User talk:Spencerian

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

For discussions prior to January 1, 2006, click here.

For discussions prior to June 1, 2006, click here.

For discussions prior to September 1, 2006, click here.

For discussions prior to December 18, 2006, click here.

Updated User Page[edit]

I stole my revised article design from Mercifull, and is living proof that I can't wiki code worth a damn. --Spencerian 21:04, 19 December 2006 (CST)

He stole the design from me. Joe stole it from him. lol. Been going around. heh. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:14, 19 December 2006 (CST)

It continues the rounds; I've "borrowed" now. =) JubalHarshaw 23:04, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Response to EoJ Reversion[edit]

Hi, just wanted to drop a quick line regarding the rollback to the article summary. I posted a comment regarding it on the Talk page, but wanted to say that as it was written, it seems too narrative. Granted, my changes may have confused readers, but I feel it needs to be consolidated. What do you think? --Sgtpayne 12:26, 20 December 2006 (CST) ^{(T - C - E)}

Shane had a good idea. We could break it up into acts (commercial breaks) but we should keep the relative order. I'll give that a try if someone hasn't done so; I have the episode downloaded. --Spencerian 18:03, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Response from Meteor[edit]

Hi you added something to my talk page recently. I just rewatched the scene in Kobol's Last Gleaming part 1 where Elosha, Billy and Roslin discuss Kobol. Billy says the ruins on the planet are 2,000 years old. Elosha responds that this corresponds with when the 13 (not 12) colonies left Kobol.

While I agree you're probably right about the 13th colony leaving for earth 3,600 years ago and the other 12 colonies only a mere 2,000 years I do think the article should reflect the fact that Elosha's comment is not entirely accurate. Meteor

Response from MatthewFenton regarding clean up[edit]

Hey. Responded at the talk page showing some concerns as to why I believe it needs a clean up - if you don't think it needs a clean up then feel free to remove the tag, I've shown my concerns at least, hopefully it can make the article better. MatthewFenton 17:39, 1 January 2007 (CST)

Red Pill[edit]

Follow the "Yellow" Link Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:46, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Strange... it's not yellow for me. (Monobook has either blue or pinkish). --Steelviper 12:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Aww...this is very cool, one way or another. I'll fill it in a little later today. --Spencerian 13:15, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Welcome, Young Padawan![edit]

Congrats! Here's a Squeegee, and some pertinent reading material from Wikipedia. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:04, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Have we seen a Squeegee Boy in BSG yet? :-) Congrats Spenc! Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:07, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Congrats man, you've earned it. --Talos 21:54, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Congratulations ;-) MatthewFenton 06:08, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Congratulations! --Peter Farago 08:06, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Much obliged, everyone. Thanks. --Spencerian 09:58, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks[edit]

Just wanted to thank you for the advice you left on my talk page, next time I'll try not to jump the gun without better researching.--The One True Fred 08:00, 26 January 2007 (CST)

We've all done it before, but its not much of a learning curve. Once you know what's probably rumor and what's good, it only makes contributing and reading things here that much more intriguing. Don't let it sway your enthusiasm! --Spencerian 08:05, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Howdy[edit]

Are you a fan of the flying bikes of doom? MatthewFenton 04:44, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Um, I have no idea what that is. --Spencerian 08:10, 27 January 2007 (CST)

"Flying motorcycle" I presume --Serenity 08:12, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Galactica 1980 :-P MatthewFenton 08:22, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Oh, lords, no. It's only ten episodes, but because of its horror I blame it for my social inadequacies in high school, my acne, the heartbreak of psoriasis and global warming. Who can I sue? Is that Oprah calling...? --Spencerian 08:33, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Also, FYI, Dr. Phil on line 5. --Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 08:59, 27 January 2007 (CST)

The origin of mankind[edit]

I noticed a comment in my talk about why you removed notes about the real Earth as homeworld for Humanity some months ago, feeling they were fanwanking. At the same time you pointed to pages about the sacred scrolls and various fan theories about the Exodus or Exodi in the show. In order to learn, I wanted to understand the difference. Is it just where I put it? My goal was to add only factual information. While I realize that the Earth in the show is going to be somewhat fictionalized (if we ever see it) there is an important difference between an Earth that had a different history than ours, and one where the science is so different that you might as well say Mars had canals (a common SF trope from before the 60s) or that rocks fall up.

