Difference between revisions of "User talk:Cyc"

(Merkava: resp - page protection vs. IP blocking)
m (resp)
Line 423: Line 423:
::Wouldn't it just be easier to ban/block the IP? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:27, 12 May 2014 (PDT)
::Wouldn't it just be easier to ban/block the IP? -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 12:27, 12 May 2014 (PDT)
:::I doubt it. In my experience, any given person can have dozens of different IPs or get dynamic IPs from their provider even when using the same computer at the same place on different days, so IP is really a poor way of tracking an individual. Besides, this one seems to have a particular issue with the Merkava article so that's where I felt the problem lay, and should be adressed. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:38, 12 May 2014 (PDT)
:::I doubt it. In my experience, any given person can have dozens of different IPs or get dynamic IPs from their provider even when using the same computer at the same place on different days, so IP is really a poor way of tracking an individual. Besides, this one seems to have a particular issue with the Merkava article so that's where I felt the problem lay, and should be adressed. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 12:38, 12 May 2014 (PDT)
::::Yeah, I understand that; I guess I just thought that they'd go to another page if you blocked that one, but apparently not... -[[User:BobTheZombie|BobTheZombie]] ([[User talk:BobTheZombie|talk]]) 14:17, 12 May 2014 (PDT)

Revision as of 17:17, 12 May 2014



Hello there! Thank you for doing a lot of the cleanup that is so important to BTW. I wanted to formally welcome you onboard and express my wish that you stay to help us out. If you'd like, you can also sign up at the new user log. --Scaletail 17:23, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Welcome from me as well, and thanks for your contributions! I have taken the liberty to remove the Stub tag from articles that I think are done for now, and have also removed the Mercenary category tag from some. Please note that the Mercenary category is for mercenary units, and not for general items having to do with the mercenary business (hence removed from Mercenary's Star and Hiring hall). Frabby 05:03, 23 May 2008 (CDT)

BattleTech Compendium

Hello, Cyc. This is only a discussion; please don't feel like I'm directing you. I was thinking this morning, as I created List of Products (By Year), that we should call the article BattleTech Compendium, rather than the longer form BattleTech Compendium: Rules of Warfare. My reasoning comes from the fact that the BattleTech Compendium was the only product with that title and that Rules of Warfare is a sub-title, rather than the title within a series (like Jihad Hot Spots: 3072, where 3072 is the product title within the Jihad Hot Spots series). While you're right that the full title is BattleTech Compendium: Rules of Warfare, enough people refer to it simply as BattleTech Compendium and that if they type only that, they might miss out on the actual article. Actually, my argument is admittedly weak, since a redirect would solve that problem, but it just seems to me that the shorter, common form is easier. What say you? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (CDT)

Perhaps, but with the differences between the 1990 Battletech Compendium and the 1994 Battletech Compendium: Rules of Warfare warranting separate articles IMO, I'm generally more a fan of direct linking to the proper article, correcting "broken" links as they occur and using a re-direct to mope up. Cyc 20:11, 3 July 2008 (CDT)
Oh! Roger. I think I was unaware/had forgotten that there were two. Yes, I think you're right. Do me a favor, if you would: get me the production code for the first one (1990). I'm going to correct the product list, so that my 1994 entry is properly represented. (note: we should probably include the word 'the' in the title, as well.) Thanks, Cyc! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:22, 3 July 2008 (CDT)
At work as I type so can't personally check my copies yet, but according to http://classicbattletech.com/downloads/BattleTech_Product_List.pdf 1990 BC is 1640, BC:ROW hardccover is 1690, BC:ROW softcover is 1691, and limited edition ROW hardcover is 1690L Cyc 20:35, 3 July 2008 (CDT)
Thanks for providing the list; goes a far way to making the article/list complete. I'll use this. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 20:58, 3 July 2008 (CDT)


Thanks for helping fix the DropShip articles with the update I made to the template. It's appreciated! --Scaletail 19:01, 22 July 2008 (CDT)


Just a question, but what's wrong with armour as opposed to armor? Onisuzume 04:32, 4 November 2008 (PST)

Ah right, I'll see if I can think about it when typing. Though I must say that I'm used to the british spelling and grammar... Onisuzume 05:15, 4 November 2008 (PST)

Liao Cats

Nice!! Locis 17:53, 17 November 2008 (PST)

