masseffect

Voting

Note that your edits have been reverted. You never took a vote on implementing the projects, and therefore the edits were premature and invalid. Projects require a vote before implementation, not afterwards. Either hold a vote, or the edits will continue to be undone. Lancer1289 12:51, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Are they premature after 1 month waiting for one, and 2 weeks for the other one? So, fine, I want to be as co-operative as possible, how do I make that vote?

I'm starting to think something is wrong with you... I made the 2 project pages, I only received positive backup (except you who said the 3 OST pages needed better formatting, IT'S DONE NOW), and you still undo my how beneficial and useful edits, because there was no vote?

In case you still didn't get it, few people care about what those edits are about. But those people see it's useful info, while you? You only see a major edit who didn't get enough backup. You don't really care about the info, do you? It's just a big edit, so it has to be messy if it did not reach a consensus.

I don't want to make this personal, but it looks like you've already made it personal. Plus the fact that I had requested guidance on what to do, and you didn't give me any response.--Loadingue 12:55, July 9, 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 point, you didn't hold a vote, and therefore it is invalid. If no vote is taken, then no action can be taken. It doesn't matter how much time has passed. No vote, no edit. It is really that simple. Lancer1289 13:10, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
I had read the top of your talk page, but you wrote on my talk page after I posted on your talk page. And you still haven't told me how to make that vote. If you don't have the time to answer, please redirect me to someone who can.--Loadingue 13:42, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
You need to check that because according to the times, I posted the message here at 12:51 UTC. You posted the message on my talk page at 12:55 UTC. So who posted first? Apparently it was me as the evidence doesn't support you. As to making a vote, just look at other Project forum pages to see how. It isn't that difficult. Lancer1289 13:48, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Voting is now opened, I'll be waiting for your opinion.--Loadingue 14:13, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Are you still with us Loadingue? The voting period is over (you could have voted yourself by the way), so now you can change both articles. --ShardofTruth (talk) 11:52, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll 'officially' close the vote and do the edits. Thank you for your help.--Loadingue (talk) 23:46, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

only significant characters get headquotes

can't assign that value to cut characters by definition T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but if it's a significant cut character, I don't see why not. What definition though?--Loadingue (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

normal characters we know who they are just by playing and reading. want to fight over which quote is best, have at it, there's plenty of supporting material trivially verifiable. in practice that's limited to player character, squadmates, major supporting npcs from base game and dlcs. biotic god is ultimately a minor guy in and will never get a headquote. random assignment npcs won't either. cut characters by definition do not fall under any of these and assigning significance to any of them is an exercise in speculation, which is of course haram T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I see your point, but maybe I should consult with other editors about this. For Global Plot 1, I believe the Kostas brothers are the only two worth having a headquote, they're central to that mission from beginning to end. And that mission was pretty much DLC-sized. I'm also not sure what you mean by "assigning significance to any of them is an exercise in speculation", you mean the characters? The roles of each character in Global Plot 1 are pretty clear-cut.--Loadingue (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
obviously i'm not talking out of my ass as there is a codified headquote policy in place. i'll leave you to search for it. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah thank you, the guidelines mention "NPCs who fill those roles in downloadable content packs", which is practically what we have here. So unless it is decided to specifically exclude cut characters, I'll leave the headquotes for the Kostas brothers for the moment. But I'll be discussing this with other editors to have their opinion.--Loadingue (talk) 07:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
cut content are NOT dlcs, what the hell are you on. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Referring to "that mission was pretty much DLC-sized" earlier. Also I haven't got to the actual cut DLCs yet, but that will come.--Loadingue (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

War Assets

The talk page says "Those things are noted where they are appropriate". The Citadel Commons place is the appropriate place because this is where those people are encountered and where it is most natural to look during the course of the game. The war asset reward is no different from the reputation award in this respect. DaBarkspawn (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence I removed was factually false, as the last topic on the linked page (written by me) shows. The gung-ho civilian interaction does not influence any War Assets. I must agree with a certain someone else that you are too quick to argue reverts to your edits instead of trying to understand why they were reverted.--Loadingue (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I may have linked to the wrong talk page. It was to be found on Talk: War Assets/Alien, not War Assets.--Loadingue (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
No worries, I am less mystified now. Thank you for the clarification. As to what you wrote there, I agree that the gung-ho guy does not give a war asset. What I wrote was "A reluctant civilian and a gung-ho civilian debating how they can help the war effort. Supporting the former..." where former means the reluctant citizen not the gung-ho one. I am playing MELE ME3 with no mods and I did get the asset for supporting her. So I would propose adding the asset back to the description with a {{Note LE}} template. Lastly, if I seem quick to argue reversions, it is because unlike every other wiki I've every edited on, right on up to Wikipedia itself, people here are too quick to revert rather than trying to understand what the author was writing. I would also say that what we are doing is discussing, not arguing. At least from my perspective. DaBarkspawn (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
It's fine, I can agree with that too. Too much reverting drives users away. As for the gung-ho civilian, my note indicates clearly that the gung ho thing (one person or the other) clearly gives no War Assets, only the arguing couple does. And that was on MELE, both for the modder who explained the thing, and for me who confirmed it within the files.--Loadingue (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
What program do you use as a binary file reader for looking at pcc files? I noticed that I have two different BIOD_CitHub_PresidiumP2.pcc files, one under ..\Mass Effect Legendary Edition\Game\ME3\BioGame\CookedPCConsole and one under ..\Mass Effect Legendary Edition\Game\ME3\BioGame\DLC\DLC_METR_Patch01\CookedPCConsole where the latter is from an official BioWare patch. The same is true of the P3 file. So I'd like to verify a theory that the difference between what I saw in game (reluctant gives war assets) and what you saw in the files is the result of a patch from BioWare. DaBarkspawn (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I used the Legendary Explorer Sequence Editor from the ME3Tweaks Mod Manager. I just checked though, the patch doesn't change this (and why would it? It's clearly labeled in a way that leaves no doubt that it's intended).--Loadingue (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Canvassing

