandal back from March was ( the one with the naked Liara and porn spam ) he actually got over the whole vandalism thing and stopped. I just want to know where the death threats are coming from? I keep seeing them every other day in the Recent Changes section.

I guess when one vandal stops another takes his / her place :(

The porn spam was a bit weird but I kind of cracked up when I saw that I'll admit, but death threats are just crossing the line.

Signed: A Concerned Anon

Dear Lancer, Recently, I was playing ME3 multiplayer online and thought "Without the usual ME3 multiplayer peanut gallery, this is somewhat immersive". I also visited the Young Justice Wiki and found that they do active role plays and was curious to ask (and feel free to say no. Believe me, it won't hurt my feelings) if we could try our own Mass Effect roleplay. We could get a handful of people to join and create their own characters. I thought it would be lots of fun to do, and it could get people back in a good mood after the slow news Mass Effect has been getting recently. Let me know what you think Sincerely, Tvirus1234

Compromise a little.

I think the issue in the current instance is that, like many of your edits, you revert with no discussion or compromise. You use policy as an excuse, when several times you have been proven not to be implementing the policy correctly.

I am not try to antagonise, merely to offer advice that if you were a bit more open to discussion then perhaps you may not feel as victimised here. However I have said this to you several times before - You didn't listen then so I doubt you will now. Garhdo (talk) 20:11, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

