Talk:Resurrection Ship, Part I/Archive 1 - Revision history

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: link fix

2020-04-11T02:36:52Z

link fix

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:36, 11 April 2020
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:Next, check the "History" pages for the edits made. Everyone don't be shy. As you can see, AT NO TIME have I ever outright deleted anything SgtPayne has written, and anything I changed I do believe there were reasons for. More to the point, '''SgtPayne, rather than making vague accusations against my reputation, could you please cite specific examples of something I've done against you?'''. Frankly, the ONE example of anyting I edited which was ''yours'' was when I changed a ":" to a "*" to fit it into the bulleted list format! (no text changed at all).		:Next, check the "History" pages for the edits made. Everyone don't be shy. As you can see, AT NO TIME have I ever outright deleted anything SgtPayne has written, and anything I changed I do believe there were reasons for. More to the point, '''SgtPayne, rather than making vague accusations against my reputation, could you please cite specific examples of something I've done against you?'''. Frankly, the ONE example of anyting I edited which was ''yours'' was when I changed a ":" to a "*" to fit it into the bulleted list format! (no text changed at all).
	:Perhaps I misundertsood your syntax; are you accusing ''others'' of making rude deletions? Because I've looked through the logs and the changed April Arcus and Spencerian made were ''fine''. Please, if you're going to start the witchunt, give a specific example. Otherwise, you give the impression that you are an inexperienced editor pouting that something you wrote was changed; please, I am giving you the opportunity to avoid this impression, if you will please just give specific examples of things you honestly feel were wrongfully deleted. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 13:36, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:Perhaps I misundertsood your syntax; are you accusing ''others'' of making rude deletions? Because I've looked through the logs and the changed April Arcus and Spencerian made were ''fine''. Please, if you're going to start the witchunt, give a specific example. Otherwise, you give the impression that you are an inexperienced editor pouting that something you wrote was changed; please, I am giving you the opportunity to avoid this impression, if you will please just give specific examples of things you honestly feel were wrongfully deleted. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 13:36, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::I have reviewed the history of items that I have contributed, veruses what was deleted for this episode. In particular, the edit logged at 08:18 on 1/7 removing my comment from an earlier posted question. No reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page, the original comment was an interpretation to the question presented. An earlier revision from [[User:~~Peter_Farago~~\|April Arcus]] (07:09 on 1/7/06) showed my statement was removed on the grounds that other episodes contradicted the statement, which I am perfectly happy to accept. In regards to protocol, I am taking considerable time to ensure that format and ettiquite is done correctly. My only wish is to contribute my interpretations to this project. And if that interpretation is incorrect in some way, I'm only asking for a reason why. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 14:26, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::I have reviewed the history of items that I have contributed, veruses what was deleted for this episode. In particular, the edit logged at 08:18 on 1/7 removing my comment from an earlier posted question. No reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page, the original comment was an interpretation to the question presented. An earlier revision from [[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] (07:09 on 1/7/06) showed my statement was removed on the grounds that other episodes contradicted the statement, which I am perfectly happy to accept. In regards to protocol, I am taking considerable time to ensure that format and ettiquite is done correctly. My only wish is to contribute my interpretations to this project. And if that interpretation is incorrect in some way, I'm only asking for a reason why. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 14:26, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::Ricimer, you're out of line. Cool it. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:33, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::Ricimer, you're out of line. Cool it. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:33, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	:::Rationally, and now no longer angry, I'm really just confused now (?); when I checked the edit on 08:18 January 7, it lists you comment "**Looking at the conversation, none of the future events..." (etc). Anyway, when I clicked on the History button, it showed that I changed a colon sign, to a double-asterisk sign, to fit it under the question it was refering to (that is, when an answer of further question is posited to an existing question, an extra asterisk is added to shift it under it...as is my understanding). Anyay, you said "no reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page"....but, nothing was ''removed''; I mean click on the history for edit at time 08:18; nothing has been removed, it just got indented....are you looking at it right? Are you certain that (on your computer at least), you're not seeing it on your end there? Could there just be some technical problem here? Because looking at the edit history you directed me to...nothing has been removed at all. Someone else please check on this. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 14:55, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::Rationally, and now no longer angry, I'm really just confused now (?); when I checked the edit on 08:18 January 7, it lists you comment "**Looking at the conversation, none of the future events..." (etc). Anyway, when I clicked on the History button, it showed that I changed a colon sign, to a double-asterisk sign, to fit it under the question it was refering to (that is, when an answer of further question is posited to an existing question, an extra asterisk is added to shift it under it...as is my understanding). Anyay, you said "no reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page"....but, nothing was ''removed''; I mean click on the history for edit at time 08:18; nothing has been removed, it just got indented....are you looking at it right? Are you certain that (on your computer at least), you're not seeing it on your end there? Could there just be some technical problem here? Because looking at the edit history you directed me to...nothing has been removed at all. Someone else please check on this. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 14:55, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:58:19Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: /* Speculation */ fixing link to Cylon agent talk

