Mass Effect Wiki


852 Edits since joining this wiki
February 7, 2010
0 Discussion posts

Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Cerberus Daily News 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! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 23:36, February 7, 2010

Speculation Edit

Please do not remove the speculation bodies in the Wiki pages that are noted as speculation. Speculation is fully permitted as per the Style Guide as long as it's labeled as such and contains supporting info.

If you disagree with a particular body of speculation that does not conflict with the Style Guide, please discuss it in the page's talk section and allow the moderators decide if it's appropriate or not.


As the item in question would appear to not meet the requirement that speculation have supporting evidence (as all the supporting evidence presented was either self-contradictory or was itself speculative or unsubstantiated), Bastian964 was completely justified in removing it, and I fully support that decision. SpartHawg948 06:47, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

There was plenty of supporting evidence towards it. I could have elaborated in much further detail, but that would result in a much larger page.


No, there really wasn't any evidence. Just supposition. Evidence means demonstrable fact, not "seem to", and "it's probable", and assumptions about an entire race based on one example when it is explicitly stated in-game that it is unknown if this example is indicative of the species as a whole. You said "allow the moderators decide if it's appropriate or not." As an admin (aka a moderator), I have made that call. SpartHawg948 07:15, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Kasumi in the Cerberus Network Edit

Regarding your edits to Cerberus Network and Template:Series, I think you're jumping the gun. While there is indeed no evidence that Kasumi will be available through ME2's in-game downloadable content pipeline, there's no evidence otherwise either. You seem to be basing your edits on the fact that Kasumi, unlike every bit of Cerberus Network DLC before, is paid content and doesn't seem to fit the CN purpose. I think you should consider the example of Dragon Age: Origins' DLC system, though: both exclusive free content and paid content are available through the in-game system, and paid content is also available outside that system in Xbox or Windows Marketplace. Who's to say Kasumi isn't released like that, on both distribution systems. With that in mind, I am going to revert you edits to the above article and template. We should wait until Kasumi is out before we assume the DLC won't be purchasable through the CN as well as Marketplace; why would BioWare make ME2's system so different from Dragon Age's? -- Commdor (Talk) 17:12, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

If you had read my earlier reason for removing it you would know that "Once you are a member, Cerberus Network content is available to you at no extra charge." ([[1]]) This is very strong proof that she will not be available via the Cerberus Network, thus I will be reverting your edits.Bastian964 17:45, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

All right then. We'll see how it turns out. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:47, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I was right about paid DLC being purchasable through the Cerberus Network (I cite the now available Alternate Appearance Pack), but I will concede that there's an apparent difference between "Cerberus Network DLC" and "paid DLC on the Cerberus Network". However, since we now know all ME2 DLC is available through the CN, the CN article needs to list that. I figure the best solution for everyone is to have one section on the page for the free items, and another section for paid items. I'll go ahead and update everything accordingly. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:06, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Edit

Look I want to appoligze for the edits on the CDN page. I have had a long day and I know that is not excuse but I was trying to restore the post. I have seen people banned for that sort of thing and after a few seconds to think, that is not what I want. I know that I offened you and I do appoligize, I am not here to make any enemies and I do regret my actions. Nothing today for me has gone right, and this just made it worse. Again I am deeply sorry. Lancer1289 02:34, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

All I can offer is my appology and hope you accept it. I'm not here to make enemies and this just added to my list of things that have gone completely wrong for me today. I was trying to undo my work but you resoned before I could save the page. This is one error in judgement in a very long day. Again my heartfelt appology and I can only hope you accept it. Lancer1289 02:52, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Mira/Word Paperclip confirmation Edit

Just wanted to point out in reference to your edit summary changing the wording of the Mira pop-up comment that "Unless you have a statement from someone at Bioware you can not be certain it is a reference."- we actually do have a statement from someone who was at BioWare at the time and wrote almost everything Noveria-related (which would include Mira). We've had this statement, found on Talk:Mira, since 26 January 2010. The individual in question is Stormwaltz, aka Chris L'Etoile, who is a (former) writer form BioWare who worked on both Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2. If his statement isn't good enough proof, then we need to go back and edit every bit of trivia that is tagged as devconfirmed, since he is the source for all the devconfirmation. Just wanted to let you know! :) SpartHawg948 06:28, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Request to Fix Broken Links Edit

