User talk:Mbear

Something you want to say? Just let me know!

User_talk:Mbear/archived

Tnx

First for your support. Second that you hear my opinion and to respect my work (you adopeted my layout chances from Davion Guards :) ) Thir your cooperation in the past and (I hope) in the future.

Have you ideas for me what can I do next. My to do list shortened extremly because my slowy work... Every day a sentence, in one week a word and in one month a letter. Neuling 12:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What do do next?

• There are a lot of empty entries in the AFFS unit infoboxes (Nickname, Year formed, etc.) that could be filled.
• The units also need information in the History section.
• The 33rd and 34th Avalon Hussars pages need insignia.

Does this give you some ideas? If you don't want to do these tasks, you can always look at the wiki's "To Do" list for something.--Mbear 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

AFFS Commands

Love your work on breaking these up on the main article - I am hoping this becomes the new template on all the Successor State military commands. Have a . Good work and good effort.
- ClanWolverine101 14:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mbear 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Inner Sphere military structure

Hi Mbear, i noticed great job your doing with military structures for the Inner Sphere. There is a missing formation your article is does not include. Army size formation, ComGuard (Level V) and old Star League use that size forces in their make up. Your article does mention it. -- Wrangler 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Added Corps and Army to the page. Thanks!--Mbear 12:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WOW

Hy Mber congratulation for your new Admin status, i hope your work hold this level, but it is better when you push it up to a higher higher higher .Greetings--Doneve 13:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Mbear 13:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats ;-) --Dmon 13:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations for your promotion and "burden" on your shoulder. I have an idea. Is it useful when I added informationen in the parent articles about the destruction of a unit with time (year) and planet. And I thought about it to expanded the seperation of the articles to all militias (clan => single galaxies, comstar => armies, periphery states => corps + brigades) Neuling 13:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? He's an Admin? I didn't see this news release! Someone's slacking.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Cut me a little slack. It's my first day.--Mbear 14:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

...and you defend showing up late? And have no coffee skills?--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. I have to write my own announcement that I've been made an admin? Sheesh. Next you'll want me to pay for my own celebratory beer too! ;)--Mbear 19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"...to pay for my own celebratory beer too!" It's worse than you think: you have to pay for our's too. In the Navy, we call it a wetting down. The key is: the amount of a month's pay increase is what you spend on the party. Do the math. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to pop in late, way to go! -- Wrangler 22:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Neuling's Idea

Is it useful when I added informationen in the parent articles about the destruction of a unit with time (year) and planet. And I thought about it to expanded the seperation of the articles to all militias (clan => single galaxies, comstar => armies, periphery states => corps + brigades) Neuling 13:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Neuling, please add any information you find useful. If you want to know when (year) and where (planet) a unit was destroyed, someone else probably does as well. The only possible problem is when you have units that were destroyed, rebuilt, and destroyed again (like the Lyran Regulars). In that case, you may want to put the detailed information about unit destruction in the unit's individual article.

As to the second part of your question (Expanding clan listings to single galaxies, comstar to armies, etc.), if you want to do so, go right ahead. Again, I'm sure someone will find the information useful. However, you may want to consider adding more detailed info to each unit rather than just creating the page. The list of units is useful, and the brief overview is as well, but having some more depth in the article is best. (For an example of what I'm trying to say, compare the 2nd Donegal Guards and 3rd Donegal Guards articles. Both have the basic info, but the 2nd DG page has a lot more information.)

But just doing the expansions you mentioned would be good.--Mbear 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I put this forward about a year ago and got a no based on the fact that units can be re-raised multiple times. --Dmon 15:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dmon, can you provide a link to that discussion? I'm unsure of how Mbear's answer is invalidated by a unit's multiple destruction & re-creation, unless they were all being tracked on the parent unit's page. What others said would be useful to me.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I should of been more clear in that I was answering the first part of the idea about unit destruction dates. I have no idea where the discussion might be sadly. Re-reading the question.. to be honest I should just go back to sleep.. I thought he was asking something else anyway :-( --Dmon 15:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's good news in my book!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lmao, I assume you mean it is good that I am saying the idea has already been discussed rather than me making an ass of myself yet again ;-) --Dmon 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

One means less 'work' and one amuses me. Win-win (for me)!--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing BV & template

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

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

Creative Commons Share Alike license

Hi Mbear,

I noticed that you added the Creative Commons Share Alike v3.0 license to many of the images you've uploaded. I'm not sure whether that's the appropriate license. If you have simply redrawn an image without significantly modifying it, the image does not qualify as a "derivative work" and you must instead claim and justify fair use. Am I misunderstanding what you're doing? Thanks for the clarification. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)