I do want to gently call your attention to our policy against canvassing. Our policy against it is spelled out briefly on the Policy Forum page, but in case it's an unfamiliar concept for you more details can be found on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing -- your earlier note on DaBarkspawn's page, for example, could be interpreted as the "vote-stacking" form of that. I assume the best of intentions all around, but it's important to be aware of the policies we have around voting, especially when some are on the opposite side of the question and deserve their fair shake as well. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You'll notice that the first user I have approached to take part in the vote, Aldo012345, voted against the proposal. I think that goes against the idea of canvassing. I noticed he was active again and since I genuinely want as many users to take part in the discussion as possible, I told him in a private message that the topic existed and I'd appreciate his input on it, without of course requesting that he votes in my favor (which he evidently did not, and I respect that, because that wasn't the important point). And regarding DaBarkSpawn, I had also invited him to the discussion without requesting that he takes a particular position, and he happened to be in favor of my proposal. I assure you I did not influence his opinion in any way. When I noticed that he hadn't voted despite taking part in the discussion, I left another note. Now, if you feel somehow 2 whole votes in support is unfair in a community that hardly counts a half-dozen active editors, feel free to vote against the proposal. But I think I've demonstrated my neutrality in encouraging additional editors to vote.--Loadingue (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is outright accusing you of violating the rule. However, there is the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". The traditional expectation around here is to take a hands-off approach once voting is open, to trust that anyone active and interested in participating will do so. If, for example, someone who isn't active here much misses a discussion or a vote, that's on them, it isn't incumbent on other users, or even advisable, to wrangle them back here to participate. Beyond maybe a general announcement that voting is open and one reminder as a voting period approaches its end, approaching specific individuals about voting should be avoided, even if you don't explicitly ask them to vote one way or another.Neo89515 (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
If this Wiki had more than 10 active users, I would totally go for the hands-off approach. But as it is, I think it's in everyone's best interests for the present and the future if we seek out any participant we can. It's not orthodox, but this Wiki is in an unusual and inconvenient situation. Honestly it's preposterous that policy decisions have to pass with no more than two or three votes in favor or against.--Loadingue (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
If you want to grow the active user base of this Wiki, that's great. If you want to do so only when you need votes for one of your proposals, not so much. Neo89515 (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not what happened. I asked one person who had participated in the debate, and one who might be interested in it because of their involvement in a similar policy change. I know other people who could have participated, but I didn't ask them because they haven't been active in a while and I don't think they'd care much. You said no one is accusing me of anything, but that sounded pretty accusatory.--Loadingue (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Hum, my ears are burning. ;) I suppose I should add that I didn't feel canvassed. Reviewing the relevant section of my talk page, there's basically one invitation to comment and one invitation to vote. I don't see anything intended to be persuasive other than perhaps a response to a concern I voiced. I will say that the invitation to vote was unnecessary for mechanical reasons: having edited the forum page, I automatically got an email with the link to the diff that announced the start of voting. The only thing the invitation did was move me slightly from mulling it over to actually casting my vote, but certainly not the direction of my vote. On further thought, I observe that voting has gone on for over two weeks now, so perhaps such reminders are not completely untoward. DaBarkspawn (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The notionally inappropriate timeline is that (a) you commented in favor of the proposal, e.g. you don't like long blocks of italics, in early March, and then (b) in mid-March you are reminded that voting is open. Again, at the moment I'm beginning from the assumption that everyone is operating with the best of intentions, however the policy exists for many good reasons and that's why I'm bringing it to attention. The fact that voting has gone on for a while (I believe it closes around the 20th) without you voting is NOT a reason to engage in what could have the appearance of "selective reminding" (canvassing). The reasons that this particular sort of policy is needed is discussed in more detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing The thing that you especially don't want to see is "vote stacking", where e.g. people who have spoken in favor of a proposal are reminded to vote and those who have spoken against it not so much. I don't have any reason to suspect that anyone set out to intentionally do something wrong here, but the timeline in question does create the appearance of inappropriate vote-stacking canvassing, which is why I want to make sure folks realize what the policy is. Cattlesquat (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, and I'll keep it in mind in the future. Though if I have actually done something inappropriate, please tell me. And by the way, you still haven't voted yourself :) --Loadingue (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Second instance of Campaigning

It seems that in the 2 years since you were first given a "gentle" warning on this by Cattlesquat, you've forgotten that blatantly trying to recruit people to change policy on this Wiki is very thin ice and could be considered a violation of site policy. I've brought this to the other admins' attention, we are discussing internally if this rises to that level. In the meantime, I suggest you revisit the Wikipedia link Cattlesquat provided you above, that you should already have read and taken to heart before now.

