User talk:Mbear

Something you want to say? Just let me know!

User_talk:Mbear/archived

Citing BV & template

Policy_Talk:Canon#Citing_BV: looks like your idea has sparked support. Can you pls respond? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hy Mbear i post a little link *Master Unit List.pdf, i hope it is helpfull.--Doneve 20:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Mortiorum work

Hi Mbear, other day scrambled to put up a Mortiorum volation notice on the Arbiter article. I do not normally do that sort of thing so i wasn't sure what to do. How do you temporary, block text like it is now? Its not blanking, but i'm not sure how to do it or how to put correct template on there note that someone violated the Mort. -- Wrangler 16:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To hide the information from view, the editor put standard HTML comment tags around the content they wanted to blank out. These tags tell the web browser to ignore anything between them.

To start an HTML comment, hit the edit page and then place <!-- before the stuff you want to disappear. To close the HTML comment (stop hiding stuff) use the --> tag. Here's a sample (hit the section edit link to see how it works):

I'm not sure if hiding the text is the correct procedure, or if I should delete the page. I'll have to check with the other admins.--Mbear 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just re-read the Policy:Moratorium and it says that commenting out is the correct procedure. There's also some info there.--Mbear 16:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Update needed Tags

Mbear - Question : I appreciate the amount of work you've put in going through all those commands. But isn't this a bit excessive? Some of the articles now have more than five tags. ClanWolverine101 13:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is excessive. Many of these commands just sat there with a stub tag for ages. By adding the relevant update needed tags, I hope that editors can see each relevant reference book. This will give them a head start on updating the article.--Mbear 15:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tikonov Republican Guards

Hi Mbear. Why did you change the name of the Republican regiments? Most of the source books have them listed as (no.) Republicans, not Tikonov Republican Guards. Thats going be bit confusing for alot of folks. I know name not terribly popular but changing them going be rather confusing for people in long run. -- Wrangler 10:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed them because

1. the FCCW book called them the Tikonov Republican Guards.
2. the Rim Worlds Republic's units were also called Republicans.

If you want to change them back, feel free. I've no objection.--Mbear 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mbear. Sorry sound like jerk about it. The Brigade is called Tikonov Republican Guards, and that correct. The individual Regiments are just called, 1st Republican, 2nd Republican, & 3rd Republican. Without the guard name in them. Thats from FCCW book, p. 183 among other listings in the book. -- Wrangler 12:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm not too proud to admit it. --Mbear 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a disambig page is maybe needed. :) ClanWolverine101 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion and support, please

Hi Mbear, I have done a huge rework of the existing articles of the mercs. I splitted larger commands in single regiments. Please read my anwser to Frappy's question on his profil. Let me know what are you thinking about it. I'm not sure which information is needed/prefered by the other commands and which is the best way to show the difference by the force structur of each faction. For example: the CCAF attached a independ command company to each regiment and the dcms have a other structure... please help me... Neuling 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)