User talk:Dmon

Archives[edit]

Project List[edit]

Current[edit]

Helping AlekBalderdash - links and Flechs[edit]

Hello Dmon. I see that you freshly archived your talk page anad that I get christen with a post for the new year. I have a matter for your attention. I am conversing with User:AlekBalderdash who is a relatively new editor. He has some questions about the proper usage of external links and also about Flechs sheets as a reference for various 'Mech variants. (In his experimentation with links he has triggered the abuse filter.) I know that there are some restictions on external links, but I could not quickly identify a handy reference page to help him. Could you give him some assistance, both regarding the link issue as well as guidance/feedback on his specific ideas? See User talk:AlekBalderdash#Record Sheets --Dude RB (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2023 (EST)

Delete pages 2023 II[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Can you delete this page: Zeus (Corporation)

Regards,--Pserratv (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2023 (EST)

Delete pages 2023 III[edit]

Can you please delete this category:

Regards,--Pserratv (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2023 (EST)

Looks like Frabby beat me to it!--Dmon (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (EST)
That particular issue almost saw me go down a side tangent and complain about over-automation in templates becoming a straight-jacket for editors whenever a special case pops up. Templates are to serve the editors, not the other way around. Frabby (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (EST)
I do not really want any of this automation in the infoboxes, I have had loads of private talks with Deadfire about not letting him do more until he can come up with a solid example of it doing something better than our current methods.
And the weight automation is going to be scrapped when I get brave enough to update the'Mech infobox.--Dmon (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2023 (EST)

IP edit reverts[edit]

Hi, I see you've reverted a bunch of edits that an IP made to various novel articles. May I ask why? The edits looked legit where alphabetical order of featured 'Mechs was corrected; and a PDF search showed that adding the Archer to the list for Star Lord was also factually correct. Frabby (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2023 (EST)

The re-removal of the starlord archer was my mistake but generally I was removing the mostly needless list collumns the editor was putting in and the entierly needless piping of the Clan 'Mechs when they already have redirects in place.
I know I have been installing the list collumns on system articles where I expect to see the lists continually grow as we get more era info, most of the novel place and equipment lists are usually too short to truly warrant collumns, characters there is an arguement to have them but that is really a case by case situation.--Dmon (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2023 (EST)

DA Governors[edit]

Just following up on the Republic Governor / Legate switches, it looks where this is happening between Dark Age: Republic of the Sphere and Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) (i.e. for say Prefecture III), other sources (such as Dark Age: 3132-3134 INN) are exclusively following Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) for the proper role where the characters get a mention. Accordingly unless I find some other complexity, I'm proposing to treat (with appropriate notes) the Dark Age: Republic Worlds (3130) listings as the correct one.--HF22 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2023 (EST)

Glad you have figured out what the error is. I knew it was there but had only thus far handled governors on an individual basis when they turned up in something else, so I was unsure of the specifics of the larger issue. How you plan to handle it is perfect, so only other wrinkle to keep an eye on is the fiction. I think at least one (Mirach) conflicts with both DA:RotS and DA:RW, but I would say the novels get priority in most cases as they flesh out the characters in their roles.--Dmon (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2023 (EST)
The fiction is tying in pretty well so far, so hopefully not too many conflicts to deal with. As you say, for those which do have conflicts I think the novels will need to be preferred, since I believe they are mostly later in publication date as well as more detailed as to the characters.--HF22 (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2023 (EST)

Category:Comstar Support Vehicles[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Just wondering, why did you revert my edit there? Echo Mirage (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2023 (EST)

I was just about to write a comment on your page about it actually. Short version is that as I have mentioned to you before, "used by" is not what Sarna is doing. The MUL does it way better than we ever could so we have decided to not even try and compete.
I have been mulling over what to do about Blessed Order for a couple of days now.--Dmon (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2023 (EST)
That is somewhat circular reasoning since the MUL is often dependent on us for info. Echo Mirage (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2023 (EST)
Yes parts of the MUL draws from us, but so does a lot of stuff that is BT related. Ray calls it the "Sarna effect", but not trying to compete with the MUL is something else. We can't do it on a technical level. The MUL is a database built for the purpose of being a searchable force builder. Sarna is a wiki, trying to build a comprehensive force builder using a wiki format is likely possible, but it would be an absolute monster to organise.--Dmon (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2023 (EST)
Wasn't trying to put together a full list of equipment, as you said, it would be a true monster to take on indeed. I was just trying to give a sense of the range of equipment the Blessed Order had access to, with a bit of an emphasis on the some of the more unusual and/or obscure stuff. It is easy enough to overlook the Order's custom built OmniMechs, for instance. Which reminds me, I forgot to mention that the BO installed cruise missile launchers on at least some of their Fortress-class DropShips. I'll head over their now and add that little tidbit. Echo Mirage (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2023 (EST)
Quick correction to my last, it appears it was actually just the Duat-class DropShips that were fitted with cruise missiles. Echo Mirage (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2023 (EST)