However, where is the proper place to speculate what theories of Earth are consistent with what the writers are trying to show us in the program? The question of whether, in the re-imagined series, Earth is a colony of Kobol, or instead Kobol is a colony of Earth (and why that was covered up) is an important one to the show, and there are a number of clues in the show pointing to the latter case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bradtem (talk • contribs).

I agree that removing your comments while allowing the convoluted theories in Sacred Scrolls stand isn't right. It's either both or neither. And if I ever saw fanwank, that's it. I'm toying with the idea of deleting that eyesore and presenting both theories very briefly, but without going into much detail. In fact that's what I'm going to do now. I've already mentioned that on the talk page there as well. However, I don't think those theories should be expanded much further there, as they go beyond the scope of "Sacred Scrolls" --Serenity 06:18, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I tend to agree with Serenity, Bradtem. Obviously the writers want to play with the viewers and make the more "thoughtful" of us wonder about this chicken-and-egg origin. At the same time, they purposefully don't indicate if BSG occurs in real-world Earth's past, present or future. As a result, we shouldn't speculate in detail, thus the concision or removal of your contribution (my apologies as I can't remember the specific reasons and haven't time right now to delve through the history for review). As Serenity noted, we should touch on the possibilities, but we must not go into elaborate "hypotheses" about it as that is strictly fanwanking. A few short definitive notes based on what has aired, and we must leave the rest of the speculation to the talk pages of the article or the reader's imagination. --Spencerian 08:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I think his confusion stems from the fact that you linked him to a page that contained far more baseless speculation than his relatively short addition you removed. It looked like you removed something that was fine elsewhere. He didn't even really speculate, but presented a scientific fact. Personally I agree with it, and hate those "we don't really have to pay attention to science. They can do what they want" arguments. Of course there is the possibility of BSG taking place in an alternate universe which has also been hinted at in podcasts/interviews.

But as you said, that's a discussion more suitable for forums, and a short outline of each point of view probably suffices here. --Serenity 08:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. The whole subject is too confusing, which means we're doing the right thing in concising it in the first place. --Spencerian 08:46, 1 February 2007 (CST)

While the theories and speculation may be fanwanks, tracking down the real clues found within the show that back up or refute speculations is a worthwhile function for a wiki, in my view. However, it does mean you probably need to make references to the theories to understand why a real canonical detail is important to note. For example, Adama calls the Lagoon Nebula by the name M8, which is an 18th century Earth designation. That's either a writing error or pretty hard evidence regarding theories of the origin of Kobol and the colonies in the show. Either way it's worth noting, and the context is important. Sometimes there isn't even a theory. Today you removed an addition to the article of the Temple of 5, where I noted that there are 6 drapes and 5 figures standing on 5 of them, one is vacant. I don't actually know what that means in terms of speculation, but it smells like it's important so I was surprised to see it removed. In addition, my addition of information on Tyrol's reluctance to destroy the temple is also, in my view, important -- Tyrol is demonstrably under some external influence when it comes to the temple, so again I think it's important to understanding the temple, not just to the story of the episode, though I don't yet know why and did not include any speculation as to why. I ask this because it's obviously no fun to contribute items just to have them reverted. I try to stick to facts and information from actual episodes when editing pages that are not meant for speculation. --User:Bradtem

Those are all things that can be added to the episode articles (generally under "Analysis"). The M8 thing is mentioned on Home, Part II example. --Serenity 17:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I understand a desire not to repeat all the episode summaries in other places, but everything in an article about a special object or character is from some episode, so does it not make sense to include the key points to understanding the object in question in the article about it? It's a pretty fuzzy line, my view is that you really only want to roll back something that's false or a pointless addition. The line about M8, if it's not a writing error, for example, is arguably the most important clue given in the Temple of Athena scene about the nature of Earth. It would be odd to me to not repeat it both under the episode summary, but also in the pages on Earth and the Tomb. If somebody adds every single thing from an episode, that might be rolled back as redundant. But if they filter what they judge to be the most important things learned about something, that is, if done well, useful information so I would not roll it back.--Bradtem 15:53, 3 February 2007 (CST)

