User talk:Dmon

BTW, wanted to say 'good edits.' Always glad to see someone start off strong. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:34, 12 February 2007 (CST)

WikiProject Military Commands

I created a new WikiProject to encompass all military commands. Since you've done a lot of work in the past with them, please come over and sign up so that we can improve the coverage of all units. --Scaletail 14:16, 14 February 2009 (PST)

Split the Work?

Hey Dmon, looks like you're going well with the Draconis Combine Commands. I was going there next, but how about I leave it to you and I'll go on to FWL commands next?Alkemita 09:27, 5 March 2009 (PST)

Title typos

Hey, Dmon. If there is a typo in the title of an article, you can move it the article, rather than blanking and creating a new one. Just click "move" at the top of the article you want to move, then type in the title you want to move it to. --Scaletail 12:13, 28 February 2009 (PST)

Non-canon tag

First off, I was going to write up to say thanks for adding new articles. Your work continues to be appreciated. As for the tag, I /believe/ it is only intended to be used on source articles, such as the article about the MechWarrior I game. Frabby could better define it's intent, but I think it was meant to be limited to source articles because actual canonicity is not determined by use here at BTW. (In that light, the tag could be better worded.) I'll leave it up to you if you want to continue to use the tag, until the issue is clarified. Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Revanche, thanks for taking notice. I will continue to use the Tag if that's OK as I intend to do some re-writing of the computer game related articles so that not every sentence contains either "in the game" or "the player" the Tag puts the source upfront. --Dmon 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think removing the OOC presence is a great idea. Good idea.

Side note: to ident, use the colon (:), not spaces. Spaces create that funky box that was wrapped around your response. To sign, use four tildes (~~~~), or just click on that button to the right of the NO circle (the one that looks like a cursive word).

Just to respond to your comment about using the tag to "[put] the source upfront": tags are generally used to call attention to an article that has a problem needing fixing. You don't intend to say there is anything wrong with the article you write and you've been good at referencing the source article down below. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly my info on the game is restricted to the contents of the Wiki but the OOC aspect and the huge amount of info that is repeated makes the articles come across as very sloppy (says me who has never written a decent article from scratch so no insult to Frabby). and thanks for the signature tip I have been confused by that since I joined. --Dmon 20:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

7th Imperial City Militia‎ Question

Hi Dmon, like how you added this militia unit to the site. Question: Do you think could add category Militia Commands? I'm trying get more into the category since there not normally listed. I've not had a chance to add more militia profiles.-- Wrangler 00:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Would Category Militia Commands be a sub category of Military Commands or its own Category in effect separating the front-line units and the second-line units. --Dmon 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

These are generally considered secondary commands or world exclusive units. One and only unit I have in there was one of those, but became "front-line" unit of sorts when it came to the defense of exRepublic of the Sphere's Prefecture IX. It still considered militia unit. Only Battalion size unit, that barely has assets, in comparison to regular unit. Your Draconis Combine units have been only seen once since their appearance. As far I know has not been listed anywhere. Some of the author tend to make these one off units. New BattleTech: 25 Years of Art & Fiction book has such unit in one its short stories. -- Wrangler 00:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

New military command articles

Dmon, please add to those 10 or so articles you started last night as soon as possible. BTW prefers not to have empty articles, and while I realize you're not intending to just list them because they exist but build them up as complete articles, there is some concern they might have been abandoned. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit soon for 'em to be considered abandoned I would of thought. I will fill them in more over the next couple of days (its my girlfriends bday today so I wont get much done today) as well as doing OrgTrees for as many DCMS units as I can, but their is not much info to be had on the Luthien Defence Regiments at the moment. --Dmon 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

122nd Luthien

The articles you created were direct copies of the 12th Luthien (see the opening sentence of each to see what I mean). Also, their official names are spelled 'Defense' rather than 'Defence,' which means no one would be able to find them (if you are referring to the canon units). Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I know they are direct copies, Sorry about the Defence/Defense thing... UK resident and that is haw we normally spell it here. I will move the articles and rephrase them a little for individuality but sadly there is not much info on the Defense Regiments as a whole, only one has any specific detail in the Luthien scenario pack. currently trying to dig up a little more info. --Dmon 04:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at the pack. One thing that would individualize them is the experience levels. While you won't be able to say which battalion is green and which one is veteran, you can basically re-state that the division has # green battalions, etc. That would individualize the articles, at least. And, when compared to other sources used by later Editors, they would be compelled to provide similar levels, if provided (which would help show progression). --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Empty Articles discussion

Hey, Dmon: I'd like you to weigh in here, since you probably have a differing opinion. Thanks. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

MotherLode!

Hey, check out this. BigDuke compiled this, and it provides the references. Should allow your backfilling to go much quicker. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Saw you were messing around with your user page. if you're trying to create a clean list, without having to create spaces between each one, I suggest preceeding the link with a asterisk (*) at the beginning of the line. You'll get something like this:

• line 1
• line 2
• line 3

Also, check out that link to the cheat sheet for other hints (see above). Hope this helps you. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks bro --Dmon 18:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1st Genyosha Update

Hi Dmon, noticed that you updated the 1st Genyosha article with an Org Tree, replacing the previous composition. The "Support Battalion" is outdated for 3059. If you have access to the appropriate Field Manuals, I suggest you use them. Also, if you're going to create TOEs, it might be a good idea to format them using CBT-official military symbology as presented in Strategic Ops. My 2c worth. --Alkemita 20:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Field Manuals do not state that the "Support Battalion" is out of date, as far as I know they only list the major elements of the "Regimental Battle Group". if you can find info stating that the BattleMech Regiments intergrated support battalion has changed please send me a reference. on the official symbology I will investigate incorporating this into my OrgTree's. --Dmon 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dmon, Support Battalions: Field Manual: Draconis Combine, pg17; "Front-line DCMS BattleMech regiments are typically assigned one aerospace wing, one armor battalion and one infantry regiment." That's the supporting elements for a 'Mech regiment circa 3059.

