Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

Battlestar Wiki talk:The Merovingian Ban

2006-09-02T22:11:32Z

Dogger: /* A comment by Elach and replies to it */

<div class="messagebox">Please REMEMBER TO BE COURTEOUS and [[Wikipedia:WP:CIVIL|WP:CIVIL]] AS The Merovingian CAN NOT RESPOND. This is a remember to all parties adding comments to this page... myself included. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:00, 1 September 2006 (CDT)</div>
__TOC__
== Comments ==
It must have been a hard decision to take such a drastic action, but I'm sure that this move will only benefit the wiki in the future. --[[User:Ribsy|Ribsy]] 00:14, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I'm intrigued to know what's happened in the last few days for such a hard decision to be made. I was on vacation from the wiki all last week and I dont use Skiffy boards or other forums to know what happens off-wiki... --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:07, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I suspect the off-wiki behavior has just come to a head. But I'd not speculate further. We are what we are outside and inside the wiki. While Merv's face was improving here, it seems he began to claim the wiki as his own, and this isn't a place we can take ownership in. We can all take pride in adding our own contributions to form, together, one great resource for everyone, yes, but we can not take ownership to be point of being catty, rude or representing yourself as a wiki official without authorization. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:42, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
::It was not only that, but his general behavior to people off-wiki -- his behavior even prompted RDM's own wife, Terry, who posts on the SciFi.com boards as "Mrs Ron", to [http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=2056843&Searchpage=1&Main=2056837&Words=moron+The_Merovingian&topic=&Search=true#Post2056843 warn Merv about his's own behavior]. (In light of how she herself is painted as "a champion of [Merv's] bad behavior", I do not envy her current position as well, which apparently [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 mirrors our own] in some ways.) What I do know through conversing with others who aren't contributors to the Wiki, but have their pulse on the fandom, is that he has damaged the wiki through his actions as he is associated with us. (He's made this association clear through a banner on the SciFi.com boards, a banner that I will ask be removed from his signature immediately.) I ''know'' that he's caused damage to the wiki; it's not like any of this is not out there on the boards and the like -- it is. I've tried to establsh damage control, hence the [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy, which, I will freely admit, is a direct response to Merv's previous actions. He has (almost) cost us a very good contributor in the process just within the ''last 48 hours'' and, in talking with others, I have determined that an RFC would have caused much, much more issues than the primary issue we were attempting to fix. I'll make it pretty clear that this decision was not a spur of the moment; I've thought about it intermittently for some time now, until I could put the pieces together all of the events that have transpired for the last six to eight months, without massive bias on either side of the issue. The sad thing is that it all adds up to a very nasty picture, which I refuse to have this wiki be a part of. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:35, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
I dont need to know about the reasons that leave to Merv´s banning ,hes childish behavior and arrogance are very well known arround the BSG fanbase.These action open the gate to our group of fans that avoided these place because we didnt want any involment to do with the Merovignian.
The FRAKHEADS! and the BSG-55 board will celebrate these desition and ad theyr contributions to the BSG wiki project.

Moctezuma.
BSG-55 FRAKHEADS! {{unsigned|Moctezuma}}--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Dont worry about these site image on the contraire,the relevance of the content and the profesional structure are really amazing, im very pleased to read about a young profesional entrepenour like you and the TEAM that makes these site posible.--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
: Thank you for your kind words. I personally appreciate them. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:22, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

== A comment by Dogger and replies to it ==

I don't understand what has prompted this move at this time, and there is nothing in your announcement, Joe, that really explains it. I have been clued out of the community for a few weeks now, and there may well have been some new incident that showed Merv not only to be unworthy of adminship, but unworthy of editing as well. But if there is, you haven't cited it. When I saw the title of this page I expected to see laid out for me a series of recent references to Merv's transgressions both here and off-site. I didn't get it. Why not? Banning people out of the blue for vaguely generalised past behaviour casts, IMO, an even worse impression on the wiki. Is it because he called somebody a moron in that thread? If it is, just say so. Why the hints and characterisations? Is the trigger that MrsRon spoke against him? I wouldn't call what she wrote a scathing indictment, just a mild voice of reason.

