User talk:Scaletail/archive 4


Scaletail, good job with the tag. I was thinking that adding a Category:Moratorium to the tag itself, so that each article under the moratorium would be in the cat, would allow us to better police expired periods. I'd do it myself, but my wiki-break has resulted in a loss of some wiki-skills. In any case, open for discussion. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:13, 31 May 2009 (PDT)

Hm. I thought I had done that. Let me go fix.... Nice to have you back, btw. You on leave? --Scaletail 11:43, 31 May 2009 (PDT)
Naw, not really, no. I was transferred back before the ship (she's on deployment) and now am located in Gulfport (at a Seabee base). Still getting settled in but just got my PC set back up. I am simply amazed at how much work has gone on here. Great to see...though we still need to increase the weekly base of editors. Frabby, Cyc and you are still the most common editors, but I can see some relatively new faces (Wrangler, for one) that are making their marks. I, for one, would love to get the MW software updated. I'll see what I can do to get Nic inspired. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:00, 31 May 2009 (PDT)
Don't forget about Alkemita, who has really taken charge of articles on commands. I know I've slowed down a lot. Alas, being thrust into the real world has taken its toll. No more two-day marathon writings sessions for me. I'm mostly just trying to keep the level of quality up. --Scaletail 18:30, 1 June 2009 (PDT)

Empty Articles discussion[edit]

Hey, Scaletail: I'd like you to weigh in here, since I know you have an opinion on this. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ion Rush[edit]

A seriously good bio. Good job.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a Battle Template[edit]

I am looking to list all the participants in the Capellan Civil War. Do you know any good templates I can use? --Aldous, 18 October 2009 (UTC) --Scaletail 17:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC) unsource articles[edit]

Hi Scaletail. I'm trying to clean up the articles that if rapidly posting, which are unsourced. Some of the information author is posting is correct, but some of it has wild eye mentions i can't figure out where they got them from. Operation Scatter and Free Worlds League-Lyran Commonwealth War‎ for examples have mentions of don't come from sources books i've found. Is there way to talk to this person about citing some of the information their posting? I believe Rev has tried contact the author, but no response. I'll try to sort these article out, but i'm not sure if you want keep articles as they appear. Their basicly timeline notes verses actual articles. -- Wrangler 02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, nobody has made an attempt to directly contact the editor in question. I've posted numerous statements and questions on talk pages, but it's almost impossible to get in touch with an unregistered user whose IP keeps changing (to the best of my knowledge). The articles contain no sources or citations and little attempt at wikification. For all intents and purposes, these articles are being created and abandoned. I believe this is exactly the situation Revanche had in mind when he suggested deleting unsourced articles. If you want to take the effort to find sources for the information, it would be appreciated. With sources, at least I can feel good about merging the information into other articles. Information that is being created and not referenced may simply be deleted, though that would be the last recourse. --Scaletail 01:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay then. I'll attempt to source the ones i think i Can salvage. Hopefully the poster will realize they need register and add references to the the articles. -- Wrangler 11:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

MWDA Dossiers[edit]

Scaletail, I just posted this on Wrangler's talk page, and thought I should let you know as well.--mbear

Wrangler, I've split the large PDF's from into single page PDF files. Before I upload them though, or do any other modifications, I wanted to let you know that apparently I can export the PDFs to plain text which we could upload directly to BTW. (Be a big help for the Principes Guards, Hastati Sentinels, and Triarii Protectors articles.) I would have done this text export, but thought I should talk to you and Scaletail first. Thoughts? (Will crosspost to Scaletails talk page.)--Mbear 17:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Kept them as PDF files, and uploaded them. Wrangler's working on fixing deader links.--Mbear 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


Scaletail, I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page. Please place it where it best fits your design. Happy New Year! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for the variants! they aren't included in my ancient german version of the TRO! learn something everyday and stuff :D --RagTag 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Founder's Outstanding Member of the Year Award[edit]

Hi Scaletail. I wanted to give you Founder's Outstanding Member of the Year Award. I've seen the contributions you've made over the past year reach all parts of the wiki, including interacting with other editors and admins, which I think is a big part of what makes this wiki so successful. You've done a lot to "clean up" posts which isn't the most glamorous thing to do, but needs to be done. Thanks for all of your hard work, edits and contributions. Congrats! Nicjansma 06:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Remove of Blood Spirit table[edit]

