User talk:Revanche

Archives[edit]

Current[edit]

Please add new entries to the bottom of this page (in order to ensure I actually see them).

My sincerest apologies and humble gratitude[edit]

Gentlemen, first off apologies: a personal assignment followed by a family loss and then a major career re-assignment did a great job of sucking up all my time away from this endeavor. While I definitely used BTW in my editorial absence (who wouldn't?!), I couldn't get myself to log-in and even attempt to make myself a presence here again (except for that one time). I just felt (and feel) that this place deserves a certain level of dedication from its admins and I just didn't have it in me.

Unfortunately, while my situation has improved a bit, my available time just isn't what it was. And the agency I work out has this place blocked (can you believe?!). So the time I have at home is even more precious to me. What I would like to do is take on normal editorial duties and jump in as I have time available. I presume no one will mind my keeping my admin powers and as I practice better time management, I'll do what I can to help out the admins too.

I wish I could say I'm back-back, but I really do appreciate the kind words on the Founder's Awards. I truly respect the work each of you has done here and want to re-join you. Now...how do I sign my edits again...? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:46, 8 February 2013 (PST)

Welcome back, even on a limited scale! We missed you! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2013 (PST)
Glad to have a little update from your absence, CW say all! We missed you, hear you in next time.--Doneve (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (PST)
Yes, your presence was sorely missed, sir. Come back in any capacity that you can, and any time that you can. --Rebs (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2013 (PST)
A family loss? Eew. My sympathies and best wishes. By now you know you'll be welcome back with open arms if and when you can return. :) Frabby (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2013 (PST)
Thanks for the kind words, all. I hope you all are noticing how often BTW is referenced: other than on the official forums, I see articles linked to on MWO, MWT and eBay. Oftentimes I remind myself to not speak up and name-drop that I'm associated with it, as that would be grandstanding since I feel such pride for your work here.
Hope every one else is doing well. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:32, 10 February 2013 (PST)
Sorry about the loss in your family. And your assignment has the site blocked? But I bet they haven't blocked ESPN, right? Oh well. Glad you're partially back!--Mbear(talk) 06:30, 12 February 2013 (PST)

I see you're slowly crawling back to active editor status. I'm very happy about that! :) Frabby (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2013 (PDT)

I'm trying, mate, I'm trying! I'm grateful there are stalwarts such as you that are better at time management. I just really wish the gov't allowed me to do my real calling while I'm at work. ;) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:52, 5 September 2013 (PDT)

For your review: 4th Skye Rangers[edit]

Rev - When you have time, I redid the 4th Skye Rangers article. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2013 (PST)

Writing this as I look it over, so stream of consciousness.
-The TOC really creates an unseemly gap to it. I know individual settings can clear that up (i.e. closed TOCs), but that doesn't do anything for the standard reader. However, I don't think there's anything we can really do about it.
-Good use of pics on opposite sides. Too often it's easy to just leave a pic on the right side and that is visually unappealing.
-So that's what Stone looks like!
-Good article consistency throughout: there is a feel that there was a guiding hand throughout the article, and the 'voice' is similar. Formatting matches...it reads like a unified piece.
-Not a criticism, but I always like to find at least one improvement, even if minor, since feedback is requested. Here, I really liked the notes: informative, brings the behind-the-scenes out, and invites discussion. My minor nitpick: more links. Since you're in a different 'voice' in Notes, it helps (when questions/curiosities are raised) to go straight to the referenced target. Even if linked previously in the article (and it should be), the anti-second link 'suggestion' should be re-setforgotten when starting Notes.
-Discussion point: references. I really like reference sections that are compact, with repeat sources listed in groups (ex: only one cite for pp. 20-21, Handbook: House Steiner, "Civil War"). I know some people use the references section to expand upon the thought or help identify the focus of the source (ex: "Robert Steiner challenges his Aunt's claim for the throne"), but if that is what the article says already, then it seems unnecessary to use it again. I'm not gonna change the article to reflect opinion (I do on my article overhauls), but wanted to share it with you as an example of my personal Best Practices.
Good article, CW.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:47, 10 February 2013 (PST)
- I understand the ToC is lengthy. I'll be honest with you - I hate articles that don't have section breaks. Its hard to read 50 years of a units/character's history in a single stream. I do use sub-sub sections, particularly for the battle of hesperus. If you think I should trim those, I can, but the Hesperus section of the article becomes a little unwieldy.
- Heh. Think I could have done better than using a pic of Devlin Stone?
- Interesting point about "Notes"; can you give me an example how to fix this?
- I see your point. Part of the problem in this article is that the Fourth were major players in two novels, featured for several chapters in Heir to the Dragon and nearly the entirety of The Dying Time. If you'd like me to trim it by using broader references, I can certainly do that.
- Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2013 (PST)
The ToC is lengthy because the article is long. That's not a judgement, but a fact. Unless there is a formatting solution (or a technical one), I absolutely do not propose anything to 'fix' this. Having an article that's long and full of material is a good problem to have.
Noooo...Devlin Stone is fine. As I said, 'stream of consciousness'. I truly think that was the first pic I had seen of Stone.
Sure....here's an example of links in a Notes section. Nothing special.
No need to trim, no. As I said, its my personal Best Practice and one I'd use if I ever felt the need to overhaul an article (which the 4th clearly no longer needs). I see your issue with a 'surgical' focus helping distinguish where in the source material the 4th lie, but I'd argue the pages of a novel are small enough that it will leap out. But, again, it's only my personal opinion and it is not even relatively important. I think you can stick it with a fork and call it done.  ;-)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:13, 10 February 2013 (PST)
Good to know we understand each other on the ToC. :
Ah. There are three Devlin Stone pics i know of. The one I used from Masters and Minions: The StarCorps Dossiers, the one from Jihad Secrets: The Blake Documents, plus a third where he's shaking Victor's hand in BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction.
Wait... did I do the Notes right, then?
I understand. Question - Could we double-column the references section? The way wikipedia does?
Thanks! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2013 (PST)
OH - Now I see what you meant about the Notes and the links. Noted! (Bad pun intended. ;) ) ClanWolverine101 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2013 (PST)
Double-column...that would be rather nice. I'll look to see if there is an extension that replicates it, though I suspect it is built into WP's operational version.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:27, 10 February 2013 (PST)