As for the official symbology, if you need the graphics and layout, I've got most of them I can upload. --Alkemita 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know how to create a gallery for the symbols? If not, I can show you. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would much appreciate it if you would do that Rev. --Dmon 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, man. Let's see if I can create an example here in a code box. Basically, start a new page and add the images inside the gallery code. If you want a name for the image to appear below it, add a pipe and the name after the filename:

<gallery>

Image:Example.jpg|Caption1

Image:Example.jpg|Caption2

</gallery>

Hopefully that helps. if it doesn't work, talk at me and I'll come over to help. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Added scrollbox template

Hi Dmon,

I thought you might be interested in the {{scrollbox}} template for your DCMS Commands section. I find it helps to organize long lists on a page. I added it myself to show you how it works, but if you don't like it please feel free to revert the changes. I certainly don't want you to think I'm stepping on your toes. If you have any questions let me know. Thanks. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ebakunin, That helps a lot. One question I have is over the next few weeks as I knock articles off the list will the scroll box still work? --Dmon 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. The box always stays the same size, so if your list ever gets shorter than the scrollbox you can just remove it. Glad I could help. --Ebakunin ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Generic Forward ARC

Hi Dmon, how come you have created a page dedicated to your fantastic unit templates? They certainly be worth having in one of the Categories. -- Wrangler 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am still working out the layout, If you look through Draconis Combine Commands Category you will find several different evolutions of my OrgTrees, With over 20 hours work tinkering on the template in an attempt to get it just right I decided after a while to move em onto my user page so I can without fear of anyone "helping out" until I am ready to place one on each regiment. As for a category... you really think they are that good? --Dmon 18:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think visual diagrams are excellent example of showing how regiments are configured. As long it follows what the books stay their are like, i can't imagine not being useful to someone. Personally, i wish the imagines were smaller. Easier to see it whole thing, just click to enlarge. I'm sure if that possible. -- Wrangler 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dmon, is there way to strink the imagines a little? Graphs are great, but their huge. Their taking too much room. -- Wrangler 04:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

They are not images, they are based on the Template:Familytree we have here on BTW. I doubt there is a way of making them smaller without pretty much starting from scratch and making them a lot less detailed or making them a lot more condensed and probably (even more)confusing to try and read. --Dmon 06:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be placed in seperate page linked to its parent article? -- Wrangler 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That could work, I am also looking at the idea of breaking off the various attached units and wiki linking them within the tree. There are very few units who wouldn't drop at least one section.--Dmon 13:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be cool if you were able to do it! -- Wrangler 23:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you check out the 5th Galedon Regulars and scroll down you will see a good example, its still pretty big but its about half what it was. --Dmon 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its better put differient page. Its taking up to too much room on the page. This is just my opinion. -- Wrangler 23:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Izanagi Warrior error

Hi, Dmon. Your diagrams for the Warriors, says its differient unit. Can you fix that? -- Wrangler 23:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I just copied the template from a unit with the same organization ('Mech regiment with no attached units) and I am in the process of changing it and inputting the individual Lance designations from the Luthien pack ;-), not to point out that you put the 1st sword of light units on to the warriors?, dont worry though as I have removed it already.. just need to make a couple more changes before I save it. --Dmon 00:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dig Lord

Can you look at this? Something wrong with my Dig Lord Article. It has some kind weird code error. -- Wrangler 23:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted, not sure what was up but it was cured by deleting the space at the start of the paragraph. --Dmon 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried deleting it, but i guess i didn't eliminate enough of the paragaph to get rid of it. I've been running into these slight errors lately. I know the template for IndustrialMechs needs to be updated little. Again, thank you for helping me in my moment of blunder. -- Wrangler 23:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem bro, tis the beauty of working in a community ;-) --Dmon 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Solaris Characters from Mechwarrior IV

Good Morning Dmon. Question- The solaris characters your adding, i thought any character in the game was considered non-canon? There characters mentioned in the Solaris VII map set book, lists up to 3067. I didn't think MW IV followed that. -- Wrangler 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Morning Wrangler, As far as I know the official line about the non-canon stuff is that if nothing in canon contradicts them or over rules them they are considered part of the universe if not exactly canon until otherwise stated. also I don't think having them listed will hurt as there is no exhaustive list of who fights in the arenas of Solaris ;-) --Dmon 13:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure I understand, I want to remind that BTW does not define canon: if its official (i.e., a BT licensee), it is included. However, source citations for the material are always a requirement, and doubly so for issues that are debated. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Widow Company

I took the liberty to undo the change you made to the Black Widow Company's category entry. You changed it to "Wolf's Dragoons, Black Widow Company" and as a result it appeared under "W" but named "Black Widow Company". I think this is wrong because the BWC as a semi-independent unit should have its own entry, under its own name. When sorting it in under WD (and thereby, under the letter "W" where I daresay most people wouldn't look for the BWC) then you could cut its category entry right away. Wolf's Dragoons article does mention them, too. Frabby 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel its better that way I will roll with it, since I am not even a WD fan... I was just doing a little bit of a tidy in the mercs section. --Dmon 10:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryuken-et al