Hi, the tables that I added to every clans was the first step. In the next phase I will add insignias and a short information about the unit. Please let my work unchanged. decide when i finished. I think a overview which galaxy containts which clusters is helpful. Tnx Neuling 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Those things will already go into the articles for each unit and Galaxy. Isn't it redundant to have all that information in two different places? --Scaletail 02:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Game Notes[edit]

Hey Scaletail - I saw your post on the "Armor Tonnages" discussion, and I wanted to know specifically what we are and are not allowed to put in equipment descriptions. One of the projects I've been working on is adding "Game Notes" to many of equipment articles. (You can see one such example of my work in the MASC section.) Please note I do not copy from the book, nor do I quote it more than absolutely necessary. Is this permitted? ClanWolverine101

There are no "specifics" enshrined in policies or even guidelines anywhere. It's just this vague idea that we don't want anybody to reconstruct 'Mechs for use in the game from the articles on 'Mechs here. I don't have a problem with what you wrote on MASC. --Scaletail 02:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks! I guess I didn't realize that the ~~~~ code would auto-translate to my name when saved. Thanks for fixing.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you were trying to do. I'm too tired to have given it any thought. My pleasure. --Scaletail 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Policy[edit]

Hoolla i give you the All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon for your response about Image Policy.Doneve 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Random Act of Appreciation Award[edit]

Scaletail, for various contributions on improving the overall quality of the site, I award you the.

Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion of content why[edit]

I can not understood why you deleted my work. I take the content and wrote it in my word what is worng with that. Explain my please. Nobody say to me that the articles about the FWLM were plagiarized. I hope for an anwser... Neuling 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will have a second look at the content that you added for the FWLM-related articles. The problem is that the articles I deleted were not written entirely in your own words. Since many topics in BT are difficult to use more than one source to write about, considerable leeway is usually allowed. In these instances, however, you used phrases that were reproduced word-for-word, which is plagiarism. I appreciate that you are actively trying not to run afoul of this issue. I don't know how you write, so it's difficult for me to offer help, but Revanche left some good advice on Jherbert2's talk page. --Scaletail 21:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
It take two hours of hard work to rewrite the text of the deleted aricles. I see for every article that I wrote, there will be the damocles sword of deletion. When it your opinion that is a copy it will be deleted with no change to rewrte my work. Thats life... — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Neuling (talkcontribs) on 3 April 2010.
It is not my opinion that there were phrases that were exactly the same, it is a fact. If I may be so bold, based upon your previous statement, I think your writing style may be the problem. I'm working off of an assumption here, but if you rewrote the text from the sourcebook, that would explain why it sounds just like Field Manual: Federated Suns, why it's laid out in exactly the same way, and why many phrases are written exactly alike. If my assumptions are correct, I strongly encourage you to read Revanche's advice, because it that is exactly what he is addressing in the link I posted above. --Scaletail 22:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I try another way to write. I will take the infos, write simple sentences and hope that will be accepted. It saves time for me and make it easer. Thanx for your advice and your right some words/part of sentences were the same/sounds like the orginal but that was not my intention. with greeting Neuling 22:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
You have done it. I hold all further work in the near future for You are the only administrator how deleted my work and give me no chance for a rewrite and i know that i wrote every word by my own. You deleted articles with a work time of 6 hours. I will not waste time in the future. I ask for support and i get it. I know the tale of sissiphyus. And the stone rolll back from the top when i finished a article. I had bold plans but they r.i.p.... Neuling 06:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I made a last attemp. I'm interested how long it take for another deletion or the phrase plagiarized will stand in my watchlist...— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Neuling (talkcontribs) 02:48, 4 April 2010 .
Neuling, please consider taking a break, instead of quitting completely.
Scaletail was doing exactly what he was charged with doing by Nic: protect the wiki and ensure it runs smoothly. Scaletail does this for free, much as you add content for free - as a labor of interest (if not love). The material you wrote is still there (Nic is required to completely delete it from the historical entries), so its not like you don't have something to work worth, but the site is protected from legal threats from either the owners or the licensees. Scaletail did his job.
Many of us do our writings using materials off the main spaces or even on paper, before putting it in the articles. There is no reason why you can't do that also. The risk in adding plagiarized content to the site is that you may (unintentionally) forget about it and it remains for a copyright lawyer to challenge (threatening everything everyone has done) or have some reader think that everyone who has written on that article is complicit in the plagiarizing and, therefore, does it himself, adding to the problem.
Again, please consider taking a break and don't get so emotionally involved. It should only be fun, but rules have to be followed. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
To all administrator, I think my new style is accept in such cases like regional training battalions and combat centers. I agree my emotions were involded in my words (I think its human). The source of my anger was the deletion with out a message to me to change the article. And I hope I can take the strutcture of a existing article and forged it with the content to a new one with out a copy of the origninal text. I'm glade that not every article from me is considered as a copy. And i will use more tables again for better understanding that the article is a orginal from me. also it gives me more opportunities. And I have one wish, before anyone change one of my table please ask me what i will think about it. I respect your work to and change nothing from the major articles, i put only my content to it. Neuling 12:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackson Davion[edit]

