User talk:Revanche/Archive 2009

< User talk:Revanche
Revision as of 01:23, 1 January 2010 by Revanche (talk | contribs) (created)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Lady Janella Lakewood birth question

Hi, i noticed that her dossier birthdate was removed from entry. Is there canon problem with original MWDA dossier? Her informational background matches & expands what was published in Ghost War novel. Wrangler 06:10, 14 March 2009 (PDT)

Sorry, I really don't know why it was removed. Did you ask the person who removed it; he would be the best source for your answer. From what I can see, you have a good reference for the date. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:08, 31 May 2009 (PDT)


Citation format

Thank you for taking on the task of updating the references in Draconis Combine with links. It's a pretty big project that I've been too lazy to get to. One note, though. If you check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite#Notes, you will see that when citing multiple pages, the correct format is "pp." I don't know why, but it is. I keep meaning to write an article on citing sources here, but I've haven't gotten around to it. --Scaletail 18:35, 2 June 2009 (PDT)

Roger that. I was actually trying to make it consistent with elsewhere, but who knows where 'elsewhere' was at this point. I'll make the changes. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:08, 2 June 2009 (PDT)


Strick-9

Sorry, for the mistake. My computer skill are, shall we say, lacking. I'll work harder to get the info on the right format. Having hard time understanding some stuff. Thanks for your help.

Strick-9 11:25, 12 June 2009 (PDT)Strick-9

Not a problem. In fact, if the help page wasn't helpful enough, let me know what you'd like to do, and I'll step you through it. It appears hard at first, but I learned by opening the edit files on other articles to see how they did what I wanted to do.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:18, 12 June 2009 (PDT)


Welcomings to IPs

While I appreciate the effort you're going through, I think you should not treat IPs like regular users and give them a welcoming for the following reasons:

  • they may have deliberately elected not to register and thereby, not to become a contributor.
  • dynamic IPs will likely lead to the same person getting several different IPs, and (possibly, although unlikely) several different people ending up with the same IP over time. Much like treating a phone booth like a private number.
  • filling the database with Talk pages for IPs that will likely never be used again.

I don't strongly disagree with what you're doing, but I thought I should mention the above. Frabby 11:52, 30 June 2009 (PDT)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but for some reason didn't see this until now.
In some cases, where we have someone making a really good effort at improving the project, I'd agree with you on your first point. They have elected not to register. On those that are struggling a bit, as is evident on many first edits, I want to heartily welcome them, so that they see their efforts are not lost in the wind and that there are people they can readily identify to turn to for help. It doesn't cost me anything more than 30 seconds to welcome like that, and if it helps keep one editor (we only have 27 active at the moment), then the project is improved.
Yes, I understand the IP nature. However, I'm sending out my missives to those few that are receptive to it. The others are free to ignore it.
And, yeah, I get that 95% of the time, the welcome is not seen or not acknowledged, but it doesn't cost anything (other than my time) to do it, and I feel it has the chance to provide a little bit of reward. Kind of like casting while fishing: majority of the time I won't catch anything, but its the chance that it succeeds that drives me on.
Thanks, Frabby. I appreciate the interaction.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


"Update needed" tag


{{Yearlist}} template

Revanche, you had a great idea about improving the {{yearlist}} template. Now that the site software has been updated to v1.15, I was able to make the changes. What do you think of the template now, and should I start adding it to all the years? Thanks. --Ebakunin 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding on the Yearlist talk page. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


BattleTechWikiCount broken?

Well, see headline. The function seems to return an incomplete page with no data or formatting. Frabby 07:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you mean Wannabe Kate, then 'yep.' I've asked Ebakunin to take a look at the code, see if we can install it here. It has some good solid information on it. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Use of italics

I've taken the liberty to rollback your last changes to Dual Cockpit. The main reason was a factual error: The source I quoted was indeed the MechWarrior Companion (FASA #1671), a RPG sourcebook. It's not covered here yet but it does exist; I did not mean to quote the MechWarrior Companion.