Military Operation names and caps[edit]

Hiya, it has just come to my attention that you suggested in the BattleTechWiki:Manual of Style that Sarna BTW should stick to the policy of writing out military operation names in all caps, even though CGL has abandoned the practice. I was actually glad to see this go away as I always hated it. I think I understand where you're coming from which is why I suggested in the policy that neither spelling (all caps or merely capitalized) is technically wrong. This way, existing articles and links do not have to be updated. But I really don't like the prospect of carrying this weird spelling into the future when even CGL have dropped it again. Frabby (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2023 (EST)

Yeah I implemented the style at a time that CGL didn't seem to know how they wanted to handle it. When CGL settled on a style and Rev brought it up, my suggestion was mostly based on the fact that the work has already been done. I am not a fan of us flopping between styles. As long as they commit to doing all of it, somebody who wants to spend the time reversing all the work can.--Dmon (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2023 (EST)

Noble houses[edit]

All right, what's wrong with having the names appear in two places? It does no harm and it makes it easier for people to find. And many of the families that use lowercase particles are noted in their canon entries as the von X family, not the X family. Madness Divine (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (EDT)

Never mind; I had the technical issue explained to me. Madness Divine (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (EDT)

Added references for Snow Fox[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I added reference link in Snow Fox article, it was MUL date

They removed standard Snow Fox from the list and Snow Fox Omni was added in following era

RecGuide described Omni project as success

That's the only one I remember that needed references, let me know if there are others

Snow Fox

Regards,--Warhawk14 (talk) 22:10, 09 May 2023 (EST)

Good work!--Dmon (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2023 (EDT)

RE: Hellcat (Hellhound II)[edit]

Howdy. I was going to add the Hellcat page for RG:iClan vol. 30 since its an outstanding red link but noticed you had deleted it earlier. Is this because it is similar to the Conjurer or another reason? Should I go ahead and add the page? --KhorneHub (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2023 (EDT)

Hey Khornehub,
No nothing like that at all, In theory the links on the front page should get updated every week but I often forget and have left them for as long as a month to six weeks in the past. I updated the links as part of a personal effort to be more consistent... this is three weeks in a row I have remembered! The Hellcat (Hellhound II) still needs an article if you want to have a stab at it.--Dmon (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 IV[edit]

Hi Dmon;

I made a mistkae. This page PowerTech 250 should be deleted.--Pserratv (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 V[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I have a list of pages to delete:

And these files that are not used any longer:

  • File:RotS Knights emblem.jpg
  • File:RotS Knights-Errant emblem.jpg
  • File:RotS Paladin emblem.jpg
  • File:RotS Senate emblem.jpg

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (EDT)

Award[edit]

Thanks for always being so helpful. Not that you need another, but it's well deserved! Direction Appreciated Award, 2nd ribbon https://youtu.be/Z9nCW6HJsmY --Csdavis715 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 VI[edit]

Can you please delete these ones:

And thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2023 (EDT)

Hi Pserratv, I'm with you on keeping a tidy Wiki! In the next week or two I'll be continuing to go through old character articles that were created years ago before the current format was standardized. Even now there are twice as many more added than you posted, and Dmon is pretty good about deleting them in reasonable time. So I wouldn't worry about it. --Csdavis715 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 VI[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Me again needing help for deleting pages... Can you delete these pages:

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

Category and page needed mess[edit]

Hi Dmon,

We have now several pages as wanted that are dummy for template issues and also several templates with the same problem that are hiding real pages / categories that would be needed.--Pserratv (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