Scaletail - Great job. All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon ClanWolverine101 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC) p.s. Do you not post editor awards on your page?

One thing you should know about Scaletail: he's in a minority of fans who feel that the game is too militaristic, that primary characters that serve in military leadership roles are over-emphasized (which is why he's a BIG Katherine Morgan Steiner-Davion fan) and that the game universe should really have a chance to 'reset' and have a period of peace, with the story focusing on the politics of the characters, rather than their military conquests. Ribbons like these just add to the push for new fans to become more militarily-saavy. Oh, and I'm known to lie thru my teeth sometimes.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Rev - I do not know you nearly well enough to know when you are kidding.
Also - Katherine was the Queen Bitch of the Cosmos. ClanWolverine101 21:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh it gives so many bitch or bitches or or th BT universe, do you want a bitch category: no no it was a joke, but you take a tick on the ball there come in next time by myself.Doneve 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


Hy Scaletail tanks for fix my grammer.Doneve 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot a question, ok this is a, american page, but why we must translate in the orgin. american translation, is the english and german translation to boring, some user's are not from the big ocean country, or came frome other countrys, england, germany, australia...ok it gives difference, but a little bit feeling in this spart is usefully, from the not so perfect writers, its my opinion.Doneve 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
BattleTech is, at its roots, an American game/product and being published in the US is one of the criteria for canonical publications according to the Line Developer. For this reason, American English is considered the "standard" language that should be used on BTW. There are German, French, Italian and even Japanese versions of BattleTech but they are only translations from the US stuff most of the time. Frabby 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Okidoky you give me the answer, but i learn in, we write colour and not colorDoneve 20:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and don't get too caught up on whether you are using the American or British spelling; us Yanks will fix (without slapping hands) when we see them. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha, i make a notice.Doneve 20:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. The Manual of Style specifically says that you can write in English English or Australian English or German English or whatever you want, but that it should eventually be converted to American English. Though I suspect we have as many editors who would understand a German BTW better. --Scaletail 22:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
No kidding: I count 4 regulars that are German-speakers as a primary language.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BC Stories & Scenarios[edit]

Scaletail, I 'know' the answer, but wanted to confirm with you. I've seen both Frabby and you make updates based on BattleCorps releases. As a new member also, I just found myself halfway through an update of Brotherhood of Randis based on the Lost Souls scenario when I remembered the moratorium policy. How do you handle this? Remember individually when a story is released, review Roosterboy's posts for 2 month marks, another method? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(Chiming in since you mentioned my name too) - I didn't consciously apply the moratorium to BC stories so far, but more out of a lack of though than deliberate decision. I think I've even written articles on stories the day the story was released. The way I write them, I take care to ensure the article appropriately milks the story for information but doesn't go into so much detail as to rendering reading the story pointless. You could say in a way the articles are teasers. But if you feel the moratorium should apply, I'll comply. Frabby 12:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Different issue, in my opinion: we write articles about the source as soon as they are released; we don't add to (other) subject articles to after moratorium. I thnk you're in the clear (if I read the above correctly).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The Fiction page on BC contains the date of release for every story that you have access to. In addition, it would be great if we could get caught up on the BC material, that way we will have the date of release for every piece in BTW. --Scaletail 23:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Good list (though mine has a ways to grow). Once I get back to writing (and less admin-ing), I'll consider hitting up the BC fiction. Frabby, you prefer to hit the source articles, vice data-mining, right?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

My appologies[edit]

