User talk:Revanche

Archives

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Current

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

Nomination

Rev - I'd like to nominate Doneve for . He has helped me with dozens of images, most of which he uploaded himself. Its really contributed to the work of myself and others. ClanWolverine101 21:03, 25 December 2011 (PST)

Done!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 3 January 2012 (PST)

Review : Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth

So I was reflecting on my work on Sarna up until now and asking myself : What would impress them at this point?
So - I redid the Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth.
I chose this one for several reasons : First, sentiment. I started following BTech with the Clan Invasion. Blood of Kerensky. TRO3050. To me, the FedCom was an appealing faction. They were the quintessential "good guys". The ones who might have a shot to stop the Clans if they got their acts together, as they did on Twycross. I NEVER liked the idea of the Lyran Alliance, or of an AFFC reduced back to House Davion. Second, none of the existing articles (AFFS/AFFC) reflected the actual UNITED AFFC. In my mind, that military had its own identity, if only temporarily. I feel, in fact, that identity is easier to pin down. Our articles on, say, the DCMS should reflect literally hundreds of years of history. A unit that was killed of centuries ago should be listed alongside one that was just formed in the latest publications. Since the AFFC had a beginning, middle and end, it was a story that could be told in its entirety.
Third, the greatest compliment Rev (or anyone) paid me for my Alpha Regiment article was that it set a standard for unit articles. I wanted to do the same for an entire military. The format I used is my submission for that new standard. I realize such things require discussion, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. So I did this, to show what such an article COULD look like.
Fourth, I wanted to prove to myself that I could do this. I had a very clear idea of what a comprehensive AFFC article would look like. I feel I've met that, and applied the standards I set for myself.
As usual, thanks go to Doneve for his graphic help. I obviously didn't write all of the material I used, though I rewrote most of it.
So - that's all I have. Give it a look and tell me what you think. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 18:41, 26 December 2011 (PST)

Rev - Thoughts? ClanWolverine101 16:31, 1 January 2012 (PST)

Let me look at this tomorrow at work, CW. It's gonna require some time for me to consider and I see I'm already making stupid mistakes here tonite.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:48, 3 January 2012 (PST)

Hey Rev - Whenever you have time. I did some things differently for this one. ClanWolverine101 10:52, 20 January 2012 (PST)

Okay, I'm printing this out (so it appears I'm working). I'll comment on the page's discussion. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:43, 20 January 2012 (PST)

Help

Hello revanche, I'm working at several unit pages and have the goal to update the composition part to 3067. I consulting Field Manual Update for that task but can't remember the meaning of Tech C/SL/O(R) or the place where it is explained. Perhaps you know the exact location of someone you have the corresponding information for me. Tnx Neuling 10:14, 1 January 2012 (PST)

Sorry for not responding sooner. Can you please give me some context? What page in Field Manual Updates?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:46, 3 January 2012 (PST)

Welcome back!

Welcome back, Rev! You were missed! ClanWolverine101 16:21, 18 January 2012 (PST)

Absolutly, i hope you don't have to much trouble on your work, and calm down, best wishes.--Doneve 16:30, 18 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks, guys: I really haven't 'gone' anywhere in the real world, just am snowed under with work, since I farmed an assistant out for a special project. I'm trying to be 'here' and will do what I can.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 20 January 2012 (PST)

Front Page Vandalism

Hey Rev, someone vandalized the front page of BTW. The person also linked the post back to your profile. I can not fix this, so I thought I would let you know, so you could remove it. You may also want to change the password on your login just in case someone got a hold of it. I hope all is well with you!--S.gage 21:49, 18 January 2012 (PST)

It's not vandalism, S.gage, but thanks for the concern. I've been a Farker for a long time, but I've never been able to successfully submit a news story there before. Very early in the morning of the 18th, in a parody of the SOPA/PIPA actions taken by other large sites, Fark.com (which would be heavily distressed by either of those bills) relaxed their submission standards greatly. Since I had no new stories to submit, I submitted BTW's url instead...and for some reason it was accepted on their 'Geek' page. The comments on that page about BTW were hugely supportive of all our efforts here, so I thought to share them with everyone here.

A bit of free advertising for us, in the end. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:27, 20 January 2012 (PST)

That's a relief --S.gage 10:31, 20 January 2012 (PST)

Impression

Hello Revanche, please take alook at User:Neuling/Example page‎ and give me your impression. That is only an example for possilble structure pages in the future. I could also expande the content with information from the technical readout 3085 about convention infantry. I had also on mind to mention the producer of military hardware only by name for the mechs,armor,figher,dropship and jumpships but perhaps that is to much for such a specific side. Neuling 05:52, 22 January 2012 (PST)

If you're seeking my input, these are my thoughts:

• Is this a repeat of material already presented? Or is it an expansion? If the second, then links to these articles need to be provided in the original articles.
• I'm somehwat fine with the general format of the article, but would urge the article to be titled "Organization of the FWLM" rather than just "Free Worlds League Military", as the format provided here appears to focus solely on organization and not history, training, awards, etc.
• I would not include manufacturers as a section (or major part) of the article, as (again) its about the organization.

I like the simple nature of the format, but please accept this as my uneducated opinion. We have Project Military Commands for decisions about articles that fall under that jurisdiction and any opinions gathered without seeking consensus there would not be indicative of the overall views of the commands team. I myself would defer to that project's consensus over even my opinions here. I hope that helps!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:37, 22 January 2012 (PST)