User talk:Mbear/archive2010

Citing BV & template[edit]

Policy_Talk:Canon#Citing_BV: looks like your idea has sparked support. Can you pls respond? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hy Mbear i post a little link *Master Unit List.pdf, i hope it is helpfull.--Doneve 20:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Mortiorum work[edit]

Hi Mbear, other day scrambled to put up a Mortiorum volation notice on the Arbiter article. I do not normally do that sort of thing so i wasn't sure what to do. How do you temporary, block text like it is now? Its not blanking, but i'm not sure how to do it or how to put correct template on there note that someone violated the Mort. -- Wrangler 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To hide the information from view, the editor put standard HTML comment tags around the content they wanted to blank out. These tags tell the web browser to ignore anything between them.
To start an HTML comment, hit the edit page and then place <!-- before the stuff you want to disappear. To close the HTML comment (stop hiding stuff) use the --> tag. Here's a sample (hit the section edit link to see how it works):
I'm not sure if hiding the text is the correct procedure, or if I should delete the page. I'll have to check with the other admins.--Mbear 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I just re-read the Policy:Moratorium and it says that commenting out is the correct procedure. There's also some info there.--Mbear 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Update needed Tags[edit]

Mbear - Question : I appreciate the amount of work you've put in going through all those commands. But isn't this a bit excessive? Some of the articles now have more than five tags. ClanWolverine101 13:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is excessive. Many of these commands just sat there with a stub tag for ages. By adding the relevant update needed tags, I hope that editors can see each relevant reference book. This will give them a head start on updating the article.--Mbear 15:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tikonov Republican Guards[edit]

Hi Mbear. Why did you change the name of the Republican regiments? Most of the source books have them listed as (no.) Republicans, not Tikonov Republican Guards. Thats going be bit confusing for alot of folks. I know name not terribly popular but changing them going be rather confusing for people in long run. -- Wrangler 10:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed them because
  1. the FCCW book called them the Tikonov Republican Guards.
  2. the Rim Worlds Republic's units were also called Republicans.
If you want to change them back, feel free. I've no objection.--Mbear 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mbear. Sorry sound like jerk about it. The Brigade is called Tikonov Republican Guards, and that correct. The individual Regiments are just called, 1st Republican, 2nd Republican, & 3rd Republican. Without the guard name in them. Thats from FCCW book, p. 183 among other listings in the book. -- Wrangler 12:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm not too proud to admit it. Smiley.gif--Mbear 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a disambig page is maybe needed. :) ClanWolverine101 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion and support, please[edit]

Hi Mbear, I have done a huge rework of the existing articles of the mercs. I splitted larger commands in single regiments. Please read my anwser to Frappy's question on his profil. Let me know what are you thinking about it. I'm not sure which information is needed/prefered by the other commands and which is the best way to show the difference by the force structur of each faction. For example: the CCAF attached a independ command company to each regiment and the dcms have a other structure... please help me... Neuling 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Please[edit]

Hey, I have a huge project on the run and need support/ideas for the best solution. The 1st Aragon Borders is a example for future work. My idea is do rework all units an bring them to one level with the same structure. I have done the same to the mercs lately. Only a few units are left, but this is only temporary. Please view it an give my a response. Any support is welcome... Neuling 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarna News[edit]

Hy Mbear the moratorium for Record Sheets: 3058 Unabridged (Clan & Star League) and Record Sheets: 3058 Unabridged (Inner Sphere) is done, please can you post this in the Latest Newsburst, thanks.--Doneve 02:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Hi Mbear, I've caught a vandal. You may want to bar User:Lemur from being here. They attacked the Essay: Combat DropShips 101‎. Seems like these vandals are going for anything with Essay lately. -- Wrangler 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Record Sheets: 3085 Print Edition[edit]