And you have just further antagonized me and you have further insulted me because instead of trying to find out more, you just assumed.
I was perfectly capable of having a civil discussion, and looking for one, but apparently my comments are not welcome because I cause disorder. Instead of discussing, someone ran off rather than just talking it out. I was explaining my position, but instead of someone discussing it and assuming that I was open to a discussion, two people now assume that I was just throwing my weight around. That is not what I was doing. I was explaining my position and how things like that specific issue have been handled in the past. But apparently I cannot do anything without someone assuming things. Lancer1289 (talk) 20:19, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
I apologise as I did not mean to antagonise you further, and while I fail to see where you have found insult I also apologise for doing so.
My point is that if you were truly open to a discussion about this issue then you would have opened the Talk page discussion. Instead you denounced it as an "Unnecessary change" in your edit reversal, then despite a further disagreement from another editor you referred to policy, erroneously I might add, and said that "Changes like this are not permitted".
Then when you finally did deign to join the Talk Page discussion, only after an edit change summary highlighted there was such a discussion, you responded with this:
"And I completely an utterly disagree. This is about a different in now things are done, which is extending to this. Both are acceptable, and since there is nothing wrong with the original, then it should stay that way. Unless I see a clear objection, not just how the locals do it because if we used that excuse for something, then we'd have a lot more issues, then it is an unnecessary change since both are perfectly acceptable."
In effect, despite the evidence and testimony presented by three separate users you failed to realise that this is not a case of American VS British English, but a case of naming something correctly. You continued to insist that there was nothing wrong, despite being factually incorrect. Then you took a "woe-is-me" attitude, and removed your comment, complaining that "this makes it apparent that me voicing my opinion about something that I disagree with is no longer welcome because I cause disorder."
My point was that IF you had started the Talk page discussion yourself after the second edit by a second user, or were not so flippant in your edit summaries and comments, then people would be more than willing to discuss things with you sensibly and directly. Garhdo (talk) 20:44, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
The way things should work, and how they have worked in the past, running on over 3 years now, is that if an edit is disputed, then it is the job of the person pushing for change to open a talk page discussion. I have said this repeatedly that is how it has always been done. I feel like I am repeating this over and over and it does not seem to register with anyone. If an edit is disputed, then the article is to remain as is was until a discussion has been completed. This is how things have been done.
As to my comment, the point of it was that I strongly disagree and was elaborating on my position and eluding to the fact that things like this have been done like it in the past.
While I can see where your last part comes from, that was not what it was. I merely pointed out the fact that instead of someone talking about it, they just ran off and didn't decide to ask questions. I merely pointed out the fact that, and I had not made a change to the article because of said discussion, instead of talking, they just chose to ignore my comment for over an hour and run off. I am sick and tried of people doing that because I disagree with something and use precedent to back it up.
I also felt that I had to make the point that since my comments cannot be treated as someone who disagrees, but rather as conniving, rude, and "it's my way or the highway". While I do very much agree that I probably should have gone about it in a better and more mature way, I had become so frustrated with one particular user that I let my anger and frustration get the better of me, because of the impression that I cannot do my job without someone constantly looking over my shoulder. For that, I do apologize. I removed my comments eventually because I thought it would be better because of specific comments made by another user in two places.
As to the issue itself, I have seen both forms of it in both print and spoken. I have seen it both terms used commonly and while I do know that it is the proper term in Britain, I would also not have an argument if someone put "River Chicago" in an article and would argue similarly if there was an issue, despite the fact it properly called "Chicago River". In the past, things like this with differences have been left as they were previously because it has been seen as a natural extension of spelling because it a cultural issue, and cultural differences have been left as they were when they were first written for that reason.
It is things like this that make me revisit the idea of leaving altogether because people just assume things and don't bother to ask questions. They just assume the worst and do nothing to apologize when they get it wrong. Lancer1289 (talk) 21:24, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
I will answer your points in order:
I have spoken to you before about how precedent does not mean that something is right. In this case a correct edit was made, you admit that you are aware of the proper term, yet reverted it when you had two chances to open the discussion yourself. There is nothing that says that the person proposing an edit has to open the discussion - I have seen many examples, and started some myself, to the contrary of this. I have even seen you start discussions on Talk pages to remove trivia items for example, which is essentially the same thing. I understand that you disagreed, but if you had gone to the Talk page yourself instead of making that second edit and aired your disagreements first then some of this could have been avoided.
Please don't misconstrue me, as I am glad that you did participate in the discussion once opened, and that you didn't revert the edit a third time. I am a bit saddened that the user ran straight to another editor, especially as this was nothing like previous issues we have had where I have done the same. In this instance your opinion would have merely counted as a no vote for the change, and in fact one could argue that you had the right to revert the edit again after my own. As I said I am glad that was not the case, and I am sorry that the actions of this user have left you feeling victimised. However I will admit that your precendent does stand against you for many editors, but as I said I could see that your actions this time were far from how they have been previously, and that running to Spart was simply unnecessary.
I think with comments over the internet, or any text-based media, it can be hard to interpret the intent behind the words. As your responses tend to be straight-forward and to the point it could be easy to see why people may interpret you as rude, especially with the set precedent. It is very clear to me however even from this discussion that you are not the same person I was having such heated debates with several months ago, yet I think that it will take time for that opinion to change within the community. And yes you are entitled to revert any edit you wish (for the good of the wikia of course) and to speak as you feel is best, but perhaps by explaining yourself and your actions with a few more words you would not seem as you have in the past. I can understand the frustration you may get but also in that instance I would suggest that instead of replying straight away you take some time away, a half hour say, and then return with a more measured and diplomatic response. It takes practice but I think many users here, myself included, could benefit from such an approach.
Regarding the issue then, perhaps in this case we should default to whichever terminology the English wikipedia uses for naming issues such as this. In this case that would be the River Thames, while the other examples used by us both would be the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. I think by using whatever default is offered for a place name by Wikipedia then we avoid any debate about it being cultural, and we could implement this in the MoS easily. After all due to it being a named feature it is different to a simple spelling difference, wouldn't you say?
And I sincerely do hope that you do not leave this wiki altogether. I think that would be a grave injustice and far from deserved. Instead I hope instead that you take my advice to heart, work towards overturning the negative opinion of yourself within this community by acting in a positive and diplomatic manner, continue to make great edits, and talk to people when issues bother you. I check the wikia roughly every hour while I am awake so I can easily be reached if you want to talk about any issues.
Chin up my friend! Garhdo (talk) 22:32, May 24, 2013 (UTC)

Trailer project

Hi, As we say in french "Mieux vaut prévenir que guérir" (It is better to prevent than to cure) and then I need to point at something. I will be happy if you do not destroy all my work on this trailer project before the vote proposal for obscure reasons or just because you do not like it. Thanks in advance. --DeldiRe 14:05, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