More so than violating the spirit of Wiki consensus with this action, it's your demonstrated lack of respect for what you've been told by experienced users/admins, both on the merits of your proposals and on site policy that I find the most concerning; instead, you only seem to care about getting your way. It's rather telling that you didn't wait for User:AnonymousAnomani to even confirm he sourced his recent voice actor edits from IMDb before leaping in to recruit him to a particular side of a policy discussion. Neo89515 (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I reject those accusations. I was only informing AnonymousAnomani that the policy in question had been already questioned before, and that I'd support changing it. The fact that there isn't any active vote on the matter supports that this is innocuous. We could argue that I could have used different words to avoid it looking like canvassing, but it's the same thing in the end. I am also excessively tired of your grand accusations and conclusions about what I want and what I'm good for. Everything on this Wiki that upsets me can be traced back to a lack of collaboration between me and the admins on some level, and accusing me of canvassing as I soon as I contact another user falls well within that view.--Loadingue (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
If you have any interest in continuing to edit here, you need to think harder about the consequences of your actions instead of pursuing your own objectives like a bulldog. If you want to raise the policy discussion on IMDb again, there's a better way to do it than going right to "hey random guy, you seem to think like I do, so help me ram through the policy change I want", as the Wikipedia link you are clearly ignoring states. Regardless of what you think, this is serious. It feels like you can't go more than a few weeks here without making yourself into a problem by pursing political or policy nonsense and then waxing dramatic when you inevitably get called out on it, instead of just focusing on constructive edits to the Wiki. That's all I have to say on this for now. Neo89515 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In-game names

When it comes to characters' names on gameplay-specific pages like the merchants guide or enemies pages, generally the names displayed should be as they appear in-game. So if the player-facing name of a merchant or enemy is "Dr. Chloe Michel" or "Ledra" in the actual gameplay, it should be left that way on the Wiki gameplay guide material. Neo89515 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Damn, I thought that only applied to enemies. Why does it apply to merchants though? Enemies I can understand because some named characters have separated pages with fighting tactics. But merchants don't have separate pages. Is that necessary?--Loadingue (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Certainly a minor, not-world-ending thing, but the general rule is a merchant or enemies page/guide/infobox/navbox is gameplay-side not lore-side, so it's considered most user-friendly to use the names of characters as they are labelled when playing the game. We go with what the game does. Neo89515 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

James Vega address

Re: Mass Effect Legendary Edition/Changes from the Original Mass Effect Trilogy Undo revision 548297 by Tungstic (talk) -- I'm gonna need some proof Vega ever addressed Shepard as "pendejo" because I can't find anything myself. What sort of proof would satisfy you? Tungstic (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you say you checked walkthrough videos or something? One of those would do. Any footage of ME3 (original release) where Vega clearly calls Shepard "pendejo". I know he says the words a few times throughout the game, including once to Cortez, but never to Shepard as far as I know.--Loadingue (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Video proof isn't necessarily required (reliability of that aside). You just need to state exactly where in the game you found this, obviously you're basing your claim on a specific instance. Say where it was so others can corroborate. Loco/Lola were the pet names for Shepard in the original game, "pendejo" was just a random swear that Vega used at various times. Even if he did ever direct it at Shepard (which I have no memory of), it wouldn't have been as a "substitute" for the Loco/Lola nickname, just something he said independently. Also, just pointing out that "pendejo" is masculine, so if he used it at a femshep it would be "pendeja" if we're being correct in our Spanish grammar. Neo89515 (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Commit comment

LOL DaBarkspawn (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just mentioning this for accuracy -- anyone can talk about or even personally promote mods on the Wiki, just not on the main space. Blog post? Community forum post? Totally fine. Neo89515 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hold up

Policy is that any major new additions to multiple pages needs to get review and consensus approval before implementation. That hasn't changed. I'm aware you've been sandboxing this content for awhile, but I still haven't really taken any time to review it and I doubt anyone else has either. It's one thing to work on your sandboxes and quite another to just start planting them on the Wiki, if you're not sure ask first. I remind you that what we voted on earlier were your ME1 content additions, anything ME2 related wasn't part of that original proposal. Just by way of example, when I rewrote the Medi-gel page, I submitted a sandbox for comment and approval from others and went through the proper approval process, and that was just a rewrite of ONE page, not affecting others. It would make no sense that additions as extensive as what you just implemented should require no prior approval. Neo89515 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Very well. I assumed because the main page already existed that it would not warrant a proposal. I'll make it on Talk:Mass Effect 2 Cut Content--Loadingue (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
One of the touchstones for "is a project proposal required" is "does it affect a lot of pages". This seems like it will? I don't think the discussion will be as long or controversial as the original cut content proposal, but Neo is correct he deserves a chance to review etc before everything goes forward. Cheers - Cattlesquat (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sniping