Hi Mbear, the new article which highlights the moratorium expiring on September 29th. I wasn't aware they gaven out a published/dead tree actual street date for the book. Isn't it suppose to expire after it hits the street not when the PDF comes out? -- Wrangler 13:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. My mistake. I thought it was a PDF only release. I'll fix it.--Mbear 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hy Mbear, why dont you use your first uploaded RS3085 image it has a better quality.--Doneve 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I used the lower quality one because it's smaller and I don't know how to shrink images in the infoboxes.--Mbear 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, i fix it, when it is ok ;).--Doneve 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Go for it.--Mbear 18:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Done.--Doneve 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox problems[edit]

Hi Mbear, i've been working on bring up the quality of the planet articles. I've been finding some articles are having its text displaced by something in the article. Example: Ozawa‎. I some how "fixed" one of them, something i did in new York (Clan planet) article i added. Is there anything in your abilities, see what causing the text to be displaced. I'd ask Rev, but he doesn't seem to be around lately and i'm not sure who to goto. -- Wrangler 18:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So the display of Ozawa is incorrect and York is correct?--Mbear 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you'll note when you goto the Ozawa page, there huge gap on top of the page. I'm trying to get rid of those gaps. I have no coding abilities, so i'm not sure what causing it displace. I know only one thing thou, the Infobox has something to do with it. When its removed, it stops happening. I'm not sure if its the size or where it is. Doneve, been adding pictures and info to some of the pages, and its getting thrown off. I'm not certain what really causing it. -- Wrangler 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Using Ozawa as an example, I can see two possible causes for the problem you're seeing.
  1. The infobox isn't the first thing on the page and it should be.
  2. The images that are in the article are messing up the layout.
I've tried moving the infobox to the top of the page so it's the first thing the web browser sees and it helped a little. What do you think?--Mbear 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Slight improvement, but infobox is still displacing the text. Man, looks like we need a coder remedy this. Why does this happen? Half of the articles we have who do have the info boxes don't have this displacement. *sigh* -- Wrangler 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Electronic Book category question[edit]

Hi MBear, i have question. I just created the Electronic Book category for Sarna. Is there away to create a short-cut category name for it? I was thinking having E-Book alias/re-direct for the category. However, my limited knowledge of wiki-code keeps me wanting to mess up the place trying test to see if redirect of category was possible. -- Wrangler 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. A link to a category can be treated like any other link by placing a single colon after the two opening braces. For your ebook category redirect, you would do this:

#REDIRECT [[:Category:Electronic Book]]

You can also put links to categories in a regular page. See the Sword article's "complete list of hatchet and sword using BattleMechs" for an example.--Mbear 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Equipment + Ammunition[edit]

Hi Mbear,

I read lately TacOps and find out there are many types of ammunition not descript on the section, what do you think is it help to create an overview for example all autocannon ammunition types or the lrm missile types. Tnx Neuling 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That's already underway. Category:Alternate Ammunition is missile-related and Category:Special Munitions is for autocannon.--Mbear 19:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Unit Structures[edit]

Hi,

its me again, I can't decide which way is the best to reflect the induvial faction difference for the forces, for example all CCAF mechforces at regiment level have 1 Command Company and the DCMS doesn't employ independent command units? Tnx Neuling 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would bring this up on the BattleTechWiki:Project Military Commands discussion page.--Mbear 19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Organization Structure[edit]

Hy Mbear, I jump in, then I add the gallery's of Neulings Organzation Structures, but i must say, i talk with Neuling every day in the ICQ, you know we are german natives, and nice to see it comes a notice for Neulings edits, he makes a really good work about the newly added Organization structure, he added it and i fix little thinks (gallery, tags, etc), a hand to hand cooperation, you are the first admin to bring a statement to his last work, ähm sorry for my rough englisch ;), but i think you know what i say..., and again sorry for my grammar ...past and tense failurs in the conversation grml. Greetings --Doneve 04:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember both you and Neuling aren't native speakers of English. (And I respect your efforts to learn such a messed-up language!) And I agree, Neuling has made a lot of very nice improvements to the Wiki. If I implied otherwise in my message to him, I'll apologize for that. Neuling's work strikes me as being a "diamond in the rough" as we say over here: A few cuts and trips to the polishing stone and it's great. That's all I meant about the Organization tree images.
If you're working in the gallery I mentioned on the Task Force Serpent page, please realize that my comment wasn't "This sucks, get rid of it" it was "This is a great start, but could be so much better with just a little more effort." It was like seeing someone run a marathon and then deciding to drop out at mile marker 25 instead of finishing the race.--Mbear 14:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Andurien Succession[edit]