First Lord

how do you create categories? I would like to see a "First Lord" and Director of the Hegemony cats. What do you think? Locis 08:07, 24 November 2008 (PST)
Very quickly, add [[Category:First Lord]] or [[Category:Director-General]] to an article, then create page for that new red-link. You create sub-categories by adding the category tag you want it to hang off to it ie add [[Category:House Cameron Characters]] to the [[Category:Director-General]] and Director-General becomes a sub-category of House Cameron Characters. Cyc 12:12, 6 December 2008 (PST)

Wright vs. Wight

Hi Cyc,

I noticed that you uploaded the image called Wright for the 'Mech Wight. The Wight article also repeatedly misspelled the 'Mech as well. I fixed all the misspellings, re-uploaded the image as Wight, and requested the misspelled image be deleted. I don't want you to think that I'm trampling all over your work. I was just doing some copy-editing :) Cyc 12:12, 6 December 2008 (PST)

Not at all, and you are completely correct, totally an error on my part. The disadvantages of running spell check on text with non-standard names and imaginary items :( Cyc 12:12, 6 December 2008 (PST)


Nice!! Thanks!! Locis 15:16, 10 December 2008 (PST)
Definitely going to have to step up efforts to finish my half-complete ComStar primus character entries now :) Cyc 15:23, 10 December 2008 (PST)
Better you than me!  :P Locis 15:34, 10 December 2008 (PST)

Thaddeus Marik

Hi Cyc, is it possible to change Thaddeus Marik from being II to (2). Since if you list him as II it makes it sound like its his actual name. Character was never named that. But having it (2), makes it so it looks like he's 2nd character with the same name. Thank you

-- Wrangler 05:34, 22 March 2009 (PDT)

Just following other examples with characters with multiples, such as Theodore Kurita and Theodore Kurita II, on BTW. In fact if anything I'd change him to Thaddeus Marik III as located another one, who is actually called Thaddeus II, in House Marik (The Free Worlds League). Cyc 14:07, 22 March 2009 (PDT)

Go, Tag, Go!

Hi Cyc,

just wanted to drop you a line to say great work on tagging, especially in the Clan unit articles I've been throwing up. Thanks! Alkemita 07:39, 16 April 2009 (PDT)

Uploading Picture Question

Howdy, Cyc I had question. I've not been very good with wiki, I wondering if you could describe how to upload imagines. Also, i want make sure i don't break any copy right rules regarding them. I've read wikipedia regarding it but i am uncertain if its allowable to upload picture or what source it coming from. I have vehicle profiles i've added l'd like to get imagines for.

Thank you for your valuable time.

-- Wrangler 16:25, 1 May 2009 (PDT)

Individual Jumpship Category

Hello, Cyc. I'm sorry i didn't write more clearly in the category i made up. The category is suppose to be for all ships. Including Jumpships, Warships, Dropships, Blue-Water Ships, etc. Not just Jumpships. Is there consideration to merge the articles into Notable Ships instead? -- Wrangler 18:30, 21 May 2009 (PDT)

Yes, which is why I raised the question in the first place Cyc 18:31, 21 May 2009 (PDT)

Sea Fox category organization

Hi Cyc. I re-did Delta Aimag (Spina Khanate) and its parent grouping Spina Khanate links in Petr Kalasa's article. From the novel Hunters of the Deep & Touring the Stars indicates that Delta, Beta and beta names are generic naming conventions. There going be MORE Delta Aimags. At moment, literial canon-wise which includes Touring there only three Aimags published. However, way the Touring indicates, each Khanate has 5 Aimags. This means, each one of them has a Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, & Epsilon in every Khanate. If Delta Aimag is unique, there no indication of it. Thus why I listed it Delta Aimag (Spina Khanate), instead of (Clan Sea Fox). As for Spina Khanate (Clan Sea Fox). Did you re-name it because rest of the Clans do that with the Galaxy names? There no indications Khanate formation anywhere in the Clans of 3100s. Its unique, thus why i didn't add Clan Sea Fox name in it. Spina Khanate and Delta Aimag already have articles. I've not had chance to a Beta Aimag (Spina Khanate) article. IlKhanate is suppose have its own IlAimag, but there no info on that. I'm only going write place holder for Spina Khanate's Delta, Beta and one that was mentioned in Touring's article. -- Wrangler 19:30, 25 May 2009 (PDT)

Uh... all I did in the Petr Kalasa article was repair the MechWarror typo and point it via a pipe to the MechWarrior (pilot) article. Cyc 21:51, 25 May 2009 (PDT)
I'll own up to changing the links to "Delta Aimag (Spina Khanate)|Delta Aimag" and the like, but I only expanded their use in the Clan Sea Fox article. Alkemita 06:50, 26 May 2009 (PDT)