Accusing me of inappropriate use of my "authority" is not something I take lightly. The only authority I appealed to is correct editing principles that have been around on this and other wikis for ages -- namely, that things not relevant to a page don't belong there. I would ask you to try to restrain yourself from making those sorts of immoderate or petty comments that bring down the tone of our discussions for no reason in the future. If you can't keep it cordial, at least try to keep it somewhat professional/dispassionate. And, to be frank, I've seen plenty of inappropriate use of admin authority on this Wiki in my time here, and if what I told you here rises to that in your view, consider yourself fortunate (and sheltered). If you believe I've acted inappropriately, please raise your concerns with the Fandom rep or other Admins. Neo89515 (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe the Krogan Sushi discussion was unwarranted or abusive in any way. However, to be also quite frank, I do not like to be told things like "this has got to go" because that's where a conversation stops being civil in my view. I vividly recall TemporaryEditor78 making the exact same kind of comment and you know how things sit between him and actual authority abuse. I also recall in the past your attempt at a forceful shutdown of another conversation on Discord, which left a very bad taste in my mouth. While it's good that you take your new role to heart, I personally think you're giving off the wrong impression by using it as an argument in your favor, by claiming rapidly that you have the power to decide what is permissible or not, or to suppress a conversation you don't like. Wikis are supposed to be community spaces. Reminders/appeals to authority should be a last resort, when all other conversation, done without regards for roles, has been exhausted. Of course, that's just my opinion. I am not in a position to correct you about how your view your role, but this is a way to do things which seems more positive and eventually constructive to me, who has also been in positions of authority before. In short: use your "authority card" when nothing more constructive can be said, not in the manner of "anyway, I'm the one who decides here." You ought to gain more respect that way.--Loadingue (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Objecting to an edit isn't a use (let alone abuse) of authority. A regular editor would be on solid ground making a similar case. And sometimes when there are only two people involved in an objection, saying something along the lines of this-is-the-part-that-needs-to-go communicates the key point. We can argue about various levels of diplomatic language, and maybe it's easier to perceive implied authority from an admin where none was intended, but I really don't see any authority being invoked here. Compare to a case where in spite of a clear consensus among multiple editors, an admin insists on a different way and invokes privileges or the threat of them to override the consensus -- that's more what we're worried about. Mostly if editors treat one another kindly, and (similarly important) assume good faith from the others, we're good. I think you guys sorted out the actual issue and are usually doing great working together, I'm just saying this doesn't seem to deserve escalation into a fight or hard feelings. Cheers, Cattlesquat (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I have no wish to escalate things. I want to make it clear that I don't claim any abuse has taken place; it's as you said, just a question of diplomacy. Forgive my "snipe", Neo, my somewhat rude criticism was because your tone gave off the wrong impression.--Loadingue (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Apology accepted. We are all human here. Neo89515 (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I will disagree on this, I'm an hanar! DeldiRe (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Correction: a BIG, STUPID, JELLYFISH. Neo89515 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

ME5

Thanks. Would it be better if I incorporate info into your sandbox, or keep it in my own?Hawki (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Whichever is easiest for you; as I mention on my page, I don't mind others editing it. If BioWare finally reveals the official title for the next Mass Effect game in 2 weeks, we have to be ready!--Loadingue (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Please go through the discussion and feedback procedure in the future

As I stated on the Discord, creation of pages that deal with External In-Universe Content MUST be discussed first before implementation. I didn't make a stink about it in terms of reverting new pages because we want to be welcoming of good new content. Unless it's an especially large project involving multiple pages, I won't insist on a full Projects Forum post with voting, but at the very least you need to sandbox, ask around for input, wait at least a week, etc. While some of the books and sources you've been creating pages for may not exactly fall under this category, the intent is clear, we require allowing for on-Wiki feedback where there might be some question as to how to present (or even whether to present) certain content. As a courtesy do not implement multiple new pages on licensed external (external meaning "outside of the game releases") sources unilaterally, whether they contain lore content or not, thanks. Neo89515 (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Very well. But I don't intend to make an entire project proposal for just a page or two. But you'll get sandbox pages and a notice on Discord. Is that good enough?--Loadingue (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
That's fine. Neo89515 (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I recently made an edit which you reverted. When I made the edit, I thought it would ask me to comment on the reason for it, but it didn't, it just saved. I am not familiar with Wikis, and I have no idea how to even respond to your note on the reversion - I don't see any field to enter text.

Jack Edit

I'm happy to explain - is there a way to DM? Or should I do it here?

The Talk:Jack page would be the most appropriate place. I'd be glad to hear what you have to say. Don't forget to sign with 4 tildes (~~~~).--Loadingue (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As I say, I don't know anything about wikis, and I don't know what "sign with 4 tildas" means. I know what a tilda is, but what do you mean sign? And why?

