Revision as of 10:15, 14 March 2011

Something you want to say? Just let me know!

User_talk:Mbear/archived User_talk:Mbear/archive2010

Question and Information

Hi Mbear, I have complete my projects: with the war of 3039, the ronin wars, fedcom civil war, antons revolt and the andurien session/canopus war. Fell free when you want to put this information in a unique article. Operation Revival and Jade Falcon incursion article will be modify also in the near future by me. And now my question: which program did you use to create the fantastic looking rank insignia or know you some other good ways to create the smoke jaguar galaxy insignia...Neuling 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I used PhotoShop to make the images. If you don't have lots of money to pay for it, you might try Paint.NET or GimpShop.--Mbear 12:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be a canonicity jerk here, but please keep in mind that re-creating rank insignia or other imagery by oneself constitutes fan work, i.e. non-canon, and must be marked as such. Technically, only images taken from an official website (namely CBT.com) or photocopies/photographs of existing canonical material can be considered canonical for the purpose of BTW. Frabby 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You're not being a jerk, you're advising us. There's a difference.--Mbear 14:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Tag Question

Hi, Mbear, I've never contributed to BattleTech Wiki before but I was wondering about perhaps doing so. I've actually had about a dozen BattleTech articles published over the years in magazines like BattleTechnology and MechForce Quarterly. I am also the original creator for the non-jump capable WarShips called Monitors.

What I am interested in doing is submitting a wiki for a mercenary unit that I created and was featured in several of the articles published in Battletechnology and MechForce Quarterly. The unit is called TekTeam Technical Services and is essentially a unit of mercenary technicians that sell their services to the highest bidder, travels in a modified Mule class DropShip set up as a mobile repair base and is supported by a small security force.

Would it be have to be published in the non-canon units section, or because it was published in the 'official' magazines for BattleTech at that time, would you consider the unit at least quasi-'canon'?

I would probably need some assistance in figuring out how to use your templates for an article on TekTeam Technical Services as well. Thanks.--— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 71.74.86.252 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 January 2011.

71.74.86.252, I've addressed your question on my talk page.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Breaking News date little off

Hi Mbear...17 January 2100 The moratorium for Operational Turning Points: Death to Mercenaries has expired. BTW Editors are now free to make edits using this source as a reference. Can you fix that? -- Wrangler 22:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks!--Mbear 23:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Style Box

Hy Mbear, is it usefull to add a style box, like the Game Rules in the Technology section, to the Military unit articles, it is a idea, any thought, thanks.--Doneve 19:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I'd say no because AFAIK we haven't officially started adding the style box to the Game Rules articles. I'd prefer to finish one category (technology) completely and then start on the next thing.

I also don't know where you'd put the styled box on the Military Unit pages.--Mbear 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look on this 21st Division (Word of Blake)‎, only a example.--Doneve 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well. That looks OK to me, but we should probably discuss it before you just start doing it. I'll copy this page to the Policy_Talk:Canon#Game_Data_in_articles section to see what happens.--Mbear 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thats great, thanks.--Doneve 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Tnx + Infobox - problem

Tnx for your help and I have another request about the Infobix which I tried to create, but with no success. Can you help me? Neuling 20:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Infobox

Hy again, can you take a look of my User/Doneve Infantry Infobox, example, thank.--Doneve 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What am I looking for?--Mbear 14:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the content of the Infantry Infobox ok, or must i change some things, i dont can see the infobox in the Heavy Jump Infantry article, what is my failur, can you give some tips?--Doneve 14:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that you've got the part Editors will fill out, but you don't actually have any code MediaWiki understands in the infobox template. Setting up the human-readable part isn't enough: you need to tell MediaWiki what to insert when it sees the infobox entries. If you go to Template:InfoBoxBattleMech and hit the Edit link, you'll see what I mean. I've also added some stuff for you.--Mbear 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great, and i give you this award

, for your support, thanks a lot.--Doneve 16:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hy Mbear, please can you remove the Equipment row, she is not used, and we dont needed, we have the Primary Weapon row, Secondary Weapon row, please change it, thanks.--Doneve 16:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Equipment row from InfantryInfobox template.--Mbear 20:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Infantry Platoon Creation Rules

Have started working on Formula Worksheet for Infantry Platoon Creation Rules Based on last published in [[[Combat Operations]]. Cribbed from BV worksheet and editing as i go. Follow-on would be creating the Infantry Platoon Creation Rules\Weapon Conversion Rules worksheet.--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet

Suggestion: try the Game Rules type div tag from MASC to get the cauthionary note to stand out.--Cameron 16:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The 100 listed for Armor points and Internal Structure points, and the 14 listed for Heat Points, are placeholders. They don't contribute anything to the formula and should be replaced with the information from the TRO.

