Difference between revisions of "User talk:Neufeld"
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Hi Neufeld, hope things are well for you. I had question, since you've been updating or sprucing up the Duel Cockpit. Are you planning to do the [[Command Console]] article too? [[Tactical Operations]] has it in the book as Cockpit Command Console. I'm not up on the old rules, so i'm not sure if the older Command Console rules are similar. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | Hi Neufeld, hope things are well for you. I had question, since you've been updating or sprucing up the Duel Cockpit. Are you planning to do the [[Command Console]] article too? [[Tactical Operations]] has it in the book as Cockpit Command Console. I'm not up on the old rules, so i'm not sure if the older Command Console rules are similar. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
: I'm right now mostly focusing on how to represent rules, and not the details. (see [[Policy Talk:Canon]]) So, I haven't planned visiting that article right now. Might do some research into later. Haven't got access to older rules. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | : I'm right now mostly focusing on how to represent rules, and not the details. (see [[Policy Talk:Canon]]) So, I haven't planned visiting that article right now. Might do some research into later. Haven't got access to older rules. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 19:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | :: I took a look at the Command Console, and added what I found in TO. Some rules was a bit different to what was in the article, so I marked those sections as OLD:. I'm now finished with that article, until we make some decision on how to represent rules. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:04, 24 March 2010
Welcome
Year pages
Neufeld, can you please hold off on making the changes to those articles. The single division addition you made doesn't match what appears to be where consenus is heading and it will all be undone. Plus, since the policy hasn't even been written yet (since it hasn't been agreed to either), some people are thinking that what you are doing is the final form. I appreciate the drive you're showing, but let us firm up what the page will look like. I'll then write 9hopefully) easy instructions on how to use the code you're experimenting with. It'll be at least seven days from final consensus, but then you'll be free for take off once the policy is released (which will make the main page). Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. --Neufeld 18:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Canon policy
Thank you all your efforts to add info from TRO:3050U to the 'Mech articles. While I appreciate your zeal in adding missing Battle Values to these 'Mechs, information from non-canon sources must be very clearly separate from information from canon sources to reflect the authority that the latter have. I, too, would like to see that information available, but Solaris Skunkworks is not a canon source and so cannot be used for this purpose. Please read Policy:Canon for more information. --Scaletail 23:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
All Purpose Award
I know it may seem to be a 'I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine' kinda deal at first look (since you gave me an AP today), I do sincerely feel appreciative for your highlighting of numerous 'articles' that needed killin', err, deleting. For getting into the guts of BTW to weed out the chaff, I present you with the All Purpose ribbon:
Thanks for the assistance, Neufeld. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Neufeld 05:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Command Console
Hi Neufeld, hope things are well for you. I had question, since you've been updating or sprucing up the Duel Cockpit. Are you planning to do the Command Console article too? Tactical Operations has it in the book as Cockpit Command Console. I'm not up on the old rules, so i'm not sure if the older Command Console rules are similar. -- Wrangler 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm right now mostly focusing on how to represent rules, and not the details. (see Policy Talk:Canon) So, I haven't planned visiting that article right now. Might do some research into later. Haven't got access to older rules. --Neufeld 19:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- I took a look at the Command Console, and added what I found in TO. Some rules was a bit different to what was in the article, so I marked those sections as OLD:. I'm now finished with that article, until we make some decision on how to represent rules. --Neufeld 21:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)