https://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=67.84.253.26 2026-06-09T11:37:04Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.45.1 https://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chamalla/Archive_1&diff=5267 2005-06-17T15:37:21Z

<p>67.84.253.26: </p> <hr /> <div>The current version reads, &quot;Extracts from Chamalla are used as alternative / herbalistic / heuristic medicines&quot;<br /> <br /> &quot;Heuristic&quot; is a word related to learning and problem solving processes. I think &quot;holsitic&quot; is the term the writer was going for. <br /> <br /> Newbie question: If I see an error like this, should I raise it in a discussion or should I just change it?</div>

67.84.253.26 https://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basestar_(TRS)/Archive_1&diff=5246 2005-06-15T13:36:44Z

<p>67.84.253.26: </p> <hr /> <div>I just registered 5 minutes ago, so be gentle... <br /> Is there any reason why the references to BattleStar's and Raiders are neither capitalized, or links?<br /> <br /> : Hi! Welcome to the Wiki -- I hope you have a blast here! :-) Anyway, to address your question, Battlestar can be spelled one of two ways (&quot;Battlestar&quot; or &quot;battlestar&quot;). (&quot;BattleStar&quot; is an incorrect spelling, by the way.) As for raiders, you can capitalize them or not; it's similar to writing the &quot;stealth fighter&quot; or &quot;naval carrier&quot; -- you can choose whether or not to capitalize the first letters of each word. As for the links, by default the first letter of any article is capitalized. Why? It's just how the software we use works. :-) Hope that answers your question! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 16:54, 14 Jun 2005 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I noticed that Kuralyov had a number of Talk entries regarding basestars. Was he just tweaking the language?</div>

67.84.253.26 https://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cylon_Centurion/Archive_1&diff=5241 2005-06-14T20:07:17Z

<p>67.84.253.26: </p> <hr /> <div>The stub calls the Warrior an &quot;upgrade&quot; of the old chrome toaster. <br /> Given what we have seen of the inside of the BaseStar and Starbuck's Raider, isn't it likely that the Warrior is a product of the semi-organic line of Cylons?<br /> <br /> The Warrior is, at best, the conceptual and functional sucessor to the old Centurion. A similar relationship might be found between the the M-4 Sherman tanke of World War II and the M-1A2 Abrams tank of today. Both machines do the same job, have many analogous features, but the only contributions the Sherman made to the development of the Abrams were its flaws.<br /> <br /> Nick Kuzmik</div>

67.84.253.26 https://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cylon_Centurion/Archive_1&diff=5238 2005-06-14T20:06:51Z

<p>67.84.253.26: </p> <hr /> <div>The stub calls the Warrior an &quot;upgrade&quot; of the old chrome toaster. <br /> Given what we have seen of the inside of the BaseStar and Starbuck's Raider, isn't it likely that the Warrior is a product of the semi-organic line of Cylons?<br /> <br /> The Warrior is, at best, the conceptual and functional sucessor to the old Centurion. A similar relationship might be found between the the M-4 Sherman tanke of World War II and the M-1A2 Abrams tank of today. Both machines do the same job, have many analogous features, but the only contributions the Sherman made to the development of the Abrams were its flaws.</div>

67.84.253.26