Do you mean all the random stuff that Deadfire is creating? I am aware of the issue and wish I knew what he was doing but most of the time when I ask him he replies with a link to a coding "help page" that has quite obviously been written in such a manner as to be as unhelpful as possible.--Dmon (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
It's also unhelpful to not provide information or examples on what is wrong. --Deadfire (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
I am pretty sure PS means the fact that the needed articles list is currently not a list of needed articles. Special:WantedPages, excluding the three Russian titles, we don't get an actual needed article until item no. 63--Dmon (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2023 (EDT)
Sounds like a priority for me to get fixed/filled in. I will add it to my User:Deadfire/Task list, and start working on it. Though many MediaWiki admins wished Special:WantedPages to only include the main namespace, it simply hasn't been fixed to do so.
Yes, I meant that. And also on the missing categories, as now we have like 80 something and most are technical in nature.--Pserratv (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (EDT)

Category Orphaned pages[edit]

Hi Dmon,

We have here thousands of characters listed here as we are creating entries for each mechwarrior in any supplement. Now, would it be ok to have a sort of "warriors page" to clean this up? It is not something I like (we have the categories for this), but it is again hiding potential cross-references missing.

Any idea?--Pserratv (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

I am not overly bothered about the orphaned pages at this point. I do have an idea that could provide a lot of cross-referencing potential but I have not put any time into it to develop it yet, there are a few big projects that need fixing before we start a new one. I am not a fan of the idea of a warriors page at all as it doesn't really serve any purpose beyond providing a home for the orphans.--Dmon (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2023 (EDT)

Partner up![edit]

Hi, my name is Kate and I am the founder of the Independent Fallout Wiki (over yonder at fallout.wiki). A few members of our community recommended your wiki as one we should reach out to in order to partner up with (big fans!) The Independent Fallout Wiki split off the corporately hosted wiki to give independence a whirl in April 2022. We want to strengthen relationships between other independent wikis, as our community has interests that span beyond Fallout and are excited to check out other independent sites.

What does a partnership even mean? Good question! On our end, we feature your website on the wiki as both an article and part of the home page spotlight rotation. If you have a Discord, we also feature your invite along with links to your YouTube/website/videos. If you have similar spaces, we just ask that you do the same for us. You can check out the list of our current wiki buddies here!

These partnerships work well to connect independent wikis, lead to new friends, and are generally good vibes across the board. I appreciate you considering our request to partner up! If you feel like giving it a go or have any questions, feel free to respond here or message me on Discord (kateaces). Thank you so much in advance. -Kate Aces MWO Charger.png We’ve got ‘em on the run! 01:17, 23 August 2023 (EDT)

Delete pages 2023 VIII[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Could you please delete these pages:

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2023 (EST)

Removing notes from articles[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I removed those BLP notes, as I am concerned to have them included as mere conjecture by BLP that he believes he created the mechs without evidence. This note has been attributed to approximately 60 mechs, and as it doesn't contain anything but a link to BLP's blog without evidence (and is refuted in at least one case, see the Stone Rhino), it feels inflammatory to leave a note on so many pages without actual citations. I know that's why it's a note, and not a citation, but it feels excessive and would possibly be better served just to be on Pardoe's page and not for every one of these mechs. These notes were only added in the last year or so, at the same time the controversy regarding BLP was happening, and is seen by many as being used as a way to stake Pardoe's brand on the story. Whether this is the case or not it feels disingenuine to leave the notes with only a link to a blog from years ago that was only very recently included on the wiki.

If possible I'd like this escalated up for discussion with the other admins. As I don't want to step on more toes by removing additional posts. If anything leaving these notes only engages with the controversial situation, especially as the admin responsible for adding these notes was the one writing about the situation with BLP & Faith/Ace so might be seen as biased reporting (again, be it true or not, this is just how it comes across). I am happy to discuss this further off the wiki if that helps, as I am engaged with quite a few people in the community who have raised this concern.

I will leave it up to your fantastic team. Thank you for hearing me out. Appreciate all your work.— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by EnbyKaiju (talk • contribs) .