On the sidelines the rollback reverted the italics you added. I have to ask: Do we have a policy or manual of style here that governs the use of these? Because I tend to only use italics for individual ship names and on BattleMechs, but not for vehicles or anything else. You seem to apply them far more often? Frabby 13:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I just finished reading Loren Coleman's Blood of the Isle which has a lot of named BattleMechs, DropShips, JumpShips, etc. It's the perfect source for determining what is and is not italicized. The answer's actually fairly simple: all classes of BattleTech and all named BattleTech get italicized. For example:
  • Tamara Duke named her Wolfhound 'Mech Eisenfaust.
  • In a battle of WarShips, the Lyrans fielded the Mjolnir-class Yggdrasil.
  • The Union-class DropShip Noble Son was one of the few to escape the battle of Ryde.
If (when) we put together a Manual of Style I think Blood of the Isle would be the best place to start. --Ebakunin 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm still confused over the book titles, but that's because I've never been exposed to that book, apparently. Thanks for letting me know. As for italics, I picked that up from Scaletail. The old style manuals had books underlined when used as references, but in this modern day of hyperlinks, italics are used to denote publications instead.
Do we have a manual of style? I could swear we did, and I feel Scaletail crafted it, but a quick search doesn't reveal it. I think I will start heading towards policy crafting again, so that these things can be codified and easily found. My end goal is to start a weekly featured article on the front page, but we need to first establish a ranking structure and before that a clear doctrine on what is needed for a 'perfect article' (and now I'm rambling). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well there's also the BattleCorps Style Guide. There's a rules system spelled out there, but I am a little unsure whether or not submission format guidelines should also be applied to this wiki. Frabby 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That's perfect! Thanks Frabby. --Ebakunin 17:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked at work. I'm intrigued, however. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Pulled it up on my phone. That seems worthy of stealing wholecloth and plopping on a "policy: italics" page here (maybe as a sub-cat of "policy:manual of style"). We can then adapt it to deal with the issues we have. This would also bring us in line with CBT in a way that familiarity expects. Good find, Frabby. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
BattleTechWiki:Manual of Style. I edited the italics section to be more comprehensive. BattleTechWiki:Project Ground Units#Guidelines also has specifics. --Scaletail 23:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Hah! I knew I saw it. Okay, adding a link to Policy:Italics for greater detail. Thanks, Scaletail. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Welcome message

Hi Revanche,

One of Nic's new extensions is the {{welcome}} template. I just copied your usual welcoming code over. I'm assuming you'll continue to do the meet-and-greet with all the new users. Thanks. --Ebakunin 22:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I should probably tailor it a bit, so its more suited for a new registrant, rather than all comers (like my standard one). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Links Remove?

Quick question, I was wondering why you reverted to the previous edit, and removed the links posted on the Free Worlds League Military page? Thanks--S.gage 21:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That is odd! I remember making that mod, but I only remember adding the references tag at the bottom. Those other edits (the wlinks, the deletions), honestly...I don't know how that happened. I didn't do anything but scroll right to the bottom and add the template. I just now rolled it back to your last edit and then added the template. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure I was not stepping on any toes by adding links to the FWLM page. Thanks--S.gage 00:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Definitely not! You're definitely one of the most productive Editors BTW has seen. I'd definitely let you know if I disagreed with one of your edits. Sorry for the confusion. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Plea

Unblock me. IPs should never be indefinitely blocked.

I've seen no such policy on BTW that addresses that. I'll be sure to put it up for discussion, as soon as my time allows. Thank you for your input. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd say a good rule of thumb is that indefinitely blocking static IPs belonging to non-ISPs is acceptable. It may be a good idea to make a note of the owner of the IP range in this case, so that if someone ever asks to be unblocked it can be easily verified if they're the same person or not. An appeals process for indefinite bans may seem arduous, but until Sarna has about 100+ active users who actually feel like adding their 2¢ is a vital necessity on every single case leaving the appeals process to be guided by "common sense" should be workable. (If it becomes impractical policy could always be written for it.)
Anything else should probably be limited to a year in length at an absolute maximum. Rationale being that "a lot can happen in a year", and people may change ISPs or be assigned a new IP during that time. If you're a potential contributor, finding out that your IP is blocked may turn you away. It's been too long for me to remember the exact mechanics of how IP blocks affect Users, so I'll refrain from commenting until I'm back up to speed. --Xoid 06:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree across the board with you on that one. In this case, doing a little research on our troll there, it turns out he prefers to limit his contributions to several other wikis with threats of blanking and murder and a few (temporarily) altered templates. Saw no reason to care too much about him. I /will/ work on a policy or essay regarding blocks and bans at some point, but it is so far away from interesting to me, I don't see it coming out soon. (Not that someone else cannot put one out; Xoid has a good summary for one in this thread.) --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Sup?

