User talk:Scaletail

I encourage you to read through my archived talk posts. A question you have may well be answered there. You should also check out the FAQ. --Scaletail

Archive 1 (Dec. 2006-Sep. 2007) includes welcomes, as well as discussions about the list of Davion rulers and why there is confusion between Blue Diamond and Menkent.

Archive 2 (Oct. 2007-Feb. 2008) includes responses to welcomes, an explanation of the difference between the Marauder IIC and the Marauder II C, my opinion on linking from manufacturing center articles, becoming a SysOp, a discussion concerning the consensus policy, years & the timeline, usage of .svg files, and the reason that red-linked categories give that weird message at the top.

Archive 3 (Apr. 2008-May 2009) has all sorts of stuff.

Archive 4 (Jun. 2009-July 2011) doesn't have much of significant importance

Single edits by IPs[edit]

Is it just me or are we seeing more edits from IPs, with no further 'contributions'? The last few I've checked the cited resources to discover the latest edits were wrong, where normally I used to trust the edits were made in good faith. I can't determine why someone would make these targeted changes -they appear to know how to wiki- unless it's intended to 'show' how Sarna is wrong.

We might need to become more critical of IP changes, review them for veracity.--Rev (talk|contribs) 14:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally pretty critical of any changes made by IPs or new users. The ones that I've noticed are frequently subjects where there has been confusion or something has been retconned. In the latest instance, there was a substantial discussion about the model designation of a particular Javelin variant. A few editors (including myself) went over sources and recorded our conclusions on the talk page. The anonymous editor obviously did not read that discussion and made the change.
I stepped in and made an edit on the DWP article. The anonymous editor was confused because the article names a battle armor design as a Hell's Horses design, when it is actually a Ghost Bear design. The designs are similarly named, so it's easy to see where the confusion can come into play. The article was, in fact, correct, but the BA design the article referenced was actually a CHH variant of a CGB unit. I made the clarification.
I do not think that the edits are being made in bad faith, rather, they are simply wrong. In the end, whether the edits are made in good faith or not, the end result is the same. We do need to ensure that edits are correct. --Scaletail 14:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Maybe I was too cynical. But, yeah, you're right. I'll take a closer look at those edits, when the resources are at hand. Thanks.--Rev (talk|contribs) 16:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Brett - Thanks[edit]

Scale - Thanks for your cleanup and pic of my Jeremy Brett article. Have a Random Act of Appreciation Award, 3rd ribbon ClanWolverine101 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

For your approval[edit]

Duchy of Tamarind-Abbey. Does this work? ClanWolverine101 03:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it! I especially like the way you made some sense out of the FWL/Bolan-Skye conflict during the Jihad. --Scaletail 00:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Scaletail. The article is very well written.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Revision of my work[edit]

Hy Scaletail you changed my work at the Stinger - page not suitable in my view, because you choose to incorporate only token information and for example the TRO 3050 original count every single manfacturing site with the planet and you seletect only a few. We could discuss about the way to show an overview of the different manfacturing sites. And you can't tell me that the data is placed on each single manufacting sites. I respect your work for the community and this is why I ask you how we can solve the difficult standpoints. Neuling 05:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked over the information you added, but the sources you cite do not include most of what you added. With regards to Technical Readout: 3050, the source does not mention the -3G variant at all; neither the factory information or year of the variant's initial production are provided there. I can go through this with each and every variant, if we must. TRO:3085 does not give any production information for the -5T and it only says that the -6S is produced in a Lyran factory, but not which one. TRO:PP states that the -6L is made on Detroit and Sian, but you listed Sian and Canopus IV, nor does the source state the date of manufacture. That is why I made the changes I made.
If you think that every BattleMech article needs an overview of different manufacturing sites, above and beyond what is already done on the articles, then please start a new discussion about it at Project BattleMechs. As of right now, there is no place for this in the existing article structure for 'Mechs. --Scaletail 15:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

RS 3067[edit]

Hy, tnx for the evidence and I had corrected the error. Neuling 02:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Spam-bot Crushing[edit]

Scale - GW on deleting those frivolous accounts and spam-messages. Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon ClanWolverine101 03:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look to this discussion[edit]

BattleTechWiki:Administrators#Deletion of Manufacturer subsection, thanks.Doneve 21:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


quality of writing[edit]

Hello Scaletail, I'm get notice that you correct my wrong spelling. I ask these way how how considered my writing style and perhaps you can give me some helpful advices. The hugh problem for me is that I'm not an english native speaking person and I had improved over the years my skills but they could be better. I think. Neuling 07:40, 31 December 2011 (PST)

