Editing User talk:Dirk Bastion

{{Welcome|Dirk Bastion|}}

== Self-awards & Year pages ==

Hey, Dirk Bastion. I'm sorry we haven't had the opportunity to talk before. You've been here [http://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Dirk+Bastion 7 months] and have made [[Special:UserScore|297]] unique edits in that time. So, first off, I'll start your awards board (on your user page), recognizing your Time In Service and Edit Count awards. When you get 300 edits, please remember to upgrade your [[BattleTechWiki:Awards#Automatic_Awards|Edit Award]] and on April 22nd (or later), do the same for your nine-month service ribbon.<br>
Year pages: I really appreciate anyone seeking to upgrade the value of these special pages. Please review the [[Policy:Year Pages|Year Pages policy]]. The biggest thing I think needs to be recognized is that the entries on year pages point to one article, where the reader can learn more on the subject presented for that year. For example, if the line item is about Sir [[Ewen Cameron]], then the wikilink on that entry should point to an existing article. That article should also directly reference that year (and date, if provided). In this case, Sir Cameron should not be shown on any year pages, since no article exists to support that entry. <br>
If you have any questions after reading that policy, please ask me. Thanks! --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::Hey. Thanks for the heads up and the pointers.<br>I must admit ignorance at the Year Pages policy (the Wiki is a bit disorganized). I really would have preferred you to note me first before just blanketing my edits, especially as some of those items are referenced at the [[Timeline]] and don't have a seperate article; how exactly am I supposed to deal with those? [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 20:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Agree with the view that it can be seen as disorganized. It can only be as organized as interested parties want it to be. My primary interest is writing, but when the project started taking off, I see a real need to develop policy. Since then, though the need is policy and the interest is writing, I spend most my time editing/policing. Need more interested parties to take the lead on specific areas (such as year pages, bios, etc.). My whining aside, if you'd be interested in helping us organize, we'd be thrilled to have you.
:::Notifying...you're not wrong. In fact, in my quick reviews of those early years (I decided to start working on the project again, after many months of fallow time), I saw you were a common dominator. While most wikis (including this one) subscribe to 'no one owner', you're right about it not hurting to bring you in. That is how I saw you were still rather active. However, in my defense, I didn't think you'd be willing to write articles for all those years in the near time. Tell you what: feel free to revert my edits (easily done) to those pages you feel you'll be writing articles for within the next week. I'll keep my hands off them if I see you do feel invested in providing the value and will provide you that leeway.<br> Just keep in mind I ''really don't'' want to set a precedent where members add info to years with the (focusless) intent to 'saomeday' write the actual articles or that "someone else" will do it, if there's an interest. In your case, you were unaware of the policy that set Year pages apart from standard articles, but the year pages were tremendous messes of non-informative 'data' before we decided to start from scratch. I want to ensure they are seen as a 'breed apart' and actual sources of short, concise information, verifiable via a link to an article that provides more details on the exact same point.
:::As for the [[Timeline]] page, I'd prefer to deep-six that 'article'. It was started independently of the year pages and I don't see much value in it as it currently stands. How do you feel about it? Is it a keeper, should it be tied into the year pages somehow, cut it loose? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 22:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Duly noted and understood; after I mass-edited most of the year articles to get them up to the new-ish template, I guess I got a bit attached. I'll gladly help along with organisation, but I'm so far stumped as to where to even start. 
::::As to writing the missing year-related articles - I finished writing (sadly, stub) articles about the two [[Cold Wars]] and the [[Excalibur (Satellite)]] and [[Liberty (Small Craft)]] and reintroduced them to their year pages accordingly (I'm currently looking if they are referenced in earlier sourcebooks, I have only JHS: Terra at hand right now). I'm pretty willing to write more articles for those early red link entries, though most will inherently suffer from pre-spaceflight era stub syndrome (which is sad, it's one of the more interesting eras for me).
::::I think your issues with the Timeline article is just a syndrome of the whole section - it's a kudzu-like grown structure; maybe it would be better off set up as a portal, if combined with [[History]] and [[BattleTech eras]], with short intro sentences, years for the most important events (like prolonged wars, important treaties, etc.) and links to more detailed articles on hand. Honestly, the biggest problem in this section is information overflow on one hand (just look at [[History]]) and essentially orphaned articles on the other (like [[FS-TGU/CH War]]). I can throw up a rough sandbox if you want. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 23:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::First comment is about the fear of stubs. No worries. Stubs, as long as they provide ''some'' in-universe information, are notable, per our notability policy. Something is better than nothing, as long as accuracy and verifiablity are met. More after dinner. I want to understand what you said in your last para, but gotta go. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Okay, back again: wow...what a find! [[FS-TGU/CH War]] is an ugly article and horribly mis-named. I'll move it to the correct title immediately. As for a portal...I think I see what you mean. Would you be interested in crafting such a thing? Once it's got a good start, I'd be glad to put it on the main page.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 01:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::I'll look into it and put up a tentative page when I figure the bones of the whole thing out. I'll notify you when it looks workable, but that might take a bit, is that okay? [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 05:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That'd be great, Dirk. Just contact me and I'll set up the link on the main page. Thanks.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