I understand. There is a fuzziness to what we do as administrators and other contributors that have been here awhile. I apologize if the edits that we have done have been confusing, as a wiki, while trying to stick to guidelines and policies, can sometimes not enforce them properly, or in this case, may be enforcing too strictly. There are plenty of articles that overlap in content, like Battle of Ragnar Anchorage and 33. The key is theme; the battle page details the strategic element only (no character analysis) while the episode summary is heavier on character and event information. False or overly speculative stuff is reverted as soon as we find it, but it's not really a "sin" to add episodic stuff to a item article, it's just less preferred to keep the article fully on topic. The M8 information, as you might know, is detailed in the notes of the Tomb of Athena article. I agree with your thoughts on it, and again I apologize if the situation has taken anything from the fun you get in enjoying the wiki. I'm assuming that I am wrong in this problem because, as a veteran contributor, we can get set in our ways sometimes. --Spencerian 18:54, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Superbowl[edit]

So colts fan, what's your plans for the big game? Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:07, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Not sure. A bunch of friends are throwing a party, so I thought I'd go and cheer (or cry) with them, show off my new work MacBook Pro laptop...stuff like that. This frakker rocks... :) Anywho, our city is happy just to be in the Big Show; winning will be OK, but, prior to 1984, we normally sided with the Bears, so it's kinda win-win for everybody. Heard that we're vying to be the host for Super Bowl 45 in 2011... ha. --Spencerian 14:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)

The odds are in the colts favor... 7 to 1. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)

GO COLTS. --Spencerian 18:55, 3 February 2007 (CST)

COLTS WIN! COLTS WIN! Wondering where Indianapolis is? See this link. I almost went on Wikipedia tonight to ~~vandalize~~edit in "Home of the Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts" to the page! --Spencerian 22:17, 4 February 2007 (CST)

Very good game....I think. @ the Police "Party" there was a door prize @ the end. A Sirus Satellite System. What are the odds... I won! Both winnars tonight! :-)!!!! Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 23:11, 4 February 2007 (CST)

Are you Sirius?! :) Congrats, Shane! --Spencerian 07:31, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah. Little travel one for the car. Wish it were an XM because I a bigger Baseball fan than Football, but this will be good for Football Season next year. Plus... I don't listen to a lot of music. Guess I have a larger selection now. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:05, 5 February 2007 (CST)

I know where Chicago is and I know where the Dolphin Stadium is in FL. But I have no idea where in the US Indianapolis is ^_^. It's gotta be some make-belive city im sure. It conjours up images of Indy car racing tho, and an old TV show called Eerie, Indiana --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 08:06, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Question[edit]

Hi Spencerian. I made a boo boo yesterday and included a potential spoiler (marked with spoiler tag) about the final five in that article and not the talk page as I intended (Meteor need sleep...I could have sworn I put it into the discussion page). Should I move it or leave it where it is? I can understand if people don't want to see a spoiler in the actual article especially since it has yet to be confirmed. -Whatever everyone thinks is best...I didn't intend for it to be in the actual article. --Meteor 05 February 2007.

That's OK, we caught it. While not verified, it's still from a cast member, so we give it some slack but wrapped it in a spoiler tag. No worries. --Spencerian 08:19, 6 February 2007 (CST)

"cylon conspiracy" analisys[edit]

Hi, I removed my "cylon conspiracy" Analysis from Epiphanies article (About the cylons causing Roslin's cancer). [[1]] I moved it to the discussion. I still think it is good, but I haven't watched all the series including Torn. This is why I would not like to go into the argument now, so I won't find out any spoilers. Thanks. --Cyborg 10:55, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Sure thing, Cyborg. Battlestar takes a lot of work to track all the stuff going down, so it's no biggie. I'll try not to spoil any more for you. :) --Spencerian 10:58, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Epiphanies "why did altar save Roslin analysis"[edit]

You removed my question from Epiphanies article. Your answer to me was valuable and was not on the article, so I added it as an analysis. http://en.battlestarwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Epiphanies&oldid=106884 --Cyborg 11:23, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Good idea! --Spencerian 11:27, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Podcast Cite[edit]

The extended editing session podcast will likely not reside in the "Podcast:A Day in the Life" spot, as that spot will likely hold the "regular" podcast (which will hopefully be released someday). As for the naming of the extended podcast... I don't have any strong opinions. I guess whatever the poor schmuck who has to transcribe it wants to call it. I saw your recent addition to Seelix, but didn't want to step on your toes. --Steelviper 14:23, 22 February 2007 (CST)

