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)

Old Fred's moving eyepatch

Hi Revanche,

This is 58.163.175.178 and I am the bloke who made the comment about the flipped image on Anastasius Focht/Fred Steiner.

How does one go about registering? I cannot find a link to that, anyway,

I shot off an email to Randall Bills and got the reply as below.

Cheers, Matthew Gruba

From: Randall Bills <bills_randall@comcast.net> Date: 24 January 2012 7:04:00 AM AEDT To: Matthew <fishmzg@tpg.com.au> Subject: Re: Regards image in Era Report 3062

Sigh...someone the image got flipped. Yes, sarna.net can change it.

Thanks for the catch!

Randall

On Jan 23, 2012, at 2:02 AM, Matthew wrote:

Hi guys,

Just making an enquiry regards an image of Anastatsius Focht in the Era Report 3062. Not sure on which page this occurs however there is a fine portrait of Anastasius, which shows a patch on his left eye. Umm he lost his right eye. Anyway just wanted to know if you guys would be ok with sarna.net flipping the image to make it more correct. Apparently they required your permission to do so.

Cheers, Matthew Gruba

Sent from my iPad

NOTICE: This e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, contains privileged and/or confidential information. It is intended only for use by the named addressee(s) who have a signed Non-Disclosure Agreement on file. Examination by any other individual(s) is strictly prohibited. All ecipients are hereby notified that any distribution or copying of this e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by email or fax and permanently delete this e-mail and the attachments hereto, if any, and destroy any printout thereof. InMediaRes Productions, LLC, d.b.a Catalyst Game Labs, Lake Stevens, WA fax:253-835-2129.

• LOL, okay...good job, Matthew.

First of all, you should be able to see the Log in/Create Account link at the top right of any screen.

Second, I'll work on flipping and noting the change (with your provided canon say-so), or at least providing a note as to why the image is actually a mirror-image. The issue I may run into (and it's a valid one) is that your email was private communication, rather than the typical public indication of the error. However, I don't think anyone would doubt that a) a mistake was made or 2) the email from Bills is genuine.

I'll work it from home, where I have software to assist. Thanks.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:03, 23 January 2012 (PST)

• Matthew, don't know if you've registered yet, so hope you find this.

It just occurred to me that flipping the picture will not solve the problem, for then it will appear that we just have a mirror image of him, with other items in the picture now being flipped as well. His uniform, for example, would have the ribbons on the wrong side, where it is well-established in canon that they are on the left side. And now it would be Sarna 'changing' an image that was not corrected in the canon sources.

What I'm going to do is take the material you provided above and put it on the picture's page, so that we at least (properly) acknowledge that not only was it determined by a fan to be incorrect but that TPTB agreed. Now, if they re-issue the PDF of Era Report: 3062 with a corrected picture (or even the flipped one), we'll be golden and can change the pictures here. Again, thanks for catching this.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 24 January 2012 (PST)

Unit Entries

Hi Boss,

I wanted to check something out with you before I plunged into a pet project too deeply. I've been working my way through Historical: Reunification War, originally as a way of adding more owner history details and backgrounds to the planets, but then I expanded into adding units. That means I've generated a hefty number of articles for SLDF divisions and brigades that only really existed in the Reunification War-era and from the one sourcebook. Where I'm generating an article that only really has the one source, I've rather gone to town - take a look at the Pitcairn Legion, for example, or the 58th Brigade). Because Historical: Reunification War has records of which units fought on which planets, alongside which units and against which units, and the result of each battle - sometimes with extra details on the battles - I've been including the details in the entry for those Reunification War-era units, in part because that's likely the only detail we're ever going to have on those units.

Where my concern lies is that I'm now at the point where having added in almost all the short-lived units from the Outworlds Alliance and Magistracy of Canopus campaigns (I just spotted an SLDF brigade I missed, plus there are some smallfry and weird units from the MAF) I'm up to units that largely still exist. I made a start with the 1st Marik Militia yesterday, but having added the background in the same level of detail I've been using for the Reunification War era units, I'm feeling like I've rather swamped the article. I don't know if that means that I'm adding too much detail and should scale back, or if there's a lot of detail on units from sourcebooks covering the Succession Wars and later that hasn't been added in yet.

