User talk:Mbear

Something you want to say? Just let me know!

Archived

• User_talk:Mbear/archived
• User_talk:Mbear/archive2010
• User_talk:Mbear/archive2011
• User_talk:Mbear/archive2012

Cruise Missile 120

'nuff said. Consider yourself flogged and thoroughly publicly humiliated. :)

On a more serious note, I am somewhat disappointed with myself over the "apocryphal" tags on the Objective Raids, Luthien, and 1st Ed. Periphery sourcebooks. I did notice them being added and knew it was wrong, but then it somehow dropped off my radar. Fixed now. Frabby (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2013 (PST)

It may be because you and I had a conversation over how the wording in the apocryphal template doesn't match the intent you had for it, after I argued that the wording on the apocryphal content template matched what Herb had said about the three books. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2013 (PST)

Bing! That was it! Thanks for the reminder, I'll add it to my to-do list. Frabby (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2013 (PST)

No problem. I am publicly humiliated. I guess that'll teach me to try to use logic and real world systems to try to fill in the gaps in a weapon system's history. ;) --Mbear^(talk) 04:37, 7 January 2013 (PST)

Oh, and while I'm at it, what a way to start the week. Having someone tell you your work is complete crap is a great way to suck the wind out of your sails.--Mbear^(talk) 05:12, 7 January 2013 (PST)

Don't let it eat at you - Paul may have told you off, but when a bollocking's done, it's done. Mistakes are bound to happen here; there are only, what, half a dozen of us regularly editing? And from what I've seen, we're all running around with our collective hair on fire trying to get information uploaded, rather than busily checking each other's homework. You do good work - don't let this get to you, ok? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (PST)

I'm also sure Mbear wasn't offended. (Then again, I wasn't at the receiving end of all that... constructive criticism. Mbear certainly showed exemplary handling of the situation.) Just for the sake of clarity, I think Paul wasn't condescending at all - he just pointed out mistakes in a very matter-of-fact way and even said he likes and still uses Sarna. I regard the whole issue as something of a tongue-in-cheek PR show for Sarna. See the bright side: Sarna got off much better than in previous threads complaining about article quality. We're definitely improving. :) Although I certainly felt the sting myself of having failed to correct/remove the apocryphal tags on those three sourcebook articles. The overall lesson here is that quality is waaay more important than quantity if Sarna wants to be taken seriously - not something we didn't already know, of course. Frabby (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2013 (PST)

It wasn't too bad until some other folks started to jump in and rip me a new one. That was irritating. But when all's said and done I screwed up and then fixed it. So it's done now.--Mbear^(talk) 04:20, 8 January 2013 (PST)

Planet InfoBox

Mbear, as the resident expert on infobox construction, is there any way to amend the Template:InfoBoxPlanetStandard template so that if the image is already less than 225 pixels in width, it isn't increased automatically to a width of 225 pixels? Some of the info boxes (like Denbar) are suffering from image bloat because the long, think planetary flags are being scaled up dramatically... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2013 (PST)

I don't know off the top of my head. Let me look into it.--Mbear^(talk) 04:17, 10 January 2013 (PST)

Updated the InfoboxPlanetStandard to include a new paramater: imagewidth. If you have an image less than 225px, you can enter the width in pixels on this line to show image w/o scaling. Leaving line blank will assume width of 225px.--Mbear^(talk) 04:30, 10 January 2013 (PST)

That's great, I'll go back and revise the entries with issues now. Thank you kindly - please accept this Assistance Appreciated award as thanks: BrokenMnemonic (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2013 (PST)

Rewritten: 4th Skye Rangers

For your approval, I give you the 4th Skye Rangers. You've understandably questioned my use of the "Update Needed" tags in the past. I'm hoping this will show you how I intend to use them. (Not that I intend to rewrite all those articles - just saying I want to write more than a footnote. :P ) ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2013 (PST)

Looks good! My question about your use of Update Needed was motivated by their use for things like TRO:3058 on pages like the 4th Skye Rangers. A couple of those TROs mentioned the unit in one sentence. It just struck me as odd that you'd put that update needed tag in place instead of just making the update. But from what I see here, it makes a lot of sense.--Mbear^(talk) 03:08, 22 January 2013 (PST)