Hiya, as the editor who put up the notes, let me assure you that it was a coincidence that I did that around the same time when all the other stuff happened. It never occurred to me that people might see a connection, beyond by fear that he might take the blog down. BLP's blog is a fantastic window into the very early history of BT and I felt the info was worth having on Sarna. As for its veracity, I give BLP the benefit of doubt and am inclined to believe when he says he wrote certain writeups. Iirc he even admits that he might be misremembering sometimes.
Regarding the Stone Rhino, can you elaborate? Frabby (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2023 (EST)
I'll add my two cents in support of changes here. The blog post in question opens with "I might be wrong." He admits that his memory of the development may be flawed, and subsequently a lot of this is conjecture with no way to verify the veracity of his claims for most of the units he lists. There are some notes on 'Mechs that he showcased that absolutely do deserve recognition, such as the original drafts of the BattleMaster and Shadow Hawk stats, but everything else has about as much credibility as spitballing the names of people you think you might've gone to high school with. "Trust me bro" is not sufficient cause to have authorial credit on ~60 pages. His contributions to the creation of these units belongs on one place, if any, and that is on his article page, where it can be provided with more context regarding his self-admitted uncertainty than it currently receives as a footnote. --Einherjarvalk (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2023 (EST)
Not quite sure what to answer, except that I still don’t see why the info shouldn't be a trivia item in the respective 'Mech articles. Sure, it could go into the BLP article and probably should be there, too. There’s no reason why the info can’t be in both places. But I reckon the 'Mechs are more central to Sarna BTW than BLP so that's where the info belongs in my opinion. And while it should be taken with a grain of salt, I still consider it noteworthy enough to mention. There is nothing to suggest BLP doesn’t believe what he posted there. (Ok, bad example - he apparently believes and posts a lot more than BT history and most people including myself are not ok with that - but you get what I’m saying.) Frabby (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2023 (EST)
The reason the info doesn't belong in the trivia section is because there is no evidence to support those claims for the majority of the units listed. For some, such as the aforementioned Shadow Hawk and BattleMaster, Blaine has shown his work and thus can and should receive credit for having a formative hand in their development. For the others, it strongly feels like he's simply trying to solidify his claim as a "founding father of BattleTech," a claim that he continues to lean on in order to push his version of the narrative surrounding his release from the writing team while marketing his new work, even over a year later. Regardless, whether or not Pardoe believes he's telling the truth is immaterial (and, by his own admission, he's not sure it even is the truth). If Sarna is to maintain its reputation as a reliable source of objectively true information about BattleTech, "I believe this is true (but I could be wrong)" is not sufficient cause for the content to remain where it is. I believe that Sarna would benefit more from having the list he lays claim to placed on his article page, and the "behind-the-scenes" materials he posted about the 'Mechs that he has an undeniable claim to developing transplanted from his blog to the corresponding 'Mech articles and cited accordingly. At that point, whatever Blaine does with his blog becomes immaterial, and the relevant information is preserved where it should be. --Einherjarvalk (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2023 (EST)

Hey EnbyKaiju,

I appreciate you getting back to me and explaining your position. This topic has been discussed amongst the Admin team a few times over the last year, I understand your concerns about the potential for bias. Sarna Admins do not officially have specific roles but as a team we each broadly take on different duties, Frabby is the guy who makes the core of most of our policies around Notability, Moratorium and Canon. He also takes on writing a lot of the more "sensitive" articles that we have concerns about being refuted or causing issues simply by existing. Stuff like the Eridani Light Horse lawsuit, Pride Anthology 2023 and yes the BLP situation. Because Frabby writes our canon policy, he spends a lot of time working on the Apocryphal and esoterica like the Battledroids, TCI Model Sets, BattleTechnology and other very early history of BT stuff. The fact that Frabby wrote about both the BLP situation and BLPs Blog about early 'Mech designs is not from the Sarna teams perspective anything unusual. However we do fully understand how the unfortunate timing can be seen as something potentialy suspicious from the outside.

In truth I can't guarentee that there is absolutely no bias in any of the articles Frabby has ever written, but what I can say is that I have worked with him for getting close to twenty years and honestly believe that out of everybody who works on Sarna, Frabby is by far the most evenhanded.

Hey Einherjarvalk,

The lack of evidence to support the claims is exactly why the information is in the notes section as trivia. Sarna has a Good Faith policy that extends to Authors and people who are involved in the development of the BattleTech Universe. I myself recently have made a "announced product" article for Without Question based on Bryan Young mentioning it as his next novel during an AMA chat.

Does the note about BLPs blog need to be in every 'Mech article? probably not, but to say that having the note there is enough to call Sarnas reputation as a reliable source of objectively true information about BattleTech into dispute is likely a bit far. The notes on Sarna have been made by a respected Sarna Admin in good faith (especially with neither myself or Frabby being American, taking sides in a disagreement about American political stances is a bit bizarre). Unless Frabby decides that his edits where in error or the rest of the Admin team come to a consensus to remove the notes, I am going to maintain the current status quo.--Dmon (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2023 (EST)