Just being a bureaucratic administrator, and probably don't need to worry about it, but please add something of substance to the Ryuken-series of articles, similar to what you did with Ryuken-ni and Ryuken-ichi as soon as you can. Thanks! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its in the pipeline. Just doing my research. --Dmon 07:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

22nd Dieron Regulars & Question of Era related organization charts

Hi Dmon, I just added some fluff from Field Manual: Updates for the 22nd. Your organization chart doesn't quite match the unit's makes up. Devil Dogs and 22nd Dieron Infantry only have two companies per formation. Can you adjust the organization for those? I'm little liery of messing with your code/template thing you have there. I did change the Aerospace HQ to 22nd Dieron Aerospace Wing, since thats what their called in Updates. I also had a thought, since Jihad is kinda rolling down hill and leveling the structures of the units. Are you going just adjust the final formations template to reflect downsizing per-era or just do what ever is the current thing. I'm not just talking about the 22nd either. Just as a whole entire unit organization charts your placing in many these units. -- Wrangler 23:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Good morning Wrangler, Just checked FM:U and yes the infantry has lost a Company since FM:DC (the source I have been getting my info) but the Devil Dogs are listed as two Battalions in both, so it is not an error as such but more of an out dated source. I am not 100% sure what you mean about adjusting the templates to reflect downsizing per-era but at a guess I think it would mean having multiple OrgTree's in each article. I think for now at least I am going to try and keep the OrgTree's either as close to current organization as possible or as the "on paper" potential strength of the unit because the era idea could result in an ungodly amount of work. Get back to me and let me know your thoughts on it and I will put any changes into effect later tonight. --Dmon 07:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Morning, Dmon. I've been thinking about the problem. Since unit strength differs from era to era. Such as Succession Wars to Jihad for various regimential to reinforced companies. So thing you have basic formation of the Org tree and year its reflecting and we should put back in the old Composition listings with various years the unit strength's differed on. Such as Genyosha as of 3074 was down to 2 Reinforced Companies vs its full regimental strength it was at prior to the Jihad. When your adding new org-trees don't wipe out the Composition listings. Thats what I think. -- Wrangler 11:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Wrangler but this is possibly me being a bit bone-headed after a night shift in work (so please have patience) but at the moment keeping the composition just seems like repeating the same information twice in the same article. Would the "composition be the "on paper" strength of the unit and the OrgTree be the actual strength or the other way around? --Dmon 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Its fine, I know whats like working on night shift. This just my opinion, you do what you feel is right. Org-tree to me is the how the unit is "suppose to be" organized on paper. Where composition list is what unit strength & active formations were avaliable at the Year/Time. Example:The 10th Division (Word of Blake) lost a Level III (aka battalion) in battle against the Dropship Irregulars in 3070. Division in 3067 was 6 Level III, Division was as of 3075 only had Five Level IIIs. If someone comes to the site, your graph tree will given info on how any military unit is organized. Where Composition can tell them what units were attached to formation/regiment/Level/etc per year they were around. Some these units/formations have been around for centuries. There alot room for change. In some cases "regiments" are reduced to two battalions. I think if someone need quick references what there at what year, its easier with Composition verse orgtree. Org Tree great for how organization functions, what auxiliary units would be there support it. -- Wrangler 13:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the 1st Genyosha OrgTree up to 3067. so feel free to add the composition section as you feel it should be done to reflect the units near destruction. Please not however that the Aerospace wing is not listed as "expanded" yet as I simply do not want to get into writing code/template thingies today. the 1st are the best and worst kind of example for this as thay are a full "Forward ARC" with no attached units what so the OrgTree is as big as they come at the moment. --Dmon 14:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, bro. I'll take care of it. I just don't have all the units information for all eras. I'll put in 1st Genyosha what I had on the unit. -- Wrangler 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Lyran Brigades

Apart from lack of detail, specific pages for Lyran brigades are just as important as the Clan Galaxy or ComStar Army pages. More so for the Lyran Regulars considering they both pre and post date the Lyran Alliance so need separate pages to link from both LCAF and LAAF. Cyc 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to standardize the format a little by having the "parent unit" links in the articles directs to the AFFS page in a similar way to all the other nations pages work. Do you think we should do it the other way around and have more Brigade pages? --Dmon 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO the military pages should have brief overviews linking off to full pages for further indepth detail. Look at the FedCom Corps page and FedCom Corps section on AFFS for the style I'm getting at. Cyc 21:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that will work quite nicely once it is set up and fleshed out. --Dmon 00:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Organization of Draconis Combine minor or secondary units