MWO Awesome "Pretty Baby[edit]

Hi Rev, JubalHarshaw, added uncited and very non-canon variant to the Awesome article. I've removed it, this is due that custom "variant" came from MechWarrior Online. I'm not very good explaining things, could you or one of the admins drop a line to him explaining that anything from the computer games isn't very canon? Secondary Question is should this thing be given a note somewhere? I don't think it belongs in canon Awesome bio. specially if there no source to cite from. -- Wrangler (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2013 (PST)

Thanks for seeking an admin to help you shape what you want to say. We definitely don't wanna scare editors away. Two things: for important issues, really try and get one of the other admins, because I'm on a semi-active status. Takes a lot of effort to get on nowadays. My suggestion, too, would be a breakaway section for MWO entries to articles. The game is very large and being free and constantly updated, we'll see a lot of new models being added over the new year. And MWO constantly references Sarna, so it would be good to scratch their back too.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:12, 23 February 2013 (PST)
Hi Rev, I've comment my opinon of the Pretty Back thing. Sorry it took so long for me to respond. To addition to my comment on Frabby's Talkpage. The policy regarding the notable pilots maybe want revisited. Pretty Baby's pilot Daniel Peterson was notabe pilot TRO:3025. I know they should not be listed in the main article on unit's notable section unless their in fiction. However, I do feel that they are stil notable in this age of Novels no-longer published. Would be more fesiable to keep a List of minor notable pilots to keep it centralized in once place like List of minor mercenary units are? The main unit article won't list them per-say like Awesome, but new List would just link to say Awesome page. Specially now TROs are coming out again with Notable Pilots again. Thank you. -- Wrangler (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2013 (PDT)
Hey, can you provide the link to the notable pilots 'policy'? Wanted to review it before commenting but not seeing it.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:53, 19 May 2013 (PDT)
Hi Rev, the end result of the Notable Pilot policy was here. The original conversation was in one of the Mech articles. Its been so long ago, i don't remember where it was located in the history. I'd have to remember the which one it was to re-trace the conversation. -- Wrangler (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
Wrangler, please clarify for me: are you asking me for inclusion of a note about a MechWarrior into a 'Mech article or inclusion of the MechWarrior into a specialized list of 'minor MechWarriors'?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:12, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
There should be single List of Notable Minior MechWarriors, with a link from Mech article just lists there name. Definition of minor should be like listed in a TRO or character that briefly appear in a short-story/old style novel/sourcebook but has no profile. -- Wrangler (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2013 (PDT)

Recruiter Award[edit]

Hi Rev, Now that you're back, I'd like to do something I meant to do a while ago but haven't had a chance to, although I'm not quite sure what the protocol is because I haven't seen one of these awarded before. Basically, I'd like to nominate you for a recruiter award: Recruiter Award, 1st ribbon because more than anyone else here you encouraged me and got me actively interested and working on more and more things here on the wiki when I first started. You took the time to explain things I couldn't work out how to do, talked to me like an equal and offered both support and constructive criticism of my work, and the reason I'm the second most prolific editor on Sarna (and got the Superior Editor of the Year Award this year) is because of the effort you put into making me a good editor and getting me to want to keep editing up a storm. So, I think you've earned a recruiter ribbon - but I'm not sure from the award description how exactly to get you nominated and approved for one. The Surreal Humour award really helped too, I must admit Wink.gif It goes to show that Marisa Tomei touches people on many levels. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2013 (PDT)

Technically, the Recruiter Award can only be awarded by an admin, and cannot be self-awarded. That said, I wholeheartedly support this and give this award my Admin blessing. :) Frabby (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2013 (PDT)
Well, thank ya, you two. I really appreciate that! [beaming] That reminds me, I need to finish up the (unseen) ribbons. I'll put that back on my active mental list. And BM? She still has sooooo much to do.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:19, 3 May 2013 (PDT)
Her work is never done! It's a good thing she's such a charitable soul... Btw, did you know that a large chunk of your list of notable achievements on your user page appears to have been deleted, the section covering from late 2006 onwards? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2013 (PDT)
Really?! I'll look into it; thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:42, 11 May 2013 (PDT)