==Reference Notes==
Hy Dirk, please can you take a look on this [[Help:References]], can you please add ref. notes to your Cold Ware article sections, i want to bring up one ref. standard on sarna.net, sorry english is not my native language, when you have questions about this for better understanding what i mean talk to Revanche, he know's what is my permission. Greetings--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:Hey, thanks for the tip. I'm not sure where to add more reference notes - there's only the four pages (plus generic Wikipedia knowledge about the Cold War) I've already listed. I've changed the Bibliography section to a Reference section. Is that okay? [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 00:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::Ok, i give you an example on your Cold Ware article, i hope this works.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::Doneve and Dirk both: I'm caught about some of those articles, too. Is there really any need to "fix" any thing? I was reading Dirk's [[Cold Wars]] article, and like Doneve, quickly scanned the refs, as that's one of those things I...erm, enjoy...quickly fixing to standards. Part of me says, "Why should I keep stating the same reference over and over if the whole article uses only that ref (which Dirk provides at the end of the article)?" But, then again, if the whole paragraph comes from that one article, then why not? After-all, if another source is used to add info (by another member), then he wouldn't be expected to add Dirk's references to everything he /didn't/ change. <br>
::I'm heading off to eat dinner at the moment, but when I get back, I'll show you (Dirk) how to use one reference, without having to write out the full one each and every time.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Hy Rev, thanks for jump in, i want to help, and i hope it was not the false way, i wish you the germans call "einen guten appetit" and thanks a lot for your support and and and, best wishes from germany.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 00:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I went to bed a bit ago (I'm from and in Germany too, and it was getting rather late). I fear I'm still unclear as to how much I'm supposed to use the references. I've added a reference link to all paragraphs now, but it looks kind of ridiculous. I'm not trying to mock anyone here, but could you please look at it and tell me if it's correct or too much (and then, what the happy middle ground would be)? [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 05:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Good job with the references. I see you used the 'repeating' ref method, without my help. The only reason it looks funny (to you) is because there are so few references yet and it jumps out, but as other references are added, it'll balance out. I removed the pages from the bio section, as the bio section is limited to what books actually cover the article subject and allow the writer to sidestep having to wikilink every first reference of a source. Also, people can easily see that ''BattleSpace'' (in this case) has not been referenced, so it may inspire another writer to follow behind you and do the research and writing required from that title. Great job creating the article whole-cloth. For that, I'd like to award you the Administrator's Award for Good Article.
::::::[[File:GdArt.jpg|Good Article Award]]
:::::This is the first time I've awarded it. Really...good job.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 12:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Wow, that's certainly unexpected. Thank you. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 14:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

==Table wide==
I'm only a beginner with this content. Please help me to fix this problem and write me back how you should do it. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 11:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

==Thanks==
Thanks for the catch in [[Cham Kithrong]], spelling can be my bane. Please take this [[File:RAA.jpg|Random Act of Appreciation Award, 1st ribbon]] for the help in making this a better article [[User:Wookiebear|Wookiebear]] 15:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:Thank you. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 21:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