Hello. I am attempting to embark upon a project of clearing broken links from the Mass Effect Wikia. It is, however, against MEwiki rules for me to modify another user's posts on Talk Pages, and Wiki Staff have asked me to call upon the post creators to fix the error. If you have recieved this message, it is because you are the creator of a post that now contains a broken link. You can find out where these broken links are here, as well as what to do about it. It would be greatly appreciated if you could remedy the situation. I apologize if this message appears impersonal, but it was to be recieved by multiple people. Thanks again. --FoxtrotZero 02:19, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Done.Bastian964 20:29, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Weapon Damage Talk Page Edit

Since you asked in your edit summery, the reason there are so many headers is because the person who created the article is making so many arguments to keep it. He is apparenlty one of those people who think that they are right about something and everybody else is wrong. Or that is my guess from the all the posts he is making. Also he apparently tried to use a tempalte, to back up his "this is a ligit source argument", and messed up the whole formatting of the talk page. Your comment supproting deletion was in the right place below Spart's in the Delete heading. So that is the reason that the page is an eyesore and extremely hard to follow. I know we haven't had the best past, but I figured I'd at least answer your question. That is if you wanted it answered? Lancer1289 20:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

It was more spoken in frustration than any sort of question, but thank you for answering. Also I forgave you a long time ago, after seeing how much you actually were doing for the wiki. Speaking of that incident, do you want to delete the entire argument?Bastian964 20:31, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'm all for it, I'll head over the CDN page and remove my comments. Lancer1289 20:32, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
Done. I'll contact The Illusive Man, and FridgeRaider88 and see if we can just remove the whole section altogether. Lancer1289 20:34, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'll contact Spart to see if we can remove my report to him from his talk archive, if you want that.Bastian964 20:41, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
I would like that. Thanks. Lancer1289 20:49, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

That's done, now we just have to wait for their responses.Bastian964 21:00, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Movement Edit

I noticed that you moved the page, but the thing I was wondering is if you moved it back because it didn't show up in the Forum:Watercooler index page? Becuase if it didn't then I think I might know why. Lancer1289 02:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I moved it back because it didn't actually become a forum page. It was simply a normal page with 'Forum:' tacted on at the beginning. I didn't check if it showed up in the index itself but it wasn't showing the standard "Forums: Index > Watercooler >" at the top. Bastian964 16:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Then I do indeed know the problem. The way forums get into those respective cateogries is via a tempalte that is auto loaded when a few forum topic is created. Adding that template will categorize it and place it on the Watercooler index page. Since I do know that was the problem, I'll move the article and attatch the necessary template. Lancer1289 16:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
There we go, template added and now it appears as a page on the Forum:Watercooler index page and is categorized appropiatly. Lancer1289 16:34, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.Bastian964 17:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Lancer1289 17:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Users removing comments from their own talk page Edit

To quote the Community Guidelines: "A user's page and Talk page belong to that user, and they have control over what goes on it. Direct communication with a user should be done by leaving a message on their Talk page."