You called? :)

So… what's new? --Xoid 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, man! Welcome back. I see you're no longer "MIA." I came this close [imagine a finger spread] to putting up a sign saying, "this admin appears to be retired." Still working the zombie angle?
"What's new?" Well, to regular people, a whole lot of new entries to the database, for one. We have about 6 regular Editors/Admins contributing on a near-daily basis, with half focusing on new articles. But possibly only noticeable to a coder like you, Nicjansma has upgraded the site to the latest MW version, as well as brought in a few new extensions; newest admin Ebakunin has made some great additions to our capabilities also, by teaching us how to add family trees and added functionality at the edit stage. He also has some interesting ideas for BTW v2.
Good to see you again. Just poking around for a bit, or do you see some a project that interests you? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, not too sure, to be honest. I'll play it by ear, so to speak. It's funny, if I hadn't checked my spam box I wouldn't have found your email. No idea how you ended up in there. --Xoid 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


{{scrollbox}}

I swiped some code from the Star Wars wiki and created the {{scrollbox}} template. I thought you might find it useful for your "List of Important Pages" or "List of Pages I'm Working On". Thanks. --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 04:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You're saying "thanks" to me? Its great, thank you. I'll mess around with it in the morning. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Canon or Fanon

gee, considering how the people who came up with the whole Dark Age plot lines and what they have done with the Story-Arc of Battletech is so completely stupid. Taking a great story line and basically thinking everything they write is golden, there has not been a good Battletech novel since the Fed-Com war series. Every writer on the staff now should be fired, for the dribble they are trying to put out, Republic of the Sphere? Paladins and wanna be "King Arthur??? Story Lines???" I can see how they used the Word of Blake war as a form of Deus Ex Machina because they could not come up with a better story-arc but to keep filling the Battletech Canon with the crap they are at this moment in time, is not gonna win any fans. Even the people that just like reading the Novels are shying away from the books because they are so horrific. so i put in a better story line, and you call it Fanon. — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 216.115.236.149 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 20 July 2009 .

I'm not judging your fanon as to whether its better or not (I chose not read it, since it wasn't properly marked). Since it did not fall under the definition of canon (or even official), it clearly has no place in canon articles. However, assuming good faith on your part, I'll say I think you may have mis-understood the mission of this site. While we do host some fanon (for now), we're not trying to create it. If you disagree with the mission that the consensus has agreed upon a long time ago, then I invite you to convince us through open discussion. Head's up: it'll take some work, as over 50,000 edits have been made to address this core mission. You'll have to really believe in what you feel about fan-created fiction being considered canon and then show the equivalent effort (as well as draw in like-minded people willing to do the associated work). If this doesn't appeal to you and our rules regarding separating fanon from canon are seen as too conservative for you, I suggest you post your story ideas at one of the two alternative wikias: BattleTech Wikia and BattleTech Fanon Wikia. Thank you for your comments. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


You Got Mail

I have project I'm working I have question about. Can you check your e-mail? Either Wiki or Forums. -- Wrangler 18:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My personal 'majority' opinion is adamently, "post it," Wrangler. I'd be concerned with drive-by 'editors' dropping off information here, because of the amount of work it would force other Editors to do, but even in those cases, all BT-related material is welcome here. However, in your case, I know you'd be seeking to bring the article in line over time, so I have no qualms at all with it being 'inappropriate' when it first lands. (If you wanted to, you could post a note at the top indicating the article is 'in progress', as long as it did receive constant work.) Does that help? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then when i'm done with major body. I'll post then. Thanks -- Wrangler 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


PHP Generated Star Systems?