I am not a grammar teacher, but I can offer a few pointers.
  • First, I use a web browser that has a spell check feature. This helps me a lot when I write in the browser window. You could take advantage of this a few different ways: temporarily set your language to "English", use a different browser for typing in English, or type in a word processor that will check your English spelling then paste the text into the browser window.
  • Second, make sure you are familiar with the BTW style guide. I've watched you improve a lot in this area, but I would point out your reference style. Make sure you always type out the full name of the source and check your comma usage.
  • Third, a general tip for writing better is to read more. You learn so much about the written word from reading what others write. I know that when I was learning Spanish, reading in Spanish really helped. I don't know much of your time you want to put in, but this could help you immensely.
Those are just a few ideas. If you have any specific questions, I'll be happy to help how I can. --Scaletail 10:07, 31 December 2011 (PST)

Congratulations[edit]

Hey, Scaletail: say you won Nic's Consistent Service Award. Congratulations! You absolutely deserve it. You've been here just as long as I, but arguably much more consistently. It's only right you were identified. Thanks for being here and being the early enforcer the site needed. Seriously. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:20, 12 February 2012 (PST)

Thanks. I'm happy I can stick around. --Scaletail 15:53, 13 February 2012 (PST)


Variant formating[edit]

Hello Scaletail, please take a look at the alternative variant (User:Neuling/Variant Formatting]) formating for the mech variants and tell me what do you think about it. My opinion about the text is: it ha more structure and with the links you can get faster to specific variants. Neuling 20:04, 16 February 2012 (PST)

I don't think it's any faster for finding variants, actually. The variants are arranged in alphabetical order, so it takes just as long no matter which list you are looking through. If that's the only reason to make this change, it is not one I would support. --Scaletail 17:05, 17 February 2012 (PST)
I agree with you Scaletail, there is no reason to change or take hands to the variant formating.--Doneve 17:08, 17 February 2012 (PST)
Hello Scaletail, another thought was that the variant page is better to read when the variant is underlined or bold for example. But I see you have your opinion about the formatting of the variant. I will not waste more time to argue in favor of a better layout. There is no change that my argumentation is successful. I must live with that. Neuling 20:34, 21 February 2012 (PST)

In all honesty I don't see the improvement.. I just see change for the sake of change... --Dmon 14:25, 22 February 2012 (PST)

Timber Wolf[edit]

Thanks. I put in a verifiability check on the BT forums, since I don't own the source. I'll leave a note accordingly on the IP's page.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 06:36, 24 March 2012 (PDT)

I do own the cited source. It uses LRM-20s. If it was retconned, then the source needs to be cited. --Scaletail 06:42, 24 March 2012 (PDT)
Agree, and told the IP the same. Moonsword is checking the weights, so if it is wrong, we can state so in the notes (but we can't 'decide' how to make it work, as he did). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 06:48, 24 March 2012 (PDT)
Weight bore out. IP was in error.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 06:56, 24 March 2012 (PDT)

Sign[edit]

Great you restored this page.--Doneve 17:55, 14 April 2012 (PDT)

For your review: Delta Regiment[edit]

Delta Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) is up. Obviously, a lot of work went into this one.
As usual, thanks go out to Doneve, who uploaded several images that were ultimately used. Obviously, the pics add a lot to this article, and keep it from becoming just a mindless block of text.
One of my goals with this project was to improve upon the design of my Alpha Regiment (Wolf's Dragoons) article. To that end, I've streamlined several processes, most notably the reference tags, using what's become the accepted approach. In short, I updated my own style. While it took a lot of time, I think it went okay.
As you can see above, I've written a number of articles about Delta's commanding officers and so on. This means I can reuse some of that material when I write a comprehensive article like this one. As it turned out, the writing still needed to be massaged, but if that wasn't the case, I would have been doing something wrong. Nevertheless, its easier to write a bunch of small articles before trying to put together a beast like this.
When I decided to write comprehensive articles on each of the WD regiments, I always knew Alpha would be my first and Delta my second. There were two reasons, there: First, Delta has a lot of extra material on it from its involvement in the Coventry campaign. Second, Delta avoided the Dragoon Civil War/Elson's Challenge (popularized in Wolf Pack). That particular event will prove very difficult to cover, as it exists only in broad terms in the sourcebooks and we only get certain perspectives in the WP novel. But that's a talk for another day.
For now, please enjoy reading about Delta Regiment. Thanks, and I look forward to your feedback. ClanWolverine101 16:12, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

Thanks and Welcome Back[edit]