TBH, I am pretty frustrated at how arcane all this wiki system is and I'm just trying to correct the incorrect entry that misattributes people's work. Do you have any kind of DM or chat or simple way to talk?

Here will do fine if you want, or you contact me on Discord (my ID is Loadingue). (Also by the way, to sign, there is a "Your signature" button on the editing bar near the top)--Loadingue (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Feel free to join us on the Wiki's Discord: https://discord.gg/w5wv6Mk . Neo89515 (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Liara and Ashley post-Citadel coup

Oh, I also forgot to mentioned that after Priority: The Citadel II, should Ashley survive and allowed to rejoin the squad, If you went to Liara's cabin, you can see Ashley is catching up on what's been happening so far on the Normandy--Aristo 580 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

If you can give me some exact samples, I can check and make sure I have it documented somewhere.--Loadingue (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
There's this link if you want to check it out.--Aristo 580 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I had marked it as "cut" but hadn't transcribed it yet. It's in the project pages now.--Loadingue (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

RE: IMDB Source for Voice Actors

How about we try sourcing from the actual credits of the games? AnonymousAnomani (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They are vastly incomplete, and everything in them has been covered on the Wiki. The voice actor attributions you added recently were from IMDB, in case you didn't know (unless you had another, so far unknown, source).--Loadingue (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sanction

After conferring with the other admins and receiving no objection from the Fandom rep, it is the consensus of Wiki leadership that you will be under the following sanction, effective immediately and indefinitely:

1. You are prohibited from raising, of your own accord, the issue of changing Mass Effect Wiki policy regarding sourcing of voice actor credits, including any discussion of using IMDb, Wikipedia, or any other source currently designated as invalid in Wiki Sourcing Guidelines.

(a) This prohibition extends to all Wiki-based avenues of communication, including the Wiki Discord channel and all Wiki Talk pages and forums, including the Policy Forum, the Projects Forum, and the Community (Fandom) Forum. The prohibition extends to opening any vote on changing Wiki policy on the voice actor issue, but also to merely opening any discussion of the topic, even with no intention of seeking to change policy with a formal vote.
(b) If the above issue is raised by another user, independently and without any prior influence from you, you are free at that point to participate in the discussion, with the caveat that you stick to discussing or offering objective facts and refrain from opining, complaints, or other commentary that is not constructive or relevant. You would also be free to vote on any proposed policy change on this issue, provided that you did not instigate the vote.
(c) Attempting to campaign, canvass, or otherwise recruit other Wiki users to the cause of changing Wiki policy on this issue, openly or in secret, is strictly prohibited.
(d) While this sanction is intended primarily as a preventative measure rather than a punitive one, violation of this sanction in any way, including any attempt to circumvent it that could be deemed as bad faith, will result in severe consequences, including potentially an extended or even permanent ban from the Mass Effect Wiki. Do not attempt to "test" enforcement of this sanction the way you did for your recently issued sanction on the Discord channel.

Rationale / Justification

Despite your repeated insistence that you have no interest in listening to what I have to say to you regarding your behavior on the Wiki (one of the major factors behind why I was convinced to impose this sanction), I will still offer an explanation as this is a serious restriction on your rights as a user of the Wiki that I sincerely hope will not have to be further expanded or enforced in the future.

Since you asked...

Personal sandbox pages are part of user space and typically shouldn't be edited by anyone else, if that's what the latest whining from you on the Discord is about. If you WANT feedback specifically on anything you've sandboxed so far, you can ask directly, but don't demand or expect a response. But asking the universe why nobody seems to care about your edits is irrelevant at best, annoying/self-centered at worst, and adding in irrelevant / passive-aggressive sounding commentary about me is flirting close to your banned subject matter. You don't need to tell the rest of us that we can use this Wiki. People who were not me have edited your content before. Whether you speak English natively or not, you should have enough self-awareness to know you don't have much benefit of the doubt left when it comes to your commentary on Wiki affairs on the Discord, which is a privilege to use, not a right. Neo89515 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I wasn't talking about sandbox pages, I was talking about all my edits that are on the mainspace. I am not asking people to care about my edits, I am remarking with humility that my contributions could sometimes be worded better. In a friendly gesture, I invited you in particular to not hesitate to improve them since I've noticed you often perform these kinds of edits. I was not requesting it and I never intended to sound aggressive, despite our history. The fact that this, with the best of intentions, was still somehow misconstrued in the worst way possible certainly leaves a terrible taste.--Loadingue (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
If that's truly all you were doing with that comment then fine; however, it was irrelevant at best and all that happened was it got deleted. But, as usual, you respond with a confrontational demand for answers and then get your feelings hurt when you get a confrontational answer. Like I said, you don't have much benefit of the doubt as to your intentions right about now, that's just a reality you have to accept. If you want that to change, the best way to do so would be to just make your edits and move on. Your additions to the Wiki get reviewed like everyone else's -- as much as is possible or necessary based on other users' time. You know that well enough already. If other users aren't messing with your edits most people would perceive that as a good thing, rather than another reason to make noise. Neo89515 (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
As further guidance to your Discord usage, your rule of thumb should be: talk about editing, not editors. I reserve the right to remove any commentary about me or anyone else I view as irrelevant, your intention behind such commentary is not what matters. You've caused too much drama for that to change in the near future. Above all: Stop. Complaining. Neo89515 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Quoting too much material in BTS Trivia notes