I'm listening to it right now, all 2+ hours of it. Lots of interesting stuff that I'm jotting down for later inclusion. Yes, that one's going to be a super bitch to transcribe. Another summer project, probably. I bet we won't have another one; Ron just got tired or had schedule conflict and thought something different would be good. I'll delink it for now. --Spencerian 14:26, 22 February 2007 (CST)

We've really been lucky to have all the regular podcasts be as timely as they have. On the other side of the coin, though, it does save RDM time on the DVD side as they apparently package that up as the DVD commentary so at least they don't have to back into the studio later. I'm definitely a fan of getting the commentary captured as close to production time as possible, as the longer you wait the more chances you have to forget all the really interesting details. I still wish he would have "gone back" and done one for "Fragged", but wishes and fishes (and whatnot). Maybe he'll do a double-header for this week with this week's episode (doing both podcasts back to back). Scifi.com still claims it will be posted later this week... we'll see if they're true to their word. --Steelviper 14:50, 22 February 2007 (CST)

If someone gets me a link to that extended podcast, I'll be the poor schmuck and make it my holiday project (I've got next week off). --Catrope 15:51, 22 February 2007 (CST)

Hallelujah! Podcasts for "A Day in the Life" AND "Dirty Hands" are up. I'm starting into the "Day in the Life". Check out the "Yellow Submarine" link for an interesting Scotch story. --Steelviper 07:50, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Good. I'll just continue transcribing the bonus podcast. --Catrope 12:13, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Athena not wearing a spacesuit[edit]

I answered your delete in the discussion: [2] --Cyborg 10:20, 23 February 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Are you familiar with Thomas Merton? He was a Catholic monk who explored the convergences between Catholicism and Zen Buddhism. I think you'd enjoy his work. Jeet 15:47, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Hi, Jeet. I've heard of him. Been reading a book from a Buddhist monk that knew him and also speaks about those convergences. It's a very interesting supplement to becoming Catholic...a wild ride. :) Have fun on the wiki! --Spencerian 20:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Maelstrom podcast[edit]

Mind if I steal back the Maelstrom teaser transcription? With ZarekRocks finishing up TSAR, I could probably finish the Maelstrom podcast today. I don't want to step on your toes if you've already started on it, but if you haven't had a chance to get to it yet I might as well finish that one out. --Steelviper 07:30, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

Please do. I'm completely unable to do it in the time I hoped. --Spencerian 08:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

F-5[edit]

I do not understand why you rolled back my edit to the F-5 page? As I stated in my edit summary they are viewable in high-def.. MatthewFenton 18:35, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

Sorry. It wasn't clear what you were implying about what you saw, and given the mysterious nature of the subject and the contentious debate of the photos, I didn't want to reopen the debate. What high-definition shots were you referring to, and (without noting who) could you recognize familiar faces? In any case, the promo picture couldn't be the same people, thus my original change. A little more clarification's needed. --Spencerian 20:34, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

Over here in the UK we air BSG in hi-def, see time-frame 31:00 to 31:20, you'll see #2s chin, you see #5s fingers and the out-line of #4s face and you see #5s lips, I can upload some screen captures if you'd like. MatthewFenton 05:21, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

I understand. I think what others who had contributed in the article were trying to infer the identities of the figures from the promo shot, and not so much the physical details. Given that, if you have some good screenshots of, say, Three interacting with one of the five in "Rapture," then it would be a good addition, in my opinion. --Spencerian 06:46, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

1900x1200 resolution....[edit]

wow. ;-) on the desktop. There were to problems during the build. 1) There was a missing thred nut from one of the holders, 2) the sata cables the came with the mobo are to short to reach where the harddrive pins are. Using the "designated" primary hard drive on top of a box with a static free paper right now so I could install vista. ;-) Wried thing though... in the RAM it says 3.25GB not 4GB. Typo or do you think it's the BIOS on the mobo? I also installed all the "primary" drivers and applications on the C: partition so everything is together. After this... things start going on the D partition, which is also 250GB. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 07:13, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Probably some limitation between your motherboard and OS to address all the memory. It's normal with WindowsXP, but should work in Vista I think --Serenity 07:36, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

XP 32-bit cannot address more than 4GB of memory. You may want to edit your boot.ini file with '/3GB' switch, which will force windows to use the memory from 3 to 4gb for itself and keep the lower 3GB for applications. You may also want to check out Windows XP x86-64 Edition, which is what i run, simply because it can address 128gb of memory and potentially 16TB. It's a lot faster than the 32-bit version as well...9 second boot time on mine :) --Fordsierra4x4 07:50, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Response Greetings[edit]

You placed a comment in my talk page, about my additions in TOS Propulsion.