Thanks Cyc for fixing boo boo i made with 1st Genyosha article. -- Wrangler 11:13, 1 June 2009 (PDT)

ComStar War

Cyc, just had to say that I was impressed with this article. Its obviously you spent considerable time working on it before uploading it, and it had a depth of information you usually don't see (or expect) from a new article. Really, good job. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (PDT)


Hey, man: good job with the reverts. The quick action is definitely appreciated. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

50th Shadow Division

Hi Cyc, sorry about that. I was editing the 50th at same time as you. Since my info was more extensive. -- Wrangler 01:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Moratorium period on Opacus Venatori

Hi, Cyc. You know that Starterbook: Wolf and Blake came out last year in print right? Why, did you put a Moratorium period on it? -- Wrangler 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't, there is only one version of the Updates Needed tag which states "Once this title clears the Moratorium period, or if it already has, please consider revisiting this article and updating it with the new material." Cyc 04:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I plan to when I am able. I don't own all the books only some of them. I don't own the Starter Book: Wolf & Blake. So it be difficult to filling out anymore than I can. I will try aquire the book, but at moment. I'm broke! -- Wrangler 10:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jump Jets --> Jump Jet

D'oh. I plainly forgot to check for references on the redirect I deleted. Thanks for spotting this and doing all the work! Frabby 11:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Boeing Jump Bomber

Reverted your tag repair in the McCarron's scenario book article. As far as I got it, the full name of this vehicle is "Boeing Jump Bomber" (with Boeing being the firm that manufactures it), so there is no "Boeing (Conventional fighter)". Frabby 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Was just following the common naming schema of vehicle of the TRO articles on BTW, first name and the rest just seems to be ignored. With Fed-Boeing and Boeing Interstellar went with conventional fighter disambig instead of straight "Boeing" as was entered in TRO: 3039 and RS: 3039. Cyc 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Cyc, can you up load the picture of the Rook for me? I really don't know how to up load the thing. -- Wrangler 12:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

'Mech images

Thanks for putting up the images of those Wolverine 'Mechs. I never thought to look for the artist's website. --Scaletail 21:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Related Designs section in 'Mech articles

Hi Cyc, you wrote over at Talk:Thug that you disagree with many "Related Designs" sections. Since I wrote quite a few of them, and believe I was even the one to start the habit of adding such sections, please share your concerns so that we can find a satisfactory solution. Frabby 10:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ronin Wars

Hi Cyc! I just saw on your user page that you were working on coming up with the Ronin Wars article. I put together a quick and dirty article a few days ago and put it in place before I found out you were doing the heavy lifting. Didn't mean to steal your thunder, and I'm sure my article can use some serious help, but it'll hold the place until your article is ready. --Mbear 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Vehicle Pictures

Hi Cyc, I recently did article for the Strike Light Tank & VV1 Ranger. Do you think you can upload pictures for these articles? I am not so-fire sure how actually to do it. -- Wrangler 14:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks alot Cyc. Just so you know, if you look at my talk page. There links to recently MWDA dossiers that mbear posted for me re-connect. one the has the VV1 Ranger. If you could cherry pick the picture from the article. You'll have a imagine of the VV1 Ranger. -- Wrangler 12:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cyc. I'm sorry to pester you. Can you add a picture of the Brutus Assault Tank. I think i need ask someone help me learn how to properly learn how to upload pictures for fair use. -- Wrangler 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)</ref>

Zechetinu Mistake

Hello. I think you made a mistake in the armaments here. Please check. -- Aldous 07:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


Cyc, I saw you hadn't granted yourself the automatic awards yet, so I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page, with those two relevant awards. Remember to give yourself a bump in the TIS award in May! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Griffon Meshune

Hey, Cyc: I saw the change you made to Griffon Meshune, with the apostrophe now enabling the wikilink. Educate me, pls: what character did I use? I can visibly see the difference in the shape, but am not clear as to how that happened. They both look like apostrophes to me, but obviously mine did not work. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its clear given the appalling grammar of the articles I produce I'm not the best person to ask :) That said, you used the typographic apostrophe ( ’ ) while the article was created with the typewriter apostrophe ( ' ). Can't recall/find BTW's preferred apostrophe, I use typewriter like most people on the web (one part laziness as its just a tap next to Enter). Me correcting it was just my usual trawling of Wanted at work and "I'm sure we have an article for them" search, copy/paste. Cyc 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, the existence of a different apostrophe astounds me; I had no idea. And as far as a policy goes, I'm certain it does not exist. In fact, I don't know how to create the typographic one with this keyboard. Maybe I cut & pasted it from somewhere else? Meh...I dunno. Nonetheless, its clear that redirects need to be made for articles that employ apostrophes in their name. Wow...still...amazes me. Thanks, Cyc. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary term for Thugee

