BSN Link Edit

Here's the URL of the spreadsheet collection where I'm getting my information: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/343/index/12234370 --RandomGuy96 (talk) 08:23, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

I saw your conversation with TemporaryEditor78, and I will agree that some admins are not necessarily going to accept this as a valid source, even though it's our only source on such information. I don't always like using developer confirmation on everything because they're not going to answer the slew of questions that we bring up on a daily basis. We can run it through others like Commdor, who generally keep a more open policy on editing in general, and see what they think. For now, we should keep BSN stats off the wiki, but if we can get it approved, my reversions are only one undo away. Lksdjf (talk) 11:20, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Undoing my edit Edit

Why did you undo my edit on the Aite page? I noticed that you later reverted it to my version-are you edit boosting?--I never miss (talk) 13:28, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

I don't much care for edit counts; I just edit during balance changes and when ideas come to me. I reverted because I realized that I prefer the version that had one word substituted for four. Lksdjf (talk) 13:32, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Biotic Charge's DREdit

Accordingly to Godless Paladin's Game Mechanics Clarifications and Information, Biotic Charge does grant 50% damage reduction for 4 seconds right after its use.

This is considered part of the Unlisted Sources of Damage Reduction, and such information was discovered by hacking the coalesced.bin within the game data.

Let me just make clear I'm not mad at you for removing that info from the Volus Vanguard. I'm merely showing that my edit was made with a consistent and tested basis. So if you agree, I'd like to keep the information I gave, but I'll leave to you to undo the edit.

Sincerely, --Bingbangpoe (talk) 23:07, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

And I should point out that is not a valid source. It isn't from a dev, and therefore cannot be used as a source. Either get a dev to say that or do not put it back into the article. Lancer1289 (talk) 00:01, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

What proof is acceptable to you? If I recall, you won't take PMs from mods on BSN as an acceptable source, and threads are very hit-and-miss in terms of mod replies, so will we ever get the data that we need? We don't have a lot of valuable data on this wiki because of certain policies meant to ensure accuracy. Lksdjf (talk) 01:16, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Really? Do you really think we would take private messages from anyone as proof of anything? If we did that, then anyone can say "Oh a dev PMd me on BSN and said this was true", and we'd have to take that. Do you see the problem with that scenario? If you do not answer yes to this question, then you need to reexamine your argument. We have stated multiple times over, by all admins, that we need independently verifiable proof for it to be taken as fact. We would rather have accurate numbers than people making things up, and if that means nothing, then so be it. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:47, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, we can't just copy and paste message details, but I think that high-resolution screenshots are the way to go for that sort of thing. Lksdjf (talk) 01:52, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Images, as it has been stated multiple times by multiple people, can be faked, quite easily I might add. I've seen "screenshots" of fake BSN posts or private messages before. Private anything is not acceptable, messages, email, private websites, anything that someone cannot look up themselves. Even Spart couldn't post something when he sent an email to either a dev or was it Drew Karpyshyn. He said that he would like to, but it wasn't independently verifiable. The key words are independently verifiable" and private messages are not in any sense of the word. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:01, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think there's reason to not believe in this case. I don't think someone would spend so much time on a guide like that based on fake info; and a lot of people confirmed it on the thread. If we don't give people some credibility and take risks, we won't progress. I think all information is valid information as long there are people to confirm them. If we're not gonna believe in sources from BSN, what are we going to believe? (Though I've seen a few ME3 blogs that provided resourceful info as well) --Bingbangpoe (talk) 12:26, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Howdy & Thanks Edit

Thanks for your edit on the Omega article, that was probably too tongue-in-cheek. Lancer does set a tone of a wee bit of humor being okay, but you were right about that one. Anyway I know cleaning up articles can be a thankless task so I just wanted to know that at least once somebody wasn't torqued off about your edit. :-) Your faithful servant, etc. Cattlesquat (talk) 13:57, May 8, 2013 (UTC)