Removing a comment to change the tone of a thread might be considered vandalism, but removing the entire contents certainly doesn't. It may not be in the best interests of "transparency" and "the public record" to remove conversations, but it's that user's prerogative. Now if it was some one else's talk page, then I'd agree with you. ;) Besides, if Lancer had a problem with it, he would've pointed it out with each new message he was leaving on the page there. Lancer may wish to clarify, but that's basically it. -- Dammej (talk) 17:24, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Does it not count as "Editing another user’s comments to... shut them up"?Bastian964 17:28, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
No, it is still perfectly fine to edit your own talk page, whether the comment is yours or not. Teugene 17:41, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure where it would fall, but in general I'd say "no". The user obviously got the message that Lancer was sending, as he edited the talk page to remove it. That message was to inform that user that they were violating some policy. By removing the comment, they may be removing the record that they were given the warning, I suppose, but I think the point still got across. Like I said, if they cherry picked one comment of many to remove, we'd be looking at a different situation. But since they removed the entire contents of the talk page (save for the welcome message, until the last one), I think we avoid the issue here. Is it shady and dishonest? Probably. But vandalism? I think that's reading the rules too closely. Admins in the past (by that I mean SpartHawg) have been very protective of people being able to do what they want (re: user pages), so long as they don't violate the rules. I guess Lancer could have a different interpretation, but they tend to have very similar philosophies. Plus, as I pointed out above... if the user was violating rules by removing comments, Lancer would have pointed it out in one of his many messages. I'm sure that either Lancer or SpartHawg would have a more coherent explanation here. -- Dammej (talk) 17:47, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
The things you miss when you step out for a few hours. Anyway I would have mentioned it, if it was vandalism. A user's talk page is their property, and unless they cross the line, you'd have to ask Spart for a better definition on that, a user is free to remove comments from their talk page, and either archive them, as Spart and myself have done, or just get rid of them altogether, as Tullis does. If it was vandalism, I would have mentioned it, but since it was his talk page, and I agree with Dammej here, that since he was removing the messages, I assume that he got it at least. The other example that Dammej mentioned, removing other users comments from user talk pages, happened on my own when a user, who apparently didn't like Spart giving his two cents on an issue that he brought up with me, removed Spart's comments from my talk page, which is considered vandalism. Now if that had happened, which it didn't, it would have been vandalism, but it wasn't. Lancer1289 19:14, July 19, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Sorry, I was confused. The community guidelines don't make it clear how much it being their property overrides people's right to not have their comments removed. Bastian964 00:50, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Section headerEdit

You cannot make the statement that all the Relays are destroyed if the Citadel survives, it is illogical. if you want to argue my views then do so, but don't pretend that what happens to the Relays is the same in Control as it in Destroy/Synthesis

Fine, watch this then. Forget my ending cinematic video

I am not going to dispute they could be completely disabled though. But is not the fucking same as them torn apart. --Costin Razvan 08:49, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Freeze the video right after the relay fires, you can see it floating apart. Bastian964 08:45, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

One second of it pausing and debris flying does not mean destruction. Damage yes, disabling them possibly, destroying them? No. If you want to claim they don't work anymore, go ahead I believe that is very much possible. --Costin Razvan 08:47, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

We have the Catalyst telling use it will be destroyed. We have it breaking into little pieces and flying apart. Guess, what? When something breaks into little pieces and someone else tells us it's destroyed, that means it's destroyed. I suggest you cease and desist your speculations (or at least your attempts to force your speculations onto this wiki). Thank you and have a good day. Bastian964 08:55, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

We see pieces falling off it and the rings stopping, not it breaking into pieces in Control. My argument rests on the Citadel mostly, how exactly do you claim ALL Relays are destroyed if the Citadel survives and does not fire that beam destroys it in Destroy/Synthesis? Care to explain that? Yours on the Catalyst, you are ignoring clear visual evidence and logic of what happens in the Cinematic though, so I won't stop. I am keeping my bias out of this cause I believe they are not even disabled, but it could be they are. --Costin Razvan 08:58, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if "logic" tells you something else, when the game tells you something, that is what it is. Also, yes we do see it falling into piece, FREEZE FRAME it as I told you to do (in fact do so multiple time so you can see multiple frames). It doesn't matter that the Citadel wasn't destroyed, all the other relays were. You are completely and utterly failing to keep your bias out of this since you believe you can out "logic" what the game actually tells you. Bastian964