Hi Cyc. I am left confused and concern why you removed references of Thugee from the Dictionary? There no article as far i know that exists for that. I added the proper references to the dictionary for it. They are minor faction in the Battletech universe. Are you adding article or is there now a featured article for them? I haven't seen where they? I only have re-directs to the dictionary term.

Founder's Honorable Mention Award

Hey Cyc. I know you just say you're trolling the low-end of the Wanted list, but you've made a ton of great contributions over the last year, keep it up! Nicjansma 06:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Great addition of the additional sources tag. I had no idea Belial was a character more than a voice over Eric Hughes' tac-net until you added those. Proves that the wiki has the ability to help tie odds & ends (TPTB's hidden threads) together. For that addition, I'd like to present you with the Casual Edit award:

Casual Edit Award, 1st ribbon

Thanks for the oversight, Cyc. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the tweak. I couldn't remember where we came to that determination, but since we know it is a hard copy (rather than only pdf), I agree wholeheartedly.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All Purpose Award

Cyc, your comment about the Epimetheus article focusing too much on the DNI system was right. I made a separate article for it, and the Epimetheus article is much better for it.

For catching the problem, and allowing me to write a better article, I'm awarding you your first All Purpose Award.

All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon

Enjoy! --Mbear 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Direction Appreicated Award

Cyc, for showing me how to set up a redirect, I award you the Direction Appreciated Award, 1st ribbon. Thanks! ClanWolverine101

Blake Ascending and the 15th Dracon

Please comment here, if you still can. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Warship Images

I noticed that you seemed to be the one who uploaded most of the warship images. I was wondering what the logic was for labeling the TRO:3057 warships as "Clan Refit" and the TRO:2750 "Star League Era." I know that TRO:3057 seems to treat the art used in that book as what the warships always looked like. Do you know of anywhere that cites the TRO:3057 designs as "clan refit?" --Peregry 14:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually TPTB indicate both are valid art and that the 3057 images are late SLDF refits, its like the Unseen and Project Phoenix images here, same designs just reworked art. I'm digging through the CBT forums but everybody agrees its a mess. Cyc 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was looking through it from that thread you linked me and some threads linked to it. It seems there's two camps on it: those who prefer the 2750 designs and those who prefer the 3057. We should definitely try and not take sides... perhaps we should label the 2750 art as "Early Star League" and the 3057 as "Late Star League" or something instead of Clan refits (as there's art that apparently portrays ComGuard ships using the 3057 art). --Peregry 00:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
If I may jump in here: it could be helpful to quell future debates if the decision by TPTB be linked to somewhere on this site. I'm thinking Peregry's BattleTechWiki:Project Spacecraft would the logical place. And, yeah, list in the image caption which one is which. If anyone asks why 'we' made the decision to do that, we could point them to that statement of policy at Project:Spacecraft. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Okay, you got my heart pumping this morning, saving me $3 for foo-foo coffee. Your image for the XTRO is high-quality and is stated to be from the pDF. Yet, I don't see it for sale yet, either on CBT nor in BC. Do you have it?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=80252

I generally favor DriveThruRPG.com anyway, extra benefit is they appear to be little more prompt on release of Gladitors. Cyc 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Way cool. I'd prefer to support retailers, too. However, if a PDF is updated (with errata, etc.), are you eligible (or even notified) to get the updated e-version?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 15:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Given I just got a minor errata updates email for XTRO:Gladiators from CGL via DriveThruRPG and advised I can download the new version, answer would be yes :)
Good to know; thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 03:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cop award

Thanks for correcting that repeat spammer's efforts to the Leopard article. I grant you the Vandal Cop award.

Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon

--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

FedCom Issue

Cyc - Regarding the plagiarism tag - I may have brought this up some time ago on Talk:Federated Commonwealth. Rev cleared it up. If this is an unrelated issue, could you please address it on the Talk page so it can be properly addressed. Thanks! ClanWolverine101 16:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think (if I may assume, CW), that he'd like you to see if you can identify the source material from which it is plagiarized, so we can challenge and delete it. (You were so good with the Capellan history issue.)--Revanche (talk|contribs) 19:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite. Cyc seems to have posted to the FC Talk page and identified the offending material, so that's cool. ClanWolverine101 22:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
20-Year Update - Not just good for inital Com Guard deployments anymore :) Cyc 01:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I use that for bio edits! :P ClanWolverine101 15:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cop award

Good catch of the spammer. They usually make their junk stand out better than that. In lieu of your 2nd award:

Vandal Cop Award, 1st ribbon

Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

2nd Sword

I think your additional paragraph was valuable, as it provided more detail to the 2nd Sword of Light's closing months. I just wanted to explain my follow-on edit. Jihad Turning Points: Luthien, while not nearly as detailed as Masters & Minions, is also a reference. While a reader won't be able to find everything M&M provides in JTP:L, they can turn to it to read about the conflict. That's why I re-added the citation.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 11:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Pirate Armor

Hi Cyc, question for you. In the Vengeance Incorporated article, you have listed a Battle Armor, which I assume is somewhere. Do you have source for this, I've found mention OF a armor, but no name. BattleCorp story? -- Wrangler 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I can only see a mention of BattleMech Armor, not Battle Armor, on Vengeance Incorporated and that came the write-up for the Brigand mentions only the armor is the only locally produced item on the 'Mech. Cyc 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That said, according to Field Manual: Updates the mysterious source of Lady Death's Battle Armor is the Word of Blake, see the start of their write-up on her band in it. Cyc 20:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That Battle Armor wasn't name written in FMU. St. James was sending Purifier Battle Armor, though it almost sounded like he was going to have her bumped off by them. I'll try find if where actual name Heaven Cent is coming from. I didn't see it there. -- Wrangler 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the BattleMech grade armor Vengeance Incorporated is making, from Brigand fluff, Technical Readout: 3067.
Okay, I miss read that. I apologize for the confusion. -- Wrangler 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cloud Nine

Hi Cyc. Right now, i was talking Mbear, we decided that Cloud Ten will be its own article and not be listed a simple variant of the one-off Cloud Nine since there equally amount of fluff on it. -- Wrangler 17:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Cyc, thanks for helping out with the newbie's violation. I wasn't certain how to use the templates or what to do when something like that happens. -- Wrangler 10:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Clan Planets Marked for Deletion

Hi Cyc, i'm going put what canon content into those empty planet articles your about to delete. so please don't go deleting them all please. -- Wrangler 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Content

Hi, I have a problem with your decicion to change the content of articles and to delete the part you doesn't like. For example, you doen't move my content to the existing article and wrote only prepared for deletion. Other example the Rom article. Both factions (Cmmstar + Wob) have the same roots but develop different covert agencies and your overwork doesn't reflect that fact. I will notice your anwser and put my content to the articles were it need it. Please ask me what I thinking about my work before you changing the content so drasticly. With best regards. Neuling 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The content of the two Ghost Bear units was already included in the pre-existing articles, and save the image, the ROM information was duplicated. Cyc 20:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit Count Award

Cyc, you've passed 5000 edits, so I've taken the liberty of updating your awards board with the appropriate ribbon. Edit Count (5,000) ;) --Peregry 07:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Moritorum Dates


Thanks for jumping on the XTRO: Primitives page so quickly. Looks good! Now my request: Could you please spell out the month in the moratorium warning just to be safe? Granted 26-10-2010 is easy to decode, but 03-05-2011 (for example) isn't. Americans see that as March 5th, 2011 while Europeans see it as May 3rd, 2011. If we spell out the month, we avoid this problem. (I just had to go through this at work so I'm unusually sensitive to it.)

Thanks!--Mbear 11:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Berith Help

Hi there, Cyc! Good catch, i completelly forgot to check Dawn of the Jihad, i can't do it until tomorrow. Thanks alot! -- Wrangler 22:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Founders Awards

Hey Adam! As the 4th most prolific editor on BTW, your wide range of high quality editing is nearly unmatched and much appreciated. Thanks for another great year, and another Founders Award :) Nicjansma 06:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder's Honorable Mention Award

Thank you :)Cyc 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Hey Cyc, the user DelfinaPowell post Spam please block the account. Tnx. Neuling 05:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately no more an editor than you so I can't, blanked page is as much as I can do. Cyc 06:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Morning, Cyc. Please make sure the Warrior (Combat Vehicle) article actually supports the 2974 date statement. I couldn't find it in the article. Thanks for supporting the new Year format. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yao Lien