I am honored and a bit flattered. But still, "Frabby said so" is not a valid argument. I am just one out of many editors. And I don’t "write" Sarna's policies, not in the sense of deciding them. User consensus does. I merely had an active role in hammering out many policies back in the early days and happened to create the agreed-upon text.
That said, I'm with Dmon on this one. Our existing policies support having those bits of trivia. Conversely, there is nothing requiring Sarna to avoid mentioning them. Frabby (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2023 (EST)

Delete page 2024 I[edit]

Can you please delete this one Dmon: Electra (Individual Cameron-class WarShip) Regards,--Pserratv (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2024 (EST)

Primitive Battlemech deletion?[edit]

Just wondering why the Primitive Battlemech category was deleted last month? It was pretty useful for my AoW games.TheRedBee (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (EDT)

The wiki is slowly going rules free to become a lore wiki. Primitive as a category is more of a rules thing than a universe thing. I am not saying primitive does not exist in universe, but it does not really work as a category when the wiki deals with over a thousand years of universe timeline. In 3152 the Mackie might be considered primitive, but in 2439 it was the absolute bleeding edge of military technology. The category doesn't make sense anymore in that context.--Dmon (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2024 (EDT)

Non-canon notable pilots[edit]

Disagree (strongly) with the inclusion of non-canon material in essentially any category except Category:Non-canon. That includes non-canonical notable pilots of non-canonical 'Mechs.

My key issue here is that this material was expressly declared non-canon, ie. unlike apocrypha it isn’t actually meant to be a contribution to the BattleTech universe in the sense of an official product. Frabby (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2024 (EDT)

I see your point and I don't really have strong feelings on it. However because I generally navigate the wiki via the category trees rather than using the search I do have strong feelings that everything should be correctly categorised in regards to what the subject of the article is. Non-canon is an indication of the status/condition of what the articles subject is in relation to canon not what the subject of the article is within the universe. These two articles are character articles.
Normally we don't spin off characters etc from non-canon products into their own articles so it is not an issue (looking at cat non-canon we do have a few though). I see two ways to satisfy both of our desires being to potentially create some sub-categories within non-canon or to delete the spin off articles and keep the non-canon stuff all contained within product article.--Dmon (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2024 (EDT)
I think we should by default avoid non-canon spinoff articles or even a structure of non-canon articles like the plague. Restricting non-canon content to (noteworthy) products and summarily cover whatever we figure to be noteworthy in that one product article is the only way forward I can see. By that rationale, the two UrbanMech LAM pilot articles in question would have to be deleted or reduced to redirects, and their content be covered in the Salvage Box: UrbanMech LAM article. By the same token, the T-Fighter and X-Fighter articles need to be killed with fire and all redlinks from the Nebula California need to be removed. There may be individual exceptions from this baseline default, if and when non-canonical issues are somehow still relevant for BattleTech. But the default needs to be a "No". Frabby (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2024 (EDT)
Nudge nudge. Are we in agreement? Frabby (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2024 (EDT)
Yes we are.--Dmon (talk) 10:41, 4 July 2024 (EDT)

Din Steiner removal from House Steiner[edit]

Howdy, hope you're enjoying your 4th of July. Is there a reason for your removal of Din Steiner from the House Steiner known family? Certainly him rising to be a Khan of a Clan and the military and political might that in entails certainly seems to make him one of the most renowned members of House Steiner when you look at all he would command in that position. Just wondering. --Orc Warrior (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2024 (EDT)

Hey Orc Warrior, I removed Din Steiner because he is a clan character. As such he is not technically a member of House Steiner, but instead he is a member of the Steiner Bloodhouse so he should be included there. There was already a link to the Bloodhouse in the infobox. I have done a bit more on the family tree and now the Bloodhouse is listed as a cadet line decended from Kailen Steiner. With the trees being so complex I split them off into cadet lines to try and keep things understandable.--Dmon (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2024 (EDT)

Ah. Read like that, it makes perfect and reasonable sense. I've always thought that the Steiner Bloodhouse should have made some sort of inquiry or claim for Katherine Steiner-Davion once she passed her trial of position with the Wolfs. Regardless, Thanks for explaining :) --Orc Warrior (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2024 (EDT)

Removing game information from the "battletech" section of novels[edit]

I just saw that you've been removing the info on recreating battles from the novels from the battletech section. Do you have a reason? I had debated what to do with that information in terms of how people would want to consume it, and I assumed they would be more likely to want to see it from the pages on the novels, but i'm open to the idea that it could be its own resource page?

I don't see how it doesn't fit under the category of "battletech" info though, since it is literally a description of how to play the book in the game, it seems appropriately specific to the page and the section.