2006-04-21T03:31:53Z

Speculation: fixing link to Cylon agent talk

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:31, 21 April 2006
Line 26:		Line 26:
	Just how many "[[Resurrection Ship\|Resurrection Ships]]" are out there? This ship looked pretty big, and it would have to be to store multiple copies of the [[Humano-Cylon\|Humano-Cylons]] we've seen thus far. And, how does this fit into the "Rule of 12" that was mentioned in the [[Miniseries]]? --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 02:41, 7 January 2006 (EST)		Just how many "[[Resurrection Ship\|Resurrection Ships]]" are out there? This ship looked pretty big, and it would have to be to store multiple copies of the [[Humano-Cylon\|Humano-Cylons]] we've seen thus far. And, how does this fit into the "Rule of 12" that was mentioned in the [[Miniseries]]? --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 02:41, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	:There is apparently only the one. They don't seem to have anticipated following Galactica (and Pegasus) so far away from the Twelve Colonies and the Cylon homeworld, so they built a transmitter ship to boost the signal and allow Cylons to download into it. Yes, I would assume it stores several hundred copies of each Cylon: please read the article "[[Humano-Cylon]]", in which, after months of debate, it was conclusively proven after an interview with Ron D. Moore that there are indeed "12 ''Models''" of Cylon (as per the 'rule' introduced in the Miniseries), but there can be several hundred (if not several thousand) copies of each model in existence. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 02:57, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:There is apparently only the one. They don't seem to have anticipated following Galactica (and Pegasus) so far away from the Twelve Colonies and the Cylon homeworld, so they built a transmitter ship to boost the signal and allow Cylons to download into it. Yes, I would assume it stores several hundred copies of each Cylon: please read the article "[[Humano-Cylon]]", in which, after months of debate, it was conclusively proven after an interview with Ron D. Moore that there are indeed "12 ''Models''" of Cylon (as per the 'rule' introduced in the Miniseries), but there can be several hundred (if not several thousand) copies of each model in existence. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 02:57, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::After looking at that information from RDM about the [[Humano-Cylon\|Humano-cylons]], this raises some new questions, which I will posted in the [[Talk:~~Humano-~~Cylon\|Humano-cylon talk page]]. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:04, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::After looking at that information from RDM about the [[Humano-Cylon\|Humano-cylons]], this raises some new questions, which I will posted in the [[Talk:Cylon agent\|Humano-cylon talk page]]. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:04, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	==Analysis not Review==		==Analysis not Review==

Xbruce: /* General Comments */

2006-02-15T19:08:43Z

General Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 15 February 2006
Line 71:		Line 71:

	::::Yep. That does sound like Cain. At first I didn't want to give her credit for those kind of tactical chops because of her (in the end) self-destructive tendencies (much like Starbuck BTW), but... who am I kiddin'? She's a pitbull. --[[User:Watcher\|Watcher]] 00:57, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::::Yep. That does sound like Cain. At first I didn't want to give her credit for those kind of tactical chops because of her (in the end) self-destructive tendencies (much like Starbuck BTW), but... who am I kiddin'? She's a pitbull. --[[User:Watcher\|Watcher]] 00:57, 7 January 2006 (EST)

			Quite a funny scene when Adama and Cain are sitting in Roslin's office. Two sulky children in front of the teacher. Even the reply of Adama after Roslins comment on how the Pegasus would kick Galactica's ass fits into the scene, imho. -- [[User:Xbruce\|Xbruce]] 14:08, 15 February 2006 (EST)

	==Die Cast or Plastic?==		==Die Cast or Plastic?==

Day: /* I believe the picture... */

2006-01-18T09:26:43Z

I believe the picture...

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:26, 18 January 2006
Line 90:		Line 90:

	... should be used in [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. Unless I blinked somewhere, the scene pictured is never seen in part one. Can someone grab a picture applicable to this ep? Thank you! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 13:23, 7 January 2006 (EST)		... should be used in [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. Unless I blinked somewhere, the scene pictured is never seen in part one. Can someone grab a picture applicable to this ep? Thank you! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 13:23, 7 January 2006 (EST)

			: Done, Joe. Before I even saw this comment. I also noted the action on that image's talk page. --[[User:Day\|Day]] 04:26, 18 January 2006 (EST)

	== Philip Glass contribution ==		== Philip Glass contribution ==

	Does anyone know what Philip Glass piece is audible in this episode? I've heard the "Glassworks" collection, but what piece is it and where does it appear in the episode?		Does anyone know what Philip Glass piece is audible in this episode? I've heard the "Glassworks" collection, but what piece is it and where does it appear in the episode?

