User talk:Tetracycloide

Hi there!
Welcome to our Fallout wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.


 * Recent changes is a great first stop, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.


 * If you haven't already, create a user page about yourself! If you do, we'll be able to know you better as a member of our community.


 * Questions? You can ask in the Forum or on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!


 * Need help? The Help page has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit.

I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you!


 * Ausir 17:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The armor page
If you fail to see logic in our arguments, that's a shame, because we do see logic in yours, while still preferring the original layout. Also, it's often good to discuss major changes before you introduce them, not after. And I've had my proposals that I thought (and still think) were the most logical solutions rejected in other wikis before as well, but it didn't stop me from editing these wikis at all - I certainly hope it won't discourage you entirely as well. And if a major change is controversial, I don't see why I shouldn't revert it to a previous version and THEN discuss the proposed changes instead of considering the changed version as the "default" one.

Also, not every wiki is Wikipedia and is run entirely on consensus (and even in Wikipedia it's often not entirely true). Ausir 22:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If a major change is controversial then the new ideas need more protection than old ones, not less. With 0 commenting editors having used the new format for more than a few mintues it's not suprising something new got rejected.  I'm certainly not going to continue wasting my time if that was all it takes to get major contributions removed, much less wait around for an idea to be aproved by some nebulous 'concensus' of users before actually working on it.  Changes have to be seen and used to be understood so reverting them after only an hour or asking for permission first makes little sense.  Tetracycloide 22:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not permission, but certainly putting up new ideas for discussion on a talk page if they involve a major change is advisable. And I don't see why "new ideas need more protection than old ones". And they can try out and use the new format in the previous revision page I linked to in the talk page. Ausir 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't see why then you're merely revealing your own bias. People like things they have seen before.  The old page format has been viewed and used by several users for days, long enough for everyone to get used to it.  The new format was public less than an hour and is now buried in a disscussion page that most article readers will never even see.  If that sounds like an unbiased assement of major changes to you then i don't see any reason in persisting here.  Tetracycloide 05:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, I often love major changes to articles. I don't like this one. And on wikis where I'm not an admin or established user at all, I do propose major changes to important articles on talk pages first. Ausir 08:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I fail to see the logic in your aruguments. 'I like A better than B' is not a logical reason for establishing a page layout in a reference guide.  Making information easier to reference is and the segregated format is by no objective metric easier to reference unless the user is actually interested in the arbitrary genres of apparel the editors have dreamed up.  I've made my own sandbox now, perhaps when i've got the reference format polished or if a few people happen upon my user page and enjoy it i'll bring it up again.  Tetracycloide 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

table
Using a non-existing template makes it show up on Special:WantedTemplates. If left, it'll detract from templates which are really needed. Plus I don't know why you'd want to use a template which doesn't do anything anyway ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 15:14, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't really. I used an excel to wiki table converter and it added that automatically.  I was planning to go through afterward and redo the table formating and headers to match those on the weapons pages and have since done so.  I was just curious about the mechanics of invalid templates after your edit is all.  Tetracycloide 15:17, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Ello there!
what's up?