--Cameron 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Experimental Equipment

Hey Mbear, I'm working to update all avaible equipment with the technical availibility and think to my self, that few expeerimental tech is on sarna.net. My offer to you: I will create all necessary pages and put the information in it. Can you watch my work please. My english ins't always well written, because I'm a native german speaker. What do you think... Neuling 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There's already a category for some experimental items: Category:Experimental Technology. And yes, I can spell- and grammar-check your work.--Mbear 23:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor News

Hy Mbear, the moratorium for A Time of War has expired, can you updated the minor news, thanks.--Doneve 23:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for 2010

Mbear, you've had another stellar year of contributions to BTW. Your fellow members nominated you for both Outstanding Member of the Year and a Superior Editor! All of us appreciate your contributions! I've awarded you another Founders Award for your excellence Nicjansma 05:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Torso Cockpit

MBear, I noticed you put in the official Torso Cockpit rules from the Tactical Handbook. I was wondering if you felt there was any value in listing the original rules for the Torso cockpit from Unbound as well. It's a lighter and much more dangerous design overall. But considering the Tactical Handbook rules technically displace the older rules do you think the original rules shouldn't be acknowledged? — The preceding unsigned comment was posted by ManDrake (talk • contribs) .

I have no strong feelings about it either way. You might want to check out Cockpit Command Console to see how it was handled. (The CCC also had an older version that was superseded in the Tactical Handbook.)

P.S. It's considered polite to sign postings to another user's talk page. All you have to do is put four tildes (~) at the end of your post.--Mbear 20:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Sorry for the breech of protocol, I was unaware of how to produce that message, won't happen again. ManDrake 23:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Image Question

Hy Mbear, i have a question about new uploaded versions of images, can any of the admins delete the old versions of the new uploaded versions, i have not he permission to do this, Neuling uploaded a lot of it, and i and...and .Greetings--Doneve 17:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When you have time....

Mbear - Please give Talk:Isle of Skye when you have some time... as well as its accompanying article. It was an absolute beast to write. But more relevantly, there are some things I'd like to do with respect to redirects that I wanted your advice on. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 16:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dragau

Hy Mbear, please take a look on the Dragau II article, i think he merged with your created Dragau page. Greetings--Doneve 23:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Dragau II is esbalished new vehicle, and the Dragau is short lived forerunner. -- Wrangler 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Casper II Ground Elements

Hi Mbear, the Rattler and the Wyrm SDS Mobile Fortresses have nothing in their fluff that state they elements of Casper II. Their components of the SDS system, why are they being listed as ground elements of the CASPER II? -- Wrangler 22:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

They were listed as part of the Caspar II systems in JHS: Terra.--Mbear 22:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

is the entire SDS system being called Caspar II or is it just the Capital Class Drones? The Caspars were part of the SDS System, not vice versa.--Cameron 13:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the capital class drones, as the Hive AeroSpace fighter family are all drones. Caspar II was the name given to the drone system used on the Dragau, Tiamat, etc., but it was also used as a generic term for all the WoB-related SDS efforts IIRC.--Mbear 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Tables

Hey Mbear, what do you think about my table formats and have you any thoughts for improvement. Neuling 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an example I can see?--Mbear 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Examples: DCMS or Vindicator or Operation Bulldog or New Avalon Neuling 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of any of them. This is just a return to the same issue we had with the Operation Guerrero page: You're just taking existing information and using a table to format it into columns. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve by doing this.

In particular, the Vindicator modification adds absolutely nothing to the page, and I would argue that the formatting choice you've made (borders etc.) actually makes it more confusing.

Operation Bulldog- The tables at the top are just used for formatting content into multiple columns. Again, I don't see the point. As for the planetary battles, we were better served by using paragraphs. This is a combination of a deployment table and a historical overview, unfortunately it doesn't do either well.

New Avalon - I don't mind it on the Nearby Worlds since that's already a table, but the garrisoning military force and Owner history shouldn't be tables. Owner history is a single column list, so why put that in a table? It worked perfectly well as a list.

