User talk:3DMaster - Revision history

3DMaster: /* Greetings */

2007-03-29T11:04:49Z

Greetings

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:04, 29 March 2007
Line 26:		Line 26:
	:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction\|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ\|citation]] and [[BW:FANW\|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)		:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction\|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ\|citation]] and [[BW:FANW\|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

	::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS. --[[User:3DMaster\|3DMaster]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT)		::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS.

			::Staying within the rules for sourcing is not possible (and the nBSG propulsion page has violated those rules grossly as well, I might add), in fact, what's on the page for TOS propulsion now violates it. It's stated without a single shred of evidence or source that Lightspeed means FTL; when in fact, nothing was said of sort, in fact, given that the Galactica hadn't gone Lightspeed in ages in Experiment in Terra; it pretty much precludes it from being FTL, because both the Galactica and the Fleet would have to have gone FTL to get to other stars and thus to Terra, and thus it would have to have been using Lightspeed all the time. --[[User:3DMaster\|3DMaster]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

3DMaster: /* Greetings */

2007-03-29T10:35:51Z

Greetings

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 29 March 2007
Line 26:		Line 26:
	:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction\|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ\|citation]] and [[BW:FANW\|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)		:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction\|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ\|citation]] and [[BW:FANW\|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

	::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS.		::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS. --[[User:3DMaster\|3DMaster]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

3DMaster: /* Greetings */

2007-03-29T10:02:47Z

Greetings

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:02, 29 March 2007
Line 25:		Line 25:

	:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction\|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ\|citation]] and [[BW:FANW\|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)		:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction\|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ\|citation]] and [[BW:FANW\|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

			::And yet, the new Galactica's propulsion page, is nothing but inappropriate speculation without a single citation anywhere. And the source is the show itself. The lagrange point corridor is the only way the story of Gun on Ice Planet Zero makes any sense: the lagrange point is covered by that gun and thus there's no way for the Fleet to "simply go around" the planet or "stay far away from it". All other depictions of the show (always appearing in a solar system and immediately sending out patrols (and not sending out patrols before they arrive, and avoiding the system entirely if there are Cylons), and never seeing the ship in interstellar space builds a completely consistent view of Galactica's FTL capabilities (or lack thereof seeing as it just uses something that naturally exists.) The folding and wormhole bit is never stated on the nBSG, but it is the only logically conclusion from watching the show; the same with TOS.

Spencerian: /* Greetings */ +reply

2007-03-28T13:42:32Z

Greetings: +reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 28 March 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	I am one of several administrators on Battlestar Wiki. Like on other wikis, that's not generally much in the way of important things, except we also act as mediators, moderators, and, sometimes, police. Please remember that, as wikis aren't chat boards, it's not appropriate to do point-by-point responses that edit other contributor's comments. Second, it is very important that you read the policies and practices of this wiki. We really love enthusiasm and fresh insight, but we have rules to conduct ourselves, and you have violated one: [[BW:CIVIL\|please be civil]] in responding. I'll later reedit (or you can) the response accordingly and give you some thoughts another day. Thanks for your understanding. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 19:00, 25 March 2007 (CDT)		I am one of several administrators on Battlestar Wiki. Like on other wikis, that's not generally much in the way of important things, except we also act as mediators, moderators, and, sometimes, police. Please remember that, as wikis aren't chat boards, it's not appropriate to do point-by-point responses that edit other contributor's comments. Second, it is very important that you read the policies and practices of this wiki. We really love enthusiasm and fresh insight, but we have rules to conduct ourselves, and you have violated one: [[BW:CIVIL\|please be civil]] in responding. I'll later reedit (or you can) the response accordingly and give you some thoughts another day. Thanks for your understanding. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 19:00, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

			:3DMaster, I'm readding your comment on my talk page and my reply comes after.
			:<blockquote>I wasn't aware I was being uncivil. I reread my comments, and only "LOL" and the question about knowing science might be so. The question however was just that, a question. The New Series "science" is as far removed from science as you can get, and article about the New Series FTL propulsion, quite frankly, is a mess. The article talks about how the shows producers keep it natural and chose something within science, as if other SF series and books don't; which is of course ridiculous. The whole point of SF is take something that is grounded in science; possibly make up some new science to circumvent something, but basically keep it grounded. It is not called ''Science'' Fiction for nothing. To say the nBSG is the only one who does this, is patently false. Then after saying how natural and non-gimmicky and possible it; one names the ultimate in gimmicky FTL technologies; heck the holy grail in FTL technologies.</blockquote>