Judging from the arguments I have seen from people on this site in such matters, which have been generally very rational and of a high level, I find this announcement disappointing, more for the content of the announcement than the actual decision that was taken. It comes across as an emotional reaction -- something that I thought the wiki was above indulging. If you were going to ban somebody from editing, I would expect this to include a carefully cited set of examples of his behaviour, not a link to a single slur wrapped in several paragraphs of what basically boils down to 'People don't think he's cool and therefore they think the wiki isn't cool.' I suggest that in the future if you ban anyone from doing anything that you dispense entirely with all of the talk about wiki's reputation (which dominates your announcement and is not on point, i.e. it's not the relevant issue), and instead take a much more rational and carefully laid out approach that concentrates on examples (especially recent ones) of Merv's actual behaviour, because without that, there is no 'there' there. And that presents the appearance at least of having arbitrarily and without careful consideration (but merely out of a sense of fed-upness) chosen a side in what is ultimately a personality conflict in fandom, and chosen the side that will result in the least repercussions for the wiki. As in, maybe if you get rid of Merv the whole conflict will just go away? Okay, leave aside the fact that this doesn't seem to be an actual valid reason for banning anybody; more importantly, what happens to the next target chosen for unpopularity by your secret sources? Do we all have to curry favour now with certain off-wiki fan personalities to remain in good standing here? And exactly who are these people, anyway, with their "fingers on the pulse of fandom"? They don't have their fingers on MY pulse. You might as well have said that Merv has been excommunicated because a shadowy figure came to your doorway and slipped you a note after you left an X on your window. It really leaves an awful impression.

I don't really have time to debate this at length, but I think the way this decision was presented reflects very poorly on the wiki, because I find most of the things you have talked about to be not relevant. Think about somebody with no prior experience of this conflict reading what you just wrote, Joe. You have given this hypothetical newbie almost no actual clear and present reason to believe that The Merovingian is still the imperious dictator you say he is, and instead given him/her a major reason that is right in their face to believe exactly that about you and about the wiki.

I'm not asking that you reverse the decision. I don't know enough to say that. As I say, I have not been privy to what's been going on, which is why the paper-thinness of what is on this page is so glaringly obvious. But I hope that in the future any bannings of longtime members that are under consideration will be handled much more carefully and methodically than what I see here. It also would help if there were reference made to violations of an official policy on exactly what is bannable and what is not. Is being unpopular with other fans a bannable offence? You give a very strong impression here that it is.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 03:22, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

: What prompted the banning were the fact that, repeatedly, editors have tried to up and leave regarding his behavior -- behavior which is well documented on the message boards to which he participates as well as the wiki. It is not only pathetic that I have to keep on talking down contributors who have had issues with Merv, but it is also pathetic that people, like Shane (who isn't even an admin, for pete's sake), have to talk people out of doing such an act. Perhaps you didn't know this, as it wasn't common knowledge, but myself and the other administrators, such as Peter, have been endeavoring to help Merv soften his behavior. For a while, it seems he was improving in his behavior, until the complaints -- from people who hardly participate in message boards -- started rolling in ''again''.

: I'm not going to release names because they have come to me in confidence -- though I do hope that they have the courage to come forward, since I believe it would be cathartic for them. But Merv is directly responsible for us almost losing a very good member of this community 24 hours prior to making my decision.

: We have had issues with Merv for quite some time now, including the whole KR thing which, sad to say, almost damaged the wiki more than I've ever let on. This is detailed in his three Requests for Adminship, which I believe you may have read, as well as throughout the wiki. Feel free to do a search in our wiki, or even a Google search. (As I said, it's all out there for review.)

: Merv has also attempted to comport himself as taking ownership of the wiki on various occassions, despite our attempts to curtail such behavior by establishing [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Representation|our Official Representation policy]]. No one here, including myself (who shoulders the burden of financing, tech support, and being the one who tends to mediate issues here), dares take ownership of the wiki because it is a '''team effort'''. '''We are one''' here; everyone works together to build this reference. If there is someone who tries to use Battlestar Wiki as his personal pulpit, such as in the whole KR thing which is documented in [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Citation_Jihad/Archive02#Koenigrules_.2F_Hollywood_North_Report our archives here], then they will reap the consequences of doing such a thing from not only myself, but from the community.

: Fact of the matter is that I haven't included links due to the fact that his behavior outside the wiki and goals are so glaringly apparent that I believed such a thing was unnecessary; I now know why he was so insistant on [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.&oldid=48191#RFA getting adminship here at the wiki as well], which was to solidfy a position to be some sort of prima donna information broker in the fandom. (This motivation doubtless lead to the near-disasterous incident with KR, which Peter should be thanked for mitigating.) I firmly believe that Merv never wanted the responsibility; he wanted the title, which is something that the cynical part of me has always suspected.