DCMS - Maybe, but I think we might be better able to get your multi-column content into a list format and re-style it using CSS rather than hardcoding a table in there.

So to sum up, I'm not a fan of most of these changes. I think the data you're displaying as a table was better displayed as a list in most cases. I don't actually understand what you're trying to achieve by converting the lists to tables. Several of these changes actually reduce the functionality of the page instead of enhancing it. Further, I think that converting a list to a table artificially inflates the page size, which will mean higher bandwidth costs (in particular I'm thinking of the Owner History on New Avalon page and the planetary battles in Operation Bulldog).--Mbear 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have received many positive responses and get also awards from other Users. My intention was to give the sites a cleaner look. I think in such cases the user like tables or dislike them. In retrospect I count most users like them. Can you explanin me please why the table fomart increase the bandwich use. That is unclear to me... Neuling 18:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Redone accomplished.Neuling 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Tables

Hey Mbear, what do you think about my table formats and have you any thoughts for improvement. Neuling 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an example I can see?--Mbear 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Examples: DCMS or Vindicator or Operation Bulldog or New Avalon Neuling 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not a fan of any of them. This is just a return to the same issue we had with the Operation Guerrero page: You're just taking existing information and using a table to format it into columns. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve by doing this.

In particular, the Vindicator modification adds absolutely nothing to the page, and I would argue that the formatting choice you've made (borders etc.) actually makes it more confusing.

Operation Bulldog- The tables at the top are just used for formatting content into multiple columns. Again, I don't see the point. As for the planetary battles, we were better served by using paragraphs. This is a combination of a deployment table and a historical overview, unfortunately it doesn't do either well.

New Avalon - I don't mind it on the Nearby Worlds since that's already a table, but the garrisoning military force and Owner history shouldn't be tables. Owner history is a single column list, so why put that in a table? It worked perfectly well as a list.

DCMS - Maybe, but I think we might be better able to get your multi-column content into a list format and re-style it using CSS rather than hardcoding a table in there.

So to sum up, I'm not a fan of most of these changes. I think the data you're displaying as a table was better displayed as a list in most cases. I don't actually understand what you're trying to achieve by converting the lists to tables. Several of these changes actually reduce the functionality of the page instead of enhancing it. Further, I think that converting a list to a table artificially inflates the page size, which will mean higher bandwidth costs (in particular I'm thinking of the Owner History on New Avalon page and the planetary battles in Operation Bulldog).--Mbear 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have received many positive responses and get also awards from other Users. My intention was to give the sites a cleaner look. I think in such cases the user like tables or dislike them. In retrospect I count most users like them. Can you explanin me please why the table fomart increase the bandwich use. That is unclear to me... Neuling 18:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I know you've received many awards from other users. In fact I've given you some.

The thing is that I think your application of tables is simply unnecessary in most situations.

The concrete example of the table taking more bandwidth

(I'm referring to the New Avalon page here.) I've just pulled the HTML source code of your Garrison Military Force and saved it to my desktop. (See NA-Table below.) The original list based format is listed below it as NA-List.

When I saved these snippets to my computer, the Table code you provided weighs in at 3kb. The list version weighs in at 2.6kb. Your first instinct is to say "Mbear 0.3kb isn't a lot, get over it." You're correct: 0.3KB isn't a lot. But as your lists/tables get longer, you have to add more markup to support them. Imagine that instead of the five lines you have here, you have ten lines. Now your table version will take up 6kb, and the list version will take up 5.4kb. For worlds that have an even longer history of various garrison units, that difference in file size is going to grow even larger.

Another example: The Vindicator page. I've saved the Variant section for the list version and your proposed table version. The list version is 5kB in size, while your table version is 6kB in size. So you've added about 20% to that section just for formatting. Now imagine doing that to a Wasp or Warhammer with all the variants they have. See what I mean?--Mbear 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