I want you to consider paring down some of these behind the scenes trivia notes. When you have supporting articles that you can link to in the footnote references, there's no need to lift large portions of them out and plunk them on the Wiki. It's enough to simply say, for example, that "the car chase was inspired by The Fifth Element" and "the foot chase was inspired by Blade Runner" and if people want to check the primary source for more details they can click the provided reference links. If you're just worried about the impermanence of online sources, I would just say feel free to "archive" those things to your satisfaction on your own in some way. Archiving every single thing developers ever said about the work is not the Wiki's primary focus (definitely not the focus of Trivia sections, in any case). Neo89515 (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I do this for a good reason, and it's that this Wiki has a wide issue with sources becoming dead links. I'd rather be safe than sorry with this, but I could look into shortening some of those passages. If you really deem it necessary, because I don't think it does any harm to keep the whole thing there for accuracy.--Loadingue (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
With respect to dead links, the policy on other wikis I am on (including Wikipedia) is to replace dead links with archive.org links. I don't think it is beholden on the wiki to become a web archive site. DaBarkspawn (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
archive.org is not a forever thing either, I don't think it's all that safe. At least whatever's on this Wiki proper will remain here until the entire Wiki goes.--Loadingue (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it is a self-evident truism true that nothing is forever. But if I were placing bets, I would say that archive.org will long, long outlast fandom.com. DaBarkspawn (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
Even if a link eventually does die, we don't consider claims sourced from whatever material they contained to become inaccurate. However, taking another look I see that you weren't leaving the quoted material in the Trivia section itself but under the reference footnotes. That's acceptable, because it's not bloating the Trivia section itself. I think there may be more condensed way to format this so that the code isn't getting quite as bloated. Code readability is of lesser concern, but still a concern. Neo89515 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
So, do I leave it as it is?--Loadingue (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
It's fine for now. Neo89515 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Illusive Man’s eyes

“He has special eyes” is framed as a opinion from the user and not an factual statement, which would look bad on this wikia as a double standard.AnonymousAnomani (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Image descriptions are exempt from that. Plenty of examples all around, usually humorous. That's because they are "hidden" comments, which you need to hover over the image to see. While some people may prefer a more clinical and professional Wiki, I think this is in good taste and should be kept. Also, even if you're not in on the meme, there's nothing subjective about saying that weird, glowing blue, electronic eyes look "special", because they are.--Loadingue (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Feel free to open up a discussion of the edit on the page where it was made, that would be preferred. Anyway, see my comment there. Neo89515 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

New Versions of Images

Can I ask why you are replacing a bunch of character shots? I'm not seeing any issues with the ones that were already there, they were high quality and good resolution. The original uploaders devoted time and effort to those images so I'm not a huge fan of just papering them over with new versions to suit someone else's preference. Image quality is a very subjective thing, so I want to be clear that this isn't about arguing one image is objectively better than the other (though a case could be made that a higher res image IS objectively higher quality). But it is perfectly valid for any user to revert new edits as "not improvements" over what was there, and I'm likely to do this to your new images because (1) I honestly don't see the improvement and (2) I don't want us setting a precedent on redoing perfectly fine images that other people worked on. Neo89515 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

