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

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)