Hi Dmon, i've been looking in the Draconis Combine's military listings and its is filling out quite well. However, I believe that the secondary commands/support commands should be placed in a sub-category, without them being listed in 1st tier regimentals listings like. Instead of all the main formations in same place giving confusing mix of units. I think listing big units and secondary units seperate. Frontline units 6th Pesht Regulars, 2nd Sword Light would share main category for the Draconis Combine Commands category, while the the attached secondary commandss like the 2nd Periphery Watchers, and the 101st Pesht Guards. They would be in what i propose to call Dracons Combine Support Commands. This would still be strictly military, just listing for what secondary commands and the militas units. Category Draconis Combine Military Commands would be removed from unit considered Support commands. That are principly listed in the Field Manuals while secondarys don't necessary get individual attention. What do you think? I'm going post this as well to Draconis Command Military commands thing. -- Wrangler 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea.. I sorta suggested a similar thing to you a few weeks ago but I wanted to do it by unit size, keeping the main category as regimental sized units. I knew the page would full up pretty fast once I got going, eventually it would be nice to have all the nations with a high level of detail. --Dmon 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry missing your suggestion earlier. I've been busy, with alot stuff. Only thing I find that maybe difficult, what is name for a supportive formation. I'm kinda want make sure I'm calling them what their suppose to be called. Only thing I was against going with category by size is Battletech's frontline formation sizes are influx. Some Regiments in early succession wars consisted only of two battalions, sometimes even one, thought on "paper" it was considered to regiment. They have been called Frontline units, but the support units such as tank and infantry are part of the regimental team. Thus they too are frontline unit. By the end of the Jihad, they'll end up so mixed up, I don't think be good way describe other than frontline military unit and a support unit. Anyways, For the time being. I suggest we go ahead with re-categorying the approiate units to the Draconis Combine Support Commands category. We should put category in other factions except for minor powers, since they bound to have no support formations like Succession States themselves and Major Periphery states. -- Wrangler 23:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Draconis Combine Support Commands does seem to be the obvious choice. Nice thing is that the wikilinks in the organization trees will filter through to the support category quite nicely. I agree on the minor powers and I am uncertain about the relevance of the Periphery states at the moment... I cant think of a single Periphery Support command off the top of my head. --Dmon 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Major Periphery do, but like most support units. They don't have much of a history & write up unless it falls under its attached, formation. Such a Periphery Frontline unit is like the 1st Canopian Cuirassiers has support units like the 1st Armor Guard, 1st Air Guards and 1st Infantry Guard. The Field Guide Updates has most of the recent deployment/unit names for the support units. -- Wrangler 23:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Point I'd like make out. Support Commands aren't Milita Commands. Militia commmand are not attached normally to large regiments or frontline units unless emergency. Militia units usually planetary restricted fighting units. Not counting Blake or Marik units by the same name which are frontline units with modest names. Only militia units i've heard of that become attached to regiments and move around WITh them are usually FedCom Civil War units were snatchup by frontline regiments to reinforce their forces. That was rare. Don't delete the militia category. I really don't believe it should be removed, their differient type of unit. If anything, You should break down milita units as being Draconis Combine Milita units or something. -- Wrangler 00:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Third Luthien Guards

Hi Dmon, I was wondering if you could point out where you found the 3rd Luthien Guards in the Field Manual: Draconis Combine. Apparently they were actually mentioned as part early fighting in Jihad Turning points: Luthien. I've updated the article. I wanted to put some more information in it. I don't at this moment have Field Manual, do you happen to remember where it can be found in the book? Page? Thanks.-- Wrangler 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

page 85 as the Armor section of the 2nd SOL --Dmon 23:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assist. I'll update article include the references to that. I'm trying add as much as information I have to include them. I do however want say, i'm only filling out supporting units like 3rd Luthien Guards, if they do have fluff and actions they've done through out the sources books and novels. Can you assist me in finding the these supporting "sub-units maybe?" may had appeared in campaign books so-forth?

-- Wrangler 11:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I always keep an eye out for references and titbits of info in novels etc. Only problem is that I have not got a great deal of time at the moment due to real life stuff. In about a month or so I hope to have things a little "up the wall" and I will finish fleshing out the "sub-units". --Dmon 15:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanked pages

I see you have blanked the subpages for games and I presume you're reorganizing the data. Please don't simply blank pages entirely; delete them when they are no longer needed (or have an admin delete them by inserting the {{Deletion}} tag). Frabby 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am reorganizing the data. Sorry about not putting in the delete tags... I was getting a little frustrated fighting with the redirects (and my temporary stupidity at me keeping screwing em up) --Dmon 11:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Dmon, I took the liberty of installing an awards board on your main page. Please place it where it best fits your design. Happy New Year! --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

All Purpose Award

Dmon, as a fellow Editor, I'm providing you the All Purpose ribbon, for yesterday's enhancement of so many articles with the org charts. Excelsior. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I did not expect an award for installing my charts!! --Dmon 16:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

references

Hey, Dmon: the reason I placed the <references/> tag immediately under the References section heading is so that any in-article citations get 'top billing' over generic, no page biblio-style, title-only references. Generic references to whole source books provide less information to the reader and therefore should have a lower preference. You haven't violated any procedures or policy by any means and I'm still in the process of writing Help:Article Layout, but I wanted to let you know that there was a reason for my apparent madness. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask you about it bro. Makes sense really so I will alter in accordance as I work through my to do list. I have been threatening to finish the Org trees for months so I am now doing it ;-) --Dmon 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cop Award

Hey, Dmon, great catch on that act of vandalism by the guy up near Ingersoll, Canada. You caught and reversed it only 8 minutes after it was conducted! Seriously, good work and great response time. For that reason, I'm proud to present you with the board's first (AFAIK) Vandal Cop award:

I'll put it on your awards board. I've placed a level 2 warning on the IP's talk page, so we can quickly escalate it towards a block, if s/he doesn't improve her behavior. Also, feel free to provide warnings yourself, as quick and visible reactions (i.e. a notice to them they have a personal message) can be a deterrent to future acts against the BattleTech community. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

woah Dude! I dont deserve a reward for sumat that I would expect everybody who is a regular user here to do! --Dmon 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree (to your expectation), but lets make it a visible 'chore' of the wiki and reward the ones who do. I've seen the majority of vandalism 'fixed' by admins, so its great to see Editors keeping an eye out. (Don't knock the ribbon; the troops need to see it! ) Thanks again, Dmon. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Shin Legion