: To satisfy your curiousity regarding links and a dossier of his behavior on and off wiki, there are people who are working to create a compilation of all of Merv's replies and actions to date. A link to it, most likely in PDF format, will be uploaded to my website and linked here as an archive for all to see upon completion and review. I personally think such a thing is a waste of time, but I want everything out there because the truth will come out sooner or later, as it always does.

: Also, Merv's assertion that people such as Darth Marley have been mailbombing me with complaints is totally ludicrous and strikes me as an indicator of Merv's paranoia, as well as solidifies what I've found to be a characteristic of his personality: that he will take leaps of logic with pithy information and without thorough research. I have never corresponded with Marley or others (I've talked to Larocque, but that's because I respect him for all his work he's done with the original Battlestar Galactica FAQs and so forth); to continue, I've read what they've said on the boards and had I heeded them ''immediately'', this ban would have happened several months ago. Merv's popularity, or lack thereof, had no bearing on this decision -- it was his actions and his treatment of others both on and off wiki that came to a head. Call it the powder keg just waiting to be lit that Merv's actions (and consequences of his actions) have built up for months, if you will.

: There was no "ban Merv" caucus or calls from said non-existant caucus to ban Merv that lobbied me; Merv acted uncivily and nearly scared off new and even established contributors (that I know about, anyway), as a result, was banned indefinitely, until he wishes to act like a respectful human being and not the overbearing person he's projected himself to be.

: If Merv wants to be a part of a community, he can't act like the progeny of a prima donna and pitbull. Such progency and the goals of a productive community are mutually exclusive and have no place with one another.

: Humility. Integrity. Respect. Honesty. Collaboration. These are things that the wiki stands for and, quite frankly, Merv's actions do not fit in line with the philosophies of this wiki. And, needless to say, Merv is being watched very carefully [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 now more than ever even from people who have better uses for their valuable time]. Think about that for a moment, or for as long as you need to... why would people waste their valuable time to watch him like a hawk?