NA-Table

Garrisoning Military Force

Year	Unit
3050	<a href="/wiki/322nd_Division_%28ComStar%29" title="322nd Division (ComStar)">322nd Division (ComStar)</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-20YU70-2" title="">[3]</a>}
3054^{<a href="#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>}	<a href="/wiki/Team_Banzai" title="Team Banzai">Team Banzai</a> (1 <a href="/wiki/Battalion" title="Battalion" class="mw-redirect">Battalion</a> in rotary duty) <a href="/wiki/1st_Davion_Guards" title="1st Davion Guards">1st Davion Guards</a> (RCT) <a href="/wiki/Davion_Heavy_Guards" title="Davion Heavy Guards">Davion Heavy Guards</a> (RCT)
3055 to 3062	<a href="/wiki/299th_Division_%28ComStar%29" title="299th Division (ComStar)">299th Division (ComStar)</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-CS84-4" title="">[5]</a>}^{<a href="#cite_note-FMCS126-5" title="">[6]</a>}
3067	<a href="/wiki/New_Avalon_Cavaliers" title="New Avalon Cavaliers">New Avalon Cavaliers</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-MS67-6" title="">[7]</a>} <a href="/wiki/2nd_NAIS_Cadet_Cadre" title="2nd NAIS Cadet Cadre">2nd NAIS Cadet Cadre</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-FMU139-7" title="">[8]</a>} 1st Davion Guards RCT^{<a href="#cite_note-FMU139-7" title="">[8]</a>} <a href="/wiki/5th_Donegal_Guards" title="5th Donegal Guards">5th Donegal Guards RCT</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-FMU179-8" title="">[9]</a>} <a href="/wiki/10th_Lyran_Guards" title="10th Lyran Guards">10th Lyran Guards</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-FMU179-8" title="">[9]</a>}
3071 to 3071	<a href="/wiki/Bronson%27s_Horde" title="Bronson's Horde">Bronson's Horde</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-9" title="">[10]</a>}

NA-List

Garrisoning Military Force

3050

<a href="/wiki/322nd_Division_%28ComStar%29" title="322nd Division (ComStar)">322nd Division (ComStar)</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-20YU70-2" title="">[3]</a>}

3054^{<a href="#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>}

<a href="/wiki/Team_Banzai" title="Team Banzai">Team Banzai</a> (1 <a href="/wiki/Battalion" title="Battalion" class="mw-redirect">Battalion</a> in rotary duty)
<a href="/wiki/1st_Davion_Guards" title="1st Davion Guards">1st Davion Guards</a> (RCT)
<a href="/wiki/Davion_Heavy_Guards" title="Davion Heavy Guards">Davion Heavy Guards</a> (RCT)

3055 to 3062

<a href="/wiki/299th_Division_%28ComStar%29" title="299th Division (ComStar)">299th Division (ComStar)</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-CS84-4" title="">[5]</a>}^{<a href="#cite_note-FMCS126-5" title="">[6]</a>}

3067

<a href="/wiki/New_Avalon_Cavaliers" title="New Avalon Cavaliers">New Avalon Cavaliers</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-MS67-6" title="">[7]</a>}
<a href="/wiki/2nd_NAIS_Cadet_Cadre" title="2nd NAIS Cadet Cadre">2nd NAIS Cadet Cadre</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-FMU139-7" title="">[8]</a>}
1st Davion Guards RCT^{<a href="#cite_note-FMU139-7" title="">[8]</a>}
<a href="/wiki/5th_Donegal_Guards" title="5th Donegal Guards">5th Donegal Guards RCT</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-FMU179-8" title="">[9]</a>}
<a href="/wiki/10th_Lyran_Guards" title="10th Lyran Guards">10th Lyran Guards</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-FMU179-8" title="">[9]</a>}

3071 to 3071

<a href="/wiki/Bronson%27s_Horde" title="Bronson's Horde">Bronson's Horde</a>^{<a href="#cite_note-9" title="">[10]</a>}
Thanks

Hy again, i give you this award , for your CSS help, thanks.--Doneve 13:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Hello Mbear, i will think about it to include the css formating in my side. And about the tables. I will include tables in articles which are created by me and when I think it looks better. I understand that by larger pages it could increase the bandwitch a little bit. Tables are also a personal taste. The user like it or not. I will always listen to the other users and will think about their arguments. But I reserve the freedom to me to act on creation and will find a solution when problems arise by cooperative works. Sometimes my behavior is unsual, but I have put a lot of information in articles and categories which were orphans before. Neuling 14:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Its me again. I understand your position to. I have redone my changes by the variant articles. When you would change the army sites back, make it. I think we are a open community and will argue about issues. When I think some chnages look great I will change first only an exmple and ask then the others. I know you dislike tables or other changes that I make in some cases. I will not makes problems but also will have the freedom to cooperate in away which is accepted. You write to me use hole sentences or becare when you change something. I'm grateful for your advice. I think sometimes new style/looks can change a article to the better. To be true many army sites for example looks like a mess and are dis organized. Its funny when I think to create a site for a special issue is helpful and some thin it is unnessary. (I mean not the gallery page).Neuling 16:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