Hy[edit]

Hy Rev hope all is well with you, great to have you back on sarna, the wiki become more and more popular and we have great new contributors like Nuclear Fringe or KiltedPatriot these guys do a great work.--Doneve (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

I've been watching The Fridge some, but haven't met KiltedPatriot yet. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:51, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

1st Somerset Strikers canonicity[edit]

Hi Rev, I just reworked your canonicity text on the 1st Somerset Strikers page. As far as I can tell, it was plain wrong: CGL never declared the 1st Somerset Strikers sourcebook apocryphal. On the contrary, the sourcebook was written (according to its preface) to fix the canon issues of the cartoon as much as possible. Or did I miss anything? Frabby (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2013 (PDT)

Frabby, I don't have a leg to stand on, because there is no link to my statement about CGL discussing its canonicity. In my defense, it was probably on one of the other iterations of the official forums. I'm certain they did declare it as such (i.e., that it was a sourcebook about the show) and it was my impression they were taking advantage of the show's popularity to catch the eye of viewers in gaming stores. However, you have a different impression, possibly from a different source. I'd ask that you would cite any source you have in regards to the attempts to address canonicity ("To reconcile as much of the show as possible with BattleTech canon..."). In lieu of any supporting citation for my perspective, I think it is safe to default to your perspective.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:14, 25 May 2013 (PDT)
This may be the source of my presumptions. I still choose to interpret the 'it' statement in "it is treated as an in-universe fictionalization of actual events" as referring to the sourcebook, based on it being the subject of the second part of the preceding sentence. However unimpressed I am with either the show and the book, I'm not willing to fight for its non-canoncity and will abide (of course) by the group consensus.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:22, 25 May 2013 (PDT)
Okay, I see your point now. Interestingly, I had previously read over this very comment by Herb and, in the context of what Kit wrote prior in the same thread, read it to mean what I wrote above (instead of what you read in it). :)
I see the situation like this: The book demonstrably meets all current criteria for canon, was written to reconcile the cartoon with BT canon (see in particular pp. 94-96, "Designer Notes" signed by "The Staff at FASA, November 2, 1994") and wasn't explicitly de-canonized. If Herb had wanted to de-canonize it then he would have clearly spelled this out. Frabby (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
I can't disagree.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:22, 26 May 2013 (PDT)

House Marik Minor Characters[edit]

Would you add more HM minor characters, i want to help you, when it's ok, then i stard from the top of the Marik Militia's!--Doneve (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2013 (PDT)

I'm actually thrilled Rev is doing this. :) I hope it expands in due time. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
Gentlemen, I created the HM minor characters page because I needed it for the 13th Marik Militia article and saw it did not exist. It came about because i hit Random Page, saw the article needed work and I went from there. Im not actually on a HM path right now. I was surprised at how careful and detailed you have to be to use redirects on these sub-minor characters! Doneve, if you need guidance to do that yourself, let me know and I'll share what I know. -Revanche (talk|contribs) 06:22, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
I may have been the person who started those summary "List of minor..." articles; at least I used to use them. However, seeing the growth Sarna.net has seen, I'm increasingly convinced that we should avoid an arbitrary classification such as "minor" as a matter of principle. The fact that we're using redirects already goes to show that these characters should get full articles, however short they turn out to be. The same applies to the List of minor mercenary units that I now wish I had never started, and other such listings. Just look at the individual space ship articles popping up now. Opinions? Frabby (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
Frabby - I understand your viewpoint. My counter is that there are hundreds of minor characters who we have less than a sentence's worth of information for. Many of these characters SHOULD have links (in this case, redirects) that go somewhere. If an editor decides later on that there's enough info to warrant a proper article, they can make that change. The character can "graduate" to full article level. Personally, I find you "List of minor mercenary units" page very valuable for the same reason. There are endless merc units that have only been mentioned *once* in passing, and then never again. Those groups *SHOULD* have links, even just to redirects. Should some of the groups on the minor merc list get full articles? Maybe! But that depends on the editor and, i hope, the material.
Take a look at most of the SLDF unit articles, particularly those for the conventional units. How long are most? Two sentences, tops? "So and so was in the Federated Suns command, then got destroyed during the war"? Do I question that those articles exist? No, but at the same time I don't think they are a quality example of the kind of work this wiki is capable of. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
To Rev. Rev i don't need any guidance, thanks. I like the HM minor character page, i don't have much to do at this time, and i have a felling to bring this up to snuf. Oh and this goes to Frabby, i like the idea of various house minor character pages, when i look to the List of minor mercenary units the most can move to his own article, and i think i do this, CW hit the nail, we have so many articles (redirects) with one sentense etc. and i like the idea for some various House minor character pages.--Doneve (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
My head is spinning: Doneve and I experience a pole-shift with Frabby. Maybe I should just take the day off and watch the new season of Arrested Development.
Ideally, everything (people, ships, units) get their own articles. And we still can do that. But if this hinges around the definition of 'minor', I can kick it around some here. Since last night, I've been composing mental definitions of three tiers of characters: 'significant', 'minor' and 'sub-minor'. But what we could do is create just two ('significant' and 'minor') and apply this test: does the character have any information that provides a sense of description of personality or history? If s/he is only used once and has no descriptors, then s/he's a minor character and goes on a list.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:01, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
Minimum 'significant character: Lloyd Reissing...he's got personality described, with multiple sources, which is in contrast to....
Minor character: London McCall...one source providing rank, command and name. That's about it. If another source mentions it, the editor may choose to promote to an article?
Comments?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:01, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
I'd like to throw something of minior comment. I've in the past worked on Minior Characters who actually have backgrounds written up in various sourcebooks. However, There really minior characters such as unit commands or battalions of line units that only mentioned in certain sourcebooks (old telephone book style no longer made). I'd would invision that a List of Minor Marik Characters (or insert your faction) should be keep simple as possible. Such as notable pilots, some that don't appear again in canon, sometimes they do. If they do appear couple times, they should be listed. If there not enough information on their backgrounds themselves, they should be kept to list verse being in their own article. -- Wrangler (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
I'm avica Someone's editing drunk again.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:23, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
How about this? If you can't write more than two sentences about a character, they are too minor to have an article written about them. Remember - I'm the guy who busted out five pages on Vasily "My name isn't Vaseline" Cherenkoff. ;) ClanWolverine101 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2013 (PDT)
Heat disscusion, but i walk my way and want to bring some minor etc. characters up to sarna, oh yah some red links become a blue !Huy!, any though.--Doneve (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2013 (PDT)
See? Doneve is onboard. :) ClanWolverine101 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2013 (PDT)
Yup, iam here, but i want more response if the way is ok?--Doneve (talk)