Cyc - Loved your write-up of the Yao Lien. Have a Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon. ClanWolverine101 02:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Past tense

Hi, I noticed your edits to Wasp, and I'm curious about changing all the tenses into past. While I think this makes sense for historical events (even future ones), it strikes me as strange for a technical text; I don't think I've ever seen it before. Has that been set as consensus and I've just overlooked it (again)? Dirk Bastion 13:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to say the same thing: We're using past tense for events but not for factual information. We've had this discussion before: There was a discussion about the correct tense on a talk page somewhere on BTW but I cannot find it right now. Frabby 14:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

4th Kavalleri

Hi Cyc, i saw you were adding missing units. I'd like ask you restrain from doing the one of the Rasalhaguian units. I'm working on the 4th Kavalleri, so if you hold off doing it, i should be able post it before Friday. I hope. Sincerely -- Wrangler 00:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No prob, I'm back focusing on saving the sub-stub Com Guards divisions so wasn't going anywhere near KungsArme. Cyc 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the point?

Hy there, I need to ask why you made this improvement [1]. I mean what's the point? AFAIK it makes no diffrence whatsoever. ROM secrets 02:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just important as adding the Home Defense Act to overall FWL category. Cyc 03:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The Home Defense Act isn't and never was an event. It's a rather major political law of the Free World League, which influenced all military deployments and the whole way of war of the FWLM. IMHO it needed to sorted under that category. However your change simply makes no diffence that I know of. ROM secrets 03:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Hy Cyc, i give you this All Purpose Award, 3rd ribbon award, for your great Sentinel article revamp, i hope all 'Mech articles became this level. Greetings--Doneve 14:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Good Article award

Cyc, I owe you an apology. Looking through my own To Do list, I saw I made a notation to award you for the well-crafted Thomas Hogarth article, well before the GA award was ready. Its been out for a while and I've awarded it a handful of times, but never showed you the love you deserve. So, with apologies for the lateness:

Good Article Award

I'll post it on your awards board for you. And good show!--Revanche (talk|contribs) 21:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


Good morning! I noticed your comment on checking TRO3058 for the Maultier fluff in relation to Celentaro. I dug out my copy of TRO3058 (I'd misread it earlier in the day as TRO3085, which I don't own) and TRO3058 says Celeano, not Celentaro. Celeano, sometimes spelt Celano, is a different world in the Concordat, and the fluff on Celeano in the Periphery (sourcebook) matches the other half of the content I removed from Celentaro. I think a part of the confusion is that Celeano is talked about and has an entry in the first Periphery sourcebook (p. 85) but doesn't appear on the maps in that edition. If you look at the maps of the Concordat in Handbook: Major Periphery States there's no mention of Celano on the maps up to and including 3025, but it appears in the 3040 map on p. 127. Celentaro also appears on the map on p.121 of the Concordat during the Star League era, whereas the entry for Celeano in the original Periphery sourcebook begins "From what little information is available, Celeano appears to be a warm, temperate world settled sometime in the early 3000s." I need to ask on the CBT forum if Celano is the correct spelling or Celeano, though... BrokenMnemonic 08:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I was at work so added it as a note to check when I got home as the Maultier entry here spelt as Celentaro and was unsure if that was what the TRO3058 actually listed. The upgrade versions of it delete the mention of which planet it was found on entirely.Cyc 09:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if the upgrade versions deliberately omit any mention of it because the writers weren't sure themselves? I've just asked over on the CBT forum about some map discrepancies, and I mention at the same time that Celeano is spelt as Celano on some maps. It'll be interesting to see if I get a response to that, and if I do, what they say. The idea of checking the upgraded TROs never occured to me - I don't own them, so they fall into a blind spot for me. Do you consider the revised and upgraded versions of TRO3058 worth purchasing in addition to the original edition? Getting my head about the differences between the various versions of the TROs has been quite a challenge since I started getting back into buying the books. BrokenMnemonic 10:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, Sarna operates from New Trumps Old viewpoint but generally the new versions have much superior and better error checked fluff. 3058U for example also has Battle Armor added. Cyc 22:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Hogarth

Your comment regarding Thomas Hogarth on the 1st Federated Suns Lancers summary line made me chuckle. Have a Good Humor award:

Good Humor Award, 1st ribbon

--Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:00, 7 March 2012 (PST)


The real Barbara Sennet page is cool! Sorry about the mix up that led to it. And thanks for helping them smooth it all out. That was certainly my bad. --Rebs 15:41, 26 March 2012 (PDT)

