Editing User talk:LaVacaMorada

Welcome to this wiki! Dwarf Fortress rapidly becomes more complicated, and we're always glad to have new writers.<br>
Since you should try to follow wiki standards, and you probably don't know ours yet, we've made a list of basic guidelines. Note that this is a template, not a customized message for you.
* To tell us who you are when you talk, please sign your posts on discussion pages by typing <code><nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki></code> after your posts. This can also be inserted with the [[Image:Button sig756222.png]] button if JavaScript is enabled.
* Don't put a question mark in the title of a page. Question marks mess things up, and your page will be moved to a different name.
* When making comments on a talk page, use one more colon before each line in your comment than was used in the comment you reply to. In general, put exactly one empty line between comments by different users but do not use blank lines inside of a comment.
* Avoid making many small edits to a page. Instead, try to make one large edit. This makes the history of the page a lot easier to read.
* Don't edit the user page of another user. If you want to tell them something, add the comment to their talk page.
* If you put a comment at the bottom of a talk page with section headers, you've probably put it in a section. Putting things in the wrong sections is confusing. You can create a section!
* Generally, [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Community_Portal#We_are_doing_this.21_Let_us_do_it_right.|read and follow the rules.]] They're like a little constitution, except not boring! Really, read them.
<div align=center><div style="width: 28em; padding: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-top: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #ccc; background: #eee; text-align: center">''"You have been processed! Go forth, now, and edit!" --[[User:Savok|Savok]]''</div></div>
--[[User:Briess|Briess]] 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

== [[Exploratory mining]] ==

 I'm a bit confused as to what you mean by labor vs. net effect... 
How about the definition in the article? [[Exploratory_mining#Labor]] --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 07:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
:Which one?  I see two of them:
:*"Labor is the amount of work that goes into the digging process."
:*"The labor factor is the fraction of stone dug out of an area, and as such, it's a percentage, between 0 and 100%."
:These definitions don't agree with each other.  Under the first definition, digging a tunnel, digging a channel, carving a ramp, and carving a stairway should all count as the same amount of labor, since they take a miner the same amount of time.  Under the second, a channel or ramp counts for twice as much as a tunnel or stairway.  Are we concerned with the amount of time it takes to mine, or the amount of stone produced?  --[[User:LaVacaMorada|LaVacaMorada]] 11:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::Ah - the second can be read two different ways, and now that you point it out it is not airtight phrasing.  It should be read in light of the first, which is "...''the fraction of tiles required to be designated for digging''...", not "...''the fraction of tiles that are removed by digging''...", the difference only being relevant in ramps (or cave-ins).  Without your ramp example, they are one and the same.  Will edit.  (However, do you really not grok that this is the only relevant meaning of the word "labor" in this context?  That to be consistent with every other "Labor: %" value in this article, this ''has'' to be the only meaning possible?) --[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 18:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Obviously I understand that it has to be some kind of ratio based on the amount of mining done per unit area.  However, both "percentage of tiles designated" and "percentage of tiles removed" were consistent with all of the values in the articles until I added in the example involving ramps.  I initially assumed that it meant "percentage of tiles designated", but then you edited the example using "percentage of tiles removed" as the criterion, which is what confused me. --[[User:LaVacaMorada|LaVacaMorada]] 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Um... no, actually, not so much. The edit comment I made was " ''It's about "labor", not "net effect"'' " - your response was "''Ordinarily, I would expect labor to refer to the number of mining jobs necessary to dig out a particular area..''." - which is what we just agreed upon, and where I started, but not what your original edit implied with the "7%" tangent. I think the rest was you projecting something more into my edit. But I think it's all good now?  Interesting pattern, btw - is it yours? (Hard to stitch together.)--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::You edited it to say 14.2%, or one in seven tiles, which is the "percentage of tiles removed" by one up-ramp and one down-ramp in every 14 tiles.  If we're going with "percentage of tiles designated", it should be changed back to 7.14% or one in fourteen, for one up-ramp every 14 tiles with the down-ramps being free.  I did come up with this pattern, although I was heavily inspired by other stuff on this wiki.  --[[User:LaVacaMorada|LaVacaMorada]] 21:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::...um, that's because I'm an idiot. I counted up, from one "up-ramp" to the next, 7 tiles - I didn't notice that they are not repeated every column, but every ''other'' column, and that they are 14 tiles apart in rows.  I noted the 1-offset in the pattern vertically, but the pattern as shown is not large enough to show that the pattern repeated horizontally only over a larger distance (which I missed).  So your "1/7" comment was the bait that I bit on, and the rest we were agreeing on the whole time. Edited (back) to reflect that. Make sure it looks right now [[Exploratory_mining#Diagonal_ramps]].  ''(D'OH!)''--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 22:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The diagram is correct, but the part about losing stone permanently isn't (the stone falls down to the up ramp - you should see 2 stones if you look there, provided you don't lose either one to an unskilled miner).  Changing that part back.  --[[User:LaVacaMorada|LaVacaMorada]] 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


== Spam ==


The point is, it serve no purpose. At all. I certainly hope you don't respond to mail spam. --[[User:Karl|Karl]] 14:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
:I don't think you understand.  The purpose is to have a good laugh at the spammers' expense.  The whole point is that the spammers aren't people, so I thought that I could make fun of them without offending anyone.  Apparently, I was wrong.  --[[User:LaVacaMorada|LaVacaMorada]] 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)