My bias? How about yours? When I started editing I made a point to be as objective as possible since the admins don't like speculation. I made a point to never say the Relays survive in Control and can start working again just fine. My bias is that they do survive fine, but it's not a certainty. The Certainty is that they don't explode to bloody pieces with the rings falling off. If the Admins disagree then they can remove my past edits, which they did not when I made them despite them looking over all of them --Costin Razvan 09:10, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so maybe it's not my place to say this, but could you and Costin Razvan please resolve your argument regarding the control ending on the forums or one of the relevant articles' talk pages, rather than having an edit war on the wiki proper? It's kind of annoying, and it doesn't prove either of you right. (Cross posted to both your user talk pages so it doesn't look like I'm playing favorites.) --FnordCola 09:02, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Let's settle this here, I had enough of this edit war. It doesn't matter what the Catalyst says about the Relays being destroyed if the Citadel is perfectly intact --Costin Razvan 09:13, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just rewatched the ending. The Catalyst specifically states that it will live (and thus the Citadel will) if you choose the control option. It says that you will control "us", not that you will control the Reapers. It later says that all the endings will destroy the mass relays, so clearly it considers its body as different. Bastian964 09:25, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly does the Catalyst state the Citadel will survive in Control? All it talks about is the Relays getting destroyed when you release the energy and the Cycle ending. Hell it doesn't mention the Citadel at all in any of it's dialogue except that the Citadel is part of itself. The Catalyst also says that the Citadel is not the Catalyst but a part of itself. You claim I am speculating, but you are interpreting it's statements. --Costin Razvan 09:27, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to repost my comment verbatim so that you can read it again? I already stated the Catalyst specified that it will live and thus as a side effect, the Citadel will survive. Bastian964 09:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Here is what know as facts.

1: Citadel is a Relay that can shut down the entire Relay network. ( Vigil )

2: Citadel coordinates the entire Relay Network. ( Vendetta )

3: Citadel is destroyed in Destroy and Synthesis after firing the beam of the Crucible. Citadel does not fire this beam in Control and just closes up with Reapers around. The same beam that makes Charon explode in Destroy/Synthesis ( Cinematic )

4: Catalyst says the Relays will be destroyed by releasing the energy of the Crucible. Catalyst also says the Cycle will end. ( Dialogue )

5: Catalyst refers to the Citadel as part of itself and that it Controls the Reapers. ( Dialogue )

6: Catalyst dialogue about Control:

"Catalyst: Or you think you can Control us?" "Shepard: So, the Illusive Man was right after all." "Catalyst: Yes but he could have never taken Control because we already controlled him." "Shepard: But I can."

"Catalyst: You will die, you will control us but you will lose everything you have" "Shepard: But the Reapers will obey me?" "Catalyst: Yes"

Nowhere does it mention the Citadel surviving, that is your speculation, nowhere does it think the Citadel is a different type of Relay. --Costin Razvan 09:38, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

"you will control us", US, not the Reapers, us.Bastian964 09:39, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

It also refers to you destroying the Reapers in dialogue as: "I know you thought about destroying us." That's referring to the Reapers. You are speculating. If you want to talk about plotholes, then yes the Citadel surviving is a plothole and contradiction, what the isn't the goddamn vague endings we get? --Costin Razvan 09:43, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Also the Catalyst says this exact line: "Perhaps. I control the Reapers. They are MY solution." --Costin Razvan 09:45, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Now you're are trying to tell me that us doesn't include the speaker? Are you kidding? Also, why would the "us" in "I know you thought about destroying us" be referring only to the Reapers? If a giant A.I. had just told me that they were controlling the beings trying to destroy Earth, I would want to destroy them as well. Do you have any proof at all for your assertion that that only refers to the Reapers? Bastian964 09:49, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
So what, that line isn't the least bit relevant. Bastian964 09:49, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