Login problem[edit]

Hy Rev. i can not login at this day, i become this message [BattleTechWiki uses cookies to log in users. You have cookies disabled]. But i never disabled the cookies. How can i check the cookies, i think i have tomato eyes but i don't found it, best wishes Doneve.--84.58.48.90 09:01, 27 May 2013 (PDT)

Hey, Doneve...me neither. I only logged off after I saw your post, because I can't save any changes. I'll contact Nic.--69.255.48.14 09:30, 27 May 2013 (PDT)
I think Nic make some changes in the background, now i have no login problems, thanks for the quick response.--Doneve (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2013 (PDT)
I concur - I had serious login problems two days ago, but they seem resolved now. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2013 (PDT)
Nic works in quick and mysterious ways.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (PDT)

References - Updated help page[edit]

Rev, a new user (User:Adridos) included several references, and a couple users pointed out that he wasn't "doing it right." He was following the instructions on the Help:References page though. I've tweaked the References page so that it reflects how we're actually using the references tag on Sarna. If there's anything I should add or change, please let me know. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 10:03, 7 June 2013 (PDT)

Completely our bust. Thanks for being the QRF on this one. I'll review the policy in toto.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:46, 9 June 2013 (PDT)

Apocryphal content, part 2[edit]

Rev, could you drop by Template talk:ApocryphalContent please? I've made a couple templates and I'd like your feedback. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 07:23, 28 June 2013 (PDT)

Hello[edit]

Hy Rev, nice to see you after a short while. When you found time please can you look on this discussion User talk:BrokenMnemonic#Award, i know the talk was given for the award but it expandet to some questions about manufacturing center and components, and great to see back her, hope all is well with you.--Doneve (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2013 (PDT)

Thanks, Doneve...I'm trying to get back but...Real Life...you know. Hope you're doing well, yourself.
I'll take a look.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (PDT)
At this time all is well, iam working, but the fucking cancer is back, sorry for my words, but life is a balance, and this bang my phyis a little bit down, and i must say so sorry sorry with your lose one of your family, i give you my condulence, i know its late, but i feel with you.--19:10, 18 August 2013 (PDT)
I hear you, mate. You're in my thoughts, but it's more the good work you do that defines you. By the way, saw this tonight; I have hope for you. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:23, 18 August 2013 (PDT)
Thanks so much for the link.--Doneve (talk)

BattleMech & Combat Vehicle Article Template Problems[edit]

Hi Rev, I'd like you talk to you regarding problems I'm having with the Templates. I've been entering them all day. Combat Vehicle Template and the one for BattleMechs has problem with their Infoboxes. The line with production year = ??? & year reference = ??? (production year reference) keeps placing information enter in the ??? sidebyside on the sameline. (Note the production year reference text is deleted after i put in). Is possible to remedy this? I've been simply leaving info out of the reference information and blanking out the ??? which magically makes the line go away. Can this be adjusted please? If also possible two additional requests, 1) Can the JumpJet part in template for the BattleMech have its info box for JumpJets disappear if the ??? is remove. This is so if the Mech isn't packing jumpjets, that line would go away for that article. 2) Combat Vehicle template, can the crew line disappear as well if ??? be removed? Alot vehicle info in the TROs don't list their number of crew anymore. Having option to not list how many there are would be helpful. Again, sorry trouble you with this, sincerely -- Wrangler (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2013 (PDT)

