Editing User talk:Communibus locis

==Welcome==
Welcome aboard! Thanks for adding the info on early BT history. Also, thank you for taking the time to do it properly with the categories and headings.

As a courtesy for other editors, it is a BattleTechWiki guideline to [[Policy:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign]] your [[Policy:Talk page|talk page]] and [[Policy:Talk page#User talk pages|user talk page]] posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~&#126;~~) at the end of your comments and your user name (or IP address, if you are editing anonymously) and the date will be automatically added along with a [[Help:timestamp|timestamp]]. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info see [[Policy:Talk page|the talk page guidelines]]. Thank you.



--[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 20:24, 7 January 2008 (CST)

== Great job! ==

I really appreciate how you've vastly improved BTW's offerings this month. Even the small events deserve articles and you've increased the value of the project accordingly. Thanks, too, for referencing the origin of the articles. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:18, 27 January 2008 (CST)

: Just love BattleTech and decided to start from the top and work my way down.  It's been fun!  [[User:Communibus locis|Locis]] 07:50, 28 January 2008 (CST)

::I'd like to second Revanche here, you are doing a sterling job (still, after almost a year!). Thank you for the amount and quality of your edits, and keep up the good work! [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 14:21, 1 December 2008 (PST)
:::Thank you for the kind words.  I took a little time off there but I'm back and more addicted then ever!  Sorry I've been letting the timeline lapse a bit but I'm picking up on the [[Korvin Doctrine]] soon.  I just got the Blake documents and the [[Blaine Lee Pardoe]] book on the Wolverines so I'm a little preoccupied with that.  I revise my earlier statements, [[Clan Wolverine]] is my favorite ANNIHILATED clan ;) ...lol. [[User:Communibus locis|Locis]] 16:12, 1 December 2008 (PST)
:::p.s.  Congrats on making admin!  [[User:Communibus locis|Locis]] 16:14, 1 December 2008 (PST)

== New Source Book ==

[http://www.sarna.net/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/152845/an/0/page/0/gonew/1#UNREAD Catalyst Game Labs Releases Strategic Operation In PDF Format For the Holidays]

:* [http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2166 Strategic Operations, The Hard Cover Book]
:* [http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2164 Strategic Operations, The PDF]
:* [http://www.battlecorps.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2165 Strategic Operations, Book & PDF Combo]

== Ruler articles ==

Locis, per the discussion on [[Policy_Talk:Notability#Sub-Par_Character_Articles_Be_Flagged_for_Review.2FDeletion|Policy talk:Notability]], articles that are created with insufficient information are subject to deletion. Given your history of good edits and substantial contributions, I really hate to do this, but the mass of articles you've created on various Inner Sphere rulers are subject to this. I do not want to delete them, so please make an effort to go back through them and write something substantive about those characters.

Please note that the policy has not been fully fleshed out, so I will not be deleting them at this time. I just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that community consensus is currently against very short articles. An example of another effective way to do what you have done with these articles is at [[Federated Suns#Rulers]]. Thank you. --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:12, 16 December 2008 (PST)
:I apologize.  Here are my rational:
::*Tired of red links for everything
::*Seeding of Rulers might encourage others to expand
::*Just first pass at writing articles, intended to come back and flesh out as I get ambitious
::*Putting in Positions and dates isn't all ''that'' easy; 25% or so take research for the dates and titles
::*I felt that the positions tables provided value based on the linking backwards and forwards to other articles
::*I did not read completely the Projects Biography section
::*I will remove myself from that project at this time
:Regardless, take what steps are necessary to keep the Wiki clean.  I will refrain from here on out (Marik, Periphery and minor Hegemony are left).  Again, I apologize.  [[User:Communibus locis|Locis]] 17:32, 16 December 2008 (PST)

:I'll chime in in defense of Locis here. The articles he started are not, imho, about minor characters, but stub articles about significant characters. And as stubs, they are not violating the policy. My opinion anyways. What I'm trying to say is that Locis' work does not damage, dilute or spam the wiki and that is what the policy is really trying to adress. So no problem here, as far as I can see. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 00:21, 17 December 2008 (PST)

::Don't remove yourself from the project. That is not the point I was trying to make. I understand what you're doing, and I can appreciate it. If I am being overzealous in enforcing this, then I apologize, but new character articles being created without references is the one, specific case that everybody who commented (including you, Frabby) agreed to.
::I can see your point that these are articles on characters that are obviously and certainly in source material, and I specifically stated that I would not delete them. I don't want to be the bad guy, and I don't want to imply that your contributions are not worthwhile, Locis, because they are. I'm just concerned about it, especially as 'drive-by article creation' was the specific concern that Revanche had in developing the policy.
::I want to be clear here that I am not asking you to stop. I would love to see you write more! --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:20, 17 December 2008 (PST)

== Welcome back ==

I apologize for having offended you. You are a good, solid editor and I don't want anything that I say to drive you away. 

I started editing on Wikipedia, where not everything in existence needs to be mentioned and there is a certain criteria for what is "notable" and, therefore, suitable for inclusion. It is the pillar that every bit of information on WP is supported by and is something I am rather fond of. 

You disagree. That's fine. My view is in the minority here, and I understand that. I think it leads to unnecessarily unwieldy articles that end up being so busy that the vital information is buried under an avalanche of trivia, and I feel it's my duty to point that out. You are free to weigh in on discussions and argue against that. When you don't, it is assumed that you agree with whatever decision is made. 

As an example, I don't agree with our notability policy. I was writing on the other side and I bowed to the consensus of ''every other editor'' who weighed in on that discussion, but my voice was heard. I don't know if you follow policy discussions, but I think if you do, you will notice that I am almost always the first to try to come up with a compromise. The problem is that I don't know (nor does anybody else) if somebody disagrees if that editor does not speak up. 

You obviously care a lot about BTW. So do I. Just because we have different visions of how it should look does not meant that we both don't want the same thing: BTW to be greater than it is now.

The fact of the matter, though, is that we do have policies. As an admin, I expect all editors to respect those policies, including the one against [[Policy:No personal attacks|personal attacks]]. I am sorry if you take my comments personally, but they are not meant that way.

Unfortunately, we do not have enough policies, for which I will shoulder the blame along with my fellow admins. The simple fact of the matter is that we often realize we need policies when we come up against a situation that we realize is not right, but is not covered under current policies. This sometimes means moving, paring down, or outright removing content. Since we encourage our editors to [[Policy:Be bold|be bold]], it is a problem that I think we expect to occur (at least I do). Wikis are collaborative efforts, but the amount of editors on BTW means that this text is often the product of one editor. Discussion of policies that would remove content should not be viewed as an attack on that editor. It is not your fault that we are creating policies as we go. It is ours. I'm sorry if that makes you upset, but it is the way we are currently working.

FYI, you can e-mail any editor from BTW. Go to their user page, then scroll down to "Toolbox" on the bottom left of the sidebar. There is a link there that reads "E-mail this user". --[[User:Scaletail|Scaletail]] 17:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

== Western Alliance ==

Excellent! I really thought there would be only a 10% chance we had a stub article on this, when a question came up in my reading of ''[[TechManual]]''. Surprisingly thrilled, when I came across the article you gave such a good start. Good job, and thanks!--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 03:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

== Toyama ==

Hey there : Just to let you know, I proposed that being the Chief Admin for the Dieron HPG didn't deserve its own "succession" box. If you'd care to discuss it further, please see Conrad Toyama's talk page. I'll wait a week from now to pull it. Thanks! [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]]