Thoughts?— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by MWKev (talk • contribs) .

Hey MWKev,
Stuff like this is realistically outside what Sarna does. The info is drawn from the novels but turning it into a playable scenerio it becomes fanon. Even if all the info is correct.--Dmon (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2024 (EDT)

Noted. Thanks for the feedback. I'll stick with the novel summaries for now, and ponder how best to capture the other information further. I also just realized, based on this exchange there was a signature button. Neat. --MWKev (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2024 (EDT)

Delete pages 2024 II[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I have found a few pages we should delete:

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2024 (EDT)

Done--Dmon (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2024 (EDT)

Double redirects not working[edit]

Hi Dmon,

There are two double redirects I cannot amend:

The first ones are now pointing the final one, and nevertheless they still appear hear. I picked as job to have them as much cleared as possible, and these two are making me nuts.--Pserratv (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2024 (EDT)

Should be cleared now.--Dmon (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2024 (EDT)
It is. Thanks!--Pserratv (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2024 (EDT)

Image duplicate[edit]

This image is a duplicate of the tro:3050 marauder ii: [[File:Battle Compendium Marauder.png]]

Can you delete it?--Pserratv (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2024 (EDT)

Done--Dmon (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2024 (EDT)
Thanks!!

Lore-based Wiki[edit]

I appreciate your response regarding the ProtoMech Weapons category. I am curious about turning BTW into a lore-only wiki. Are there any written guidelines editors can reference to facilitate the conversion? I'm interested in helping out and use BTW enough to see many pages with the game rules boxes in the text.--Beemer (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2024 (EDT)

Wanted Pages/Categories - list of results[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I feel both the Wanted Pages and Wanted Categories have lost steam because of the amount of missing information in templates. We have a lot of entries in both pages that are not battletech related and they can scare people on this. Any idea if this could be sorted out? By Nick maybe? Regards,--Pserratv (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2024 (EDT)

Delete pages 2024 III[edit]

Hi Dmon,

Can you please delete these pages:

--Pserratv (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2024 (EDT)

Edit a page I cannot[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I was trying to edit this image: Merge-split-transwiki default.svg and assign it to this cateogyr: Category:All free media so it is not without one, but I cannot edit it, hope you can.--Pserratv (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2024 (EST)

This file is from Wikimedia Commons and imported into our wiki. No further action is needed (as in we don't need to categorize it, not edit in any way). We can change it's local discription, but again there is no reason to do so. Additionally you don't add any image to Category:All free media, images will be categorized via their license template. If there was a need to add it to a category it would be Category:Media used in Templates --Deadfire (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2024 (EST)
Hi Deadfire, fine for me. I just don't want the image not to be in the Uncategorized Files as it is misleading.--Pserratv (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2024 (EST)

Change a protected page[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I'm trying to update this page BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Mapping which is a redirect, to it's new value BattleTechWiki:WikiProject Systems. The page is protected and I cannot do it. Can you help?--Pserratv (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2025 (EST)

Hey PS, I have just removed the protection. It likely does not need it anymore.--Dmon (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2025 (EST)
Hi Dmon,

when i try, I still get this: "View source for BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Mapping", followed by this: You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions. Seems BattleTechWiki:Project Planets/Mapping is protected or it was changed again in the time it took to me to see you had unprotected it.--Pserratv (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2025 (EST)

Just had a look and it was on me. There are three redirects and I only changed the protection on two of them not realising about the third. It should also be open now.--Dmon (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2025 (EST)
Solved, many thanks! Redirect corrected--Pserratv (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2025 (EST)

Battletech lego like products[edit]

Hi Dmon,

I've found a company building lego like miniatures branded with BattleMech names. Are these official products? sample here

Thanks in advance--Pserratv (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2025 (EST)

I think these are very much somebody doing a bit of IP theft.--Dmon (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2025 (EST)
Though so, I just wanted to ensure I did not add them to wiki and being as you said IP theft.--Pserratv (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2025 (EST)

Delete pages 2025 A[edit]

Hi Dmon, can you please delete these two pages:

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2025 (EST)

Delete pages 2025 B[edit]

I created this page by mistake some months ago while reading TRO 3025, and now TRO 3025 Revised has changed this. Page no longer makes sense.

Thanks in advance.--Pserratv (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2025 (EST)

Done --Dmon (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2025 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://www.sarna.net/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmon&oldid=1138481"