User talk:ClanWolverine101

My own tools

Archives

Emperor

Morning by myself or evening by you ;), please can you add a reference note to your last change on the article, thanks.--Doneve 20:03, 10 January 2012 (PST)

Good point. Done. ClanWolverine101 20:19, 10 January 2012 (PST)

LCAF

Please explain to me what have you changed at the page, then I can decide. Tnx Neuling 12:56, 11 January 2012 (PST)

I haven't changed nothing important only better copies of the pictures and make the smaller by |150px. That are the only chances. Neuling 13:03, 11 January 2012 (PST)
Oh, I see it now. Thanks. ClanWolverine101 22:52, 11 January 2012 (PST)

Archive

  1. Create a page named User talk:ClanWolverine101/Archive1. "Archive1" can be any name you want.
  2. Copy all posts from your talk page (by opening the "edit" tab).
  3. Paste the posts on the Archive1 page.
  4. Save Archive1.
  5. Delete the copied posts from your talk page.
  6. Add a link to Archive1 at the top of your talk page. (ex: *[[User talk:ClanWolverine101/Archive1|Archive1]])

I think this little guide help.--Doneve 13:42, 11 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 14:16, 11 January 2012 (PST)

Neuling

Hy CW, i think you saw Neuling's new creations, i dont know why he ignoring our reference policy, as example House Steiner refered as source ,i don't know i indicate this as the House Steiner and not the sourcebook House Steiner (The Lyran Commonwealth), i know its the source but other users don't know this, i talk so offten to him, and iam become really pissd of, he don't follow talks to him by help links etc., i don't disagree his work but the most is throwing in, and the most don't follow our wiki standard, i don't know what i can do, thanks.--Doneve 11:16, 14 January 2012 (PST)

I agree. His references are a complete mess on most of these "articles" he is putting together as well. I would suggest taking it to Frabby. ClanWolverine101 15:35, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Thanks.--Doneve 16:09, 14 January 2012 (PST)
Please take a look on Dmons talk page, i give a updated statement.--Doneve 16:57, 14 January 2012 (PST)


Plagarism and Apolyze

Hello Clan Wolverine I read your message that you wrote at Frappy page. I agree that I make mistakes in the past and apolyze to you and all the other admins. Please tell me which content is considered as plagarism and I will blanke the page immedatly and you can delete it later. I thought my work had improved to that level that is was accepted for that page but I was wrong. When necessary I will delete all my contributions to that site with the goal not to harm you. I await you awnser. Neuling 08:46, 18 January 2012 (PST)

I had corrected all Objectiv Raids to Objective Raids that I could find with the search option. Neuling 08:48, 18 January 2012 (PST)
Please continue this discussion at my talk page, so that it isn't spread over several different pages. Frabby 11:22, 18 January 2012 (PST)

3rd Davion Guards

Hy CW, i can't found any info in Objective Raids of the 3rd Davion Guards, can you give me a page number, or i have tomatos on my eyes, thanks.--Doneve 09:14, 19 January 2012 (PST)

Hello Doneve, you can find the information at page 19 in Objective Raids at the Ford Theater. Neuling 10:37, 19 January 2012 (PST)

Underconstruction

I used the underconstruction banner to inform the user that changes to the site will happen. In my case it will be the addition of the different compositions from 3040 - 3050 - 3054 - 3059 til 3064 (it depends on the entries of the corresponding field manual which year excatly) 3067 - 3079. When you think it is unnecessary I will remove the banner and will also not include the underconstruction in my future addtions.Neuling 11:08, 20 January 2012 (PST)

Will these compositions match the format used elsewhere? ClanWolverine101 13:43, 20 January 2012 (PST)
No he don't match, but i fell i become a cleanup whore, to fix Neulings contributions.--Doneve 13:47, 20 January 2012 (PST)
Okay, Doneve let me know if i can help. ClanWolverine101 15:21, 20 January 2012 (PST)

????