I'm feeling really stupid right now; I'm having a problem with understanding the issue. (Possibly that hard cider was harder than I realized.) Let me try and break this down:
  • Regarding the Combat Vehicle and BattleMech templates: "The line with production year = ??? & year reference = ??? (production year reference) keeps placing information [entered] in the ??? side-by-side on the same line. (Note the production year reference text is deleted after I put [it] in)."
I think I understand and I might have encountered this with my private wiki, which means I have a work-around. It's not pretty, as it is just a work-around. I'll poke around on your history today and see if I can see what you're encountering.
  • JumpJets and Crew line...I know I can make these go away when empty, but not tonight. I have to refresh my knowledge on how those work and I can only do that at home now (i.e.e, no access at work). It's getting late here, so I'm gonna try the first issue, well, first. Let me take a go at 'em and I'll PM you when they're ready.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:34, 2 September 2013 (PDT)
Yeah, I'm not understanding the problem with the production year = ???. From what I can see, the addition to the BattleMech template was to allow the citation to appear immediately following the year. I just tried it out on my sandbox. Isn't that the way it is supposed to work? Don't we want the citation to show up that way and not a line underneath? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:52, 2 September 2013 (PDT)
Please dont change the infoboxes, the year and production rows are coppelt with the semantic wiki stuff, look on the BattleMech Timetable there Seth created, and i following him and created the Combat Vehicle Timetable, DropShip Timetable and WarShip Timetable, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (PDT)
I've amended the Combat Vehicle template to make Crew an optional field rather than a hardcoded one, as per Wrangler's request. I've looked at the BattleMech template, and it looks as if the Jump Jets field is hardcoded to display "None" if no other value is specified, rather than to disappear. I don't know if that's a conscious policy decision to avoid ambiguity by explicitly stating if a 'Mech has Jump Jets or not, but I thought that as it had been deliberately set up that way, I'd better leave it for someone senior to take a view on. I left all the production year stuff alone, though! BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2013 (PDT)
BrokenMnemonic, would you do me a favor: go ahead and make the JJ conditional? When I first built the first conditional templates, I really didn't have much confidence in what I was doing (I had to learn by asking then-active admin Xoid and seeing how it was done on Wikipedia, so I suspect I didn't want to overuse the condition). I would think the absence of a JJ mention is indicative of the absence of JJs.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (PDT)
Yup, I'll go and do that now. Sorry I've not been around the last couple of days to get this done sooner. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2013 (PDT)
[scoffing] I'm the last one who should be getting that kind of apology. ;) In this case, you're more the expert than I, having more confidence in what you do. Thanks, mate.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (PDT)
HI Rev, Sorry for the confusion. Problem I was having with the year reference info wasn't appearing under Production info. The year was appearing NEXT to the first line. As such I enter Production Year=3125 and year reference = 3125 for the field below it. Then when it the article is saved it looks like 31253125. Look at my recent article Schildkröte. When you edit it and do a preview. Put a 3122 in the year reference year line. You'll see what the problem i'm talking about in the infobox. -- Wrangler (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2013 (PDT)
Are we meant to put anything other than a reference tag in the Year Reference field? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2013 (PDT)
Ok! I see the problem now, thanks to Wrangler's more detailed issue description and BrokenMnemonic's question as to data sought for that line. Wrangler, is it possible you thought the template was asking for another year to be added? I see Doneve has gone back to Schildkröte (and others) and added a citation/reference in in that problem field, as he followed your article creations. Does that clear it up for you?
I'd say it is working the way it is meant to, if the citation is placed in there. Maybe we should change the template to ask for a Year Citation (instead of a Year Reference)? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:21, 4 September 2013 (PDT)

Year pages and Manufacturing Timeline[edit]

Evening Rev, i cannot sleep and follow your talk to Bob. You are completly right, but the better way is he use the BattleMech Timetable, Combat Vehicle Timetable etc. i and Seth created, all dates come from source material and the MUL site, hope this helps a little bit, best wishes.--Doneve (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2013 (PDT)

But the problem is the dates are wrong in the timetable he was using. He was trying to populate the Year pages with variant data he saw on the manufacturing timeline. In the end, the Year pages must match those on the article linked (and that article should really be the subject article...for example Spider). We shouldn't be using any timetable as the source of data for Year pages, as there are more informative pages than the timetables about the Spider, Kanga, etc. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:23, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
I thing he works from the Manufacturing Timeline page and not from the others.--Doneve (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2013 (PDT)
That may have been true in the past tense. But the discussion he & I had may clear that up. Nonetheless, he and I uncovered several errors on both the timeline and the subject articles.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:29, 22 September 2013 (PDT)

JtT's suggested edits[edit]

Biographies: Caleb Davion update from Era Report: 3145 page 92. Caleb Davion deceased with effect from 3144. Julian Davion succeeds him as First Prince of the Federated Suns.--Jimmy the Tulip

I'll look in to it. Thanks.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:37, 24 September 2013 (PDT)

CCG[edit]