Hey Mbear, what is your opinion about my extension of the Andurien Crises. My next project will the Ronin Wars and after that the Anton Marik Revolt. Both Project in two days... :) Neuling 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should change your formatting
  • so it's written in sentences rather than this list format
  • so it doesn't use the "+" sign in the lists, but does use a comma as the separator
  • so it uses the correct referencing system (<ref>''Historical: Brush Wars'', p. 54</ref>)

So instead of this:

Planet
Repulse
MAF Forces
Taskforce Duo (2nd Canopian Light Horse + 2nd Canopian Cuirassiers + 2nd Canopian Fusiliers)
CCAF Forces
Kincade’s Rangers
Outcome
The numbers count for the invaders but the Rangers had some training cycles with the Death Commandos. The used every possible tactic to soften the Canopian forces up. The Rangers went in the underground.
Source
Brush War p. 54

It would read more like this:

On Repulse the Taskforce Duo (consisting of the 2nd Canopian Light Horse, 2nd Canopian Cuirassiers, and 2nd Canopian Fusiliers) faced the CCAF's Kincaid's Rangers. Though outnumbering the Rangers three to one, the Rangers had trained alongside the Death Commandos and used every possible tactic to soften up the invading Canopian forces. They then went underground to continue their resistance.

There's no point in reinventing something that already exists (referencing system), and the lists you're using here are just one step away from a sentence based layout anyway.--Mbear 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

MWDA Dossier Question(s)[edit]

Hi Mbear. Do you recall if there was a Swordsworn data card? I was looking at the dossier you uploaded, notice there wasn't a faction dossier for them, and other forces but the Stormhammers. I could sworn when they came out they did have one...You wouldn't happen know where it could be found? -- Wrangler 11:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't play MWDA, so I don't have the information. Everything I have I pulled from http://www.warrenborn.com/ so if it wasn't there I don't have it. I don't remember having a Swordsworn data card/dossier though. (If you find one and need it split up though, let me know.)--Mbear

MWDA Data Cards[edit]

Howdy again. Question: Has anyone created PDF of the Data cards that WizKids produced? The ones they replaced dossiers with. I remember also their website included info from it. Alot of it ...not really canon. Neverless, since Herb been talking about fast forwarding through the slow part of the Dark Age, it maybe handy for players to have access to those things. -- Wrangler 11:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea. As I said earlier I didn't play MWDA so I'm not really sure what the data cards looked like or where to find them. Sorry!--Mbear 12:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Audurien Succession Question[edit]

Hi Mbear. To answer your question regarding my reparts about how the article (Audurien Succession) was written. I disagree with the format which was written in style of "giving world to world conflict with no content with only generic results". To me thats not Sarna's style, in my opinion. I realize that i may be out line, to me it looks little sloopy. i know i haven't wrote very good gems and i'm grammer challenged. However, I feel the war should be written with more content. As Scaletail has commented, its multi-"war" event. I Believe it needs to be cleaned up in way where it tells the story of the Succession & the War Audriens fought during this time period. Its like its own era. Anyways, the new format comment comes from Neufeld edit. I disagree in way he wrote the conflict, if you would look at what i wrote for the history of the 1st Defenders of Andurien's history section. I feel the article should be written like that, not blow to blow. I did write Operation: Ice Storm, Operation: Sovereign Justice, and Operation: Thunderstrike bit information in blow by blow format. That was only because there wasn't alot source material on it to expand what was going on, i didn't want overwhelm someone with too much info about it. -- Wrangler 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I actually like what you did for Operation: Ice Storm, Operation: Sovereign Justice, and Operation: Thunderstrike. That format is the one I'd like to see as well. I don't think the setup used on the Andurien Secession page is good one at all. This list, though informative, lacks the depth we want here on Sarna. In addition, the "Source" line duplicates the reference tag system that's already in place. I don't want to just delete the work that's there however without talking to other people.--Mbear 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Moratorium[edit]

