Difference between revisions of "User talk:Wrangler"

(All Purpose Award)
Line 104: Line 104:
  
 
--[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 08:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 08:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
: Just read it - I'm very impressed! [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]]

Revision as of 11:15, 16 March 2010

Archives

Resources Pages

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!

Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon

--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)
Wink.gif 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)
Wink.gif 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:

All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon

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

Just read it - I'm very impressed! ClanWolverine101