So now you are claiming certain lines are irrelevant when your argument of Relays being destroyed hinges on one line the Catalyst gives? Yes when it says us it refers to itself + Reapers, but that does not mean it, the Catalyst, will survive in Control. That it might be implied is null and void when it says the Relays are destroyed. --Costin Razvan 09:55, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is irrelevant because it literally adds nothing to the conversation, "I am Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel" is also a line from the Mass Effect series but shocker it is irrelevant to this conversation. Saying that Shepard will control the catalyst and the Reapers very much says that the Catalyst will survive. Also when someone says that everything in X group will die but specifies Y which is in X group will survive, that is what is called an exception to the rule.Bastian964 10:07, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
Now we are just getting into ridiculous territory here. The Catalyst says it will survive and it does. The Catalyst says the Mass Relays will be destroyed and they are with the exception of the Citadel which the Catalyst already said would survive. It doesn't matter how much you want them to have survived, they didn't.Bastian964 10:07, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oh they didn't, just because you say so? Because that's the entire argument as I see it. You brush aside the Citadel, and you brush aside the difference of the Charon scene in favor of one line of dialogue where it is talking about ending the Cycle. Control is not necessarily about that happening. I am not going to bother anymore, we'll see who the admins agree with --Costin Razvan 10:16, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Also, just because I state the Relays don't explode and are damage does not mean they will still work after that pulse is fired. I NEVER once argued that is factual evidence. --Costin Razvan 10:22, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If by brush aside you mean show you that the Catalyst specifically made an exception for itself. If by brush aside you mean go through the Charon scene a few frames at a time to literally watch it blow itself to pieces (but less violently than the other endings). Then yes I have brushed aside those things. Also, the bit about it surviving is from the dialogue on the control ending and the bit about the mass effect relays being destroyed is literally stated to occur in all endings. You don't have a leg to stand on. Bastian964 10:24, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
I never argued that you, you were arguing that with yourself.Bastian964 10:24, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Show me what? In a vague statement where it is talking about all the Reapers as well? It never mentions that it would survive the energy release of the Crucible. --Costin Razvan 10:27, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Now you are actually arguing that the statement that it will survive to be controlled along with the rest of the Reapers is too vague? This funny. Bastian964 10:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am, I don't care what you think. You've given me no strong argument except shouting that line over and over again about the energy destroying the Relays. Here's a thing though. Yes we have a wave emitted regardless of ending, but in Destroy and Synthesis we see the Citadel arms charging up as well before that with Red/Green energy before that is fired. It does not happen in Control and we also do not have that beam fired. That green or red beam? Yeah that one. Instead that wave is the thing that hits Charon --Costin Razvan 10:31, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

And now you're arguing 'but, but, but that line doesn't matter' and 'the relays can't have been destroyed two different ways, that makes no sense'. I would suggest conceding you're just making yourself look like a sore loser. Bastian964 10:37, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Who said the line doesn't matter? How about it does matter because the Relays are destroyed in Destroy/Synthesis but just not Control based on what happens there to the Citadel? What about everything else? You are ignoring an entire argument just to shout your opinion. Look at the edit history of the pages and who made changes and see that admins have looked over my edits long before you did. --Costin Razvan 10:41, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You did. You're saying that those two lines are basically irrelevant because it looks different. That's how much your argument has devolved. And now your saying that because no one noticed and spent the time to look up the flaws in your argument before me, you must right. Bastian964 10:47, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Looks different? The Citadel exploding is not the same as the Citadel surviving, and apparently out of the people that made edits and even disagreed with me you are the only who refuses to see my argument because "The Catalyst says so!" ignoring all the visual evidence to the contrary. --Costin Razvan 10:50, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Now we're just getting circular. So I'll just repost one of my earlier comments.Bastian964 10:53, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If by brush aside you mean show you that the Catalyst specifically made an exception for itself. If by brush aside you mean go through the Charon scene a few frames at a time to literally watch it blow itself to pieces (but less violently than the other endings). Then yes I have brushed aside those things. Also, the bit about it surviving is from the dialogue on the control ending and the bit about the mass effect relays being destroyed is literally stated to occur in all endings. You don't have a leg to stand on. Bastian964 10:24, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

And you do? Your entire speculative claim that Catalyst says it will survive in Control is based on what? An implied line. Quote that line, I already did myself but apparently it's certain it will survive in Control the dialogue. The only time it directly mentions the Citadel is when it says "No. The Citadel is part of me" --Costin Razvan 10:57, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Ooooh, another one, well if you want to continue. Until such time as you come forward with arguements that I haven't refuted, this is all I have to do. On a side note, I've heard recycling is a good thing for the environment but this is getting ridiculous.Bastian964 11:01, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
"Now you are actually arguing that the statement that it will survive to be controlled along with the rest of the Reapers is too vague? This funny.Bastian964 10:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)"