EEMeltonIV: Philip Glass contribution

2006-01-18T05:30:50Z

Philip Glass contribution

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 18 January 2006
Line 90:		Line 90:

	... should be used in [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. Unless I blinked somewhere, the scene pictured is never seen in part one. Can someone grab a picture applicable to this ep? Thank you! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 13:23, 7 January 2006 (EST)		... should be used in [[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]. Unless I blinked somewhere, the scene pictured is never seen in part one. Can someone grab a picture applicable to this ep? Thank you! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin\|Joe Beaudoin]] 13:23, 7 January 2006 (EST)

			== Philip Glass contribution ==

			Does anyone know what Philip Glass piece is audible in this episode? I've heard the "Glassworks" collection, but what piece is it and where does it appear in the episode?

Sgtpayne: /* Analysis not Review */

2006-01-08T04:27:07Z

Analysis not Review

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:27, 8 January 2006
Line 58:		Line 58:
	::After looking at the subsequent edits (particularly from [[User: Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]]), I did receive the information I was looking for with regards to the removal of material. I concede the above issue, and consider the matter settled. My apologies if I ruffled any undue feathers. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:00, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::After looking at the subsequent edits (particularly from [[User: Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]]), I did receive the information I was looking for with regards to the removal of material. I concede the above issue, and consider the matter settled. My apologies if I ruffled any undue feathers. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:00, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	:No problem. Now, we've got a lot of work to do...--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 21:20, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:No problem. Now, we've got a lot of work to do...--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 21:20, 7 January 2006 (EST)
			::Oh goody! Nothing like making Wiki people work...lol. --23:27, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	==General Comments==		==General Comments==

The Merovingian at 02:20, 8 January 2006

2006-01-08T02:20:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:20, 8 January 2006
Line 57:		Line 57:
	:Upon closer inspection (and thank you for giving a specific time--08:18--to check on SgtPayne, sorry for going at it above but I do not like being accused of something I have not done, but this is confusing), when I checked the edit for January 7th at "08:18" I found that I had only indented SgtPayne's material; I hadn't "removed" anything, but when I checked the further edits, I found out that SgtPayne's question material WAS indeed removed, without any explanation in the edit column, by [[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] at 08:21. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 15:01, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:Upon closer inspection (and thank you for giving a specific time--08:18--to check on SgtPayne, sorry for going at it above but I do not like being accused of something I have not done, but this is confusing), when I checked the edit for January 7th at "08:18" I found that I had only indented SgtPayne's material; I hadn't "removed" anything, but when I checked the further edits, I found out that SgtPayne's question material WAS indeed removed, without any explanation in the edit column, by [[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] at 08:21. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 15:01, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::After looking at the subsequent edits (particularly from [[User: Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]]), I did receive the information I was looking for with regards to the removal of material. I concede the above issue, and consider the matter settled. My apologies if I ruffled any undue feathers. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:00, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::After looking at the subsequent edits (particularly from [[User: Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]]), I did receive the information I was looking for with regards to the removal of material. I concede the above issue, and consider the matter settled. My apologies if I ruffled any undue feathers. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:00, 7 January 2006 (EST)
			:No problem. Now, we've got a lot of work to do...--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 21:20, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	==General Comments==		==General Comments==

April Arcus: /* Die Cast or Plastic? */

2006-01-07T22:09:44Z

Die Cast or Plastic?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 7 January 2006
Line 79:		Line 79:
	:::Actually, they're all the same color and the Blackbird model isn't shaped like a Viper. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 11:13, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::Actually, they're all the same color and the Blackbird model isn't shaped like a Viper. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 11:13, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	:::Speaking as a model builder, those models lack detail and could be slapped together quickly. Remember, they had 47,000 people, most of whom didn't have much to do. With the RS model, Galactica is supposed to have a machine shop so all they need is a die cutter to replicate the same shape many times. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 09:03, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::Speaking as a model builder, those models lack detail and could be slapped together quickly. Remember, they had 47,000 people, most of whom didn't have much to do. With the RS model, Galactica is supposed to have a machine shop so all they need is a die cutter to replicate the same shape many times. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 09:03, 7 January 2006 (EST)