CSS

Tnx for your work and I will think about it to put the CSS in my preferences. Abot tables, which is the best way to find a solution which is widely accepted. My Thoughts, many sites are disorganized or have a structure were the diffferents are not cleary worked out. In the last days a have put only two or three new tables up. Some times tables are a good solution in a common way, for example when larger lists are integrated or content can be better sortet. Neuling 06:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, tables are a good way to sort content when you have several related columns. In some cases however, like the owner history of planets and other single columns of information, a table isn't a good way to go. A list is. (I have to deal with the abuse of tables for non-table content every day at work and it gets tiresome.)

I guess our definition of content that can be sorted differ.--Mbear 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 [[User_talk:Mbear/archived]]
+[[User_talk:Mbear/archive2010]]
-== Citing BV & template ==
-[[Policy_Talk:Canon#Citing_BV]]: looks like your idea has sparked support. Can you pls respond? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 18:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
-:Hy Mbear i post a little link *''[http://www.classicbattletech.com/downloads/MasterUnitList_v1-66p_Names.pdf Master Unit List.pdf]'', i hope it is helpfull.--[[User:Doneve|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. -- [[User:Wrangler|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 &lt;!-- before the stuff you want to disappear. To close the HTML comment (stop hiding stuff) use the --&gt; tag. Here's a sample (hit the section edit link to see how it works):
-<!--
-This text will be hidden from view.
-This text will be hidden from view.
-This text will be hidden from view.
-This text will be hidden from view.
-This text will be hidden from view.
-Hello Wrangler! Thanks for catching the moratorium violation on the Arbiter article. I appreciate it.
--->
-: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.--[[User:Mbear|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.--[[User:Mbear|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. [[User:ClanWolverine101|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.--[[User:Mbear|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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 10:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
-:I changed them because
-:# the FCCW book called them the Tikonov Republican Guards.
-:# the Rim Worlds Republic's units were also called Republicans.
-:If you want to change them back, feel free. I've no objection.--[[User:Mbear|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. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 12:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
-:::No problem. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm not too proud to admit it. {{emoticon|:)}}--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
-:::: Sounds like a disambig page is maybe needed. :) [[User:ClanWolverine101|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... [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
-==Support Please==
-Hey, I have a huge project on the run and need support/ideas for the best solution. The [[1st Aragon Border]]s is a example for future work. My idea is do rework all units an bring them to one level with the same structure. I have done the same to the mercs lately. Only a few units are left, but this is only temporary. Please view it an give my a response. Any support is welcome... [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
-==Sarna News==
-Hy Mbear the moratorium for [[Record Sheets: 3058 Unabridged (Clan & Star League)]] and [[Record Sheets: 3058 Unabridged (Inner Sphere)]] is done, please can you post this in the Latest Newsburst, thanks.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 02:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
-==Vandalism==
-Hi Mbear, I've caught a vandal. You may want to bar [[User:Lemur]] from being here. They attacked the [[Essay: Combat DropShips 101‎]]. Seems like these vandals are going for anything with Essay lately. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 17:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
-==Record Sheets: 3085 Print Edition==
-Hi Mbear, the new article which highlights the moratorium expiring on September 29th. I wasn't aware they gaven out a published/dead tree actual street date for the book. Isn't it suppose to expire after it hits the street not when the PDF comes out? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 13:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
-:You're right. My mistake. I thought it was a PDF only release. I'll fix it.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
-:Hy Mbear, why dont you use your first uploaded RS3085 image it has a better quality.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
-::I used the lower quality one because it's smaller and I don't know how to shrink images in the infoboxes.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::Ok, i fix it, when it is ok ;).--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
-::::Go for it.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::::Done.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
-==Infobox problems==
-Hi Mbear, i've been working on bring up the quality of the planet articles.  I've been finding some articles are having its text displaced by something in the article. Example: [[Ozawa‎]]. I some how "fixed" one of them, something i did in new [[York (Clan planet)]] article i added.  Is there anything in your abilities, see what causing the text to be displaced. I'd ask Rev, but he doesn't seem to be around lately and i'm not sure who to goto. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