Scaletail - Thanks for weighing in on the Davion Guards drama, and for rolling back the vandalism on my Delta Regiment article. A thought occurred to me: Should we change the wiki so that only registered users can edit it? It seems like it would save us a lot of trouble. Just a thought. Good to have you back. ClanWolverine101 00:03, 24 June 2012 (PDT)

Speaking for myself, if I had had to register before I could edit then I wouldn't have bothered to edit in the first place. I only registered as a proper user when I found that I had been drawn in. So far, unregistered IPs are far less troublesome than "registered" spambot accounts anyways. Frabby 06:12, 24 June 2012 (PDT)
Understood. If you check the talk page of the Davion Brigade of Guards, I think you'll understand my reasoning. Regarding spambot accounts, I fully support whatever Nic and the admins want to do on that level. ClanWolverine101 12:10, 24 June 2012 (PDT)
I understand your point here, CW, but the point of a wiki is that anybody can edit it. By requiring registration, I think we'd be hindering that mission. --Scaletail 12:26, 24 June 2012 (PDT)
True. But even that's not an absolute, is it? We do have protocols and policies, and so on. The admins do warn people. The admins have suspended people. The admins are even empowered to ban people, if the situation really calls for it. I do not disagree with any of this. However, you can't really do anything to someone who doesn't register, who simply runs amok vandalizing articles and launching personal attacks on the Talk pages. Does it go too far to create such a policy because of - for all we know - one individual? Maybe. But its just my thought. ClanWolverine101 12:15, 25 June 2012 (PDT)

Carlos Marik[edit]

Hy Scaletail, great cleanup of the Carlos Marik article, i hope you work on the Marik characters to, have this award from me Random Act of Appreciation Award, 4th ribbon, greetings.--Doneve 19:47, 25 June 2012 (PDT)

Vandal Cop award/Merge & delete request[edit]

Thanks for deleting spambot pages: Vandal Cop Award, 2nd ribbon
However, beyond blocking the user and deleting all edits I suggest you also eliminate the entire account. Go to "Special Pages" in the Toolbox section down on the left userbar, then select "Merge and delete". Merge the offending username into "Anonymous" (and check the delete box) to purge that user account for good. Frabby 01:56, 13 July 2012 (PDT)

Update - thanks for helping out in this thankless task. I see this is the third VandalCop award already. Vandal Cop Award, 3rd ribbon Frabby (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2012 (PDT)

Enterprise image[edit]

Hy Scaletail, please delete the Enterprise WarShip image i have uploaded, we have double images, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2013 (PDT)

Looks like you've taken care of this? --Scaletail (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2013 (PDT)
Yep, you're right.--Doneve (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2013 (PDT)

Lyran Commonwealth[edit]

Hy, please add this award Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbon, to your board, great update to LYC page.--Doneve (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2013 (PDT)


Edit War[edit]

Way to play the UN there, mate. Good job.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:25, 28 April 2013 (PDT)

Thanks, Rev. Good to see you back. --Scaletail (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2013 (PDT)

InfoboxCommand[edit]

Could you please have a look at User:Mbear/Davion Assault Guards when you have a minute? Let me know if I'm missing anything you wanted. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 09:27, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

References - Updated help page[edit]

Saw your comments to User:Adridos. I've tweaked the References page so that it reflects how we're actually using the references tag on Sarna. If there's anything I should add, please let me know. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 10:01, 7 June 2013 (PDT)

Project: Ground Units[edit]

I was unaware that aircraft were included under the Ground Units project heading; I had wondered about that when I was adding the template to a bunch of talk pages, but I skipped over the VTOLs. I'll be sure to put them next time. Also, are AreoSpace Fighters supposed to be under the project for "Spacecraft" or "Ground Units"? -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2013 (PDT)

No, Ground Units covers combat vehicles, including VTOLs, but not fighters. They are not currently associated with any WikiProject that I am aware of. --Scaletail (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2013 (PDT)
Why we have not a AeroSpace Fighter WikiProject page??--Doneve (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2013 (PDT)
Why not an Aircraft WikiProject page - it could cover everything smaller than a dropship that flies: VTOLs, Conventional Aircraft, AeroSpace Fighters, Helicopters, etc. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2013 (PDT)
Gotcha, great idea.--Doneve (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2013 (PDT)
Hey, while on the subject, are ships (traditional water vessels) under the Ground Units project? -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2013 (PDT)
I say yes, or is water not a ground?--Doneve (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2013 (PDT)
True; I'll mention it on the project page before assuming anything... -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2013 (PDT)