			::::They came up with models for the Autonomous Raider in time to plan the Battle for the Tylium Asteroid, so it's not even unprecedented within the series. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 17:09, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	==Guest cast==		==Guest cast==

Sgtpayne: Link correction

2006-01-07T21:05:30Z

Link correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:05, 7 January 2006
Line 26:		Line 26:
	Just how many "[[Resurrection Ship\|Resurrection Ships]]" are out there? This ship looked pretty big, and it would have to be to store multiple copies of the [[Humano-Cylon\|Humano-Cylons]] we've seen thus far. And, how does this fit into the "Rule of 12" that was mentioned in the [[Miniseries]]? --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 02:41, 7 January 2006 (EST)		Just how many "[[Resurrection Ship\|Resurrection Ships]]" are out there? This ship looked pretty big, and it would have to be to store multiple copies of the [[Humano-Cylon\|Humano-Cylons]] we've seen thus far. And, how does this fit into the "Rule of 12" that was mentioned in the [[Miniseries]]? --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 02:41, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	:There is apparently only the one. They don't seem to have anticipated following Galactica (and Pegasus) so far away from the Twelve Colonies and the Cylon homeworld, so they built a transmitter ship to boost the signal and allow Cylons to download into it. Yes, I would assume it stores several hundred copies of each Cylon: please read the article "[[Humano-Cylon]]", in which, after months of debate, it was conclusively proven after an interview with Ron D. Moore that there are indeed "12 ''Models''" of Cylon (as per the 'rule' introduced in the Miniseries), but there can be several hundred (if not several thousand) copies of each model in existence. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 02:57, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:There is apparently only the one. They don't seem to have anticipated following Galactica (and Pegasus) so far away from the Twelve Colonies and the Cylon homeworld, so they built a transmitter ship to boost the signal and allow Cylons to download into it. Yes, I would assume it stores several hundred copies of each Cylon: please read the article "[[Humano-Cylon]]", in which, after months of debate, it was conclusively proven after an interview with Ron D. Moore that there are indeed "12 ''Models''" of Cylon (as per the 'rule' introduced in the Miniseries), but there can be several hundred (if not several thousand) copies of each model in existence. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 02:57, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::After looking at that information from RDM about the [[Humano-Cylon\|Humano-cylons]], this raises some new questions, which I will posted in the [[Talk:Humano-~~cylon~~\|Humano-cylon talk page]]. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:04, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::After looking at that information from RDM about the [[Humano-Cylon\|Humano-cylons]], this raises some new questions, which I will posted in the [[Talk:Humano-Cylon\|Humano-cylon talk page]]. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:04, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	==Analysis not Review==		==Analysis not Review==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:36, 11 April 2020
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:Next, check the "History" pages for the edits made. Everyone don't be shy. As you can see, AT NO TIME have I ever outright deleted anything SgtPayne has written, and anything I changed I do believe there were reasons for. More to the point, '''SgtPayne, rather than making vague accusations against my reputation, could you please cite specific examples of something I've done against you?'''. Frankly, the ONE example of anyting I edited which was ''yours'' was when I changed a ":" to a "*" to fit it into the bulleted list format! (no text changed at all).		:Next, check the "History" pages for the edits made. Everyone don't be shy. As you can see, AT NO TIME have I ever outright deleted anything SgtPayne has written, and anything I changed I do believe there were reasons for. More to the point, '''SgtPayne, rather than making vague accusations against my reputation, could you please cite specific examples of something I've done against you?'''. Frankly, the ONE example of anyting I edited which was ''yours'' was when I changed a ":" to a "*" to fit it into the bulleted list format! (no text changed at all).
