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 82:
Line 82: == Military Operation names and caps == == Military Operation names and caps == − 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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 05:38, 9 March 2023 (EST) + Hiya, it has just come to my attention that you suggested in the [[Policy: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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:02, 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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:02, 9 March 2023 (EST) Line 135:
Line 135: And these files that are not used any longer: And these files that are not used any longer: − * File:RotS Knights emblem.jpg + * [[File:RotS Knights emblem.jpg]] − * File:RotS Knights-Errant emblem.jpg + * [[File:RotS Knights-Errant emblem.jpg]] − * File:RotS Paladin emblem.jpg + * [[File:RotS Paladin emblem.jpg]] − * File:RotS Senate emblem.jpg + * [[File:RotS Senate emblem.jpg]] Thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (EDT) Thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (EDT) Line 191:
Line 191: 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.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (EDT) 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.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:29, 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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:29, 12 July 2023 (EDT) − :: It's also unhelpful to not provide information or examples on what is wrong. --[[User:Deadfire|Deadfire]] ([[User talk: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--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (EDT) == Category Orphaned pages == == Category Orphaned pages == Line 204:
Line 200: Any idea?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (EDT) Any idea?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:39, 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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:39, 12 July 2023 (EDT) − − ==Partner up!== − Hi, my name is Kate and I am the founder of the Independent Fallout Wiki (over yonder at [https://fallout.wiki/ 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 [https://fallout.wiki/wiki/FalloutWiki:Affiliates 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. -[[User:Kid Aces|'''''Kate Aces''''']] [[File:MWO Charger.png|25px|link=User talk:Kid Aces]] <sup>[[User talk:Kid Aces|''We’ve got ‘em on the run!'']]</sup> 01:17, 23 August 2023 (EDT) − − == Delete pages 2023 VIII == − − Hi Dmon, − − Could you please delete these pages: − * [[Edasich Compact 255]] − * [[340 VOX Light]] − − Thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 05:44, 7 November 2023 (EST) − − == Removing notes from articles == − − 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.{{Unsigned|EnbyKaiju}} − − :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? [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk: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 [[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) − − ::::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 82: | Line 82: | ||
== Military Operation names and caps == | == Military Operation names and caps == | ||
| − | Hiya, it has just come to my attention that you suggested in the [[ | + | Hiya, it has just come to my attention that you suggested in the [[Policy: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. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:02, 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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 14:02, 9 March 2023 (EST) | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
And these files that are not used any longer: | And these files that are not used any longer: | ||
| − | * File:RotS Knights emblem.jpg | + | * [[File:RotS Knights emblem.jpg]] |
| − | * File:RotS Knights-Errant emblem.jpg | + | * [[File:RotS Knights-Errant emblem.jpg]] |
| − | * File:RotS Paladin emblem.jpg | + | * [[File:RotS Paladin emblem.jpg]] |
| − | * File:RotS Senate emblem.jpg | + | * [[File:RotS Senate emblem.jpg]] |
Thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (EDT) | Thanks in advance.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 12:09, 27 June 2023 (EDT) | ||
| Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
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.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:02, 12 July 2023 (EDT) | 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.--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:29, 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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:29, 12 July 2023 (EDT) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Category Orphaned pages == | == Category Orphaned pages == | ||
| Line 204: | Line 200: | ||
Any idea?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk:Pserratv|talk]]) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (EDT) | Any idea?--[[User:Pserratv|Pserratv]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:39, 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.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 12:39, 12 July 2023 (EDT) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||