Hi Dmon. I was looking at Shin Legion article. Do you know if the unit mentioned in the old house source books? I've tried find the a listing for them, but i can't find anything. They just get written into the books after the fact? -- Wrangler 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Wrangler, The Shin Legions as a whole where not introduced until the FM:DC book as far as I am aware, interestingly the back history of their service to the Combine has since been filled in but prior service within the Confederation (so the period of the house books) still remains blank. --Dmon 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'll go hunting see if there some hidden nugget of information for them. I can't find anything saying there was a 3rd Shin Legion as well...I've done up 1st Shin legion information much as i can. Still need get some info from one more source to complete it. Thanks for the reply -- Wrangler 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd's fate is detailed FM:DC p 110 Para 2 & 3. Hope that helps. --Dmon 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, well that helps. I hadn't gotten to looking up extensively. Thanks for that assist. -- Wrangler 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Your OrgTrees

Dmon, I like the org trees you've built, but they look like they require some intense maintenance with the nested tables and all. I ran across something for work that might help (or inspire you): SlickMap CSS. It's designed for website organization /information architecture, but I suppose it could be modified to a TOE. The thing that really struck me was the fact that it uses nested lists, which might be easier to keep track of than the tables. (I know you've got a lot of work in the Org Charts already, and I'm not trying to make more work for you. Just thought you might find it interesting.) Have a good one!--Mbear 19:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbear, this might be of interest to Ebakunin, if it requires coding into the site's css code. I'll bring it to his attention. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DCMS Tables

Hi, I create the tables for a better overview and to shorten the list of sub categories. When you think the old way where better, I will accept your choice. I think tables are better for understanding complexe content or content with huge quantity. Let me know what your are thinking about my other articles. For example Operation Bulldog or MAF. see yah... Neuling 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hy Dmon i jumpt off, i agree with Neuling, but i think we must fixing some little thinks and figuring out, the ball is rolling.Doneve 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Operation Bulldog and MAF articles are both very good looking pieces of work... but they both exemplify what I see as the problem at the same time, The DCMS tables have quite a lot of text in them compared to most of the tables in the other articles, something similar to the format of the Rank tables from the MAF article might fix the problem --Dmon 18:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The tables cry out for wikilinks too, even if red.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Example Article

Hey, Dmon: following on the discussion of the sub-stubs, I wanted to share with you an example of what can be created with the bare minimum of information, such as found in The Star League's Regular Army Deployment tables. For the 199th Dragoon regiment, only the following is provided on the table (p. 157):

 199th Dragoon Regiment     2764: Periphery     2765: Periphery     2767-2779: survived     2784: FS

But, using the explanation on p. 139, the following 199th article can be created. While still technically a stub, and not likely ever to be filled out with any more information, it is still very informative to someone seeking all known data on that unit. I mean this as a sincere effort to improve (and save) the sub-stubs you created, and have no intention in being antogonistic about it. I really do think every article on BTW has potential value. Best. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the SLDF articles if you wish Rev, I do not really have any genuine interest in the SLDF units and only started creating the articles as an extension of some research I was working on into other units... In hindsight a list would of been more appropriate to the purposes of the wiki. I intend to stick to slowly attempting to create a comprehensive list of DCMS units and attempting to tidy up the "house" command category's to a uniform style at the moment. --Dmon 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Construction tag

Hey construction is only used for Policies, use Underconstruction instead. --Neufeld 23:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I didnt even realise their was a difference. --Dmon 08:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Uupps

Hy Dmon, thanks for fixing my little 00... ;).--Doneve 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem bud ;-) --Dmon 23:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The LOL Award

HOLLA again ....LOL--Doneve 18:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Danke mein Bruder aus Deutschland --Dmon 18:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SLDF Divisions...

Hy Dmon, i am done with the SLDF units, i hope i putted all on the wiki ;). Ok i fix the Royal units, then you can start with your Orgtrees...Greetings--Doneve 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Cop Award, Part Deux

Now down to five minutes! You cut your average response time down by 38%. Simple incredible.

Thank you for 'earning' the 2nd award. Good job.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Prefectures

Dmon - I read your recent edits to the Combine Military Districts, and found them quite cool. However, I'd like to suggest that the Prefectures are not worth of having their own articles. The Prefectures change constantly even during peace time, and most of the information there would strike me as redundant with that on the planet articles or the district articles. Does this make sense? ClanWolverine101 17:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it I agree with you. I will remove the wikiLinks form the articles ;-) --Dmon 17:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Org Tree necessary?

Hi Dmon, I think your Org Trees have no porpuse to me. For me it is wasted place and doesn't reflect the unit unique structure. We all know the common structure of an unit from any faction. Let's talk about it. For me it is easier to create the structure sheets for every faction like in the field manuals and describe the unique differents about it. I will not change your work. Please think about my thoughts and give me a reflection. For example: the 71st Light Horse from the ELH is a mixed combined arms regiment with all types of forces (Ref. Twilight of the Clans - Roster ELH p. 54). Neuling 16:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The nature of the OrgTrees allows them to be altered to reflect the unique elements of any command... All that is required it a little work. You personally do not find them to be of use but I have had several people comment to the contrary so maybe you have some ideas on how to make them more useful?(BTW thanks for the ref on the ELH I was just basing my work off the contents of the articles so I will now incorporate said info) --Dmon 17:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My own two cents : I've found the sources for the OrgTrees to be somewhat contradictory. I recall the Wolf's Dragoons sourcebook, which listed the org trees and then the complete rosters for the units. Many times, there were contradictions, or there was information on the org trees that wasn't really expanded upon. (Such as logistics support.)