-:So the display of Ozawa is incorrect and York is correct?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
-::Yes, you'll note when you goto the Ozawa page, there huge gap on top of the page. I'm trying to get rid of those gaps.  I have no coding abilities, so i'm not sure what causing it displace. I know only one thing thou, the Infobox has something to do with it.  When its removed, it stops happening.  I'm not sure if its the size or where it is.  Doneve, been adding pictures and info to some of the pages, and its getting thrown off.  I'm not certain what really causing it. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
-:::Using Ozawa as an example, I can see two possible causes for the problem you're seeing.
-:::# The infobox isn't the first thing on the page and it should be.
-:::# The images that are in the article are messing up the layout.
-:::I've tried moving the infobox to the top of the page so it's the first thing the web browser sees and it helped a little. What do you think?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
-:Slight improvement, but infobox is still displacing the text.  Man, looks like we need a coder remedy this.  Why does this happen? Half of the articles we have who do have the info boxes don't have this displacement. *sigh* -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
-==Electronic Book category question==
-Hi MBear, i have question. I just created the Electronic Book category for Sarna. Is there away to create a short-cut category name for it? I was thinking having E-Book alias/re-direct for the category. However, my limited knowledge of wiki-code keeps me wanting to mess up the place trying test to see if redirect of category was possible. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-:Yes. A link to a category can be treated like any other link by placing a single colon after the two opening braces. For your ebook category redirect, you would do this:
-<nowiki>
-#REDIRECT [[:Category:Electronic Book]]
-</nowiki>
-:You can also put links to categories in a regular page. See the [[Sword]] article's "complete list of hatchet and sword using BattleMechs" for an example.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-== Equipment + Ammunition ==
-Hi Mbear,
-I read lately TacOps and find out there are many types of ammunition not descript on the section, what do you think is it help to create an overview for example all autocannon ammunition types or the lrm missile types. Tnx [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 19:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
-:That's already underway. [[:Category:Alternate Ammunition|Category:Alternate Ammunition]] is missile-related and [[:Category:Special Munitions|Category:Special Munitions]] is for autocannon.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
-== Unit Structures  ==
-Hi,
-its me again, I can't decide which way is the best to reflect the induvial faction difference for the forces, for example all CCAF mechforces at regiment level have 1 Command Company and the DCMS doesn't employ independent command units? Tnx [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
-:I would bring this up on the [[BattleTechWiki:Project Military Commands]] discussion page.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
-==Organization Structure==
-Hy Mbear, I jump in, then I add the gallery's of Neulings Organzation Structures, but i must say, i talk with Neuling every day in the ICQ, you know we are german natives, and nice to see it comes a notice for Neulings edits, he makes a really good work about the newly added Organization structure, he added it and i fix little thinks (gallery, tags, etc), a hand to hand cooperation, you are the first admin to bring a statement to his last work, ähm sorry for my rough englisch ;), but i think you know what i say..., and again sorry for my grammar ...past and tense failurs in the conversation grml. Greetings --[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 04:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
-:I remember both you and Neuling aren't native speakers of English. (And I respect your efforts to learn such a messed-up language!) And I agree, Neuling has made a lot of very nice improvements to the Wiki. If I implied otherwise in my message to him, I'll apologize for that. Neuling's work strikes me as being a "diamond in the rough" as we say over here: A few cuts and trips to the polishing stone and it's great. That's all I meant about the Organization tree images.
-:If you're working in the gallery I mentioned on the [[Task Force Serpent]] page, please realize that my comment wasn't "This sucks, get rid of it" it was "This is a great start, but could be so much better with just a little more effort." It was like seeing someone run a marathon and then deciding to drop out at mile marker 25 instead of finishing the race.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 14:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
-==Andurien Succession==
-Hey Mbear, what is your opinion about my extension of the Andurien Crises. My next project will the Ronin Wars and after that the Anton Marik Revolt. Both Project in two days... :) [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 16:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
-:I think you should change your formatting
-:*so it's written in sentences rather than this list format
-:*so it doesn't use the "+" sign in the lists, but does use a comma as the separator