If I keep to the same format I've been using, will I be making the articles too wordy and overblown? I've had a look, and I can't really see a policy that seems applicable. I'd be grateful if you could give me a steer. BrokenMnemonic 00:08, 24 January 2012 (PST)

There is no policy on this, BM. What you will end up receiving is opinions, and of course they'll differ. I'm absolutely fine with really fluffing up an article with as much detail as can be gleaned from one source, in spite of other sources (even those set in later periods) being stingy. I would petition for article sections having a lot of detail getting a child article (ex: "1st Marik Militia in the Reunification War") if that subject unit was noteworthy enough to deserve more than one article...and I don't think the First deserves that honor. If anything, the First was a very active and engaged unit...during the Reunification War, and therefore their article will (unfortunately) appear lopsided when that period is compared to later ones. But we're not here to over- or under-emphasize a subject for the article's sake. We're non-aligned researchers reporting what we've uncovered; nothing more, nothing less. That's my opinion.

And I am impressed with the details you've used to make this article valuable to a reader.

I would ask that you take another spin at the sentences in the "First", though. The example paragraphs I read to understand your problem were in the Tetski section. They come across as awkward, especially with the complex, overrunning length and the continuous use of 'Magistracy'. My personal test is to read my works out-loud, breathing at commas and pausing at periods, to see if it 'sounds' right. Its often how I discover I've used the same word in neighboring sentences.

Hope this helps.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:42, 24 January 2012 (PST)

Thank you for taking a look at the articles - I'm reassured that I'm not drowning readers in extraneous detail. I've tidied up the Tetski section on the 1st Marik Militia - I think I was suffering from a combination of a late night and copy and paste syndrome!

I've worked through all of the units that took part in the Outworlds Alliance campaign, and none of the units that survived into the modern era actually did a lot during that war... possibly because it was only 5 years long, so units like those in the DCMS contingent only tended to fight on maybe two or three worlds over those 5 years. I'm seeing more happening in the Magistracy campaign because it was 11 years long, but the FWLM units have largely taken a back seat in the fluff to the SLDF VII Corps forces, so I think again it's not going to really throw up any units that merit seperate articles on their wartime activities.

With Historical: Reunification War, there are a lot of planetary conquests where details of the attacker and defender are given in the deployment tables, but the planetary campaign itself doesn't receive a write-up or is mentioned only in passing. That's particularly the case with the closing years of the Magistracy Campaign, after Canopus had been taken. I ended up seguewaying sideways into doing the units because it seemed the next logical step after updating the planetary ownership history based on the tables and text, but it does make me wonder if the same thing needs to be done for books like the two NAIS volumes on the 4th Succession War. That's one reason I'm keen to get it right now, rather than having to go back and change a lot later. I am guilty of cutting and pasting a lot though, as a lot of the planetary conquests seem to have been pretty similar in the Reunification War - the defenders are a militia and maybe a regiment or two from the MAF or OAM; the SLDF responded by landing a division on the planet. It has thrown up all sorts of problems with MAF units, though; I've been lucky to get Chris Hartford answering questions about the pre-Star League era MAF regiments and reconciling some of the problems linking old units with new equivalents in the modern era.

Planetary ownership dates are a lot easier to update than reconciling unit histories, it turns out! BrokenMnemonic 01:21, 25 January 2012 (PST)

I know what you mean about being tired: I started to respond to this in the Summary field!

If you've got a PTB like Hartford willing to answer constant questions, that's great!

I had originally envisioned BTW becoming a bible for the canon writers and editors. Now I understand how difficult that will always be, because of the sheer breadth of information out there and contentiously arriving. However, with editors such as yourself making the honest attempt, at the very least some articles will achieve the status of "knowing everything" and many others may help the canon writers to locate what source materials will give them the info they seek. That's gotta mean something!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:24, 25 January 2012 (PST)