Conversation updated and moved to BattleTechWiki_talk:Project_Planets. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Unit Organization Tree

I am having a little problem getting them into the Organization section but other than that let me know what you think. --Dmon 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First word out of my mouth was, "wow". Seriously. These trees really ramp up the professionalism of the articles. Good job. One recco: I'd suggest indenting the support battalion box for all but the 5th Galedon. That one also stands out because of the dotted line you have connecting it (which also confuses the relationship, IMO). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The dotted line is to represent the attatched units (still working on it). Have a look at the 5th now and see what you think. --Dmon 02:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Much better; very clear now. I love, love, love the wikilinks within the tree, too. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
These are fairly generic at the moment but I have some more ideas once I get all the kinks out of the current format. It would be more useful to BattleForce players if I got the lances in but I think it will clutter the layout. --Dmon 02:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you that there could be too much information, in regards to these trees. If the article were about a company, then lance drawdowns would be appropriate (maybe even to the elements).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
another subtle variation... is it 100% clear to you? 12th Galedon Regulars. --Dmon 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm...don't see the change, so yeah. Still clear. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a very subtle change. the 12ths aerospace, armor and infantry are permanently attatched to the RBG so the line is solid rather than dotted to signify what I would assume to be a closer command. The 16th have a mix. --Dmon 03:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction disappearence on Battlecorp

Hi Rev, something is up with BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction, its missing from the Battleshop. Should this be noted. Its all quiet what happened at the moment. -- Wrangler 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hunh...I'll look into it. But, no, don't add anything right now, until we know its not temporary. There's no reason to report on administrative mistakes or computer errors, and since we don't know if its a policy change or the former, we should give it some time. However, if you see something official regarding it, and its significant (i.e., policy change), then...absolutely, yeah. It could possibly be a unique and reportable issue. Good catch. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep my eyes peeled for any updates. I know people looking for the PDF version. -- Wrangler 01:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I just bcc'd you on a PM I sent Vairdic over at the CBT forums. I imagine its just an error...or is it something I just want to believe? Undecided.gif--Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Better hope it is. Considering its has the "re"-unseen imagines in it. Its has the potential nuclear firestorm of problem if they yanked it if the return was "cancelled". I pray it not. -- Wrangler 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
snafu? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sadly we know now it wasn't snafu. Question does remain however, they stated 12 of the imagines, but what about the Dougram/CrusherJoe imagines? -- Wrangler 22:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unusal characters category problem

Hello Rev. I glanced at the spy character Snow, whom has no "nation" she belongs too. I did create the Spies category for job type. What going happen to potiential characters whom do have category class they belong but is a major character? The Dark Age classification is kind of getting mixed up with mechs & characters in the Dark Age for instance. Old Character Categoryy good keep those gray area characters somewhere in line. Should a new miscellaneous classification/category gray area characters? -- Wrangler 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm half-thinking about those things, too. I'm tempted to 'grow' the Spies category to Spies & Assassins. I'm going to deal with these characters on an individual basis. Some of these were put into Characters by Editors that didn't want to try and find something more appropriate.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Only thing about Spies and adding word assassin to it. They can spy & assassin is sometimes the same thing. Intelligences agents also. I guess its sounds better going with the Spies and Assassins name. -- Wrangler 13:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Fan Fiction mixing in with Categories

Hello, Rev, I spotted Snow Lily Empire (8 members) & Snow Lily Empire Commands (1 member) in main canon categories. I'm not sure if where these articles should appear since there certainly fan-fiction. I would recommand that these type articles should be placed in category called FanMade Catagories. FanMade Commands, FanMade Faction, etc. So they won't appear in canon categories. -- Wrangler 05:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you that they should not fall under general categories. However, my opinion is we should limit the number of fanon categories. What do you think about just a general "Category:Fanon articles" for everything fanon?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. Would it be possible to anchor that category in the {Fanon} tag? Frabby 07:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it would be a good idea to put them all together. Thou we may want enable it to have sub-fanon catagories like Fanon Vehicles, Fanon Faction, Fanon Commands etc. We need to entice these people want put them there so we don't need always clearn up the canon Catagory. Personnally, name Fanon doesn't sound like something a normal fan would recognized immediately. Custom or FanMade would be familiar and easier to understand. -- Wrangler 12:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I think fanon has no reason to be on BTW. There is a BattleTechFanon wiki specifically for this purpose. If you look at the most successful wikis, like Harry Potter and Wookieepedia, they are careful to only include canon. The Star Wars wiki is especially notable, as that universe has an extremely complicated canon vs. fanon environment. Mixing fanon and canon does not expand what BTW offers, but rather complicates an already very developed universe. BTF is the perfect place for fanon—let's use it. --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 18:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I know. Frabby is a big proponent of going canon-only, and I was a strong supporter of including fanon. My rationale was that everything we could do to bring in fans could only help us. My opinions have started to shift in the other direction, but I'd prefer someone else open up the discussion again (to seek new consensus). Frabby can probably point you in the direction of where the last discussion(s) were held, in order to open it again. (Mind you, I will ask some challenging questions, that I feel we'd need to answer.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Past tense in articles about vehicles?

Discussion moved to here. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Free Worlds League Map of 3139.pdf

Hi Rev, I was trying to link various faction articles to your new file you uploaded. Due to my limited abilities with wiki. I can't create a link between the articles and the PDF. Is there way to fix the links I tried set up? -- Wrangler 00:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There absolutely is, and I tell you how: go to To Ride the Chimera and copy the relevant code from that article directly into the one you are developing. Good on 'ya to see that new resource and identify where it could best be used. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there way to get the article go directly into the pdf itself instead of going to the page? -- Wrangler 01:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Ugh...I see what you mean now. I hadn't tested it. Short answer: yes; go look at my code now and use that. Long answer: the Editor has to do a few more steps. 1) Go to the file page. 2) Click on the link directly below the icon and open the actual file. 3) Copy the url from the browser. Not ideal, but can be done. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I originally tried doing that and got error. Thats why I brought this thread up in the first place. :) It said there was error. It only lets you access it if you go through the "motions" of getting there. I'm not that hot with the codes or even with computers. I'd like zoom in on the map and show the place on the map for the respective articles. Or least make a highlight of the border itself around nation map suppose to be talking about. I'm happy just having map itself! -- Wrangler 11:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dark Age MWDA dossiers are gone

Hi Rev, I'm bit slow so this may not be news. I was going to check something on the PDFs of the dossiers and discovered that...their gone. All of them. Looks like Topps clean up all the websites for WizKids and put them off line. TROs, dossiers which number our articles confer to and others are no longer available. Did we upload those into the Sarna.net before they went boom? -- Wrangler 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they've been gone for some time, but apparently there is a mega-Dark Age fan out there that captured the websites' contents. I need to find it again and save the data for uploading here. I'll start looking soon. I'm not sure how to reference them now (except to maybe creating articles about them and wikilinking to them).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I have to said website on my other computer, I will hook it up n post it some time tomorrow if I remember. --Dmon 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Dmon has point. I got info on how to get to the dossiers on his site. I do think we need to upload what we have to this site. Alot of articles i wrote and others have references to the pdfs of the MWDA Dossiers. If the person who captured the site has the info, are they owners of it? I'm fuzzy on how online copyright thing works. This is the site where the PDFs are located [[1]-- Wrangler 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Guys, don't worry about that right now. It was material that is no longer available but considered official. If we bring it over to this site, from another private site (i.e., he's hosting it but doesn't own it), I don't think we'll be jeopardizing the wiki. Its official material that is sold for profit that should be our concern, not freely available stuff that was always freely available. (I.e., we 're not posting BattleCorps stories here; we're posting stuff a former website hosted for public consumption.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyway to get the PDFs that are seperated into their individual dossiers? I used to see it them like that. The ones i saw on the fan site are merged multiple dossiers.-- Wrangler 00:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a way.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay then, please let me know when dossiers come up. I'll re-address articles whom refer to particular dossiers for their reference information. The merged PDFs i believe maybe spread out per MWDA release if i looked at them right. -- Wrangler 11:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
In addition I'm finding articles that were on the website hard to get in its new location. http://web.archive.org has Website in its entirity on there, but its not link able per say of having address. So we have articles such as LinkNet ones like Jackalop that come up nothing unless one goes to WizKidsgames.com arhive entry in web.archive. Any idea what to do? -- Wrangler 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the new location for the Dossiers on Warrenborn.com Dmon posted is being broken by the piped link. If you go to http://www.warrenborn.com/Dossiers.html directly, you can get to the PDF downloads without problems. --Mbear 15:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, it looks like I can open the PDFs in Photoshop, so I might be able to split the big dossiers into individual dossiers. I'm assuming that you'd want to have each page of the dossier split into a separate image/file, so instead of a 34 page PDF you'd have 34 individual files (or 68, if you want to slice up the single page profiles so a 'Mech or warrior listed on the page has their own dossier). We can talk about it more if you like.--Mbear 15:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with you they should be on separate articles, so breaking them apart would be best. I believe Wrangler would appreciate working with you on this, Mbear. Thanks for leading us to the 'water.' --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You've probably already seen this, but I've split up the MWDA dossier PDF's and uploaded them. Wrangler's working on linking them now. --Mbear 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, excellent, Mbear! Good job, both of ya'll. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying to Translate Doneve work

Hi Rev, I have this entry in the timeline that doesn't make sense and I'm not sure where its coming from. Doneve, our english challenged friend put this into the time line. 2010 The nation of Australia explains itself to all conflicts neutrally. Do you have any idea what he was trying to put in? This does not make sense to me, nore does it have citation on where it came from so i can fix it. -- Wrangler 11:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

All I can think of is that Australia (the nation) joined some association on Earth. If that's canon, I'd suggest the Star League or ComStar sourcebooks. But, to be honest, that sounds like Star Trek lore, where the nation joined the United Earth(?) group or something, meaning Earth was one big happy nation. I'd cut it, IMO. Proper method would be to [cite needed] it and then delete after a few days. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I read something like this before, but I don't know where - it might have been fanon for all I remember. I think Doneve is trying to say 'Australia declares itself neutral' (RE: Second Cold War between Tikonov's Soviet Union and NATO).--S.gage 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at The Star League sourcebook and I can't find anything that happened before 2011. The ComStar sourcebook starts with the Amaris Coup. I have no idea where he could have gotten his info. --Ebakunin (talk|contribs) 03:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Only place I can think of where he got it was possibly the old BattleSpace Book. Besides having rules for Aerospace, it also had timeline history that was impressive (what I remembered from it.) He could been reading from that one or 1st Crescent Hawks video game book. It also had timeline included with the game. -- Wrangler 10:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone determine his preferred source from his other entries?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The BattleSpace Book was my first thought, too. I checked the BattleSpace Book last night when I saw this thread. It does not include any information about Australia (or Austria, if Doneve simply misspelled the country's name).--S.gage 17:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, S.gage. Guys...I think we should pull it. Every fact should be cited as to source, and since this one is questionable, I think better safe than sorry. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Did anybody ask Doneve? --Scaletail 00:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Scaletail, this is the problem. I've tried to contact him in past. He either does not know how to or ignores messages sent to him. Since he has some difficulties, with english as he originally stated. I don't know if that maybe reason. Either case, we can't seem communicate to him. Least as far I can tell. -- Wrangler 10:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I found the source! Comstar Archives! (Incidentally, I have read this source before, so this is probably the source I remembered.) No further reference is listed, so it is unclear where they found this information. If it is canon, there might be a unit (mercenary or line) which can trace its lineage to Australia, in which case, they might mention such a factoid in the fluff. I guess someone could ask them where they found it, but then there is still the matter of taking unsourced info off another BT fan site...--S.gage 05:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
That Roosterboy's from CBT.Com's Forums. He usually dead on, with his research. I tried to go work for him on the site when it look like his website wasn't updating. I think he gotten busy. He has screwy code he inserts things. I'm not sure why he doesn't put references on his sources. I could directly ask him if knows where the reference for Doneve's information came from. -- Wrangler 11:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Character Profiles from Warrior Series added

After months of researching and typing and re-typing I have posted these profile of these major/minor characters from the 4th Succession War's Warrior Trilogy. I realize these articles are likely to be heavy critized for being lengthy. I'm admit their huge, including Justin Allard. I'm not that fantastic at cutting thing down in size since i put alot detail work in them. So please feel free to rip them appart make them more manageble less memory hogging. I've tried be careful about grammer, some this work is very old since i've been typing them since least June. I may have missed alot. I'll be going over them next couple days to improve them. Please let me know what you think. I'll be likely taking break doing big bio-profiles. -- Wrangler 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