			:Neither ''Battlestar Galactica'' shows are [[w:hard science fiction\|hard SF]], although the new show's creators attempted to define what SF cliches they would not do. Fans and contributors on Battlestar Wiki have their own ideas as to what is and isn't. To make this encyclopedia of fictional works as accurate as possible, however, it is important to stick to what information is given by the series creators to define its universe. Anything else is fanwanking: fans who apply their knowledge, feelings, or experience to what they see on-screen and, as a result, attempt to write show content. ''Battlestar'' in both incarnations has always concentrated on the characters and not the science (or pseudo-science). Again, if you have found a scientific aspect of the show that can be elaborated on AND you can cite your source, please feel free to update the page. For now, in order for the wiki to be worth anything, we can only define what the show's content provides, and not attempt to fill in the gaps through our own additions to the show. For more clarification, please read our [[BW:CJ\|citation]] and [[BW:FANW\|inappropriate speculation]] policies. It's important to note that your comment was more grousing than a "what" was wrong and "how" you could fix it. Wikis aren't complaint boards. You're encouraged to fix what you feel is an inaccurate entry, but just stay in our ground rules for sourcing, never adding more to an article than what the show's sparse data has provided. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 08:42, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Spencerian: Greetings

2007-03-26T00:00:36Z

Greetings

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:00, 26 March 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	We look forward to your contributions to the community!		We look forward to your contributions to the community!
	--[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 17:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)		--[[User:Shane\|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane\|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane\|E]])</sup> 17:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

			== Greetings ==

			Hi there. I just read your response to my comments on the [[Propulsion (TOS)]] article and I was a bit put off. I apologize if you felt that you were personally slighted.

			I am one of several administrators on Battlestar Wiki. Like on other wikis, that's not generally much in the way of important things, except we also act as mediators, moderators, and, sometimes, police. Please remember that, as wikis aren't chat boards, it's not appropriate to do point-by-point responses that edit other contributor's comments. Second, it is very important that you read the policies and practices of this wiki. We really love enthusiasm and fresh insight, but we have rules to conduct ourselves, and you have violated one: [[BW:CIVIL\|please be civil]] in responding. I'll later reedit (or you can) the response accordingly and give you some thoughts another day. Thanks for your understanding. --[[User:Spencerian\|Spencerian]] 19:00, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Shane: Welcome to Battlestar Wiki!

2007-03-25T22:02:18Z

Welcome to Battlestar Wiki!

New page

== Welcome to Battlestar Wiki! ==
Welcome to the Wiki, 3DMaster. Tell us about yourself on [[User:3DMaster|your user page]].

Battlestar Wiki is an encyclopedia on '''officially-licensed stories, aired episodes, and other products of the ''Battlestar'' universes.''' Make sure that your contributions fit [[Battlestar Wiki:What is Battlestar Wiki|Battlestar Wiki's purpose]], avoiding [[BW:NOT|what we aren't]].

Our [[BW:SAC|editing standards and conventions policies]] may differ from other wikis, especially in verb tense and voice, capitalization and the like. '''Please read this policy.''' We have [[BW:TUT|an editing tutorial]] and [[BW:MARK|wiki markup codes]] to help you.

Our policies on [[w:Original research|original research]] differ from places such as Wikipedia. We allow [[BW:CJ#Derived Content|some research based on aired episode content]], but don't allow [[BW:FANW|speculation that isn't supported from episode events]].

Battlestar Wiki's [[Battlestar Wiki:Project List|many projects]] help improve our content. Are you a [[Original Series]] fan? Help out in the [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|Original Series Article Project]]. [[Battlestar Wiki:Translation Project|Non-English versions of Battlestar Wiki]] also need contributors, and helpers for our [[BW:POD|podcast transcriptions]] are also welcome. New projects should be brought to our [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]], where we hash out large-scale ideas before implementing them.

Any questions about an article can be entered on the article's talk page. General questions about the wiki can be brought to [[Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum|the Quorum]] or [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|the administrators' noticeboard]]. To sign your posts on any talk page, just enter four tildes (~~~~)!

We look forward to your contributions to the community!
--[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 17:02, 25 March 2007 (CDT)