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)

Jeremy Brett - Thanks

Scale - Thanks for your cleanup and pic of my Jeremy Brett article. Have a ClanWolverine101 15:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

For your approval

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

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

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

Spam-bot Crushing

Scale - GW on deleting those frivolous accounts and spam-messages. ClanWolverine101 03:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look to this discussion

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

quality of writing

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

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

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

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)