... or are we talking about a different thing? ClanWolverine101 00:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are taking about a different thing to be honest... Most of the info in my OrgTrees is derived from the Field Manuals and various bits of fluff/scenarios etc so I am not entirely sure where the contradictions in the OrgTree in the WD sourcebook might come into this --Dmon 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's interesting. I'm not questioning your work; I guess I'm more questioning the source material. No matter. Certainly, if you can cite appropriate references for your tables, you should feel free to include them. ClanWolverine101 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's me again, Neuling, I give you a advice. In the next day I will change the informations of many units. This means unit composition with detailled data whenn availabe to this unit in short form. It will make it easier to you to modify the orgtree with this information. Please let me know what are you thinking about it. Tnx Neuling 20:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Republican Guard Name

Hello, Dmon. The current canon name for the guard main units is Republican. Not Guards (Brigade correct), Not Tikonov Republican Guards. Its in error, Dmon. Look at 20 Year update for the Republicans and look at the Field Manual: Lyran Alliance and FedCom Civil War sourcebook. You will only see (X) Republicans. That Tikonov Guard name is not their current name, new sources trump old sources. I'm not terribly fond of the current naming convention of the unit, but its canon. -- Wrangler 10:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

2nd Armor Brigade

Hello Dmon. I did not realize you had wrote up a article regarding the Steel Lightning. I used the full name of the unit, verse your short name. I'm going check with the writers on forums later today see if or what is the actual canon way pronounce its name. I think my article has more info than yours. we should get rid of one them, but i wanted check with you first. I retained entire name since it could name Lyran could part of unit name verse describing which nationality it was, like Lyran Guard. You don't drop the Lyran name in it when spelling it on Sarna. -- Wrangler 11:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DCMS Organization Trees

Dmon - Question : What is the reference/citation for your org tress? Is it a case by case basis, or is simply listed as the "DCMS standard" someplace? Because if its the latter, I have to tell you, it serves little purpose. Most units deviate, especially after they see combat. Respectfully... ClanWolverine101 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My orgtrees are a bit of both... they start off as a "Standard DCMS template" and then I modify it based on info I find about the unit. I do my best to reference what makes the units organization individual... and as for the battle damage... it is mostly irrelevant because they are the optimum condition of the unit, the composition tables reflect the unit at various stages in its history. Either way it does not count for much because I am considering removing the Orgtrees anyway due to the apparent negative feelings a lot of people around here seem to have about them. --Dmon 07:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested see the Otomo article for a good example of what I intended them to end up looking like --Dmon 07:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hy Dmon why do you remove your orgtrees??--Doneve 15:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Doneve, I am removing them because they are not very popular with other people on the wiki --Dmon 15:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ok, i like your work, you put a lot of time to it :(.--Doneve 15:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words Doneve, I am extremely disappointed and upset that my work has not turned out as I hoped but hey if you don't try you don't find out ;-) --Dmon 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Dmon. I hope you won't be too discouraged. Its just the tables, as they exist in that format, are rather large and bulky, and there's considerable evidence most units don't follow them exactly. For example, how many regiments have a regimental command company separate from the battalions? How many battalions have a battalion command lance separate from the companies? How many mechs does the unit have - 108? (3 x 36) or 132? (108 + 4*3 + 12) ? We simply don't usually know. But I appreciate the amount of work it took. ClanWolverine101 16:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we found a other way to bring it in reduced form back?!--Doneve 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty discouraged at the moment but I am starting to get the urge to tinker with things again. I think the main fault is due to the format being aimed at family trees and I just tried to use it for something else. I think if the format was lighter and easier for other editors to tinker with they would probably have been more popular. But as it is a fairly minor task like adding a command Company for example was a task that required an hour or so of trial and error even for me so I shudder to think what other people thought in terms of changing them. --Dmon 16:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my brain is in work, i talk to you when i have a idea.--Doneve 16:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Family Tree

Hy Dmon, your are the tree specialist. I want to create for the House Factions a Family tree, like the House Kurita Family tree in the old housebook. Gives a template for it, or can you give a tip how i can start the project, thanks.--Doneve 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey bro, I already sort of started one House Kurita Family Tree, but since I only have the free PDF version of the house book I was extracting all the info from the text of the book and the project is very much on hold at the moment. I would very much like to pick it up again so maybe we could work together. (It also gives me a reason to aquire the version of the PDF with pictures :-)) --Dmon 17:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hy bro, i can give you the pictures of trees from all of the Housebooks. I put the links on this page, when it is ok, okidoky we work together :).--Doneve 17:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Links: http://www.btencyclopedia.com/dl/kuritas.pdf, http://www.btencyclopedia.com/dl/davions.pdf, http://www.btencyclopedia.com/dl/mariks.pdf, http://www.btencyclopedia.com/dl/liaos.pdf, http://www.btencyclopedia.com/dl/steiners.pdf ...i hope it is helpfull.--Doneve 17:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hy again, have you a manual or etc...where i can understand the tree code (symbols)...,thanks.--Doneve 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hy Dmon i give you this award, for your work about the SLDF Units, thanks for fixing and updating, creating missed units...bla bla bla...;.Greeting --Doneve 00:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir :-) --Dmon 13:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem Solver Award