Morning or afternoon ;), i think we add a artist category to the CCG card images, like we do this on bio image pages, as category: works by etc. makes this sense to you?--Doneve (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (PDT)

You're well-versed in how the categories work best. Feel free to fill the need. ;) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:03, 27 September 2013 (PDT)

Year pages[edit]

I help a little bit out to remove my added red links in the past, all came from the MechWarrior Dark Age Dossiers.--Doneve (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2013 (PDT)

Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:47, 27 September 2013 (PDT)
Wait wait wait wait wait wait! Why Are you removing blank year pages? I've tried to add all the missing ones and have yet to populate them with info, so you may have deleted some. I hope you're at least data mining to check if they have any info that can be added instead of just removing them. Seeing all those pages deleted makes me quite sad.  :[ -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2013 (PDT)
I'm not Revanche, but all those year pages had nothing linking to them except other year pages. Sarna policy, as seen here on Policy:Notability is that unless there is some info, creating blank pages just to fill a red link is to be avoided. Basically, rather than create a page first and hope to fill it in, get the info first to create a page. Already have far too many blank and very short pages. Cyc (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2013 (PDT)
Cyc nailed it on the head. Another perspective regarding redlinks is that they can be a good thing, as they let people know there is missing information. Additionally, they don't discourage readers expecting to read something they click on. If those years were important, they would have information on them when they were created. The quantity of edits you've made since you created those pages indicate you weren't actively populating them, which means they were likely to remain unpopulated. Admins have no tools to identify unpopulated pages that have templates on them and other editors can't use the Wanted Pages list to fill in missing pages when they become bluelinks.
The good news is that the same template that makes it a bluelink is also easy to copy-and-paste in once you're ready to add data to a specific year.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:15, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
I can't find the edits where I made those pages because they were deleted, so I have no way of telling how much I did since then. If you recall (from my talk page:
"I'll try tackling this next weekend when I'll have more consecutive time to work"
I was going to get back to it when I had a few hours on end, instead of a scattering of time (during the week). Now I don't know which pages I had made that hadn't been gone through. That's why I was saddened... -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2013 (PDT)
Easy solution: since you'll be working on it this weekend, look for 'deletion log' on Special:RecentChanges for today's date. They're all grouped together on that log. 'Restore' the individual year you want to work on and the template will be back (or just click on the redlink and cut-and-paste the template in, along with the relevant information). Then move on to the next one.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:00, 28 September 2013 (PDT)

Welcome back![edit]

Good to see you back and editing. I've been slammed with work and moving, otherwise I'd do more.--Mbear(talk) 09:02, 14 October 2013 (PDT)

I hear ya, mate, and thanks. I'm feeling very fortunate to get a holiday during this shutdown. Moving far?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:07, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
Yeah, nice to see you back, what do you think of the new 'mech variants layout?--Doneve (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
Mind giving me a link to an example? (I presume they all are not done.) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:38, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
Take a look on the Catapult page.--Doneve (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
I think it looks a lot cleaner, much less a wall-of-text.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:43, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
Just across town, but man it takes a toll. Still most of the furniture is done. I just need to move far too many boxes of books.
And Doneve, that variant reformatting looks great!--Mbear(talk) 10:09, 15 October 2013 (PDT)
"I just need to move far too many boxes of books." I don't even know who you are anymore! Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:58, 17 October 2013 (PDT)
Well, thirty five bankers boxes of books get to be very heavy. So I'm the guy with the bad back. ;) --Mbear(talk) 11:04, 18 October 2013 (PDT)

Alpha Kit[edit]

Hy again, is see in the the infobox the product was precedet by the Strategic Kit, i think you forgot the Tactical Kit, both products Strategic and Tactical where published on the same date, i hope iam right.--Doneve (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2013 (PDT)

There is the Tech Kit which was published on the same day. I'm having that one go first, since it has a lower production code. Alpha Kit has the highest code of the three. (I'm building the article now.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:37, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
Ugh, you are right, sorry.--Doneve (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
"Ugh, you are right, sorry."
"Bad, Doneve...on your face...25 push-ups!"--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:48, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
With the push-ups its a little bit difficult, i stay in hospital.--Doneve (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
Well, then, no spanking any nurses, then yet.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:59, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
Hey, no impeding his recovery - you could've added a "yet" to that order Wink.gif BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2013 (PDT)
Done. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:51, 14 October 2013 (PDT)

Republic of the Sphere PDF[edit]

Hi Rev, i was wondering. You used the old 3145 Mercenaries article as your boiler plate for Republic the Sphere PDF Suppliment. Two Questions: 1) What is the Also See section suppose to be going to? It directed to 3145 Mercenaries... 2) Shouldn't there be a Moratorium on the Republic on regardless that the Printed version of the TRO coming out? -- Wrangler (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2013 (PDT)

Talitha[edit]

Hi Revanche, the unsourced data that you put into the Talitha article back in 2006 has raised some eyebrows. Can you provide references? Frabby (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (PST)

Bump. :) Frabby (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2015 (PDT)
Wow...blast from the past. I'll address it on BM's (top talk) page. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:34, 24 August 2015 (PDT)

Blackjack[edit]