Even if the dialogue mentioned that the Catalyst would survive in Control, which it doesn't, despite what you might believe, it doesn't translate into the Citadel surviving since by the Catalyst's own words the Citadel is just a part of it. --Costin Razvan 11:06, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I'm still trying to get over the shock of you honestly telling me that the Citadel can't possibly survive because it is a vital part of the Catalyst which will survive. Shore if maybe the Citadel hadn't survive but the Catalyst had said that it (the Catalyst) would survive, your attempts at an argument might not look too ridiculous but it did and you do. On the bright side, it was a novel argument. Bastian964 11:15, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
See trying to say that the Catalyst could have survive if it got a Citadel-ectomy, might work as an argument to prove the the Catalyst might have survived the destruction of the Citadel but it doesn't work as an argument for the whole Catalyst surviving being proof that the Mass Relays were not destroyed.Bastian964 11:21, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

And again you miss the point. You claim the Catalyst states it will survives, which it doesn't. You claim the Citadel will survive in that ending based on that statement which doesn't even exist because it is a crucial part of the Catalyst when the Catalyst dialogue is as follows. No evidence to suggest it is crucial to the Catalyst surviving.

"Shepard: I thought the Citadel was the Catalyst." "Catalyst: No, The Citadel is part of me."

The only way for the Citadel to survive in Control and for that to make sense is for the Catalyst's statement about the relays being destroyed to not be considered in that situation, because the Citadel is a Relay which also controls the other Relays. --Costin Razvan 11:26, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Here I thought we already had stopped using argument I had refuted. Oh well.Bastian964 11:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
- "you will control us"
- See the post above yours.

Bastian964 11:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

The admins may ban me for, and I'm fine with that because I refused to accept your flawed arguments and logic. I won't post here anymore so don't even bother replying. When someone makes ignoring of everything point I bring up in argument then you are just a troll sir. --Costin Razvan 11:38, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I've added a post on the forum discussion page about my thoughts it. I can see no way it could make sense for only the Citadel to survive in Control and all the other relays to be completely destroyed since the energy is emitted from it. --Costin Razvan 13:36, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Stop Edit

Both you and Costin Razvan, please just stop. With the number of edit reverts both of you have accumulated, it would already warrant a ban should an admin decide on it. May I instead, direct both of you to a forum thread I've created here and have a proper discussion instead incessant reverts now. Please cease any reverts for all the involved articles now. — Teugene (Talk) 12:53, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

We already were having a proper discussion, right above this comment, until User Costin Razvan decided he didn't want to argue anymore and after calling me a troll just began reverting again. Bastian964 12:54, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
I've messaged him as well. Till then, please leave it as it is now to avoid any more edit warring until the community reached a resolution. — Teugene (Talk) 12:56, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
That's why I messaged SpartHawg. Bastian964

As soon as I finish paroling edits, I will be looking into this issue. I will issue anything from a warning to a ban without notice. I will review all the edits and the conversation above as well. Lancer1289 14:14, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Edit

You have been blocked from editing for two months due to your actions. You violated the edit warring policy so such a degree that I've never seen it before. There were much better places to discuss this than a constant edit war. Instead of constant revert, you should have contacted an admin earlier, and just left the articles be and let them sort it out. The behavior the two of you showed during the course of this entire things was completely, and utterly unacceptable.

That said, Costin Razvan brought up some good points, ones I happen to agree with. However, the nature of how the theories were presented was completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. Instead of keeping the discussion going, the issue continued to be pressed and everything got out of control. To this end, I am restoring the articles to the point before all this drama occurred because of multiple issues.

You are free to continue editing your talk page as that has been left to you, but after I reviewed all the of the evidence, this behavior and the edit warring cannot be tolerated and letting it slide not only sends the wrong message, but lets users know that things slide here despite what happened, and that isn't acceptable. Lancer1289 15:06, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki