User talk:Wrangler

Archives

User Talk Archive 2009

Resources Pages

• User talk:Wrangler/Resources

Current

Awards

Wrangler, I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page. Please place it where it best fits your design. Happy New Year! (Don't forget to update your Time In Service ribbon in 2 days!)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rev, thanks for the rewards ribbons. I am not sure I understand why the ward you gave me says 9 months..Though i'm not totally certain where to put it either. Also, i'm think time for me to add archive page but i'm not certain how to do that. -- Wrangler 02:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oi:

1: You've not yet a year here, so you have the last once you've earned for TIS, which is 9 months. (See BattleTechWiki:Awards for further details.

2: Check out my talk page to see how I did mine. After you create your archive page, cut-n-paste the discussions you want archived to the new page and save both. Let me know if you have any questions. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New Burn rate figure

Hi there, to calculate the new burn rate figure, do you (fuel/burn per day) = Number of days? Thanks Djuice 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the writers have said that it IS by Days and I was completely and total mis-reading the thing. In the Tigress's listing in handbook: Major Periphery States, the burn rate even says days. So its 8.15 Days of fuel. -- Wrangler 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh cool thanks, I can now slowly add those figures for the other dropship and vessels :P Djuice 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try help out where I can filling those data in if you want. -- Wrangler 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Djuice. Are you sure your doing the rates correct? Did you read the forums on Battletech message? Forums on Classic Battletech Message Board regarding Burn/rate & Tigress The burn rate literilyy gives how much fuel the thing actual has in a total of days. Its not broken down more. Unless there something I'm missunder standing Michael Miller in this. -- Wrangler 12:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it correct, for example, The Vulture class dropship has 300 tons of fuel with a burn per day @ 1.84. So 300 ÷ 1.84 = 163.04 days, which is like 15 ÷ 1.84 = 8.15 days on the Tigress. Unless I am mistaken and there are some other caluculatiion. Djuice 19:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, from what the one of the offical Battletech write described if you read the message board thing. that 1.84 is not the rate burn its how much fuel total in day time period. 24hrs+what heck .84 ends up being in hours. -- Wrangler 19:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Resource page & Archives

Love your resource page; well-designed and productive. And good job on setting up your archive page. Makes things cleaner, don't it? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. I was at first unsure how to setup the archive page from my own. So i looked at yours and figured it out. Resource page will be boone for me jumping around to places. Specially looking up these files we have uploaded to Sarna's wiki achives. Best form of Favorites i can have on wikipedia page. -- Wrangler 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Something to consider: do those dossiers deserve their own master article, where the list can also be displayed? (Or does this already exist?) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been listing them with their respective articles such as vehicles or characters. It be nice if had their own. Plus all the recent articles released by Catalyst Game Labs of the Maps, Linknet articles and stuff like that would be heck alot easier to find if they had their own gallery draw from. -- Wrangler 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Random Act of Appreciation Award

For no reason at all, other than a random act of appreciation. Display it proudly!

--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot Rev. -- Wrangler 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Burn rate

Are you sure? I thought you divide the tonnage of fuel by 1.84. Your figure means it operates less than 2 days, in spite of 400 tons of fuel. Checking the old amount, I get 217.39 when i divide 400 by 1.84.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the stupid thing very much. Cray on CBT website said point blank that the number given is the actual number of how many days period a ship has. 1.84 is Day and 3/4s roughtly. Here the post maybe I'm reading it wrong. The Official BattleTech writers report the correct. All i know is that breaking down the fuel rate isn't necessary, Fuel Rate burn per day. Maybe I'm just saying this wrong. I wish I never brought this up... -- Wrangler 12:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're just not awake yet. Cray sez: "...a 150-ton small craft (and any military DropShip) uses 1.84 tons of fuel per G-burn-day." That means you take the available fuel (in this case 400 tons) and divide it by 1.84 (the burn-rate) to get 217 (full) days. I'm thinking using the term "Burn-Rate" in the template is the wrong idea, for techically they all have a burn-rate of 1.84. Not 1.84 days, just 1.84 per day. Maybe change the term to Fuel (in days)?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Its Still confusing. They should just list thing total days the ship has period to travel instead of having us figure out we need burn rate to divide the fuel. They give fuel points for tonnage of fuel. I'm not even sure if your suppose to divide THAT with fuel. I miss just looking at the sheet, thats what you get. *sigh* -- Wrangler 13:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy your confusion. We'll try not to confuse the reader and I'll change the template to read "Fuel (tons)" and "Fuel (days)". That way, only Editors that fully understand the calculation should be doing it. If you'd roll back your change to the article, and we'll be done with it. Thanks, Wrangler (especially for providing the link that cleared it up for me, without my having to break out my books tonight).--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rolled back the interdictor one, but i'm note sure what put for actual fuel thing for Tigress (Small Craft). High math/word problems isn't one things I'm very good at. Also as aside thing. I don't know how yet, but i need an (disambiguation) page for name Tigress. There planet and then you have the Taurian Gunship named it as well. -- Wrangler 15:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Noted, but I'm not gonna chase those down, myself. I see I now have to correct each individual template, so the data shows in each article. BattleSpace ain't really my thang, right now, but I gotta do it since I caused the 'problem'.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:2nd Republican

Wrangler, I'm not sure why you are concerned. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your not citing on exactly nature of the problem. It could be anything, and not being specific. I work hard least get my facts straight of this one. I've been trying re-doving into FedCom War again since I'm working on the 1st Republican, which their involvement in conflict geting murky. They don't have unit named as being there though the 3rd Republican was. I sometimes I have mental blinders not which doesn't allow me to see problem. I went over the article again, re-doing any spelling errors/gammer ones i could spot. However, I'm not sure what wrong with the actual info on what 2nd Republics did. Which is frustrating. -- Wrangler 12:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I said: "On the plus side, it has good solid information on the unit." Why is this a negative review? I don't understand. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm Sorry Rev, i'm not feeling very good. I mis read the comment. Please ignoreme. -- Wrangler 12:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd charge you with 'poor reading comprehension,' but the facts you built into the article indicate I'd be very wrong. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Founder's Honorable Mention Award

Wrangler, you've had a serious impact on BTW with the number of contributions you've made over the last year. Keep up the great work! Nicjansma 06:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you very much, Nicjansma! I'll try keep living up to this award you gave me. -- Wrangler 12:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Merc Helppage

Wrangler, please take a look at Help:CreateMercenaryUnitArticle and make sure the changes I made make sense. Any others you recommend? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. It looks like I've got alot of fixing of mercenary articles ahead of me with Neuling posting new articles with old template lately. I'll be able tell if there something needed by the effort. Thanks Rev. -- Wrangler 12:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Casual Edit Award

Wrangler, for your cleanup of the formatting on the 3072 timeline page and doing it with class, I award you the Casual Edit Award, Good work!

Thank you very much, ClanWolverine. Too bad i wasn't award able! Thanks for the thought-- Wrangler 11:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ehy not? CW is an Editor, he can award you an Editor's award. Feel free to post it on your awards board! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Whew, was worried I had botched that. :) ClanWolverine101

Random Thanks

Wrangler, thanks for the quick follow up edits on the Miraborg article. --Peregry 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No, problem. I enjoy helping out folks. -- Wrangler 03:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

All Purpose Award

For creating a good 3rd Royal Guards article:

--Neufeld 08:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just read it - I'm very impressed! ClanWolverine101

Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments!

Operation: Thunderstrike

Wrangler, please read Huronwarrior's comments here. I'd like to hear your opinion. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded, Rev. Blake Ascending book is republication of earlier Jihad books (Dawn of the Jihad and Jihad Hot Spots: 3070. Thunderstrike name appeared in the offical report on blow-by-blow details of the Capellan counterstrike. Since the Blake Documents is a newer book, its trumps it. Like i said in the Thunderstrike Talk, i'm asking writers if this is a case of duel names. 'Operation Celestial Vengeance name was only used once from what i could find. Never again. Huronwarrior only has Blake Ascending so he/she may not realize that its older information. Also, older books were canon vague, since they were scattered media news and vague military repots which were suppose to be not exactly accurate. I'm bit hessitant in using that stuff. I've posted with writers what they think if they respond to it. My suspision thou its going a be a inhouse Capellan name & Thunderstrike is "english" general inner sphere name. I'd be very upset if i had change name for old source name that was either forgotten or vaguelly used once...It wasn't even used in Jihad Hot Spots: 3072 either -- Wrangler 04:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What concerns me is that BA is supposed to be a compilation, a reprinting, which -like you- is why I didn't buy it. I might follow your questions to the writers with one of my own. Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this general confusion is going rein hell for us on Sarna. Now i've got to defend the article from folks who may not have read all the sister articles in differient books. I'm upset possiblity that they did indeed add some new wringles to the Ascending, thus changing old sources/newer. Its possible that that these thing articles were written by completely differient writers who may not have been all on the "same page" on what other person was doing. Its happened before when they did last of the Dark Age novels with invasion of FWL by Lyrans/Clan Wolf. I'm almost ready to stop writting articles since everytime we think we got it "right", there something else coming up aruging its wrong. *sigh* -- Wrangler 17:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a wikibreak. Don't stop writing articles all-together. I've taken several wikibreaks. You are a dedicated Editor and have been working for months, almost every day. If you take a week's break, 2 weeks, a month or longer, "Operation: Thunderstrike" will still be there and consensus may have changed (due to the other Editors finding out more on the subject, departing from editing themselves, or whatever). If you have the strength and interest to work on consensus now with the current Editors, that would be for the best. But being frustrated with the process completely is not healthy either, and warrants a wikibreak. (If you do, put the code from this page on your main & talk pages.) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you do take a wikibreak, I'll use my Admin powers to help you enforce it. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me think on it. Newer editors are covering alot ground was going tread on. I won't quit, but there not alot I can do if someone quicker got there before I did. -- Wrangler 00:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Casual Edit Award

For finding the relevant references and fixing the need, all within half an hour of my putting a {{cn}} on two points of The Arcadians article, I award you the Casual Edit award:

A second bronze oak leave will be added, in lieu of your third award. Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rev, I appreciate it. -- Wrangler 00:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Solaris Stable test page

Wrangler, I'm working on creating the Solaris Stable page you requested. The first version is ready for you to review. You can see it at User:Mbear/SolarisStableTest. I'm not sure how you want the "Units Used" section of the infobox to work, so I basically have a "Yes/No" set up right now. (If you leave a field blank, it won't display.) Please have a look and let me know if this is what you had in mind. Thanks!--Mbear 19:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Seriously. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks great Mbear! Now other units, like Aerospace Fighters, Exoskeletons, Infantry (unarmored), Battle Armor, Tanks etc. are in this section of yes and no for the info box? -- Wrangler 19:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, but they will be. I just need some time to add them. Give me a few hours and I'll let you know when I'm done.--Mbear 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

OK Wrangler. Have a look at the test page. I've added the following unit types to the infobox:

• Exoskeletons
• Conventional Infantry
• Combat Vehicles
• VTOLs
• AeroSpace Fighters
• Conventional Fighters

Does that cover everything or do you need me to add more unit types?--Mbear 21:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks all good to me! I see no missing units. Post-Jihad & Dark Age, renames conventional infantry to Scrappers. However, we'll deal with that when it comes! Awesome job! Let me know when its allset I'll start to do my stuff. -- Wrangler 12:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrangler, it's all done. I've put the information in place, and created a Help page. You should be good to go. Good Luck!--Mbear 14:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi MBear, fantastic job! Can you imbed that template into the Solaris Stable category? That where it should belong. Thanks! -- Wrangler 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

References/Bibliography

Hey, Wrangler: good job on the inclusion and writing of the Merkava article. Because you are involved in such a wide variety of articles, both in writing and editing, would you assist me into bringing some consistency to the ==References== and ==Bibliography== sections? I've updated Merkava to reflect how they should be used. I'll be re-writing the policy to support this, but it can be summed up here:

• References:

1. Always in every article (except those about products, unless necessary), even when no data exists.
2. Only place in-line citations will appear (because of the <references /> template).
3. When the citations are not in-line yet, but included in the section (such as they are presently in Merkava), and they have page numbers associated with them, they should be listed under the <references /> template (to allow the in-lines top billing).
4. Page numbers should be listed as p. for a singular page and pp. for plural pages.
5. Is always italicized, but (almost) never wikilinked (helps keep the in-line citations clean and the section consistent.

• Bibliography:

1. Always follows References (except those about products, unless necessary), even when no data exists.
2. Is both italicized and wikilinked.
3. No pages associated with it.
4. Includes sources known to have information on the subject, even if the source is not used in the article (yet).

I'm thinking that with your breadth of article range and my hopscotching around, more and more people will become exposed to this "pre-policy". Merkava incorporates most of the above and could be your 'visual' reference. Can you help me out with this one? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rev, I'll try my best to help you. As you can tell, i'm not that strong in grammer also i'm still learning about the codes of wikipedia and don't know much about nowiki usage. Heck until i looked up the word, I didn't have clue what Bibliography meant. To me, its not common word, nevermind one I can pronounce! Anyways, despite my limitations, here what I think. Agree, with what you have described. There is not true template for character articles and vehicle / 'Mech articles nearly completed due to their popularity. I personally, would like example article type of articles layout so folks can see whom may or maynot be able understand the jaggin were laying down. I would suggest if anything i say does make sense is to have quick link in took box that allows folks to quickly reference too what article should look like. I've found, unless you know what your looking for and what wording is..its likely newbies and other folks are going miss instructions like what your proposing. -- Wrangler 18:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You're proposing a link in the edit pages to the instructions (or the example of the instructions). I'm not sure that fits with the intent of tools on that page. But, that made me think of putting it on the left-side column. I'll think about that. Let me make the policy re-write and then I'll attempt that. But, if you can format your edits to match that of Merkava, I think that would go a long way.

Kal Radick

I know you (and someone else) saved a whole bunch of those WK dossiers. Do you have one about Kal Radick (or maybe "Kal Radik" or "Kal Raddick")? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have a dossier for him, Did i forget to bring up for that article? -- Wrangler 10:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for updating it. as you already know, the link was to the dead WKG page.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I will have to look at my dossier project again, i could have sworn i added the cards to all the articles that were related to it. *grumble* Please let me know if you spot more of them and I'll add them accordingly. -- Wrangler 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I know why may have accidently skipped it. Its because Radick's 'Mech. Its Mad Cat II (not Mark II), since there no real info on that and there conficting info that it new version of the Mark II i opt to no include in MK II article. However, Didn't intend to not include it with Radick's article. -- Wrangler 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm just glad (now) that you grabbed and worked those dossiers when you did. They've become more relevant. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbear is to thank for that, I just suggested it. Something we REALLY need to grab it Herb's Touring the Stars pdf and uploading THAT. Its closes thing right now that a source book for Dark Age. We need upload that, i refer alot from it and free on Classicbattletech.com website. I referred to that alot in Dark Age articles. Since Herb actually wrote it. Heck, the Titanic being in the Jihad was SAVED because it was pointed out that its destruction couldn't have happened due to it existing in Touring the Stars. -- Wrangler 10:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

2408, 2361

Wrangler, instead of re-hashing what the Editors spent weeks discussing, I'm gonna just point you to Policy:Year Pages, as the reason why I reverted your changes to the Year pages. We can't allow them to again become what the morasses thay had devolved into.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I sorry I miss policy talk. Information being posted there will now be suspect since there will be no way prove when something happens happens. It too bad there no way to create code to hide references to keep year page clear. This will be source of problems, if you don't believe me. Look on forums on ClassicBattletech's when ever people get into a dispute about something. The way people write information, how heck is anyone going believe anything we put up here if we don't have narrow pin-point source of the information. Doneve was putting all sort of events on year lists, alot them not making sense to anyone since. Its mistake not having least references on the yearlist, even if they could be hidden. -- Wrangler 11:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

[Wrangler]: "...since there will be no way [to] prove when something happens happens."

[Policy]:"However, the duplication of information proved pointless when the supporting article should provide that same information..."

We addressed every one of your concerns in the policy and I spent a great deal of time writing it, based on the discussion of seven Editors. Instead of re-hashing the discussion and the policy, please read through it. You can even read thru other issues that people identified (and were answered) by reading the archived discussion here. It'll be clear that references (which you have been good at adding) will be a much higher value in articles than before.

And Doneve's experience with the Year pages is in the past. He took part in the discussions (as advertised on the main page) and has done the majority of the work to bring the re-vamped articles up to policy. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrangler, think of the year pages as something like Categories instead: They are just an overview of articles that have to do with that year, and should not be seen as full-blown articles themselves. Every entry on a year page links to an article and the references you seek are to be included (and found) in that article. They need not be put on the year page as well. Plus, personally, I feel we would be cluttering up the year pages. I think they need to be streamlined, to provide a quick and easy reference to the "real" articles. Frabby 17:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I can see the logic behind the new policy. I wasn't trying to cite Doneve being this way now. I was using example of what could happen in the times to come. Timeline articles must have a source article to have it appear in the year book? Only thing i see could be problem in the times to come, is that example 25 Years of Art & Fiction. It has events that in timeline that doesn't appear any source book yet. So we need wait when source book comes out for that to be in the timeline? -- Wrangler 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutly, in 25 Years of Art & Fiction are citend some events, there you not find in any sourcebook, but i removed it, when in next future come some sources or other canon material, then we can post it on the Year Pages.Doneve 18:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, the line items within 25 Years of Art & Fiction can be referenced & cited in another article (say Federated Suns), which then allows it to be included on the Year page. The reader just needs to be able to follow that one wikilink to ann article that provides more detail (even if the additional detail is just a source).(I really like Frabby's anology about the category.)--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Military Operations categories