As a quick addendum -- if you're doing this replacement because an image was from the original game and you want to "update" it to LE, we had a community discussion on this way back when LE first released, on the forums, and the consensus was that we aren't going to be replacing images from original trilogy to LE "just because". Really good quality images from the OT are perfectly valid, there is no requirement or onus on replacing them. Neo89515 (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I genuinely believe my images are better. Besides the ones upgraded to LE, the others I replaced were because the original images were very inexpressive (square front shot, no expression or movement). This should be perceived in all my uploads. I'm taking direct inspiration from TemporaryEditor's great work on the subject. Is there some quality or technical requirement you would like me to fulfill for new images to be accepted? (Side note: I really don't see the point in having gigantic charshots bigger than 1000x1000).--Loadingue (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I will try to evaluate each image you uploaded with a neutral eye. But yes, glad you appreciate how much effort the previous editors like U Kataka and Temp did on some of these shots; say what you will about him but his screenshots are usually very good and he went quite above and beyond trying to get good ones for many characters. As I said, this can be a subjective area. If you are looking for a place to add new screenshots, many of the Mass Effect 2 mission walkthroughs and assignments are lacking images and there are a lot of crappy Jpegs hanging around. That's waaaaay down on my personal to-do list, but it's there. Neo89515 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Temp's recent charshots are excellent, but there are many characters he missed, and remain non-LE. A few of them, like Ethan Jeong, I can't currently replace with something as good, so until I do, I'm not touching them. Anything in LE by Temp, I don't intend to replace. As for U Kataka, with all due respect, they're very "flat". Just a front shot of the character, nothing special to it like Temp does. Those I would like to replace.--Loadingue (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
I have made reversions where I felt the new images were not improvements over existing. The point about some charshots being too square and resulting in a smaller overall image is a valid one in some cases. As for general image advice, two things: (1) try for more 'neutral' poses for character shots generally, such as the one for Fredericks where he's in the middle of gesturing with his hands since you clipped a conversation scene -- I would prefer one with his hands relaxed, but I do think the replacement is overall an improvement. By the same token, I agree with your replacement of the Xeltan shot where he's awkwardly moving, no need to make that the charshot simply because Temp was enamored with the animation. Also feel free to review the Image Guidelines on the MoS, there is advice there as well. (2) Second point/reminder, image replacements should generally be of the same exact location and general shot, so the Venari Pallin shot should have been your own separate upload, ideally, since it's a different location and angle, even though I allowed it to stand. Neo89515 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
(1) Based directly on Temp's charshots, I was assuming the characters should not look neutral, but appear expressive in a way that defines them. I was aiming to replace U Kataka's charshots specifically because they're too neutral, like a mugshot. Temp's work, which should be the baseline for this, was never in any way like that, and I would suggest you review it. (2) This seems like a made-up restriction. I don't see any valid reason for this, unless the visible location is a spoiler or the like. Pallin's own charshot used to be in the place where I took the new screenshot if you check the history. Regarding the ones you reversed: I was planning on redoing Selyna, but I can't see any reason why Avina and Saleon, which were both from the original game and must be replaced eventually, are not an improvement. Please explain that I may redo them. If need be I'll make a new project on the forums but if we'd both rather avoid that, I need you to be precise and consistent as to what I must do or avoid.--Loadingue (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Let me rephrase -- by "neutral" I don't mean "flat and totally expressionless", perhaps I should have said "relaxed" where it looks like they're just awkwardly in the middle of talking or moving. Of course, for enemy boxes and the like, action poses are definitely fine. But it seems you failed to read my initial comment, so please re-read: there is NO policy that original trilogy images MUST be replaced by LE images. While many just happen to have been replaced, that's only because someone just decided they wanted to and nobody objected. If an LE image is simply an objectively higher quality image compared to what it replaced, that's fine (and exactly why nobody objected). However, there are times where I've considered LE image replacements for images from the OT and decided against it because the OT image is good. For example, the Tela Vasir charshot I tried hard to replicate and do an LE upscale of the same pose, but I ended up not being satisfied with how the scene looked in LE and decided to leave the original image standing. I also tend to prefer how the asari characters look in the OT of the first game; in LE1 their skin looks too "matte" blue, like someone dumped neon paint all over them, and they also have dark circles under the eyes from bad shadow effects. I also do prefer the facial expression of Temp's shot for Nelyna (so the smile stays for now). Neo89515 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
As for "made-up restriction" I'm not in the habit of engaging in that, I would counter-suggest you try harder to comprehend what it is I'm telling you: you should have replaced THIS image, which is in the same pose and style as what you uploaded: [1] Please note this is an entirely DIFFERENT image from the one you replaced, which was Temp's charshot [2]. So I've done what I should have done from the first and reverted, so you can go through the motions of replacing the correct image and editing the page just to drive the point home. Neo89515 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It's only logical that as the definitive version of the trilogy to play, all the images be replaced with their LE counterpart, and it's silly that you seem to cling on to this sophistry that is "we don't have to" to justify keeping what is perceived by all as outdated images with pixelated textures. I will try to match the quality in LE whenever I can. I will get Nelyna's smile back, but you still haven't explained why Saleon and Avina were reverted. I can make them higher-resolution if you insist but if I don't see any reason why they should be denied, I will keep arguing for them. Edit: I see you're hellbent on imposing your inconsistent and unjustified views, so I will escalate this.--Loadingue (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The arrogance of believing you speak for what is "perceived by all" is quite astounding, or would be, if it wasn't all-too familiar by now. Almost as arrogant as believing I owe you an explanation for every revert (EDIT: or suggesting that someone who's been here a lot longer than you needs to "review" the Wiki). It has long been customary here that reverts to the status quo don't require justification beyond preferring the status quo, I owe you nothing other than that. Do whatever you think will help you get your way (which is the behavior you're projecting onto me) just don't expect miracles. Neo89515 (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
To be clear -- if a third user comes along and prefers your newer images in any instance, then it becomes 2 to 1 in favor of changing the status quo and the new image can stand. That's how community consensus works, and a process you should be more than familiar with by now. Having no patience to go through that process is not really excusable from you at this stage, and I expect better. Neo89515 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit Warring

If you're going to engage in actual edit warring, then time for you to cool off for a day. Come back in a calmer and more collaborative mood that's willing to read/listen and we'll go from there. I've requested "escalation" of my own, btw. Neo89515 (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I will chime in that I'm watching this and re-reverting when a talk page discussion is still under way is very much edit-warring. It's *obviously* edit-warring and I know you know better. Objector does not have to restate the reason for every revert, especially in the context of there being an ongoing discussion of the general issue. Your only correct choices are (a) convince the objector or (b) build/show a bigger consensus. Meanwhile the status quo has priority. Cattlesquat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