	:Perhaps I misundertsood your syntax; are you accusing ''others'' of making rude deletions? Because I've looked through the logs and the changed April Arcus and Spencerian made were ''fine''. Please, if you're going to start the witchunt, give a specific example. Otherwise, you give the impression that you are an inexperienced editor pouting that something you wrote was changed; please, I am giving you the opportunity to avoid this impression, if you will please just give specific examples of things you honestly feel were wrongfully deleted. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 13:36, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:Perhaps I misundertsood your syntax; are you accusing ''others'' of making rude deletions? Because I've looked through the logs and the changed April Arcus and Spencerian made were ''fine''. Please, if you're going to start the witchunt, give a specific example. Otherwise, you give the impression that you are an inexperienced editor pouting that something you wrote was changed; please, I am giving you the opportunity to avoid this impression, if you will please just give specific examples of things you honestly feel were wrongfully deleted. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 13:36, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::I have reviewed the history of items that I have contributed, veruses what was deleted for this episode. In particular, the edit logged at 08:18 on 1/7 removing my comment from an earlier posted question. No reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page, the original comment was an interpretation to the question presented. An earlier revision from [[User:~~Peter_Farago~~\|April Arcus]] (07:09 on 1/7/06) showed my statement was removed on the grounds that other episodes contradicted the statement, which I am perfectly happy to accept. In regards to protocol, I am taking considerable time to ensure that format and ettiquite is done correctly. My only wish is to contribute my interpretations to this project. And if that interpretation is incorrect in some way, I'm only asking for a reason why. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 14:26, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::I have reviewed the history of items that I have contributed, veruses what was deleted for this episode. In particular, the edit logged at 08:18 on 1/7 removing my comment from an earlier posted question. No reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page, the original comment was an interpretation to the question presented. An earlier revision from [[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] (07:09 on 1/7/06) showed my statement was removed on the grounds that other episodes contradicted the statement, which I am perfectly happy to accept. In regards to protocol, I am taking considerable time to ensure that format and ettiquite is done correctly. My only wish is to contribute my interpretations to this project. And if that interpretation is incorrect in some way, I'm only asking for a reason why. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 14:26, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::Ricimer, you're out of line. Cool it. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:33, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::Ricimer, you're out of line. Cool it. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:33, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	:::Rationally, and now no longer angry, I'm really just confused now (?); when I checked the edit on 08:18 January 7, it lists you comment "**Looking at the conversation, none of the future events..." (etc). Anyway, when I clicked on the History button, it showed that I changed a colon sign, to a double-asterisk sign, to fit it under the question it was refering to (that is, when an answer of further question is posited to an existing question, an extra asterisk is added to shift it under it...as is my understanding). Anyay, you said "no reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page"....but, nothing was ''removed''; I mean click on the history for edit at time 08:18; nothing has been removed, it just got indented....are you looking at it right? Are you certain that (on your computer at least), you're not seeing it on your end there? Could there just be some technical problem here? Because looking at the edit history you directed me to...nothing has been removed at all. Someone else please check on this. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 14:55, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::Rationally, and now no longer angry, I'm really just confused now (?); when I checked the edit on 08:18 January 7, it lists you comment "**Looking at the conversation, none of the future events..." (etc). Anyway, when I clicked on the History button, it showed that I changed a colon sign, to a double-asterisk sign, to fit it under the question it was refering to (that is, when an answer of further question is posited to an existing question, an extra asterisk is added to shift it under it...as is my understanding). Anyay, you said "no reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page"....but, nothing was ''removed''; I mean click on the history for edit at time 08:18; nothing has been removed, it just got indented....are you looking at it right? Are you certain that (on your computer at least), you're not seeing it on your end there? Could there just be some technical problem here? Because looking at the edit history you directed me to...nothing has been removed at all. Someone else please check on this. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 14:55, 7 January 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 11 April 2020
Line 6:		Line 6:

