User talk:Zeta1127,89thLegion

Hello StarCraft Wiki Community!
Hello everyone, you may have seen me around fiddling with stuff. I think today is a good day to say hello and so here I am. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:43, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Lurker, Medic, Dark archon
Well, Mr. Zeta1127,89thLegion (you don't mind if I just call you "ZetaLegion", don't you?), the Lurker, Medic and Dark archon will be added in Heart of the Swarm, as well as the "Devour"(as they know call it, thought they may change it into the "Devourer), something like a valkyrie and another unit for the protoss. So, don't be irritated for too long! -- Andra2404 !WARNING! Badge collector !WARNING! 12:03, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Zeta, Zeta1127, or ZetaLegion will do just fine. I hope so, because the Zerg are in a bad place right now from what I have heard. Overlap like what has happened with the Firebat/Hellion and Lurker/Baneling/Roach (the latter isn't really much of an overlap if one thinks about it) is often unavoidable. There is no lore reason, other than Ulrezaj being the last Dark Archon, for the loss of the Dark Archon, because they need it now more than ever. Now if only I could just get Wings of Liberty and a slightly better computer, I could give a better opinion on the matter. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 17:09, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in HotS, Zerg get lurker & devourer (currently called "devour", which will be anti-air units), the Terran get medic & a valkyrie-like anti-air unit which will "complete a terran player's banshee army", and the Protoss get dark archon, as "the protoss had to few spellcasters", and another unit. read it all here!--[[Image:Andra2404_sig.JPG|30px|link=User:Andra2404]] Andra2404 !WARNING! Badge collector !WARNING! 17:16, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now they see the holes in the Zerg tech tree? I would have seen them from day one if I had been keeping track of WoL development as it was happening. I would wait for Medivacs to be majorly aggressive too or do the old original StarCraft mass marines routine. Not much to say on the return of the Dark Archon, other than it is needed. Now I must say that almost could have been pulled from a Brood War preview. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 17:29, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * And so it was an April Fool's joke, would really be nice if it was true. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 17:39, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a joke? LOL, and I believed it all..... --[[Image:Andra2404_sig.JPG|30px|link=User:Andra2404]] Andra2404 !WARNING! Badge collector !WARNING! 18:42, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * The date is something to watch very closely. I immediately got a feeling of déjà vu by reading that, and I didn't even read the responses and date until later. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 19:24, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Queen
Hey, Zeta. As far as the queen's disambiguation box thing goes, couldn't we use the "new one" and just uncheck the lore option? I saw a Queen entry on the search drop-down menu, so I thought a lore article existed, but even without it, all the other SC I & II mirrored units seem to take the new box. -- Techpriest88 21:58, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not using the lore option may be a good idea, but the two versions are vastly different. The way it has been has worked so far. Are we planning on having separate pages for each unit for lore and gameplay for every game? I noticed many lore and gameplay pages have been split recently. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:15, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is my understanding. It is on the to-do list, after all. Despite their differences, the new way works as well as anything, with the added benefit of looking pretty. (In my opinion, of course.) -- Techpriest88 22:22, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I can do things like make a Terran building upgrades category and all of the pages in it, but this kind off stuff I prefer it if others deal with. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:09, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Unusual Problem
An internet search box keeps replacing the content when I try to edit pages on wikis with the rich text editor. What should I do, fortunately I am not having this problem here. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 15:24, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this happening when you're typing in on-site links? If so, that can be disabled in your preferences under the "editing" tab. Otherwise, if it's giving you wierd off-site searches, you might want to scan your compy for adware, as that sounds like something it might cause. -- Techpriest88 20:51, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * This search bar keeps showing up,, I wouldn't be surprised if the darn thing was adware. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 20:55, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly sounds like it. -- Techpriest88 20:58, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've never seen this problem before, but I turned off the Rick Text Editor for my computer. Actually, I thought it was now turned off by default on this wiki. I hope the upcoming changes later this month don't impose it. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 22:33, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope the new skin doesn't happen, because so many people don't like it, me included. I turned of Rich Text Editor. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:17, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had to switch to the new look, Monaco is messed up for me, and I am not very happy. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:14, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Same here. So it's not coincidence. Lame! I'm going to switch back to the old look again and see if that fixes things. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:34, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * As soon as you figure this mess out, tell me. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:48, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Switching didn't work. According to the Wikia staff blog, something happened to strip out the CSS ... insert technobabble here. In short, it's screwed up. Apparently they're trying to fix it. I'm currently "enjoying" the new look. I see why they're getting rid of the sidebar; while I like it, it's incompatible with the new skin. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:54, October 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree, the new topbar is a good idea, and the userpages are a mess. It is a little too much. I am probably familiar with that technobabble, I have some web design under my belt, I am familiar with CSS. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 00:02, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem has returned, CSS is being stripped again. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:27, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * They talk about it here, specifically "Hi all - Monaco is currently experiencing some issues in which CSS is being stripped, which causes the pages to look broken. We're working on resolving this issue ASAP and Monaco will not remain looking like this - don't worry. Please also note that the blog is not the place to report these types of issues, if you're seeing something that looks broken the best thing to do is report it at Special:Contact or in the public IRC channel." PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:19, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does the new look have horizontal margins, it scarcely takes up half of the screen on a wide-screen monitor? I don't have a clue were too post such a comment. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:15, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * They fixed the width, so at least template boxes won't get smushed on some screens, but assumed everyone has tiny monitors. I hear they widened it, so now those with tiny monitors will have to use scrollbars.