3rd Royal Labrean Defense

Just curious as to why you undid my last edit, There are several "Defence Regiments" in the DCMS so I am grouping them together. --Dmon 12:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. In fact, I'm rather certain I was still in bed at 7:20 this morning. /Maybe/ it was an inadvertent mobile change (I keep a webpage open to Sarna usually). My apologies. Please make sure it is correct now. [off to make sure I didn't accidentally send any spam to the commander-in-chief.] --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New Templates maybe needed

Hi Revanche, I read your recent new posting. I believe I know why the moratorium was being used some places. Such as 1st Division (Word of Blake) I recently put more information in it. There is (no longer or currently findable) citation to put in articles that need to be updated. The citation for updates have moratorium as part of the template. Is possible to have some create a new update article template and be able insert the suggested source? -- Wrangler 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We do have the {{Update Needed}} template. See Detroit Consolidated MechWorks to understand how it can be used with a specific source.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that templated includes Moratorium period notice in it. I'm finding articles that have update article with Fall of Terra and ComStar (Sourcebook) in them. I find having moratorium maybe causing confusion when its relating to older sources. -- Wrangler 19:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I kinda disagree. I understand why you think it could cause confusion, but we've (or at least I haven't) seen no such confusion. If there is any doubt, they can click on the source (located within the tag) and see if it is or is not under moratorium. If it is, it'll say so. If not, there will be no such tag. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

24.34.239.208's unsource articles

Hi Rev, question. I'm attempting to sort out the rapid posting of articles from author 24.34.239.208. I'm not certain if these thing are going be kept. The articles are unsourced, with timeline like posting. They also mentioning incorrect names of the events or adds stuff that not mentioned in any major sources source books i've looked into. I've able to access most of the major source books now, i've not found anything. I've mentioned to Scaletail, but i'm not sure if decided what to do this fellow's work. -- Wrangler 03:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrangler, good patrolling on your part. I felt I should respond to this, as soon as I saw it, but I don't have time to explore each of his edits. My initial tendency is to err in his favor (assume no malice), since they don't outright strike us as wrong. However, we also work on the consensus basis, so I think you have two options: 1 - mark each statement of concern with {{citation needed}} or 2 - revert his changes, allowing the consensus (i.e. B-E-D) to be determined. Seriously, I'm glad you're patrolling. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Rev. I'll place {{citation needed}} on article person has made so far. However I don't if anyone will repair/update articles. I'm find people are barrelling in with edits, but alot times ignoring policies or even checking if something already exists. I'm uncertain how to communicate with the person since their not a actual user per-say. I will bring it up on the consenus talk. It appears person is continuing as were typing this response.-- Wrangler 01:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Not as likely to work here as well as it does on Wikipedia, but sometimes writing on their talk page (even IP address users have them) will catch their attention, 'cause they get the same message alert. If you /do/ go with the B-E-D method, be sure to state why in the summary line. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, looks like the person has stop posting at the moment. So i may hold off and do something in mean time with the articles that they've already made. -- Wrangler 11:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can i join this wiki and contribute in my free time?

How do i join, if possible? — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 60.49.45.184 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 December 2009 .

(As a fellow admin, I shall quickly answer in Revanche's stead since I happened to see your question.)
Generally, like with any wiki, you don't actually have to sign up in order to contribute. You can edit files at leisure, although of course we request that your edits should strictly be made to improve this site's content and comply with Policy:Canon and our other policies.
That said, I strongly recommend that you create a user account, by clicking on "Log in/Create account" on the right side of the task bar at the top. Then log in using your newly created user name and password. This will allow you to create a proper user page for yourself, along with a talk page like this one where things can be discussed. It also helps others on this wiki to identify which edits were made by you, as your username is then logged with your edits instead of your IP.
Oh, and once you have registered, you may want to drop a line about yourself in the New User Log and perhaps add some sort of a profile to your user page. But that's totally optional. Frabby 15:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping on this, Frabby. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Canon policy

Following your latest edit to the Canon Policy, I have posted an observation up for discussion at Policy Talk:Canon. Comments welcome. Frabby 10:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Raventhi's Iron Hand emblem

Hi Rev, just after you send your compliment to me. I've uploaded my attempt to coloring the original imagine. Hopefully this is acceptable. I thought it was simple enough imagine to attempt to color it. -- Wrangler 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Revanche/Archive_2009&oldid=76720"