Commando variants layout[edit]

Hy, i like the variants layout on the Commando page, do you think we can use it for all 'Mech variant pages.--Doneve (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2013 (PDT)

Yes. See BattleTechWiki:Project_BattleMechs#Guidelines. --Scaletail (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2013 (PDT)
Great, it looks much better as the old layout.--Doneve (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2013 (PDT)
I agree! --Scaletail (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2013 (PDT)
Mind if I join in? I can start from Z and go backwards through the list. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2013 (PDT)

Spelling[edit]

Is there an official policy on this site for spelling on this site? I can't see one. - Dark Jaguar (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2013 (PDT)

Not to interrupt, but yes, there is (see Policy:Manual of Style); we are supposed to use "American spelling and grammar". I hope that helps. -BobTheZombie (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2013 (PDT)
Thanks Bob, while I have look at that I didn't see the spelling thing. Just went back and checked it was the first thing D'oh! Smiley.gif - Dark Jaguar (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2013 (PDT)
Thanks, Bob! --Scaletail (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2013 (PDT)

Combat Vehicle Layout[edit]

Scaltail can you look on the various changes i do on some combat veh. pages, i know the headers must become smaller as the page name, but i think i looks much better as our stanard model, or iam wrong.--Doneve (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2013 (PDT)

Hi, Doneve. Sections should be labeled as such. Right now, you have the sections using the format for the article title. Think of it like this: the article title is the cover of a book, and, right now, those articles have five covers on one book. Does that make sense? --Scaletail (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
No this make not sense, how we can handle this in the new format, when i look on the real wiki it works, i talked to Nic but have at this time no response, i stop my changes and wait for support, is this ok for you.--Doneve (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
Could you give me an example of where you have seen it work? --Scaletail (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
Ok here, is the example link [1], i know the headers are smaller what i want to feature to our wiki, i think the pages looks more cleaner when we adopt this style to sarna, sorry for raw writing, can we change when we add a ==== heading then we have a line, this was my impression but you know english as second language is not so easy :(.--Doneve (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
Ah, I think I understand now. You want the line that goes the width of the page, not the increased font size. I agree with you that it looks better, and, yes, I think Nic would need to implement it.
My suggestion is to leave the wiki code the way it is. The German Wikipedia link uses the same code, it just looks different. Nic should be able to make a change on the back-end that will make the changes for all BTW articles.
Don't worry about the language; your English is much better than my German. Wink.gif It's a good suggestion. --Scaletail (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
Thanks for the response, where you so cool and talk to Nic, i know i talked to him but my clerification was not so good, i hop you help me.--Doneve (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
I think I now understand what you were getting at Doneve, and yes, it does look better/more organized. -BobTheZombie (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
Yep, this is i want to say, thanks guys.--Doneve (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2013 (PDT)
We dont need Nic, Mbear give me CSS code i added and he works very well. If anyone is interested go to my talk page.--Doneve (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2013 (PDT)

Italics[edit]

Hy Scaletail, i know it is not in the style guide, but it looks much better, and difference ranks from other links, why can we not change the guide, the most policies are writen in the past, but we are not in the past and thinks can change, the best example is Nics changes of the page layout.--Doneve (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2013 (PST)

Ok, i set up a talk on the manual of style page, and look if anyone like it or not, when not i revert my changes.--Doneve (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2013 (PST)

Weapons and Equipment[edit]

You can take out the minor news item on the Weapons and Equipment section listing for the BattleMech articles, I cracked on today and got them all updated. I'll go and update the help page on them now to make sure the sample template matches. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2013 (PST)

I think we change the Combat Vehicles and AeroSpace Fighters to the same what we have done with the BattleMechs.--Doneve (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2013 (PST)
Thanks, BM! I've updated the help articles for articles associated with the ground units project. I agree about the other unit types. --Scaletail (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2013 (PST)
Battle Armor is done now too. I'll make a start on ProtoMechs. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2013 (PST)
ETA: There aren't as many ProtoMechs as I thought there were - they're all done now too. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2013 (PST)
ETA2: I finished off the AeroSpace Fighters as well (Raven 2C did the heavy lifting there) but I really should go and do some actual work now. Depending on how busy the office gets, I'm hoping to give Doneve a hand with the Combat Vehicles afterwards, and then I think we'll be close to done. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2013 (PST)
ETA3: I've seen off IndustrialMechs, Conventional Fighters and Exoskeletons, so I think the only ground unit category left is combat vehicles, but I have to finish work, shop and the like and won't be back online for some hours yet. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2013 (PST)