Self explanitory: but I will say it is wrong to copy someone elses amterial and use it for your own. --Tyler Jorgensson 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Battle Value worksheet[edit]

Scaletail, please have a look at the template: User:Mbear/BVWorksheet. Comments welcome.--Mbear 14:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Simon Gallagher[edit]

Hey, man: great job with that article. Good read for a character of which I knew nothing. I appreciatred the education. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and you're welcome. --Scaletail 15:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Awesome job! In fact Its a Random Act of Appreciation Award, 2nd ribbon job! ClanWolverine101 22:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Past tense in articles[edit]

Raising this because of your recent edits to the Stinger article. We've been discussing this elsewhere but I can't find the discussion right now. Currently, the BTW contributors seem to be divided between those who want a something like an IC wiki written all in past tense (esp. you and Revanche I think) and others who think it should be an OOC wiki written in present tense unless covering past historical events within the universe. Personally, I'm pretty dead set on present tense; that's how I have been writing and editing articles for years. Besides feeling this to be the "right" approach, I also feel that the decision has been made long ago already, since all 'Mech and vehicle (and other) articles are written in present tense. Do you really want to rewrite the entire wiki? Frabby 08:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the discussion had been resolved, but I definitely misremembered. I will open another discussion at Policy Talk:Manual of Style. --Scaletail 23:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Excalibur B1[edit]

Just curious but the Excalibur B1 info you just reverted was accurate as far as I could see. Tho only failing was that it failed to point out that the info was Apocryphal. --Dmon 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not the veracity of the content. The issue is that is was plagiarized almost word-for-word. --Scaletail 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


Scale - I gotta disagree with you. 1) It was designed by Wolf's Dragoons. 2) For the first 30-50 years, it was exclusive to WD. (I will check later.) There are plenty of IS General mechs that also fall under one faction's portal. Why reverse policy just now? ClanWolverine101 03:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

First, what policy? Second, it's redundant. If something is in IS General, then it could be in every IS faction category. Why do that? --Scaletail 23:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
"Policy" simply meaning its what's generally been accepted up until now. Its not either/or. A mech/vehicle can be relatively common IS wide, and be particularly common with one faction. Look at the Grand Titan. It was manufactured exclusively in the FWL, but it is also listed as IS General, as well as WoB. There are other examples. Now if you think this should not be the case, then by all means let's start a convo on the appropriate policy page. But arbitrarily targeting my edits is a bit unfair, don't you think? ClanWolverine101 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you've misinterpreted a part of the collaborative process for a personal attack, and for that I apologize. I never intended to make the edits you make seem trivial or unwanted. Because I re-started a stalled discussion after this, it appears that my intention is to enshrine my viewpoint in policy over yours; it is not, and for that misunderstanding, I apologize.
The faction category discussion is one that has been taking place at P:BM for two and half years. I should know; I started the first discussion. In any case, that discussion would have no bearing on the vehicles in question, because they are not BattleMechs.
In short, I provided my rationale for those changes in the edit summaries because I didn't think I needed to have a full-on discussion about them. Obviously I was wrong. --Scaletail 01:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you and I accept your apology. The situation I walked into with the Dragoon vehicles was that a portal link (red) had already been set up for them, but there was nothing there. So I took the time to add the portal links to vehicles originally published in the WD Sourcebook. Within hours, those links were taken out, with little explanation. Understand, I have no problem with you taking the position that "IS General" equipment shouldn't be given secondary, faction-specific tags. That is a perfectly valid opinion. For the record, I believe whatever faction-portal policy we apply to 'mechs should also apply to vehicles. (Or else we should just drop vehicles from having portal-tags altogether...) I also appreciate the fact that the debate over the policy has lasted so long, and gone nowhere. Regardless, other mech/vehicle articles used the format of more than one faction tag with an IS General. Hence, I termed it "accepted policy". When your edits seemed to exclusively target my tags, I had to question the why of it.
I would suggest we restart the discussion on the use of the portal tags. I can't promise it will go any better than it has before, but I would welcome it as part of the collaborative process.
In the meantime, I would like to put my WD vehicle tags back up, at least until we can establish something else? ClanWolverine101 04:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Dechan Fraser lives![edit]