	==Director==		==Director==
	[[Wikipedia:Alan Smithee\|Alan Smithee]] is not a real person. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 18:26, 16 November 2005 (EST)		[[Wikipedia:Alan Smithee\|Alan Smithee]] is not a real person. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 18:26, 16 November 2005 (EST)
	*Just a joke placeholder name; other pages had "suchandsuch" and "whoisit" etc for stuff so I just put in a placeholder. Besides, Mr. Smithee has brought us such wonderful works as the ''excellent'' 1984 adaptation of "Dune" and the animated 1978 Lord of the Rings. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 21:32, 16 November 2005 (EST)		*Just a joke placeholder name; other pages had "suchandsuch" and "whoisit" etc for stuff so I just put in a placeholder. Besides, Mr. Smithee has brought us such wonderful works as the ''excellent'' 1984 adaptation of "Dune" and the animated 1978 Lord of the Rings. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 21:32, 16 November 2005 (EST)
	::I think we should leave it blank until we know. What if a director really wants his name removed from an episode at some point? --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 10:16, 17 November 2005 (EST)		::I think we should leave it blank until we know. What if a director really wants his name removed from an episode at some point? --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 10:16, 17 November 2005 (EST)

	:::Reminds me of this Eric Idle movie "Burn Hollywood Burn"; basically, he's the director of what's going to be the biggest movie of the decade...and also the biggest flop. It's got a gigantic special effects budget (like 3 disaster movies and 3 action movies roled into one). It's called "Trio" and it stars the action 'trio' of Slyvester Stallone, Jackie Chan, and Whoopi Goldberg (I kid you not, they actually appear in this thing; yeah, a gun-toting Whoopi Goldberg). Well, the idea behind "Allen Smithee" is it's an unusual made up name no one would really have, so that when a hollywood studio so butchers a director's project that it is A) not his creative vision at all and he was completely cut off from it and B) it would be career suicide to be associated with such a flop. Eric Idle's character the director of Trio who really has no control over it whatsover as the studio writers and execs are calling the shots (they put him in charge of camerawork and little else), so when he finally sees the finished rough cut he declares "It's worse than Showgirls!" and demands for it to be an "Allen Smithee production". Problem is, through blind luck Eric Idle's character's ''real'' name is "Allen Smithee"! And according to the director's guild rules the only name you can replace as director for the film is "Allen Smithee". So he goes berserk and steals the rough cuts of the film and hides them so the film can never be shown (it was a movie-in-a-movie thing about everyone trying to get the movie back). Dear god, the descriptions of "Trio" were like sitting in on a Berman and Braga writing session; Whoopi and Jackie's characters die in the end, while Stallone's character gets a sex change. However, Jackie Chan was so adamant that in his movies his character ''never'' dies that eventually they compromised by saying that his character does die, but gets ''reincarnated''. Sort of like the old "We can never have enough time travel or parallel universes on Star Trek!" routine they pulled on us.--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:17, 17 November 2005 (EST)		:::Reminds me of this Eric Idle movie "Burn Hollywood Burn"; basically, he's the director of what's going to be the biggest movie of the decade...and also the biggest flop. It's got a gigantic special effects budget (like 3 disaster movies and 3 action movies roled into one). It's called "Trio" and it stars the action 'trio' of Slyvester Stallone, Jackie Chan, and Whoopi Goldberg (I kid you not, they actually appear in this thing; yeah, a gun-toting Whoopi Goldberg). Well, the idea behind "Allen Smithee" is it's an unusual made up name no one would really have, so that when a hollywood studio so butchers a director's project that it is A) not his creative vision at all and he was completely cut off from it and B) it would be career suicide to be associated with such a flop. Eric Idle's character the director of Trio who really has no control over it whatsover as the studio writers and execs are calling the shots (they put him in charge of camerawork and little else), so when he finally sees the finished rough cut he declares "It's worse than Showgirls!" and demands for it to be an "Allen Smithee production". Problem is, through blind luck Eric Idle's character's ''real'' name is "Allen Smithee"! And according to the director's guild rules the only name you can replace as director for the film is "Allen Smithee". So he goes berserk and steals the rough cuts of the film and hides them so the film can never be shown (it was a movie-in-a-movie thing about everyone trying to get the movie back). Dear god, the descriptions of "Trio" were like sitting in on a Berman and Braga writing session; Whoopi and Jackie's characters die in the end, while Stallone's character gets a sex change. However, Jackie Chan was so adamant that in his movies his character ''never'' dies that eventually they compromised by saying that his character does die, but gets ''reincarnated''. Sort of like the old "We can never have enough time travel or parallel universes on Star Trek!" routine they pulled on us.--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 12:17, 17 November 2005 (EST)
Line 39:		Line 39:
	:::Actually I prefer stims, they take the edge off. Actually, I was observing good etiquette for moving something I questioned to the talk page rather than deleting it out of hand. I have done nothing outrageous. Upon further thought, I guess it can stay. I will make my own comments under "Analysis" as I get to them. As you were, 5x5. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 00:46, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::Actually I prefer stims, they take the edge off. Actually, I was observing good etiquette for moving something I questioned to the talk page rather than deleting it out of hand. I have done nothing outrageous. Upon further thought, I guess it can stay. I will make my own comments under "Analysis" as I get to them. As you were, 5x5. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 00:46, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	:::Breaking it down into bullet points would be nice, though. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 00:42, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::Breaking it down into bullet points would be nice, though. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:42, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	::::I agree; this was my biggest complaint, yet I did not want to be so presumptuous as to ''change'' things Spencerian had actually written by adding in ''my own'' bulleted points (putting words in his mouth as it were, much worse than moving to talk page). Punch this up if at all possible with some handy bullet points. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 00:46, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::::I agree; this was my biggest complaint, yet I did not want to be so presumptuous as to ''change'' things Spencerian had actually written by adding in ''my own'' bulleted points (putting words in his mouth as it were, much worse than moving to talk page). Punch this up if at all possible with some handy bullet points. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 00:46, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	:::::In the future, you shouldn't hesitate. Constructive modifications are much better than deleting useful content outright. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 00:58, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::::In the future, you shouldn't hesitate. Constructive modifications are much better than deleting useful content outright. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 00:58, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::::::I am sorry. I thought the one was more offensive than the other. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 01:06, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::::::I am sorry. I thought the one was more offensive than the other. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 01:06, 7 January 2006 (EST)