Thanks for your support i appriciate this, but i think i stopp some talk to 1-2 members, your are not one of this (and some longe time memberships), we had a really good hand in hand work, but my question is? Why don't follow some members the wiki standard, we invest a lot of time to make sarna better and bring it up to one standard, i don't understand this, talk talk talk, and it bring's nothing, why we have a policy, and WikiProject talk page, i hope i'am not to raw of my writing, but i think you understand me, at my first steps on sarna i was blocked by Scaletail, but i follow Revs instructions and he bring me to this what i do on sarna and what i do on the wiki, i had Scaltail's view, talk, when you not talk to me and don't match any policy i undo this revisons, he was a good teacher, i set up a talk to Rev, i hope he correspondence when he found time.--Doneve 15:22, 21 January 2012 (PST)

I understand, Doneve. I'm hoping things will get better as Rev is able to devote more time to the wiki. ClanWolverine101 00:20, 22 January 2012 (PST)

Critique of Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth revision

Hey, CW101: I normally don't respond to talk page comments on the originator's talkpage, but since I've been off-site for a bit, I thought it appropriate to let you know I've written about your revisions here: Talk:Armed_Forces_of_the_Federated_Commonwealth. Thanks. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 04:41, 21 January 2012 (PST)

House Kurita Pics

Hy, have this link Temporary kurita gallery, when you create new House Kurita articles you have a litte gallery to use the images, Neuling uploaded all, and i added the pics to the articles, take a look on the Kurita bios, i removed some links from the gallery when i added it to the bios.--Doneve 13:27, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Thanks! ClanWolverine101 20:15, 23 January 2012 (PST)

Fluff writing

Hy CW can you take a look on the Jalastar Aerospace page, i started with minor fluff writing, and want some critical response, if its ok, thanks.--Doneve 17:45, 25 January 2012 (PST)

Composition Updates

Hy Clan Wolverine, I will know if my formating is accepted by the other user for the composition section of the unit articles. Please give me your response about it. Tnx Neuling 10:47, 29 January 2012 (PST)

Give me an example. ClanWolverine101 10:50, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Example: one 17th Benjamin Regulars and two Davion Assault Guards Neuling 10:53, 29 January 2012 (PST)
The one for the Davion Assault Guards is okay with me, although I think too many indents were used. (That's an aesthetic issue.)
Regarding the Galedon Regulars, what you put for 3025 really doesn't add anything to the article, and cannot be referenced anyway. Yes, we may assume that the 17th used the standard organization structure at the time, but there is no reference used. People know what a "standard 'Mech regiment" is. ClanWolverine101 13:41, 29 January 2012 (PST)
I doesn't follow your argumentation because it stands exactly that the DCMS used for mech commands the regiment (House Kurita (The Draconis Combine) p.123 second column) structure and in the deployment table were two commands noted. The strength of the prefecture garrison count two. My thought is two commands = two regiment => every command equals 1 regiment (House Kurita (The Draconis Combine) p.137 "Kajikazawa Prefecture") and to finsish my argumentation the command is described as a heavy unit(House Kurita (The Draconis Combine) p.146). Neuling 14:10, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Neuling - First of all, you are making a lot of assumptions. You are assuming the 17th didn't have any armor/infantry elements attached, something that was quite common even with DCMS regular units. Second, you cite the deployment tables. That means nothing. Deployment tables don't indicate exact size/composition. Deployment Tables from these (and most other books) exclusively refer to battlemech regiments. Third, just because the HK book presents the standard Kurita 'mech regiment structure doesn't mean that's what was precisely used. Finally, presenting a breakdown to the company level contributes nothing to the wiki. You don't know what nicknames (if any) those companies had, and you don't even know for the battalions. Because of this, you should scale back and present the material at the regimental level instead of presenting mere speculation. Thank you. ClanWolverine101 16:23, 29 January 2012 (PST)
Clan Wolverine, you doing me wrong for the entry of 3028. The entries for the single companies exits before I made my update of the composition. Take alook at the revision history - Version vom 30. december 2010, 04:21 Uhr - Dmon. I will think about it and provide the entry with an good formating. Neuling 02:43, 30 January 2012 (PST)
Fair enough. I apologize for that. I still think the company breakdown should be removed. I also think if solid info doesn't exist for a specific year (3067?) it should simply be stripped out. Also: When you say there are "Nine heavy companies" that's not quite accurate. We know that it is considered a heavy regiment. A more precise breakdown is unavailable? ClanWolverine101 07:11, 30 January 2012 (PST)