Was it your intention to only have named operations listed in these various categories? Specifically, would the Luthien campaign (Jihad) fit in there, since it doesn't fall under a specific faction's operation name?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rev, it was originally my intention to have named military operations. This was due to entries that was listed in the early Jihad Hot Spots & Jihad Secrets books. Military operations are usually organized / planned military campaigns. Luthien campaign wasn't planned as far we can tell from what been written about the Jihad. It could be, just writers haven't gotten around naming it. I say, its right place for it. There bound be more un-named military events/campaigns, then named ones. Personally, I'd would name article Occupation of Luthiern (Jihad), since that what it was from Jihad Turning Points: Luthien. The JTP:L has more events that happened, per the scenario they included in that book. I can help you with the article if you wish. Me personally, until a Historical: Jihad is ever published which could give actual names to events. I'd go with what you have or the suggested name. I'd be more creative Battle for Luthien (Jihad). If it wasn't for the fact, that older books publications had given numbers of battles for say Hesperus II (I think their on their 15th Battle now...) I'd be naming them by which invasion it was. I think Luthien was invaded and fought over in major battle twice, so this would been 2nd Battle for Luthien, not counting when Black Dragons tried to assasinate Teddy Kurita at his birthday. -- Wrangler 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I liked the idea of the "Occupation of Luthien", at first glance, because its a cleaner name than "Luthien campaign (Jihad)". However, the events started off with the coup by the Black Dragon Society, and since they are Dracs, it's not really an occupation. I, instead, think "Battle for Luthien" would be a better name. Also, in re-thinking the name, we only add parentheses when there is more than one article with that name. Since no one has felt the need to right an article about the Clan invasion of the world yet, I think I'll just stick with "Battle for Luthien". It can always be moved later. Thanks for the suggestions.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Any time. You know, thinking about it, you could use as alternate name as the 2nd Black Dragon Coup help people who may be searching event in differient content. Which is what it really was. The Blake did gets involved, but it wasn't all about them (the Blakist), though them being there was brought all the heavy hitters in at end, which included Nova Cat's Xi Galaxy and ending with Ghost Bears finishing skrimishes for the planet. If you look in Xi Galaxy history and Jal Steiner profiles i wrote, you'll see some of the details of the conflict you may want to add to your article. -- Wrangler 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But the battle isn't only about the coup. WOBbies are in it for whatever reason, the Clans because the Wobbies are (or because of loyalty to Dracs). No, I think "Battle" is the best bet. As for the other articles, I'm working on my BattleTechWiki:Project Unfinished Book assignment, JTP: Luthien, which means I focus only on the facts within that title. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Operation Ice Storm

I will overwork your article and include further information from the hotspots 3072 und 3076. I will post it on a different page and <ou can write me back what's your opinion is about it. Neuling 22:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What you talking about? You going to make a duplicate article based on Ice Hellion Invasion of 3071-3072? The article made is sort-of work in progress. Since it takes more time to "cherry pick" from the other source books for me to find all information necessary include the details. I wanted to have something out there covering the event. I will look at this article your going write if you want, so let me know when its ready to be read. I'm not sure what your objective is to for differient article. -- Wrangler 23:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

He's saying (I presume) that he doesn't want to interfere with your efforts, but wants to assist. Since his English isn't as...clear as your's, he's assisting by providing straight facts for you to incorporate.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rev, Okay, that makes sense if thats his objective. I'm not sure what exactly will done as a supplimental article. I need dig more to get other information for it. I did what I could with time I had. -- Wrangler 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Territory Clan Wars

I need help to develope this project. I'm a little confused which planets changed hands (who is attacker and who is defender) and if this a hole war or a series of trials? -- Neuling

Depends on when your talking about. The Clans have been doing this off-on for centuries. Basicly, they've had Trials for possession for resources. The World thing maybe considered actual war, but no War has ever been actually given a named. Project your thinking of maybe difficult to administer until a conflict name given. -- Wrangler 11:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Manei Domini Article-Undid my revisions.

Wrangler,

I've converted my lists of Mechs, etc. back to the tables you had used. (except for the Bolla tank, which looked odd all by itself when I converted it.) One reason I changed them originally from lists to tables is that I have to use a screen reader for my job at work, and hearing "table" before the list wasn't adding anything to the experience. Anyway, the tables are back and the list is out. Hopefully I didn't upset you too much when you saw the change.

Have a good one!--Mbear 15:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Page number for the "Apocalypse" World Rover

Hi Wrangler,

When you have a moment, would you please add the page number for the rover image you uploaded? Thanks for the help. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)