My Position on Replacement Images

For when you are able to respond again -- here are my views, in brief, on replacing images in any circumstance:

  1. If it's, in my view, a major improvement, I won't have any objection. Which is my stance on any edit, of course.
  2. If the replacement is, at best, a marginal improvement or not really an improvement at all, I revert in favor of the status quo.
  3. The above is by nature subjective; while there are some objective measurements of image quality such as resolution and texture quality, that's as far as it goes, and there are many many other factors that can't be quantified, and discussion of them can only go so far. People will differ.
  4. I want to actively discourage replacing already good images that took other users time and effort to contribute - this may upset you, but that's a price I'm willing to pay. Just because a Wiki only has 1-2 very active users doesn't mean that those people should have carte-blanche to start changing anything and everything they want willy-nilly to suit their own preferences. I would strongly encourage you to direct your efforts to replacing images that are of much poorer quality (there are many), or adding NEW images where they are needed, and I already tried to be helpful and point you towards pages that could use that attention. You could, for example, add a new Saleon image to the mission walkthrough page involving him instead of his character page. So to put it another way, just because you WANT to add a new character image in doesn't mean you will get to do so. Neo89515 (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

"Live and Let Live" Policy

Just so you have some additional context for where the above is coming from, here is the discussion where community consensus emerged about a "live and let live" policy towards replacement screenshots. I may add some text about this into the MoS since it is basically part of site policy. https://masseffect.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000324875/r/4400000000000944721 I STRONGLY encourage you to read through this just so you gain some appreciation for what community consensus is and what it looks like, and so you understand this site doesn't revolve around just what you might want to do even if you're one of the only active editors here currently. Nor is this about me merely imposing MY will. Neo89515 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

If there's any consensus to be derived from that vast thread, I believe it is that MELE images ought to replace OT images over time, as Cattlesquat proposed and as was supported by other users. You've made it clear that you're 100% against replacing anything, but I don't think you're truly respecting the consensus in good faith, or even considering my own changes in good faith. After all, when some user tried to replace an image of Liara a few months back, it was strange how you all seem to embrace the change, except me because I thought the image was actually inferior. Now the tables have turned. The fact that I asked you to clarify what was wrong in two SPECIFIC instances, Saleon and Avina, and that you refused to elaborate ("I don't need to explain every revert") supports the discrepancy. Even sadder that Cattlesquat defended that shameful refusal ("He doesn't need to explain every revert"). Despite all this, I on the other hand am always ready to try to collaborate in good faith, and thus I will shortly make a policy discussion so we can decide what would make some suitable charshot replacements. I won't waste time trying to make new charshots that you can shoot down without even having to explain why, as you've done so far.--Loadingue (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Ah, the old "I reject your consensus and substitute my own". A classic. I'm clearly 100% against image replacement since I only rejected 6 of your 13 replacements. Makes sense. Your questions have now been answered, and you've been given all the information you should reasonably need to make image uploads on the Wiki, and attempt replacements if you're still intent on doing so. In the process of educating yourself on this issue, you have again managed to wear down the patience of the Community with obnoxious persistence, lack of respect/courtesy to other users, ludicrous mischaracterization of their opinions, and refusal to read and/or accept what you are told by the Community of editors. You are on notice that any further attempts to annoy us on this subject could result in another (and longer) ban from the Wiki under the "general courtesy" clause in the MoS that you were already warned to pay heed to when you were sanctioned for the IMDb issue earlier. I wasn't just saying that for my own amusement. You are strongly advised to watch your tone and demonstrate a higher level of deference/humility when dealing with other users from now on. No tantrums, no threats, no insults, no wilful mischaracterizations of other users. No aspersions cast on their good faith. This is not a warning I make lightly, but you've simply had too much of a history of this behavior now and I'm not putting up with it any further. Stronger measures are clearly needed. Neo89515 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Delusional ramblings, dreamt up by a "Community" of two people against one. Almost every step of the way in this charshot debate, you've assumed bad faith on my part and actively refused to answer my honest questions. Your big words are laughable, feel free to demonstrate the wrath of your terrifying admin powers on this single guy. I'll remain on this Wiki and contribute, because I'm one persistent asshole which you can't drive off like you did everyone else.--Loadingue (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
You had a simple test -- stop talking. You have failed the test. Keep this up, and your days here are officially numbered. Neo89515 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
I assume nothing -- your behavior is, in fact, bad faith. Gaslighting, relentless abuse of lines of communication to demand attention/answers to questions that fall under (A) already answered (B) common sense/obvious to anyone with any experience of editing ; questioning the good faith of others yourself. It is impossible to collaborate with someone who displays these behaviors not once, not twice, but habitually, and basically as long as you've been here. If you think you can be, to quote your own words, a "persistent asshole" and remain on this Wiki, I'm not the one who is delusional. You've worn out your welcome. You've made some valuable contributions here, but that does not entitle you to carry on like this. Moderate your behavior, or don't, and reap the consequences. Neo89515 (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Based on the last reply I concur some time away from the wiki is in order. Cattlesquat (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)