==Fixes to planet pics==
Thanks for updating the licensing information on these images. To be precise, though, they're not "orbital views", and certainly not "from" the planet in question (that grammatically implies the viewer is standing on the planet and viewing its orbit, i.e. empty space...). I suggest using the phrase "Depiction of planet" instead. That aside, thanks for your work! :) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Oops... that's what I get for copying & pasting - "Orbital view of planet" seems appropriate. Thanks for notifying me. For your other points - I'm afraid I have to disagree: those ''are'' orbital views - images from orbit. They're even called that in every article I've checked which uses them. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::Guess it depends on what you call "orbit". I still feel the planets are too distant on the pics to call them orbital views, but it's certainly not a matter of importance and I don't really care. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 21:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I can live with that. ;) [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 21:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

==Award==
Hy Dirk, i give you this [[File:AP.jpg|All Purpose Award, 1st ribbon]] Award, for fixing and catogoriezing my uploaded Dark Age World images, thanks a lot, i want to uploade in the next days, new versions with better quality and size.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Glad to help. :) Since you're already here, do you still remember where you got the file for [[Ruchbah]] from? It's neither in the Dark Ages PDF nor in 25 Years of Art & Fiction. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::The Planetary Flag and and the obital view images are from Darke Age Republic Worlds pdf, p. 85, hmm have you a another version?.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 23:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::No, I just couldn't find it - now I think I might go either blind, senile, or both. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 05:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

== Minor Changes. ==

I want to thank you for updating the planet flag images. It's a large task and I appreciate you doing it. I do have one request however: When you make your changes could you please check the "This is a minor edit" checkbox underneath the comment line? That way I can filter out your changes from my view of Recent Changes.