Thanks again for the finish on Marcos Radick. I could not muster the sources to find his death and don't remember the novels very clearly on characters like him or Dalk Carns, so I only go with what I can verify now.--Rebs 18:39, 1 June 2012 (PDT)

Substantial Addition award

Substantial Addition Award, 1st ribbonI like what you did on BattleROM. Though I'll have to check Warrior: En Garde again because I remember a section somewhere that said Justin Allard's Yen-Lo-Wang had superior telemetry systems installed by virtue of being a duelling 'Mech; regular BattleROM may be somewhat less capable. Frabby 07:55, 3 April 2012 (PDT)

Chisholm's Raiders

Boy, your expansion of the Chisholm's Raiders article was a minor one? Great work! Harry 16:06, 24 May 2012 (PDT)

Fourth Royal guards


For actually helping me out by adding data to a regiment on the Updates Needed page, I give you this: All Purpose Award, 4th ribbon. Thanks!--Mbear(talk) 03:16, 15 June 2012 (PDT)


Hi Cyc, I'd like to give you a Substantional Addition Award for bulking up the Motstånd skeleton article I created this morning. I wasn't sure anyone was paying any attention to any of the stuff I've been adding from Jihad: Final Reckoning, so seeing you add a lot of detail to the article from other sources both improved the article substantially and gave me the warm feeling that I'm being useful! Smiley.gif

Substantial Addition Award, 2nd ribbon

BrokenMnemonic 05:11, 21 June 2012 (PDT)

Outbound Light

Thanks for the additions to the Outbound Light article. You did pretty much exactly what I had noted down on my "to do" list here once I got back to my bookshelf, and I appreciate the excellent and diligent work you did on the references in particular. Have a Casual Edit award on me! Frabby 08:38, 28 August 2012 (PDT)
Casual Edit Award, 2nd ribbon

Great Lee Turkey Shoot

Cyc - Excellent work on this! Have a Random Act of Appreciation Award, 2nd ribbon for your efforts! ClanWolverine101 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Dromini VI

Hy Cyc, i notice you added some content to the Dromini VI page, please can you add a citation, thanks.--Doneve (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2012 (PST)

It's not easy being Breen

Thank you again for helping me out by picking up any slack in my Clan bios. The added details regarding Viper Khan Natalie Breen were exactly what was needed, and from a source that I sadly do not possess atm... Thank you sir, it is appreciated, especially since my personal life was getting in the way of serious work here. Casual Edit Award, 3rd ribbon --Rebs (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2013 (PST)

St. Ives Lancers

I suppose my to-do list entry was what prompted your workover of the article. In any case, thanks a million for doing this so quickly, especially since it was an issue on the BT Forum! I think a Helping Hand Award is in order. Helping Hand Award, 1st ribbon Frabby (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2013 (PDT)


Hey - You tackling Focht? I had some nice bits about him in my Ulric Kerensky article. Was gonna give him a shot myself at some point, but if you claimed him, that's cool. ClanWolverine101 (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2013 (PDT)

Yes, snipping around the edges while working to integrate the BoK info other books of the invasion period :) Cyc (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2013 (PDT)


Just wanted to say thank you for your excellently written article on the Liberator. It's one of the articles I've been intending to write for XTRO: Boondoggles, so thanks for making my job a little bit easier! Mattiator (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2013 (PDT)

SLS Gettysburg

Hi Cyc, I'm trying to track down some detail on an Essex-class destroyer that you added to the Essex page a couple of years ago. I know that the detail on the Gettysburg's fight against a Taurian Dart is from TRO: 3057 Revised, but I can't work out where you got the information on the Gettysburg's destruction above Terra. Can you remember which book you got the information from? If so, could you let me know, please? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2013 (PDT)

The very last sentance of the Essex page in [[Technical Readout: 2750, page 128. Cyc (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2013 (PDT)
Aha! Thank you - I'll dig out my copy when I get home and convert the detail into a ship article.BrokenMnemonic (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2013 (PDT)

Awesome additions

This applies to more than just Immortal Spirit, but I'm really impressed with how you follow others' edits and then add so much more value. Small edits count; they build up. But your philosophy (from what I've observed) is rather cool: you get 'inspired' by others' small edits and then throw all of your research and writing skills at the same article, creating ...awesomeness. You make me think of those line of commercials: "we don't make a lot of the products you buy. We make a lot of the products you buy better". Thanks, Cyc.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:11, 28 April 2013 (PDT)