For your efforts in corrected the mis-referenced material discovered 2 hours earlier in the 71st Mechanized Infantry (Draconis Combine) article, I present you your first Problem Solver Award:

Thanks for staying on top of these needed corrections. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you also sir, Two awards in one day... Don't know how I did that?? lol --Dmon 13:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Family Tree

Dmon, I am revisiting some of the family trees of major houses. Would you like me to take a shot at sprucing up the Kurita family tree? I hope all is well!--S.gage 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey S.Gage, Yeah feel free to have a tinker with the Kurita Family tree. BTWiki has sadly been relegated to "Lunch break entertainment" at the moment as I have started my own business so I doubt I will have the time needed to get back to it in the foreseeable future. --Dmon 10:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not blank spam pages

We have a little spambot problem at the moment, but the admins are usually deleting the spambots and their spam within a couple of hours on the outside (and sometimes within seconds). Please do not edit spam pages in any way - do not blank them, and do not bother to include a deletion tag. I fear the spambots may be monitoring edits to their spam pages to assess the activity on this site, so any form of edits might be contra-productive. Frabby 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts please

Hello Dmon, please take alook at my project page about the timeline for the war of reaving and give my your response. That is the first sketch. After finishing the complete time line I will change the formating when necessary. That is the link to the page User:Neuling/Wars_or_Reaving_Timeline

Seeya Neuling 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Dieron Brigade

I agree with your thoughts that the Brigade page should an quick reference site and disagree with you about the outlay of it. All units are mentioned but not in which time they exist and think about it. The Brigade increased and decreased (at 3079 only 4 commands are exist). Even the quality and loyality varried considerable. I chose an alterniv way and the references are good for further expansion. The way how the brigade should be displayed are not excatly discussed. I have the problem that the brigade page or the military organization pages show the development of the military. You can't compare the DCMS of 3025 with DCMS of 3067. Many thinks have changed and withthem the way to fight. Further more the long pages should be more splite into smaller sub pages like one for the academies, the ranks, the awards, the brigades, the command structure, military industries, table of organisation and equipment, uniforms, camospecs (examples) and deployment. Some times its a mess to go through the long pages and find the right information. I reworked my articles that way to and splite the large pages into several smaller with links to the main article. Neuling 13:36, 8 January 2012 (PST)

I believe the progression of the individual units is covered in the Regimental articles and the progression of the DCMS as a whole should be covered in the main DCMS article. TheBrigades as with all the house brigades are actually fairly static with regards to tactics and organization etc. --Dmon 14:39, 8 January 2012 (PST)

Hello Dmon why have removed my link at the Dieron Brigade. What is worng with that? Its only a link with further information about the composition of the Brigade and I think you use only my work partly (mention only the date of destruction, nothing more). Its frustrating to me to put my link at the page and discover that he is removed. I hope you can now understand me better. Neuling 11:14, 12 January 2012 (PST)

Hey Neuling, Although tempted I did not initially remove the link when I incorporated what I believed would be useful information without clogging up the page and more importantly all those lovely references that I must thank you for. Doneve removed the link after I had finished editing, I do not know Doneves reasons for removing the link but when you re-added it I decided to go with my initial thoughts of it being a list added to an already existing list that achieves nothing that the articles them selves do not already do. The brigade article gives you a list of what regiments are in the brigade, the regiments articles tell you everything else you need to know... I do not see the need for your list? personally I feel that articles on the wiki are much more enjoyable and informative if they are actual written articles rather than list upon list of facts and figures. This is obviously just my opinion though and I apologive if i have caused offence. Some of your work on the wiki is fantastic, just not this particular innovation. --Dmon 19:14, 12 January 2012 (PST)

Tell me which link i had removed and i give you the answer.--Doneve 19:25, 12 January 2012 (PST)

The link on the Dieron Regulars page to Era - Composition. --Dmon 19:56, 12 January 2012 (PST)

I think this link was irrelevant, era specific data or info can we add to the various regimantal pages of the Dieron Regulars, i don't know why Neuling create Brigade Era Pages, i notice this was his own reference page, i favor to add content direkt to the page, with references, and when i take a look on there some broken ref. links on the page and don't match the policy.--Doneve 20:03, 12 January 2012 (PST)

Broken links are fixed on the composition site and let me explain that is not only a ref site as you suggest. The site is more an quick overview which unit is available at the corresponding time. The Dieron Brigade has eleven units in 3025, in 3054 eight and in 3079 only 4 exist. That is a huge different and should give the common user an impression how different the times for the brigades were. As a side not all entries have their references. Neuling 20:39, 12 January 2012 (PST)

I want to suggest we have the Dieron Regulars main page, as overview, and all era specifice data must added to the provided unit page, thanks.--Doneve 20:45, 12 January 2012 (PST)

That was the reason for the link and the and the site, because it changed nothing from the overall outlook. And remember in every sourcebook about the various faction the deployment tables show the strength of the military but not the brigade and its annoing for me (and I think for ohters to) to search the various pages. Neuling 20:52, 12 January 2012 (PST)

I disagree.. The page is just a reference page and adds very little to the wiki except an excuse to have more lists. There is no flavour or real information to add to the page other than the actual list that would not be better being put into the main brigade article, Why? because TPTB do not focus on the brigades as such and there is virtually no era specific information about them. I am not exactly sure why it is important to know how large each brigade is at any point in time... They do not fight together as a unit, what is wrong with listing information on the units in the actual articles about said unit? --Dmon 21:06, 12 January 2012 (PST)

