Editing User talk:Dmon
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 230:
Line 230: 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. 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.{{Unsigned|EnbyKaiju}} + I will leave it up to your fantastic team. Thank you for hearing me out. Appreciate all your work. :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. :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. Line 237:
Line 237: ::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 [[Blaine_Lee_Pardoe|on his article page,]] where it can be provided with more context regarding his self-admitted uncertainty than it currently receives as a footnote. --[[User:Einherjarvalk|Einherjarvalk]] ([[User talk:Einherjarvalk|talk]]) 17:54, 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 [[Blaine_Lee_Pardoe|on his article page,]] where it can be provided with more context regarding his self-admitted uncertainty than it currently receives as a footnote. --[[User:Einherjarvalk|Einherjarvalk]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:47, 14 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 hhere, 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.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Einherjarvalk|Einherjarvalk]] ([[User talk: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 [[Policy:Notability|Notability]], [[Policy:Moratorium|Moratorium]] and [[Policy:Canon|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 [[Policy:Assume good faith|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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:49, 15 November 2023 (EST) − − == Delete page 2024 I == − − Can you please delete this one Dmon: − [[Electra (Individual Cameron-class WarShip)]] − Regards,--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 12:13, 17 January 2024 (EST) − − == Primitive Battlemech deletion? == − − Just wondering why the Primitive Battlemech category was deleted last month? It was pretty useful for my AoW games.[[User:TheRedBee|TheRedBee]] ([[User talk:TheRedBee|talk]]) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (EDT)
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
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. | 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. | + | I will leave it up to your fantastic team. Thank you for hearing me out. Appreciate all your work. |
: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. | :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. | ||
| Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
::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 [[Blaine_Lee_Pardoe|on his article page,]] where it can be provided with more context regarding his self-admitted uncertainty than it currently receives as a footnote. --[[User:Einherjarvalk|Einherjarvalk]] ([[User talk:Einherjarvalk|talk]]) 17:54, 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 [[Blaine_Lee_Pardoe|on his article page,]] where it can be provided with more context regarding his self-admitted uncertainty than it currently receives as a footnote. --[[User:Einherjarvalk|Einherjarvalk]] ([[User talk: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 | + | :::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 hhere, 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.) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 14:47, 14 November 2023 (EST) |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||