 * We can talk about that here, although we have no real power to change things. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 22:54, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * If only they weren't forcing this new look on us, I could probably live with it. I don't have a wide-screen monitor, I just happen to have them at school and went there during the Monaco problems. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:57, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Kunsip Makto
Can't you just blocked him and deny his right to edit the talk page?--El_Nazgir 18:49, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, will do, though he is probably going to end up banned. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 20:44, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the situation with him? I've just noticed him adding a bunch of (totally useless) "StarCraft 2 only" categories to everything. I take it he's being more troublesome still? -- Techpriest88 21:18, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * He added those categories as you saw, I reverted few, then told him to stop adding it and gave him reason why on his talk page. Then he continued to add it and said something on his talk page without signing. I continued to revert them and then Hawki and PSH berated him on his talk page and he started getting nasty and deleting what we wrote. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 21:30, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * So the new guy thinks he owns the place... I hope the ban falls swiftly. -- Techpriest88 23:03, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the number of times he deleted warnings, he should be banned already. So I'll do that now. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:04, October 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was fully expecting that, between continuing to add the category after I gave him an explanation, the warnings, and the insults, this is the right thing to do. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:09, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Hyperion's Lab Upgrade Templates
I am trying to edit the templates PSH just made, but it isn't working. My changes aren't showing on the articles. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 00:09, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

It's the job queue. Sometimes changes just don't show up immediately; it has to do with coding speed and some other computer stuff. For instance, I just editing MediaWiki.css to bold level 4 and 5 headings, but that's not visible to me yet. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 00:50, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Perdition turret
Firstly, I know that's not how you reference. I'm not saying I'm right to do it that way; I was being lazy. However, that doesn't mean you should just revert it. I will try to reference in the future, however. Secondly, my evidence is not that you can walk over it. Read the talk page; play the levels. You cannot see the turrets until they start shooting you. Engine of Destruction is, in particular, a good example as they show up very early on.--RandomguY 06:33, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't test any of this and besides you didn't edit the supply depot page to reflect that so please leave it alone until someone else can confirm it. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:36, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know this isn't hard evidence, but see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDjJvtu2vtw&feature=watch_response_rev .Skip to approximately 12:25. I know the video doesn't explicitly say it's a Perdition turret, but it's clearly what it is by look and effect.--RandomguY 06:44, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * That actually hurts your case, the turrets didn't appear to be in the Raider infantry's line of sight and range until they deployed. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 07:02, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * The marines are right next to the turrets, laterally, and they were all visible. Additionally, they were all in firing range (proven: 12:28; even if you don't catch the marine firing one shot, they were in Tychus's range, and the marines were right behind him), so it's impossible for them to just be visible, and have the turrets out of line-of-sight due a potential slightly greater distance. Apart from that, you can't use the range argument because marines don't actually outrange turrets.--RandomguY 23:17, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Marines and Tychus both have 5 range, Perdition turrets only have 4 range, so I can use the range argument. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:40, November 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Darn, I misread. Still, it's unlikely that you can shoot it but you can't see it until it pops up, as it would be the only unit in the game, and as I said the turrets are clearly in visual range. Certainly, if Perdition turrets do have 4 range, and for some reason I remember them as having 5, I doubt that Tychus will walk into them and be shot. AI units don't do that.--RandomguY 06:09, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, they have 4 range. Ignore the relevant clause in that sentence, please.-RandomguY 06:32, November 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's the verdict? Wait for confirmation, continue discussion, scrap the whole thing, or make the changes?--RandomguY 04:54, November 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I tested this out. I built a Perdition turret under a mutalisk in Haven's Fall and it didn't attack it. It is also confirmed by the fact that Glaive wurms don't bounce on burrowed turrets (I tested that out too).Wil1 23:11, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki Vandal Blocked
Three years ago, the StarCraft Wiki and others were attacked by a cross-wiki vandal and spammer. He attempted to evade blocks by using multiple accounts. Since the vandalization was a "slow trickle", usually each account would only be blocked for a few months, so he'd rotate, but eventually he couldn't control himself and got all his accounts blocked, at which point he started harassing various users at other wikis. Eventually Wikia took the unusual step of subjecting him to a regex block (which means blocked across all wikis).

And of course he keeps trying to come back using various accounts. I just blocked one. It probably looks excessive given that particular account's history, but it's taking into account previous actions as well.

I miss the old social tools. We could have talked about this via PM instead. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 14:58, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'll check all those edits of his. Sorry I haven't been around lately; work just got horribly busy again. (I had to start at 8 AM, and a project due at noon wasn't finished by day's end too.)

Incidentally, if you have to block someone, that tool is in your "my tools" section. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) contribs) 23:46, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I have been checking the pages I follow, but I wanted a second opinion before I go doing something like that. I know that busy feeling, I only got done with my finals less than a week ago. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:21, December 21, 2010 (UTC)