User talk:Dmon

Archives

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Current

Please add new entries to the bottom of this page (in order to ensure I actually see them.

Apostrophes in Capellan unit names

Only the Liao Lancers include world names in their unit designation. Like the 2nd “Glasgow” Lancers. Over 30% of the personal come from the planet Glasgow. That format of writing is in the Field Report 2765: Capellan Confederation p. 12. And the world name stand always in Apostrophes. I hope that answer clarifies your question. with best regards Neuling (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2014 (PST)

Ok cheers, It just looked odd to me so I thought I would check.--Dmon (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2014 (PST)

Tikonov Guards

Hello. Why did you put a reconstituted brigade section in the article? The age of war connection was already mentioned in the formation section.--Aldous (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2014 (PST)

Because it leaves the way clear for details of the original unit to be put in, if you don't like it change it, I was just trying to be efficient.--Dmon (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Avalon Hussars

Hello, I have issues that you removed my work without any further attempt to ask why I have changed the outlay of the Brigade page. I think its hard to accept for me the current format of the brigade pages, because that doesn't show which command was active during the different time frames. I have the goal to show what unit was active/destroyed/disbanded for the years 2765/3025/3040/3050/3054/3064/3067/3079/3085/3145 and when it was first mention. I will make another try that time in form of a table. I hope that you will not destroy again my work. I remind you that all information which I include had the correct reference which you removed. Neuling (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2014 (PST)

Neuling, this is not a personal thing this is about the wiki and how good or bad we can be. To be frank as I possibly can be with you and just point out that we have already had this debate back in January 2012 so please, please, please stop "innovating" and stick to what you are very good at in putting in correct references and good data, not "data dumps" and reformatting. If you need me to strengthen my arguement there is this debate as well. --Dmon (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2014 (PST)

I leraned from my errors in the past and this time I will try it on my personal page. I think what I can do is not to greate a data dump, but to show which unit was active. Take a look and please leave me a response User:Neuling/Brigade table. Neuling (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2014 (PST)

Thank you, I know I can be a bit harsh sometimes but I mean well, I do not like clashing with you over things like this but I honestly think you try and take on projects that are possibly to large for you to handle alone, we have a very dedicated little community of editors here and if you talk to people about your projects and maybe we can help as a community.

The User:Neuling/Brigade table looks very nice so I will be keeping an eye on how it evolves and maybe we can use this much nicer looking system to solve both of our problems. Here is my first idea to put to you, do you think it might be possible to include the unit emblem in the table?--Dmon (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2014 (PST)

I finished my first two tries and I think I'm uncertain which is better for our purposes. Neuling (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2014 (PST)

Hey Neuling, i like what you have done there, it looks good with the unit insignias (I like the second format better). Sorry I have taken so long to go have a look as I have been busy. I think in this format I would be more than happy to incorporate the tables into the Brigade pages. It might be worth checking on the BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands and getting other peoples thoughts before we implement it though.--Dmon (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2014 (PST)

It would absolutely be good to propose this to the BattleTechWiki talk:Project Military Commands project. What you've got is good, and I like it. However, if you just start changing stuff without building consensus first, you're just asking for problems. Please copy it to the project page.--Mbear^(talk) 04:57, 4 March 2014 (PST)

DCMS Issue

Hello; I noticed your despair over the shortening of those house military pages, and am also somewhat concerned. Could you please confirm how much info has been lost (going through the revision history, etc) due to the transition? I don't have the time this moment but may later. If you do find some tell us and we can find a solution to this issue. I actually helped Neuling recently with formatting of these pages, but am still on the fence about all this change. It wouldn't be hard to roll back the edits on the main pages if necessary. -BobTheZombie (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

• I'll ask what the people on different forums think of the situation; would that be all right? -BobTheZombie (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Yeah man go for it, I am not entirely sure what to make of it all myself. I don't know if information has been lost as such but having what I would rate as a major page like the DCMS page almost completely blank and contain almost no useful information is a serious issue in itself.--Dmon (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

I posted on Sarna's forum and will post on the BT forum as well as NGNG later today. I'm pretty sure that dividing them is a bad idea. I dunno. The people of the BT community can help us out here. -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Which data is lost, i think i can help to restore some data?.--Doneve (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

I am not sure if any data has actually been lost, I just think the page has been stripped and subdivided into half a dozen lesser pages leaving us with no one over all overview of such a huge organisation.--Dmon (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Argh, now i see Neuling has do the same with the AFFS page, i dont like the new layouts, another way is, i talk to BM or Mbear, i hope both can help us to recreate the pages.--Doneve (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Doneve, all we would have to do is revert the changes, and it should all be good; perhaps we should discuss this before taking drastic action. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

I restored both pages and apologize for the action which I took without any discussion. Furthermore I ask if we can change the layout into a standardized version? With best regards Neuling (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

I'm just getting feedback and want to keep the AFFS page the shortened way so that people on the forums can see what Neuling had; the one comment I've received was positive towards the shortened version. I'll keep you guys updated as to what the people want. -BobTheZombie (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2014 (PDT)

Casual Edit Award: Spidermech

I'm happy to see how you whipped the Spidermech article into shape between the three of you. This particular article has been a thorn in my side for some time because I knew it needed a serious rework but I knew nothing about the subject matter myself. So, for getting this out of my head, I'm giving each of you a Casual Edit Award (2nd ribbon). Thanks! Frabby (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

Cheers man, I randomly came across it and decided to go watch some of the walkthrough vids on youtube and see what I could piece together. The Video game section needs a major brush up and sort out in general to be honest. --Dmon (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

Moving Ghost Bear units to Rasalhague Dominion units

Just to be clear, you're only moving those Ghost Bear units that were formed after the Bears permanently relocated to the Inner Sphere, right?--Mbear^(talk) 03:56, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

I was thinking over the next few days move everything that exists in the Dominion, I am leaving the Ghost bear exclusive units alone. I need to read more into the Free Republic units to see what was absorbed and what is a tribute to an older unit. The way I plan to do it will leave units in "Category:Clan Ghost Bear Commands" still listed as Ghost bear units but they will be redirected to the Dominion unit article.--Dmon (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

OK. I'm just wondering if it makes sense to have two articles: One for the unit under the GB touman, one for their service as Dominion forces. (I've run into a similar situation with the Second Dieron Regulars. After the Dieron District was ceded to the Republic, they became the Second New Samarkand Regulars.)--Mbear^(talk) 13:32, 21 March 2014 (PDT)

Just my tuppence worth, but I while think Dmon has the right idea for the Rasalhague Dominion units, I think it'd be worth holding off on the New Samarkand Regulars for a little while - we know there's a time jump coming up, and the Combine has seized Dieron again I think - if they have, I'd not be surprised to learn after the time jump that the New Samarkand Regulars are the Dieron Regulars again. I'm not sure how many units it affects though - weren't some of the New Samarkand Regulars units formed by merging multiple units together after the Jihad? BrokenMnemonic (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2014 (PDT)