You have a funny way to try and get people on your side. I am honestly quite insulted with the latter sentence because it implies that you want me to just say yes, even if I have reservations or another opinion. Lancer1289 (talk) 14:32, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
Not at all. In one hand, I don't really want you on "my side" (is there an individual style when we work on a community project?)but it is certain that I will also be glad if you give positive input (edits, comments,...) on this project. On the other hand, I do know that you are an adept of "remove on sight" and I prefer to not start a war with you even if your comments will be welcome on the future proposal page (or even now on the talk page of my sandbox). Are you insulted by my last sentence "thanks in advance" ? I'm not really a smart guy so I can't understand why.--DeldiRe 14:53, June 11, 2013 (UTC)


What MoS violations? And I didn't remove the note. (Thelee (talk) 20:47, June 12, 2013 (UTC))

Oh, since the revert comment was a bit ambiguous, I moved the damage modifier note under "Player Notes." If it doesn't belong there, then I throw up my hands because other editors have suggested to me (in varying degrees of cordiality/hostility) that the damage modifiers that I have originally been adding above "===Power Ranks===" belongs under "===Player Notes===". (Thelee (talk) 20:52, June 12, 2013 (UTC))
Still... Lancer removed some valid information such as "Incinerate actually does only 75% of its damage up-front, the other 25% is dealt as a damage-over-time effect over 3 seconds (which is distinct from the rank five evolution that provides a damage-over-time effect)." And as you said Thelee, you did not break anything in the MoS and you did right by putting the note into the player notes that your are really good reordering --DeldiRe 21:21, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
Player Notes

This section is for how players can effectively use the powers. This section is not for how enemies can use them, only for how the player can Use bullet points in this section for individual tips. Lksdjf (talk) 21:32, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Could you please rename this mess of a file name?

Could you rename this image to something like "The Collectors.jpg"? It looks a mess as it is now. MTk4Z (talk) 03:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Possible Evidence

Hey, you know that one anon the continually vandalizes "ending bashers" with somewhat graphic spam? Well, I've come across some interesting information that may possibly shed light on them being a resident wikian. I'm not saying it's anything set in stone, just a hunch. There's a lot of the same behavior and speech mannerisms, if anything it's just something to possibly look more into. I'd rather not simply accuse them outright though, so if you could meet me in chat sometime I'll show you what I've found. Just name a time and a place tomorrow or some other day you'll be more free and I'll see if I can make it. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 00:29, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

If you are free now I can. Respond if you are able, otherwise sometime around 2:00 pm CST tomorrow. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:31, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Gaming Scholarship, anyone?

Hi Lancer, noticed you're at university studying game design. If by any chance you're interested in applying for a game design scholarship there are a few being offered by an org I'm involved in, and you might qualify. Deadline is tight but I just got the email reminder... Sounds like they need more applicants. Anyway check out [1] and [2] if interested. Regardless of our earlier runin one of my volunteer jobs is scouting new talent for the industry, and your adminship and 35K+ edits here would certainly be an interesting item to mention in an application. Your faithful servant, etc. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:48, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Hey... uh

You might want to take a look at something. Meet me in chat whenever you're available. 16:29, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. Forgot I was logged off at the time. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 16:31, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

You promptly reverted my edits to the Forvan page. There is an obvious error in a reference to Shepard's gender ("Shepard can also state Forvan isn't worth his time"); couldn't at least that be corrected? Elseweyr (talk) 11:59, June 25, 2013 (UTC)


Hey Lancer, Edit request: The Terminus Systems page makes no reference to Horizon as a Terminus colony/planet or Shadow Sea as a Terminus System. Would it be possible to cross link these as the other Terminus systems/colonies are? Much obliged! -- 04:17, June 26, 2013 (UTC)Fyrflygrrl

Horizon and the Shadow Sea cluster are actually located in the Attican Traverse per the ME3 Galaxy Map, despite Horizon being called a "Terminus colony" in its ME2 Codex entry. This is effectively a retcon. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:42, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
There are actually a few examples of this. Like Commdor said, it's possibly a retcon, a case of one hand not knowing what the other was doing, or the regional boundaries of the galaxy shifting from game to game. TheUnknown285 (talk) 02:17, June 27, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.