Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Jonn Whitson page.

Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Commdor (Talk) 22:46, March 16, 2012

Vanguard Guide Edits Edit

Note that your edits to the Vanguard Guide have been reverted. This is because your edits were in clear violation of how those pages are supposed to be set up according to the MoS on Class Guide Pages. If you continue to make edits to class guides, then please keep all edits within the MoS. Lancer1289 21:05, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed your revert of the Vanguard Guide article citing Mass Effect Wiki:Manual of Style; but I can't directly find anything in there that I've directly violated. Would you be able to explain (preferably with specific examples) which points I have broken, and which I would need to fix to be able to process my edits so that they would be able to be added? Thanks. Techhead7890Talk 21:33, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

As I state at the top of my talk page, which no one seems to read anymore, if I leave you a message, please respond on your talk page, not mine. This is because I despite cross page conversations and it makes things easier to follow. Therefore, I have removed the comment and reposted it here.
As to your question, it is stated quite clearly in the link above. Your edit violated how the guide is to be set up, formatted, and made it 100% inconsistent with other articles. Lancer1289 21:36, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, my apologies for not checking my page first. I didn't realise that you had dropped a message through at the time of the reversion, and believed that I was initiating a new conversation, not replying to an existing one. Secondly, I'll make the assumption that the specific "massive" violation here is under the Talents/Powers heading, which has the subheading prescribing a verbatim copying of the list, in tier 4 headings. "To list the talents/powers, do so in the order they appear in game from top to bottom." - if this is the sole violation, I would be more than happy to reorder into the format as prescribed. In summation, while ToS violations are vast, these mostly apply to my changes in heading tiers and shuffling of the sections, rather than any specific content. Would it be acceptable if I edited in each of my previous edits into the current structure under the MoS as proper? Apologies again for my tardiness with regards to watching my talk page and the miscommunication this has caused, as well as the difficulties I have posed from my editing. Techhead7890Talk 22:03, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
If you want to reincorpertate them, then that is fine, however the format must be maintained. The format was put in place two years ago now, IIRC, because of the vast inconsistencies in the class guides. However, at the time, both MoS styles were based off of the Vanguard guides because they were the most organized and presented the smoothest flow in terms of content, and ease of finding what users were looking for. Lancer1289 22:06, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
Just finished the reincorporation by section. On that, before my revisions, some subsections commented on talent subsections with not only the the usefulness within the class, but also a suggested point investment (or degree of usefulness). I have ommited them with my current merged revision to stay within the verbatim limits of the MoS, but would it be best to simply remove them, keep them next to the talents as before, or shift them to a subsection (Class Development, perhaps)? Techhead7890Talk 22:28, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
If you mean give advice on how many points to invest in the talent, then that needs to stay out. The guides are meant to provide general advice with some specifics if necessary, but not to say "Invest x number of points in this talent". If you want to write something like that, then there are places for those things as we do not permit those kind of things here. Though, if you want to provide some advice on class builds, we do have a forum, Forum:Character builds, for that, but that's about it. Just don't remove anything that is already there as we've had problems with that forum in the past with people removing and replacing content.
As to a "Class Development" section, that is really just out of the question as that would be subjective to more bias than anything else in the guide. Again, they are there for more general advice, than what I stated above because of individual playstyles, among other things. Everyone plays differently, so providing some general advice, while avoiding specifics, is the way to go. The quote from the MoS is "[p]rovide a brief description of the talent/power and why it is useful to the class", but that really has evolved into "give general advice about it and why it is useful to the class while avoiding specifics". Lancer1289 22:50, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

YouTube Links in Articles Edit

We do not allow for personal links to YouTube, under any circumstances in articles. Do not make any further promotion of your personal YouTube page in articles. Lancer1289 21:39, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for this; from experience, I should have noted the advertisment effect that links to smaller/personal channels generate. While not actually my own, I had placed it as a good quality and solid commentary of the actual fight providing valuable information and insight to the fight (which I added from this video as textual revisions to the tactics section). Would it be acceptable as a citation source perhaps (especially for the LOS and Throw resistance, which otherwise stand as challengable points) or does this set too much of a precedent? Techhead7890Talk 22:10, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
Well I had no way of knowing that, since every time in the past, it has always been someone advertising their own personal YouTube channel. This is truely the first time it hasn't been that way, so apologies for the attitude.
As to the link, even then, we do not permit it. YouTube links here are only used for referencing material, and little else. Since we have guides on this site, we have found that linking to YouTube for that purpose defeats the purpose(s) of that page(s). Lancer1289 22:17, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
No, my apologies - as you say, the vast majority of these links are self-promotional and I should have checked official policy first. Thanks for the clarifications anyways. Techhead7890Talk 22:30, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned Edit

Please observe caution when signing other editors' posts for them; page names are case-sensitive. You can use the {{unsigned}} template: just make sure you've got the username right and fill it in. Elseweyr (talk) 09:50, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thought something was up with the redlink. Thanks for the heads up, will do. Techhead7890Talk 21:23, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

see the MOS on image spacingEdit

As editing on mobile devices is still a major but unavoidable annoyance, i'm pointing the relevant document for you to clean up after yourself.

There IS a difference in display formatting pertaining to usage of newlines after images. No spaces please or i will do it myself once i get hold of a proper pc. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:17, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I was unaware of this. Thanks for your message, I will fix it immediately after I am done with the current edit I am working on. Techhead7890 Talk Contribs 07:54, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.