Thanks, and keep up the good work!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:Will do. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 Thanks, and keep up the good work!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 :Will do. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 18:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
-== Welcome Back ==
-All rested up?--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 10:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
-:Thanks! Rather tired still, the lure of my Stargate pillow is strong, but I can stay awake a bit. --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 11:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
-::Looks like you're competing with Doneve today, for edit count.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 11:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
-:::I'm just doing a whole lot of copy & paste categorising. I'm afraid I don't have time atm to work on something more substantial. --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 12:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
-::::Every positive edit counts. I was remarking on how much the two of you were dominating the Recent Changes page.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 13:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
-==Force structure of the different faction==
-Hello Dirk Bastion, I have an idea but will listen first to your opinion. Every faction have different forces structure and deploy their troops in many different way. My questions are:
-:1st: Were can I place the information? On an page only for some the unique troop type like infantry and amor. Or is the content better placed at the main article about the military organization like the AFFS.
-:2nd: Which form can I take for the information without the fear to get accused for plagarism. In the past I used some form of table but that is on sarna not widely accepted.
-:3rd: I think it is helpful to know what is an Aufklärungsregiment by the LAAF/LCAF or the differents between Kampf-/Sturm-/ und Einsatzregimet (which are descriped at Field Manual: Lyran Alliance page 26).[[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 11:43, 19 January 2012 (PST)
-::Hy guys i jump on, please talk this on the [[BattleTechWiki:Project Military Commands]] page, this is the right place for the question.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 11:47, 19 January 2012 (PST)
-:::Relocating this seems like a good idea, especially since I don't think I'm the right person to answer the quesions (the military structures don't really interest me that much, so I never paid much attention to them).
-:::By the way, am I right in assuming that all three of us are Germans? I think we're regularly hitting some language barriers here, so just curious. --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 11:56, 19 January 2012 (PST)
-==Take a look==
-:Hello Dirk Bastion, please take alook at the Sandbox and give my your expression about the new outlay of the variant page. I think it make it clearer without to chance to much. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 02:24, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-::Hello Neuling, I've taken a look and I don't like it. Using indentation is nice enough, but underlining the variant version model is distracting and seems inconsistent. I'd suggest bolding or italics instead. I think we had one prior attempt to modify the look of the variant section and I tried using a definition list. I liked that look better. --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 03:35, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-::So to put let my words be followed by deeds, my suggestion can be found at [[User:Dirk_Bastion/Sandbox]]. What I also liked was a [http://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=Help:Sandbox&oldid=167649 table-based solution] - wasn't that one a previous idea of yours? --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 04:39, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-:::I like your new formating. I only tried to get more structure to the variant section of the site. I will talk to the other users and will argue to change the sites to the new format. What do you think?[[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 05:33, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-::::Please keep in mind we have the [[BattleTechWiki:Project BattleMechs]] policie, and we don't bold variants, please read it.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 05:43, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-:::::Doneve, please remember that even last time we were discussing changing the policies in case a new version turned out better. --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 05:46, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-::::::Then do this on the project talk page, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 05:48, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-:::::::No. I don't actually want to be part of this discussion. Neuling asked me for his opinion, I gave it to him. Whatever else you do, do it alone. And please stop lecturing me every time you show up. --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 05:50, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-:::::::Ok--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 05:54, 21 January 2012 (PST)
-==Insignias==
-Hell Dirk Bastion, I had discover only recently under the ling [[http://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/2146-unit-insignia/]] great insignia from units. My question is if we can put it on the coressponding articles. The creator wrote that all user can use his artwork but I will ask him first. [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 02:07, 28 January 2012 (PST)
-:I don't know? Considering that he himself claims they are fanon (although closely derived from canon), I'd suggest you ask an admin. I personally would add them, but I don't claim to dictate canon policy on the wiki. --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 02:11, 28 January 2012 (PST)
-==Field Manual: 3085==
-Keep in mind [[Field Manual: 3085]] fall under moratorium, the moratorium expired on 12th March 2012, don't add any content before the moratorium has expired.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 05:00, 7 February 2012 (PST)
-:Whoops. Thank you for pointing that out. --[[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 05:01, 7 February 2012 (PST)
-== Rank Insignia images ==
-Dirk, I saw that you were categorizing images and one of them was my LAAF cadet image. Just so you know, if you wanted to hit all the rank insignia images at once you could reach them from [[User:Mbear/RankInsignia]]. It'll take a while to load, but if you're determined to categorize all of the images that could save you some time.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 12:29, 15 August 2012 (PDT)
-:Thanks for the tip, this will help a lot. Categorising all the images is indeed one of my goals, although the sheer frustration is getting to me after a while every time. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 13:02, 15 August 2012 (PDT)
-===Amos Forlough===
-Hi Dirk,
-I've like to give you this All Purpose Award for the work you're doing on [[Amos Forlough]]:
-[[File:AP 1bol.jpg|All Purpose Award, 2nd ribbon]]
-The bio on Forlough is one of the things that's been on my list to do since I started a stack of work on the Outworlds Alliance portion of the Reunification War months ago, but after all that time slogging through all of the battles and updating Sarna, I found myself possessed of such a degree of loathing for Forlough that I couldn't make myself start his article, so it's been lurking on my projects list for a long time.
-You may find that the [[SLDF Task Force Outworlds]] article has a fair bit of detail on Forlough's actions and decisions you can lift straight out for his bio - that might save you a bit of time. I made my way through the Outworlds Alliance and Magistracy of Canopus campaigns when I was working on the Reunification War, but ran out of enthusiasm to carry straight on into the Rim Worlds Republic and Taurian Concordat theatres. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] 06:33, 24 August 2012 (PDT)
-:Thanks! I have decided to keep Forlough's bio shortened enough as to not go into the massive amount of details articles like SLDF Task Force Outworlds covers, but I'll gladly lift what I can. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] 12:04, 24 August 2012 (PDT)
-== Third Andurien War ==
-Thank you very much for adding significantly more value to my stub of an article on the [[Third Andurien War]]. I just didn't have the time to open additional sources to find out more about the war. Favor request: could you cite the source for the years of the conflict. ''Era Report: Age of War'' implies it took place only within 2551, while you take it to 2556. I'm certain you're correct, but it would good to have that cited.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 16:18, 20 March 2013 (PDT)
-:I've only started on the artice, but sure -  I got the 2551-2556 dates from ''Era Report: Age of War'' too, but from the article on page 9 instead the timeline of of page 7. I've found the short itemiced timelines ot be rather spotty when the authors think we can go look for the rest of the dates elsewhere, so I tend to rely on the text more. I will go and find more sources and pin them to the dates when I have time to edit later today. [[User:Dirk Bastion|Dirk Bastion]] ([[User talk:Dirk Bastion|talk]]) 22:45, 20 March 2013 (PDT)
-::Thanks, man. Your research is obviously more dependable than my one-off. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:02, 21 March 2013 (PDT)