Hello. You wrote that most of the St. Ives BJ-3 Blackjacks were turned over to the Federated Suns. Can you provide the source and page number? Thanks. Aldous (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2013 (PST)

He, iam confused, the source links are added to the variant! You found the info in Objective Raids.--Doneve (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2013 (PST)
I checked the sources and they do NOT say this. I took the time and looked at every source in the entire article and they don't say that either. I will be correcting these massive errors in the future.Aldous (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2013 (PST)

I've copied this discussion to Talk:Blackjack (BattleMech)#BJ-3 issue to continue there. Frabby (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2013 (PST)


Opinion sought[edit]

Hello, Rev. I know your not as active as you use to be. If your around, can you pop over to here? I'm trying get official opinion of this. It almost starting to become edit war now everytime i write something. Not because my grammer or spelling problems. It straight problem with structure of articles, like the BattleMech articles. Thanks -- Wrangler (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2013 (PST)

Anonymous User Talks[edit]

Hey, welcome back; I noticed that you added talk pages to the rest of the anonymous users. I hadn't been adding them if they were minor vandals or if they added/changed info that I couldn't confirm, so that is why they had been left. I'm not entirely sure of the policy concerning the addition of talk pages for them, but used the lack of some links to help organize which ones should be checked. If that's how it should be I can be sure to add welcome messages to all of them. -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2014 (PDT)

Thanks for noticing my meager edits. My predilection for the Welcome messages is equal parts anal retentive ("redlink...needs a message) and experience of the results. I've been amazed by the number of people who have credited those messages with causing them to get involved more in the project. For me, it is such an easy edit, that I feel the possible return on investment easily justifies making the effort.
As for how you react to them....it's wide open. I really don't expect anyone to leave welcome messages for the IPs and I hope I'm not disrupting your policing logic by my doing so.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:27, 9 May 2014 (PDT)
Yeah, I think I've noticed some people join after seeing the message, but I withheld it from "evildoers" possibly by example. I'm pretty sure that I noticed it on the recent changes and started doing it (much like most of the stuff I do here now). We might as well do it for all of them, I just need to keep a list of those edits that haven't been confirmed/cited so we can check them; perhaps I can make a user sub-page with the unconfirmed ones on it that anyone can see and check. And no, it really didn't disrupt anything, because I think I can figure out which ones haven't been confirmed yet... -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2014 (PDT)
This might help: while patrolling the Recent Changes pages, click on "Hide logged-in users" and then note the red exclamation points to the left of the edit time. If you click on that edit and it passes your "evildoings" test, you'll then see a link under the "Latest Revision" column called "[Mark as patrolled]". If you click on that, the exclamation point will disappear. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:54, 10 May 2014 (PDT)
Sorry, I didn't see this until today. I'm not an admin so I can't do that; I noticed that I mysteriously have marked pages as patrolled before (looking at logs), but have no idea how I did it as what you explained is not visible to me. -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2014 (PDT)
Huh! Sorry for the bad gouge, then. :/ --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:43, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
No, its fine! Perhaps I'll be able to do that admin stuff if I stick around long enough for a promotion Wink.gif -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2014 (PDT)

Clan Snow Raven Image[edit]

Hey, its nice to see you back for a little Smiley.gif ! Is there any way you could un-delete this image: Clan Snow Raven Insignia.png , because I think it should be used instead of this one: ClanSnowRaven.gif, because the .gif version doesn't display in charts (e.g. this chart on the Clans page). If the deletion can't be reversed, I'll just upload a new version. -BobTheZombie (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2014 (PDT)

I've undeleted Clan_Snow_Raven_Insignia.png because it's early and I'm awake and have had lots of caffeine. The .png file doesn't look to be as high-quality an image as the .gif though, so I'd suggest uploading a higher-quality .png file if there's one available, and then deleting the .gif. Depending on the source I may be able to snag the image at higher quality, but I won't be able to do that until I'm home from work... BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2014 (PDT)
Yeah, idk why the .png has the weird gray behind it... it is the same picture (size, original location, etc.), so I'll try uploading a different version with a white background. After that should I relink all the uses of the .gif to the .png version? Or do you want to get it at a higher quality? -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
Sorry about the grief, gents. I thought it was unused before my deletion, but in any case, it sounds as if you two are off and running on establishing a better graphic.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:41, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
It's okay Revanche. I'll go ahead with uploading a new one. Tell me if it's high enough quality. -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
I uploaded a new version of it; do we still need a higher res one? I'm going ahead with switching the links to the .png -BobTheZombie (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (PDT)
It does seem a little undefined around the wing feathers. But, if anyone can find one better, they can upload it in this one's place.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:23, 23 July 2014 (PDT)
That's what I thought... is this any better (new one uploaded)? -BobTheZombie (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2014 (PDT)
The marble in the background is *much* crisper.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:17, 23 July 2014 (PDT)
See, I was reluctant to use that one as the background is much bluer, and the old, original version we used was greener. -BobTheZombie (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2014 (PDT)
Yea...trueness. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:12, 23 July 2014 (PDT)

Policy:Awards page[edit]