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.

e.g. A warp drive (which is an actual scientific theory right down to the math involved actually), requires one to bend space-time only locally around your ship. The nBSG fold drive requires one to take the destination, however far away, bend everything in between around a middle axis until the two points are about close, smash a hole space-time, make it stable for something to pass through, and that which passes through it, has to be shielded enough from the maelstrom of space-time destroying energies to survive. Star Trek's Federation can't do it. They can't fold space, although they have met two races that can, and can't create a stable wormhole. They created a wormhole once, but the moment they sent a probe into it, the wormhole collapsed. It is the ultimate, most advanced, holy grail in FTL technologies; the comparatively primitives of the nBSG can do, what the far more advanced Federation can't.

What has that got to do with the article and my comments? Simple; the whole article talks about the TOS and its creators being loose and never explaining anything; yet nBSG has never explained the jump drive in show either. The original Star Trek never got to show the ship going to warp because of SFX and budgetary constraints, it doesn't seem to get slammed as science fantasy and being loose with science; yet TOS BSG does. The producers may have done so outside of the show, I don't know, but back then, there was no internet, and nobody had any access to the show's creators, and they never got to explain things they couldn't, or wouldn't for whatever reason, put inside the show, making the scientific explanation in nBSG forum pretty much one big fan speculation... without links to sources either direct explanation in show, or explanation by the producers I might ad.

Of course, when I rightly wonder if a change to the article to far better reflect the original series FTL, I'm asked to provide absolute proof that this is so from creators and link it in the article; while the nBSG article about its propulsion doesn't have to apparently; or produce an exact motivation why; which before I even write is, is tossed aside as "fanwank". Which is measuring with two standards; don't you think? Or in short; a change will indeed will not be appreciated; which makes me wonder why TOS fans are asked to help with filling out the TOS articles if any changes and additions made will be deleted as either fanwank or having no evidence because the creators couldn't sit down and write internet articles back then.

I'll just add a link to a TOS tech manual site on its propulsion. --3DMaster 14:37, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

JubalHarshaw[edit]

The recent Kobol cleanup was the tipping point for me... methinks a Romeo Foxtrot Alpha is in order. Do you want to do the honors, or shall I? --Steelviper 16:40, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

I'll be happy to, right now in fact... --Spencerian 18:02, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Moves[edit]

Could you do me a favor and move the following pages?

Also, please delete the resulting redirects. Thanks in advance. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 09:28, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks mate --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 09:42, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

I renamed the template, but I cannot rename a category; it can only be deleted. Just create the category with the preferred name. -- Spencerian 09:44, 19 April 2007 (CDT) ^{(Talk - Contrib Skillz - Edit Skillz)}

Did that. Thanks for the tip. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 10:00, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks[edit]

Hello Spencerian, just a quick thanks for the welcome, impressive project you've got going here! Zerak-Tul 15:07, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Question about an edit you reverted[edit]

I edited the Saul Tigh page and you reverted my edit back to the previous version. Tigh's father and grandfather are fictious and were never actually mentioned in the series except for deleted scenes. If they are to be mentioned in the article it should be in some note not in the same text of the article.

The article is sorely in need of an update...

--Meteor

Thanks, Meteor. I type slow in my old age. :) I replied to your message on your talk page. --Spencerian 13:52, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

My RFA[edit]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 7/0/0 - Thank you very much for nominating me, It's an honor. I'll continue to keep up the good work, and if I can help you with anything, don't hesitate to contact me. JubalHarshaw 15:55, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Sciffy Thread[edit]

I reported your discovery here. I gave you credit for the find, of course, and hoped that the extra eyes on the subject might help shed some light on the "other" ship. --Steelviper 21:16, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Excellent. The more eyes on it, the better. Seven letters appear to be the key, so Olympus is possible. I haven't used my Sciffy account in months.... --Spencerian 08:02, 10 May 2007 (CDT)