-:*so it uses the correct referencing system (<nowiki><ref>''Historical: Brush Wars'', p. 54</ref></nowiki>)
-So instead of this:
-;Planet:Repulse
-;MAF Forces:Taskforce Duo (2nd Canopian Light Horse + 2nd Canopian Cuirassiers + 2nd Canopian Fusiliers)
-;CCAF Forces:Kincade’s Rangers
-;Outcome:The numbers count for the invaders but the Rangers had some training cycles with the Death Commandos. The used every possible tactic to soften the Canopian forces up. The Rangers went in the underground.
-;Source:Brush War p. 54
-It would read more like this:
-On [[Repulse]] the Taskforce Duo (consisting of the [[2nd Canopian Light Horse]], [[2nd Canopian Cuirassiers]], and [[2nd Canopian Fusiliers]]) faced the [[CCAF]]'s [[Kincaid's Rangers]]. Though outnumbering the Rangers three to one, the Rangers had trained alongside the [[Death Commando]]s and used every possible tactic to soften up the invading Canopian forces. They then went underground to continue their resistance.
-:There's no point in reinventing something that already exists (referencing system), and the lists you're using here are just one step away from a sentence based layout anyway.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
-==MWDA Dossier Question(s)==
-Hi Mbear. Do you recall if there was a Swordsworn data card?  I was looking at the dossier you uploaded, notice there wasn't a faction dossier for them, and other forces but the Stormhammers. I could sworn when they came out they did have one...You wouldn't happen know where it could be found? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-:I didn't play MWDA, so I don't have the information. Everything I have I pulled from http://www.warrenborn.com/ so if it wasn't there I don't have it. I don't remember having a Swordsworn data card/dossier though. (If you find one and need it split up though, let me know.)--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]
-==MWDA Data Cards==
-Howdy again.  Question: Has anyone created PDF of the Data cards that WizKids produced? The ones they replaced dossiers with. I remember also their website included info from it. Alot of it ...not really canon.  Neverless, since Herb been talking about fast forwarding through the slow part of the Dark Age, it maybe handy for players to have access to those things. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-:I've no idea. As I said earlier I didn't play MWDA so I'm not really sure what the data cards looked like or where to find them. Sorry!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
-==Audurien Succession Question==
-::Hi Mbear. To answer your question regarding my reparts about how the article ([[Audurien Succession]]) was written. I disagree with the format which was written in style of "giving world to world conflict with no content with only generic results". To me thats not Sarna's style, in my opinion. I realize that i may be out line, to me it looks little sloopy. i know i haven't wrote very good gems and i'm grammer challenged.  However, I feel the war should be written with more content.  As Scaletail has commented, its multi-"war" event.  I Believe it needs to be cleaned up in way where it tells the story of the Succession & the War Audriens fought during this time period. Its like its own era. Anyways, the new format comment comes from Neufeld edit. I disagree in way he wrote the conflict, if you would look at what i wrote for the history of the [[1st Defenders of Andurien|1st Defenders of Andurien's]] history section. I feel the article should be written like that, not blow to blow. I did write [[Operation: Ice Storm]], [[Operation: Sovereign Justice]], and [[Operation: Thunderstrike]] bit information in blow by blow format.  That was only because there wasn't alot source material on it to expand what was going on, i didn't want overwhelm someone with too much info about it. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::I actually like what you did for [[Operation: Ice Storm]], [[Operation: Sovereign Justice]], and [[Operation: Thunderstrike]]. That format is the one I'd like to see as well. I don't think the setup used on the [[Andurien Secession]] page is good one at all. This list, though informative, lacks the depth we want here on Sarna. In addition, the "Source" line duplicates the reference tag system that's already in place. I don't want to just delete the work that's there however without talking to other people.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
-==Moratorium==
-Hi Mbear, i removed the content of user [[204.111.227.240 ]], he makes a moratorium violation, i hope it is ok. Greetings--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-:What page was this on?--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-:: It was the [[Nightsky]] page.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::OK. That's fine. Usually I try to put a link to the Moratorium policy on the page as well, but what you did was fine. If it's a contributor with a user name, you may want to add a note to their talk page as well. You can't do that here though, as it's just an IP address.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::Good idea with the link to the moratorium policy.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-:::::I like to put that link there so the person knows it's not just me being a jerk, but an official policy. Plus I don't have to explain it to them.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-::::::Very Very good, thats eliminate some irritaions about the moratorium.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
-==Cooperation==