Scale - So I wrote the article, then undid your deletion under notable pilots for the Shadow Hawk. Tried to do the same with the Black Knight, but there was a conflict. So I just re-wrote it. Just letting you know why I undid your red pen. ClanWolverine101 07:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Chiming in here - I'd say Dechan Fraser is definitely a notable Shadow Hawk pilot, probably the most famous Shadow Hawk pilot; he and a Shadow Hawk are associated with each other. I don't see how it could be relevant that the article on this undoubtedly prominent person was not yet written. Frabby 10:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
...oh, and I would say Fraser is not a notable Black Knight pilot, by contrast. So I undid that entry. Frabby 10:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Meh. To be fair, there are more notable characters without an article yet.
And double-meh on the Black Knight. Fine, fine. ClanWolverine101 16:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable pilots: Possible answer[edit]

Please review: BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_BattleMechs#Notable_Pilots_Sample_page. Thanks!--Mbear 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Please[edit]

Hey, I have a huge project on the run and need support/ideas for the best solution. The 1st Aragon Borders is a example for future work. My idea is do rework all units an bring them to one level with the same structure. I have done the same to the mercs lately. Only a few units are left, but this is only temporary. Please view it an give my a response. Any support is welcome... Neuling 18:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Variant Formatting[edit]

Scaletail, could you please weigh in on Variant Formatting discussion? I need a little guidance. Thanks!--Mbear 20:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Hy Scaltail can I use the
This article is within the scope of the Spacecraft WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of DropShips, JumpShips and Warships. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
template, I am not sure is the template in work?--Doneve 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead. I don't think the project is active, but somebody might take up the reigns. --Scaletail 15:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hy, i dont know what the AeroSpace Fighter fall, or must we create a WikiProject AeroSpace section, please help, my brain is in work.--Doneve 20:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
According to the project, it only encompasses DropShips, JumpShips, and WarShips. ASFs could be under Spacecraft's purview, but they are not right now. Perhaps you could start a discussion within the project to get that ball rolling? --Scaletail 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Count Award[edit]

Scaletail, you've made over 4000 edits. I've taken the liberty to update your award board with the appropriate ribbon. Edit Count (4,000) ;) --Peregry 07:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Scaletail 23:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for 2010[edit]

4000 edits is no small feat! You were nominated for Outstanding Member of the Year by several of your colleagues again! You're quality of work is amazing, and you're an incredible part of our community. Thanks! I've awarded you a Founders Award for this year. Nicjansma 05:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder's Honorable Mention Award

Thank you. --Scaletail 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply about Dire Wolf Image[edit]

Thank you for adding the licensing, I'm never quite sure what to put there since I'm unfamiliar with licensing and what not. I've seen that area left blank on other images so I thought it was alright to do so. All I really about the images is it was by one of the battletech artists, Chris Lewis.

I'll make sure to fill out the licensing when I upload images to wiki from now on. ^_^


--Jake, 21:14, 18 February 2011


Hy Scaletail, i see you are online, please block Sidney778658, he added a spam link to external sites, thanks.--Doneve 02:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Plagarism Concern[edit]

Please see Talk:Operation Bulldog. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hy Scaletail, i note the most contributions of (Autor: BattleTech Muse 3056) are always plagarized material, in the major Inner Sphere factions section, i dont want to remove content, but can we found a way to correct this, you know i am not the fluff writer, i hope any can overwrite, correct this missere, thanks--Doneve 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The articles that are noted as being by BattleTech Muse 3056 were on before this site became BattleTechWiki. I think most of the content was copied from 20-Year Update, though there seems to have been some additions. I've been trying to re-write the articles, but I obviously didn't get to all of them. If you'd like, let me know which ones they are and I'll take care of it. --Scaletail 00:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we 'tag' them, if they haven't been already? ClanWolverine101 01:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hy, i give you at first this articles Taurian Concordat, Magistracy of Canopus, i tagt the other plagiarized articles when i back from work, thanks.--Doneve 07:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can tag them. I do try to keep track of that category. --Scaletail 17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, her is the next Outworlds Alliance. --Doneve 17:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Taurian Concordaut Characters, Update[edit]

IT IS DONE!! All rulers, regents, assorted persons and events of significance to the Taurian Concordat (prior to 3060) have been named, paged and referenced! WHEW that took longer that I thought it would but real life jumped up in the way. So SO cool! heh. I am working the Taurian regiment commands and should have them done in a month or tow...looks like most of teh info post-3060 is up so it will just be back fill on those pages.Deeppockets 20:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Fanon Notice[edit]