Line 50:		Line 50:
	:I am sorry that you are new to using wikis and unfamiliar with this, but things get edited or changed for accuracy, but more to the point, '''Your accusation is simply wrong, as the history pages will point out''' ; "such as [[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] feel fit to remove the information without any proper explanation" As you have seen IN THE TEXT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THIS, I gave a reason for removing Spencerian's analysis (and as you can see in the already finished conversation above, I've decided it's okay if it stays, and I thought I WAS observing proper etiquette by moving it here [thanks for the heads-up on that Farago, and once again sorry for the hastiness, Spencerian]; in either case, '''at no time did I simply delete something outright, or without explanation, as you have accused''';.		:I am sorry that you are new to using wikis and unfamiliar with this, but things get edited or changed for accuracy, but more to the point, '''Your accusation is simply wrong, as the history pages will point out''' ; "such as [[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] feel fit to remove the information without any proper explanation" As you have seen IN THE TEXT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THIS, I gave a reason for removing Spencerian's analysis (and as you can see in the already finished conversation above, I've decided it's okay if it stays, and I thought I WAS observing proper etiquette by moving it here [thanks for the heads-up on that Farago, and once again sorry for the hastiness, Spencerian]; in either case, '''at no time did I simply delete something outright, or without explanation, as you have accused''';.
	:Next, check the "History" pages for the edits made. Everyone don't be shy. As you can see, AT NO TIME have I ever outright deleted anything SgtPayne has written, and anything I changed I do believe there were reasons for. More to the point, '''SgtPayne, rather than making vague accusations against my reputation, could you please cite specific examples of something I've done against you?'''. Frankly, the ONE example of anyting I edited which was ''yours'' was when I changed a ":" to a "*" to fit it into the bulleted list format! (no text changed at all).		:Next, check the "History" pages for the edits made. Everyone don't be shy. As you can see, AT NO TIME have I ever outright deleted anything SgtPayne has written, and anything I changed I do believe there were reasons for. More to the point, '''SgtPayne, rather than making vague accusations against my reputation, could you please cite specific examples of something I've done against you?'''. Frankly, the ONE example of anyting I edited which was ''yours'' was when I changed a ":" to a "*" to fit it into the bulleted list format! (no text changed at all).
	:Perhaps I misundertsood your syntax; are you accusing ''others'' of making rude deletions? Because I've looked through the logs and the changed ~~Peter Farago~~ and Spencerian made were ''fine''. Please, if you're going to start the witchunt, give a specific example. Otherwise, you give the impression that you are an inexperienced editor pouting that something you wrote was changed; please, I am giving you the opportunity to avoid this impression, if you will please just give specific examples of things you honestly feel were wrongfully deleted. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 13:36, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:Perhaps I misundertsood your syntax; are you accusing ''others'' of making rude deletions? Because I've looked through the logs and the changed April Arcus and Spencerian made were ''fine''. Please, if you're going to start the witchunt, give a specific example. Otherwise, you give the impression that you are an inexperienced editor pouting that something you wrote was changed; please, I am giving you the opportunity to avoid this impression, if you will please just give specific examples of things you honestly feel were wrongfully deleted. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 13:36, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::I have reviewed the history of items that I have contributed, veruses what was deleted for this episode. In particular, the edit logged at 08:18 on 1/7 removing my comment from an earlier posted question. No reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page, the original comment was an interpretation to the question presented. An earlier revision from [[User:Peter_Farago\|~~Peter Farago~~]] (07:09 on 1/7/06) showed my statement was removed on the grounds that other episodes contradicted the statement, which I am perfectly happy to accept. In regards to protocol, I am taking considerable time to ensure that format and ettiquite is done correctly. My only wish is to contribute my interpretations to this project. And if that interpretation is incorrect in some way, I'm only asking for a reason why. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 14:26, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::I have reviewed the history of items that I have contributed, veruses what was deleted for this episode. In particular, the edit logged at 08:18 on 1/7 removing my comment from an earlier posted question. No reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page, the original comment was an interpretation to the question presented. An earlier revision from [[User:Peter_Farago\|April Arcus]] (07:09 on 1/7/06) showed my statement was removed on the grounds that other episodes contradicted the statement, which I am perfectly happy to accept. In regards to protocol, I am taking considerable time to ensure that format and ettiquite is done correctly. My only wish is to contribute my interpretations to this project. And if that interpretation is incorrect in some way, I'm only asking for a reason why. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 14:26, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::Ricimer, you're out of line. Cool it. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 14:33, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::Ricimer, you're out of line. Cool it. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 14:33, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	:::Rationally, and now no longer angry, I'm really just confused now (?); when I checked the edit on 08:18 January 7, it lists you comment "**Looking at the conversation, none of the future events..." (etc). Anyway, when I clicked on the History button, it showed that I changed a colon sign, to a double-asterisk sign, to fit it under the question it was refering to (that is, when an answer of further question is posited to an existing question, an extra asterisk is added to shift it under it...as is my understanding). Anyay, you said "no reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page"....but, nothing was ''removed''; I mean click on the history for edit at time 08:18; nothing has been removed, it just got indented....are you looking at it right? Are you certain that (on your computer at least), you're not seeing it on your end there? Could there just be some technical problem here? Because looking at the edit history you directed me to...nothing has been removed at all. Someone else please check on this. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 14:55, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::Rationally, and now no longer angry, I'm really just confused now (?); when I checked the edit on 08:18 January 7, it lists you comment "**Looking at the conversation, none of the future events..." (etc). Anyway, when I clicked on the History button, it showed that I changed a colon sign, to a double-asterisk sign, to fit it under the question it was refering to (that is, when an answer of further question is posited to an existing question, an extra asterisk is added to shift it under it...as is my understanding). Anyay, you said "no reason was listed as to why my statement was removed from the page"....but, nothing was ''removed''; I mean click on the history for edit at time 08:18; nothing has been removed, it just got indented....are you looking at it right? Are you certain that (on your computer at least), you're not seeing it on your end there? Could there just be some technical problem here? Because looking at the edit history you directed me to...nothing has been removed at all. Someone else please check on this. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 14:55, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	:Upon closer inspection (and thank you for giving a specific time--08:18--to check on SgtPayne, sorry for going at it above but I do not like being accused of something I have not done, but this is confusing), when I checked the edit for January 7th at "08:18" I found that I had only indented SgtPayne's material; I hadn't "removed" anything, but when I checked the further edits, I found out that SgtPayne's question material WAS indeed removed, without any explanation in the edit column, by [[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] at 08:21. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 15:01, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:Upon closer inspection (and thank you for giving a specific time--08:18--to check on SgtPayne, sorry for going at it above but I do not like being accused of something I have not done, but this is confusing), when I checked the edit for January 7th at "08:18" I found that I had only indented SgtPayne's material; I hadn't "removed" anything, but when I checked the further edits, I found out that SgtPayne's question material WAS indeed removed, without any explanation in the edit column, by [[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] at 08:21. --[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 15:01, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::After looking at the subsequent edits (particularly from [[User: ~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]]), I did receive the information I was looking for with regards to the removal of material. I concede the above issue, and consider the matter settled. My apologies if I ruffled any undue feathers. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:00, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::After looking at the subsequent edits (particularly from [[User: April Arcus\|April Arcus]]), I did receive the information I was looking for with regards to the removal of material. I concede the above issue, and consider the matter settled. My apologies if I ruffled any undue feathers. --[[User:Sgtpayne\|Sgtpayne]] 16:00, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	:No problem. Now, we've got a lot of work to do...--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 21:20, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:No problem. Now, we've got a lot of work to do...--[[User:Ricimer\|Ricimer]] 21:20, 7 January 2006 (EST)
	::Oh goody! Nothing like making Wiki people work...lol. --23:27, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::Oh goody! Nothing like making Wiki people work...lol. --23:27, 7 January 2006 (EST)
Line 84:		Line 84:
	:::Speaking as a model builder, those models lack detail and could be slapped together quickly. Remember, they had 47,000 people, most of whom didn't have much to do. With the RS model, Galactica is supposed to have a machine shop so all they need is a die cutter to replicate the same shape many times. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 09:03, 7 January 2006 (EST)		:::Speaking as a model builder, those models lack detail and could be slapped together quickly. Remember, they had 47,000 people, most of whom didn't have much to do. With the RS model, Galactica is supposed to have a machine shop so all they need is a die cutter to replicate the same shape many times. --[[User:Talos\|Talos]] 09:03, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	::::They came up with models for the Autonomous Raider in time to plan the Battle for the Tylium Asteroid, so it's not even unprecedented within the series. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 17:09, 7 January 2006 (EST)		::::They came up with models for the Autonomous Raider in time to plan the Battle for the Tylium Asteroid, so it's not even unprecedented within the series. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 17:09, 7 January 2006 (EST)

	==Guest cast==		==Guest cast==