-Hi Mbear, I will enjoy our cooperation by the war projects. Which is the best way to get the information from me and what is from your viewpoint the to display a timeline for every major faction? With best regrets [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
-:Neuling, sorry about the late response. Real life has been busy. At the moment I'm trying to clean out the sources needing updates page. To add the information, I'd make a subpage off your main page and put the information there. When you've added everything, just put a comment on my talk page and I'll get to it.
-:I think we already have a timeline for each major faction. [[Star_League/Timeline]], [[Draconis Combine/Timeline]], [[Federated Suns/Timeline]], [[Timeline of the Capellan Confederation]]. I'd just use those as the format.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
-==Problem==
-Hi Mbear, i'm not sure who around, but someone uploaded a non-canon imagine. [http://cf.sarna.net/docs/mwda_dossiers/2750th.png Terran Hegemony Map] appears to be a non-canon image but there no label stating it is.  DO you know what were suppose to do about this?  I've not dealth with a direct png image before. Usually these things have page that gives direction of the image.  Someone thought the image uploaded was canon. I'm going ask Rev, but i'm not sure how often he comes around these days. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 02:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
-:I'd just put a non-canon tag on the image page. If we're wrong, we can change it later.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 11:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
-::Its a direct image, i can't find anything to put a tag on it. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 12:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
-:::OK. What you have to do is put in a link to the image like this: <nowiki>[[Image:2750th.png|Terran Hegemony Map]]</nowiki>. This will include the image on the page. From there, you can click the image and you'll be taken to the image's wiki page. Then you can add the tag you need.
-:::In this case it looks like someone has beaten you to it.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
-:::::Yeah, it was me. I back tracked it to Neuling, doing it the hardway once i figured out who posted it. I feel hate see someone on CBT boards thinking we have bunch of non-canon stuff up here that no labelled. *sigh*.  Thanks for the advice, i'll use it next time i have to try find a rogue imagine. Hadn't tried using a imagine:blah.png.  Thanks. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
-==Faction list & Deployment==
-Hi Mbear, I will create equipment list for each faction but which way is the best without the fear of a delete because someone see this as plagarism attemp. Your thoughts are welcome. And can you explain me way by all equipment of vehicles mechs and so on no deployment sup exits... [[User:Neuling|Neuling]] 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
-:Neuling, before you start you should check out the [[BattleTechWiki talk:Project BattleMechs]] page and see some of the discussions there. (The Faction Categories and Faction Categories Redux are the two that are most relevant.)
-:To answer your question about why no such list exists, I think it's because the Categories serve the same purpose.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 17:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
-==Vandalism again==
-Hi Mbear, sorry cry on your shoulder. I had some spambot [[User:70.39.93.16]] attack the [[New Avalon Institute of Science]]. Can you ban this thing please? I'm still not able to do that. -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 19:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
-:Done!--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
-==Quick Strike Rules==
-Hi Mbear.  Since were getting a bunch of products for the ''Quick-Strike Rules'', i think we may need have a article dedicate it. Unit Cards are for use of the new version of Battleforce, but their intended for Quick-Strike.  Do you think its possible find someone write it up? I'm not that savy writing up game system type articles. I try, but they do not always right since i seem miss something. Where would this proposal go? -- [[User:Wrangler|Wrangler]] 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
-:Probably the best place is the [[BTW:A|admins page]]. I don't think we have a "Request an Article" page.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]] 12:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
-::Alrighty then, i wish there was one.  -- 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 ==Question and Information==

Search

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Mbear"

Sarna News

BattleTech Community Ads

Revision as of 10:15, 14 March 2011

Contents

Something you want to say? Just let me know!

Question and Information

Article Tag Question

Breaking News date little off

Style Box

Tnx + Infobox - problem

Infantry Infobox

Infantry Platoon Creation Rules

Note about Placeholder data in Work Sheet

Experimental Equipment

Minor News

Thanks for 2010

Torso Cockpit

Image Question

When you have time....

Dragau

Casper II Ground Elements

Tables

Tables

The concrete example of the table taking more bandwidth

NA-Table

Garrisoning Military Force

NA-List

Garrisoning Military Force

3050

3054<a href="#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>

3055 to 3062

3067

3071 to 3071

Thanks

CSS

BattleTechWiki

Search

Editing BTW

Background

Current Game Systems

Admin Pages

Tools

3054^{<a href="#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a>}