Rev,

Why did you delete this page? I just saw it in the "Broken Redirects" special page and I'm trying to figure out what happened. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 05:48, 24 June 2015 (PDT)

Mbear, I honestly have no idea. It was deleted back in 2012. Maybe it was redundant? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:07, 27 July 2015 (PDT)

HI[edit]

  • Hi Revanche! Whats going on, i miss you over the last 2-3 years, i hope all is well.--Doneve (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2015 (PDT)
Hi, back at you, Doneve. All is well, other than BTW being blocked at work, with no time to really unwind. My fantasy is to retire, and open an office called "Sarna Research Company", where I can still get away from the house all day, but to indulge my interests. How are you doing? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (PDT)
  • I have to agree, Doneve. Glad your visiting us. Hope your life is going well. -- Wrangler (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2015 (PDT)
Did I happen to see a name that rhymes with 'dangler' on p. 9 of my 5-years-most-anticipated rulebook? You should be quite proud. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (PDT)
Thanks, CW. I really wish I could stay! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (PDT)
  • Hey Rev, where can I send my resume for Sarna Research Company?-Volt (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2015 (PDT)
Good news, Volt! Nic has set up a 'database' of sorts for potential employees. All he really is looking for is samples of your work, and quantity helps. Look around the site; I'm sure you'll find somewhere to submit.
Different topic: broke out my 3067 chart of the IS, in which you had a hand. Just today, I started looking for a print shop that can in Size B1, 'cause A1 is just a smidgen too small. Love these custom maps.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:35, 29 July 2015 (PDT)
LOL guess I don't qualify if you include quantity in the category. Post some hires photos once you've had the map done, would love to to see how they turn out. Cartography work's been slow recently, I need new maps to work on.-Volt (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2015 (PDT)
Will do, mate. Now that HB:DC is out, do you anticipate/know of any coord database update? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:32, 2 August 2015 (PDT)
Hi Rev, i copy this from Volt's talk page, hope this give you the answer about the spreadsheet
- Hy Volt, have you updated your spreadsheet with the maps from Handbook: House Kurita, or you in work, a short statement is welcome, cheers.--Doneve (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2015 (PDT)
- Hi Doneve, yes the spreadsheet has been updated with the HBHK maps. The link to the file can be found on my page here. There are discrepancies between the HBHK map and previously published ones so what I inputted in the spreadsheet was the more logical or likely scenario given all current data available. Unfortunately no one replied to my questions in the official forums, so we really do not know the answers to those questions now. I doubt they will still get answered tho-Volt (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2015 (PDT)
Yup, the database has been updated as of HB:HK. I'm just waiting for new books to come out. Hopefully the Succession Wars books have more maps for us to work with. Of course, I'm also looking forward to 3250 and beyond.-Volt (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2015 (PDT)
Thanks both (Volt/Doneve). Volt, do you know if BlackNova has created any new PDF maps based on the updated DB? (About to send last known version to printer.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:47, 8 August 2015 (PDT)
BN has not released an updated map in a while. The last map he released was a 2750/2765 map without any borders. I do not know what time the map you have was published but the latest significant updates I made to the coordinates was right after the release of FM:SLDF and ISP3.-Volt (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
That's unfortunate regarding PDF updates. I think, especially with the ISW ruleset imminent, being able to print maps will become important, especially time specific ones. But, in the meantime, people can count on your efforts to know where the systems are. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:50, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
Well, I have released full human sphere maps for 2765, 3075 and 3145 but instead of using "canon" border limits I used a 30LY radius limit. I plan to do 2751, 2596, 2786, 2821/2822, 3025, 3050, 3052, 3057, 3067 and 3130 in the future, but my method takes tooooooooooo long because I really suck at it.-Volt (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2015 (PDT)
Thanks, Volt. I'm poking around your User page to check out what you have offered.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:25, 10 August 2015 (PDT)

Battleforce Counters[edit]

Can't believe we didn't have articles on those yet! Somuehow they flew below my radar. Kudos for putting them up. And of course it's good to see you're still active. I was beginning to feel old. ;) Frabby (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2016 (PDT)

Hah...well, I'm glad I was able to find a subject for a new article. (A good problem to have!) Stick around, Frabby...I retire from my first career in just over 16 months. I hope to have much more time after that.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 10:15, 20 August 2016 (PDT)
Hiya, hi Rev, i hope all is well with you! Great to see you back on sarna. We miss you, cheers.--Doneve (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2016 (PDT)
We miss Rev! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2016 (PDT)
Thanks for the kind words, guys. I do miss having the time to be here. One of the best satisfying collaborative works I've ever been in. Really wish I could put it on my resume! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:15, 21 August 2016 (PDT)

BattleForce Faction Counters[edit]

Hope this doesn't sound too pedantic, but if the download costs $0.95 then it shouldn't be described as "free". Dark Jaguar (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2016 (PDT)

Which one specifically? Two of them (Mercs and Misc) were and are free. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:14, 21 August 2016 (PDT)
[face palm] All that detail I checked and double-checked...and that got past me. Fixing it now. Thanks, ma-man. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:17, 21 August 2016 (PDT)