Neuling

Hy Dmon, i think you saw Neuling's new creations, i dont know why he ignoring our reference policy, as example House Steiner refered as source ,i don't know i indicate this as the House Steiner and not the sourcebook House Steiner (The Lyran Commonwealth), i know its the source but other users don't know this, i talk so offten to him, and iam become really pissd of, he don't follow talks to him by help links etc., i don't disagree his work but the most is throwing in, and the most don't follow our wiki standard, i don't know what i can do, thanks--Doneve 12:23, 14 January 2012 (PST)

I noticed the message from Doneve, I take a look at the policy page and read that is enougth to write |refHouse Davion p.9 /ref|. How I write my references is my way how long it meets the overall policy style that there is no problem for me. I will mention further in my next round of composition update the corresponding books at the biblography. Most users don't have a problem with my references, because I get no messages about it. And as some other admin write to me the formating style is in a flux and no cohensive is meet at all article. Neuling 12:41, 14 January 2012 (PST)

The problem is you have stated references, and throw the same reference on the page, but we have a link with the same page nr, but you don't use this (example: ref=HKp135Handbook: House Kurita, p. 135, "Handbook: House Kurita", p. 135, "Deployment Table") or other pages, i don't know why you dont do this, at first i look on the page what content can added and how i can integrate this on the added soures, or fix the references, then all is integrated and follow one standard.</ref>--Doneve 15:29, 14 January 2012 (PST)

But one question Neuling, why must all new created pages become a cleanup tag there created by yourself, they don't follow the Wiki Military Commands standard, you throw the articles on the wiki, but where is a template on the talk page etc. ect., this is a example i fixed 6th Defenders of Andurien take a look on your new created page and on the clean upded page, thoughts.--Doneve 12:56, 14 January 2012 (PST)

Neuling - Doneve is not the only one who feels this way. We have heard from Rev that in the Btech community at large, Sarna.net is not held in high regard because the references are poor, the standards of the wiki are weak, information is plagiarized, etc. I think most of us are committed to correcting these perceptions. When I see that you continually ignore the standards that most of us are trying to uphold, I grow concerned that you do not hold that position. ClanWolverine101 16:05, 14 January 2012 (PST)

Great example, the CBT Forum take a critical view of us, and how we can held our contributions, yes some CBT Forums member disagree, but we are the contributors (editors), and want to mess this out, we like all BattTech, we have sarna as a great stepp stone, thanks Nic :). I follow my sarna policy..., dont't make content destructions, but i want feel free i do this on Neulings contributions, you have my talk page talk to me, if you dont agree give me an examples etc. etc.., if i see content that don't match any wiki policies i deleted, iam pissed off, thanks--Doneve 17:20, 14 January 2012 (PST)16:49, 14 January 2012 (PST)

Good evening folks, As much as I do not wan't to say this I agree as well Neuling, I have been a contributor to the BTwiki since 2007 and have seen exactly what Rev means about the BT community at large having doubts as to the quality of our work. I would say possibly 10 or so of us keep this site going as it where... contributions from the BT community seems to be fairly slim for reasons unknown to me. Luckily over the last year or so I have seem what I consider a good rise in the number of people talking about things on the BT forums referencing the BTwiki, BUT with such a small number of us who are actually regular contributors I feel it is important for us to all work together.please do not let this discourage you from working on the wiki, sometimes things just do not work out how you want them... Remember my OrgTrees from a couple of years ago? I wanted them to work but in the end it just was not possible. This is the same thing now, Your "data dump" style and your unusual style of referencing just runs a different course to what I feel is the common goal. --Dmon 17:04, 14 January 2012 (PST)

Great goal, i love your org trees but there a minimum of us (i hope we can integrate this in next future), but Neuling don't follow any policy etc. he is with us over 1 or 2 years, had some talkes, but don't follow this in different thinks for the policy.--Doneve 17:18, 14 January 2012 (PST)

Well said. ClanWolverine101 20:54, 14 January 2012 (PST)

I see that I'm at the moment in the center in an ongoing discussion. I will explain my thougths at this place. That I doesn't follow policies is wrong, because I respect the policies of the site and follow them like to not put plagarism at the sites or to place references at the right place. Many of the users are consider my work as data dump and without a comcept behind it. Lets take for example the dieron regulars pages. I doen't know if the site should be an overview of 3079 or earlier because by the unit entry it is not split beween active and former units. Further more I put only 1 small link at the page which shows the strength at the different time periods and it was removed several times. And for me it is important to know the strength the brigades at the ages. My work improved over the last months serious. I nearly finished the 4th Succession war or operation revival as a few examples. And when you wrote about data dump they are enougth articles from other users with minimal content. I follow the work of the publisher, because they are splitting the entire military into brigades and handle them induvidual througth the ages. I put a large portion of inthusiam and energy behind my work. Neuling 00:58, 15 January 2012 (PST)

Seriously when i take a look on the 4th Succession War page this is a mess and don't follow any policy.--Doneve 10:25, 15 January 2012 (PST)

CSS Settings

Hy again, i use the Marik settings, and use a CSS code, here is it, copy the code in your prefered settings, Marik, Kurita, etc., this fix some table and other problems, oh i forgot you see the code correct when you open the edit field, if you are done, please delete the code from your talk page.--Doneve 08:26, 17 January 2012 (PST)

I have no idea what all that does but I assume it is good things so thank you Doneve. --Dmon 11:56, 17 January 2012 (PST)

No problem, the code fix some minor problems.--Doneve 15:16, 17 January 2012 (PST)