Hi Mbear, i removed the content of user 204.111.227.240 , he makes a moratorium violation, i hope it is ok. Greetings--Doneve 18:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What page was this on?--Mbear 18:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It was the Nightsky page.--Doneve 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
OK. That's fine. Usually I try to put a link to the Moratorium policy on the page as well, but what you did was fine. If it's a contributor with a user name, you may want to add a note to their talk page as well. You can't do that here though, as it's just an IP address.--Mbear 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Good idea with the link to the moratorium policy.--Doneve 18:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I like to put that link there so the person knows it's not just me being a jerk, but an official policy. Plus I don't have to explain it to them.--Mbear 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Very Very good, thats eliminate some irritaions about the moratorium.--Doneve 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cooperation[edit]

Hi Mbear, I will enjoy our cooperation by the war projects. Which is the best way to get the information from me and what is from your viewpoint the to display a timeline for every major faction? With best regrets Neuling 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Neuling, sorry about the late response. Real life has been busy. At the moment I'm trying to clean out the sources needing updates page. To add the information, I'd make a subpage off your main page and put the information there. When you've added everything, just put a comment on my talk page and I'll get to it.
I think we already have a timeline for each major faction. Star_League/Timeline, Draconis Combine/Timeline, Federated Suns/Timeline, Timeline of the Capellan Confederation. I'd just use those as the format.--Mbear 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

Hi Mbear, i'm not sure who around, but someone uploaded a non-canon imagine. Terran Hegemony Map appears to be a non-canon image but there no label stating it is. DO you know what were suppose to do about this? I've not dealth with a direct png image before. Usually these things have page that gives direction of the image. Someone thought the image uploaded was canon. I'm going ask Rev, but i'm not sure how often he comes around these days. -- Wrangler 02:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just put a non-canon tag on the image page. If we're wrong, we can change it later.--Mbear 11:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Its a direct image, i can't find anything to put a tag on it. -- Wrangler 12:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. What you have to do is put in a link to the image like this: [[Image:2750th.png|Terran Hegemony Map]]. This will include the image on the page. From there, you can click the image and you'll be taken to the image's wiki page. Then you can add the tag you need.
In this case it looks like someone has beaten you to it.--Mbear 17:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it was me. I back tracked it to Neuling, doing it the hardway once i figured out who posted it. I feel hate see someone on CBT boards thinking we have bunch of non-canon stuff up here that no labelled. *sigh*. Thanks for the advice, i'll use it next time i have to try find a rogue imagine. Hadn't tried using a imagine:blah.png. Thanks. -- Wrangler 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Faction list & Deployment[edit]

Hi Mbear, I will create equipment list for each faction but which way is the best without the fear of a delete because someone see this as plagarism attemp. Your thoughts are welcome. And can you explain me way by all equipment of vehicles mechs and so on no deployment sup exits... Neuling 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Neuling, before you start you should check out the BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs page and see some of the discussions there. (The Faction Categories and Faction Categories Redux are the two that are most relevant.)
To answer your question about why no such list exists, I think it's because the Categories serve the same purpose.--Mbear 17:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism again[edit]

Hi Mbear, sorry cry on your shoulder. I had some spambot User:70.39.93.16 attack the New Avalon Institute of Science. Can you ban this thing please? I'm still not able to do that. -- Wrangler 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Done!--Mbear 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick Strike Rules[edit]

Hi Mbear. Since were getting a bunch of products for the Quick-Strike Rules, i think we may need have a article dedicate it. Unit Cards are for use of the new version of Battleforce, but their intended for Quick-Strike. Do you think its possible find someone write it up? I'm not that savy writing up game system type articles. I try, but they do not always right since i seem miss something. Where would this proposal go? -- Wrangler 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best place is the admins page. I don't think we have a "Request an Article" page.--Mbear 12:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty then, i wish there was one. -- 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)