Good save of Cartago Conflict.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (PDT)

Demarcation Declaration

Dude, I know you don't usually respond to praise here on your talk page, but I gotta thank you for fixing the article I started. I was reading your edits, thinking..."where did he get that?" Went back to p. 12 and realized that the independence was acknowledged by the Alliance and that the document also released the further colonies. I had mus-interpreted the whole canon paragraph. So, thanks again for the correction.--Revanche (talk|contribs) 05:47, 25 May 2013 (PDT)

Ha, first thought was "There are TWO major events by that name!?!" repeat of the Exodus and desperate ctrl-f of the PDF wondering how I'd missed it :) It also shows the dark side of what you term my Awesome Additions, given it was so high on the red link list I actually had a 75% complete article on that topic (now 95% as I type this) as I do with many many things, just I got side-track/distracted as new shiny things/inspirations come along and it fell by the wayside :( Cyc (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2013 (PDT)
Double-ha...I only found that because of the Wanted Pages list, something I usually don't delve into. Clearly you own that side of the pool, so I'll leave it to the experts. Wink.gif Thanks again. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:55, 25 May 2013 (PDT)

Burr's Black Cobras

Saw that you added a new update needed tag after I had pulled out a lot of the info and updated the article. You said "Added inital FM:Mercs (original) info and update needed tag - Dancing Joker sends his regards".

Do me a favor and tell that jerk to mind his own business. ;)--Mbear(talk) 06:19, 5 July 2013 (PDT)

I Saw What You Did There

I still think that you're a ROM agent determined to subvert Sarna to serve one of the sects, but I also think you deserve an award for that catch with the Marik Militia and for acting as promptly as you did.
Random Act of Appreciation Award, 3rd ribbon
BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2013 (PDT)

Taurian Concordat-Federated Suns Conflict

Morning, Cyc. Thanks for 'validating' the bones of Taurian Concordat-Federated Suns Conflict with the canon reference. Do you think it should be saved in it's present form (i.e., we can take off the deletion request) or should we delete it until it receives the editor love it deserves?--Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:51, 28 September 2013 (PDT)

BJ-3 Blackjack

Hello. The Battlepack entry seems to conflict with TRO 3050U. Opinions on how to resolve conflict if any? Aldous (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2013 (PST)

I've copied this discussion to Talk:Blackjack (BattleMech)#BJ-3 issue to continue there. Frabby (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2013 (PST)

Scourge Merge

Hi Cyc, why did you merge non-canon variants to the Scourge? That not listed on the MUL, which is highest canon. -- Wrangler (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2013 (PST)

As my edit note indicated, we had a Scourge (BattleMech) article which I converted to a redirect to Scourge, just copied over what wasn't in the Scourge article you created.Cyc (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (PST)

CSV Leander

Hi Cyc,
As the resident ComStar expert here, do you know where I can find anything out about the Leander, which was apparently a Lola III-class destroyer operated by the Com Guard and destroyed during the battle for Luzerne? I've been through everything I can think of - the Twilight of the Clans novels, Shattered Sphere, Era Report: 3062, Historical Turning Points: Luzerne, the Twilight of the Clans scenario pack and the Dragon Roars scenario pack, and I can't find any mention of the ship anywhere. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (PST)

All we have is from Field Manual: ComStar p. 44 "ComStar WarShip Fleet" is that the Lola-class Leander was lost during Operation Bulldog.Cyc (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (PST)
OK - so it was genuinely a ComStar Lola-class destroyer, and was lost during BULLDOG, but it looks as if the comment on the Lola page about it being destroyed at Luzerne is a red herring. Thanks for checking that out - I'll go and put together a short individual ship article for it. And, please have one of these as thanks for helping me out with tracking this ship down:
All Purpose Award, 5th ribbon BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2013 (PST)


Thanks for the rapid catch & fix. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:53, 11 May 2014 (PDT)

Ditto. I've protected the page for a week to end this. Frabby (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2014 (PDT)
Wouldn't it just be easier to ban/block the IP? -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2014 (PDT)
I doubt it. In my experience, any given person can have dozens of different IPs or get dynamic IPs from their provider even when using the same computer at the same place on different days, so IP is really a poor way of tracking an individual. Besides, this one seems to have a particular issue with the Merkava article so that's where I felt the problem lay, and should be adressed. Frabby (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2014 (PDT)
Yeah, I understand that; I guess I just thought that they'd go to another page if you blocked that one, but apparently not... -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2014 (PDT)