: I think there is something very wrong with this picture, and it is something I have no desire to have this wiki be a part of. Hence my executive decision. Now I've said enough and have better things to accomplish... do excuse me. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:18, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::Thanks Joe for making such a concerted effort to explain yourself further. I think it helps make this page intelligible. It still bothers me somewhat that most of your complaints are from behaviour that is not clear & present but now ancient history as in it does make the timing seem somewhat arbitrary. If you were going to ban Merv over the KR incident then it should have been done long ago. To now name that incident as a major reason for his banning doesn't make much sense. The things you are saying about fresh altercations with new wiki members are very relevant but you seem to be not at liberty to discuss them further, which is unfortunate because that should be the meat of your case: it is that stuff that would be the most justifiable support for a move like this at this time, not the KR thing. Sometimes when you take a shotgun approach you damage your case, because it isn't clear to anyone exactly why all the stuff is a good reason now but wasn't a good reason then (is there is a timer that goes off six months after a bad act that results in a banning?). It invites speculation as to what is happening behind the scenes. Too bad you can't much talk about what I consider to be the only valid reasons you have named for taking a fresh look at Merv's membership status; knowing the history I'll take your word for it, but laying out this recent evidence would have been far preferable. I hope you know this and will consider how important that is in making this kind of announcement. The wiki is not in control of Merv's actions; but it is in control of its own actions, and the transparency and above-boardness with which you handle a banning speaks much more directly to the character of this place than anything done by one of its members.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree, Dogger - I feel that I must give Joe the benefit of the doubt on this matter, but we are at great risk of setting a bad precedent here. I eagerly anticipate a final report on the off-wiki behavior of Merv's which justified this. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:07, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:Bad precedent, indeed. If I've read your arguments correctly, then generalized bad behavior AWAY from bsgwiki is considerable cause for banning ON bsgwiki. In light of this, I have a list of usernames I'd like to see banned for some serious bad behvaior on skiffy. Where would you like those names sent? What if I wanted to complain about Joe's "executive decision making" on this "community run board?" Who would I submit those anonymous, unrepeatable, and unspecified charges to? Just curious. Would it be possible for you "leaders" to post a really good list of offenses off-board that will get me banned here? I mean, I flipped off the guy who cut me off in traffic today. AND I made a really mean joke about Dualla on Skiffy sometime back and I REALLY upset a lot of people. Can I expect my login here to stop working? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:01, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::If he wanted to be hated by the community in his own fashintion he can, but as soon as you link bad behaviour with the wiki using the wiki as a tool that's not correct. No ''one'' person speaks for the wiki, except Joe. I don't see any other users setting up camp on the SciFi Forums who speaks for the wikiw and then on top of that, "acts in bad faith" using the wiki as a tool. Name someone else who uses the wiki as a refernece on the SciFi forums in a bad manor. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:14, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::So, it was the incident from several months ago that prompted the banning (as opposed to recent, mysterious incidents) because he used battlestarwiki to paint a user in an extremely negative light. Not unlike, um, using the administrative banning function and associated talk pages to publicly humiliate a user with as broad coverage as possible. Oh, wait. Did I say that out loud? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:31, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::I did not say that. Joe statied it's a number of reasons. Current and past. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:41, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Alrighty, I think the blonde girl has finally caught up with the logic train. The banning was the result of an offense committed months ago (that Joe is now also guilty of - using bsgwiki pages to publicly humiliate another member of fandom) and mysterious, unspecified charges levied by persons unknown. Got it. I do appreciate the clarifications. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::Aeryn, I thank you for sharing your point of view with us. It is very welcomed, although I would like to ask that you please calm yourself. This isn't end of the world type stuff we're talking about here.
:::However, you need to know that Merv placed himself in a position where he and the wiki were intertwined; this isn't one of our contributors going out and making mean or sexists jokes on the SciFi Bulletin Boards. (It's up to SciFi's administration on whether or not to deter that kind of behavior, not ours.) Essentially, '''had he not placed himself in a position to act (and insinuate that he was) the wiki's ''unauthorized'' promoter or placed the ''unauthorized'' banner beneath his posts with the URL and icon to this wiki then his off-wiki behavior would have never been brought into question'''. And this is not a one time incident, hence the creation of our [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy which, ironically or not, Merv supported. To go with what Peter said in one of Merv's previous RFAs, I am not concerned about what other people think of a contributor -- unless they ''deliberately'' placed themselves in a position to use the wiki as a backing to advance his own agendas. Agendas that he has made clear in the past. I am concerned about the image of the wiki, as well as ensuring that no ones contributions have been in vain because of the acts of a person or group out to advance an agenda. (This agenda will be made crystal clear once the dossier on Merv's overall behaviors on and off wiki have been completed and published.)
:::I will also state again that everything has a ''cumulative'' effect and Merv's behavior on-wiki has come first circle, much to the point where we nearly lost one very good contributor. For some time now I (and others) have had to deal with Merv's behavior to others and try to mitigate the damage. Were it not for the work of the dedicated individuals in this community to retain those upset members, we would have lost more people than Merv.
:::As you yourself may not be aware, we as admins and contributors have tried to make Merv understand that his treatment of others is destructive and damaging to a community. None of his behaviors to date are a surprise to either myself nor anyone else here who has been for more than six months. The fact that I had to perma-ban Merv disappoints me, because it tells me we have failed to help Merv modify his social skills to a point where he can be respectful of others and their opinions, regardless of whether he views them as "moronic" or vapid from his point of view.
:::At this point, my concern is whether or not the wiki will recover from the damage Merv's inflicted. For a place he claims to love so much, he's endangered all our work here with his actions... and I've sid enough, because I will wait for the dossier to come out and then, as it is said, the truth will attend to itself, because it always does one way or the other. And then you can all do with the dossier what you will; you can believe or not. The choice to believe or not to believe is up to you.
:::Thank you for your interest and your concern. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:51, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Joe, I find your comment to be condenscending and mean-spirited. I engaged your representative in a dialog concerning your unilateral action and your response is a very rude "calm yourself." I demand an apology for your poor judgment in dealing with me since I am, as far as I know, a member in good standing of this community. Your use of harsh words and offensive tone was derogative and completely unwarranted; I am deeply insulted and plan on quitting this board unless you apologize immediately. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:58, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Aeryn, I did not mean to be mean spirited; I'm sorry if you viewed my words as mean spirited, I am merely concerned about ensuring that everyone remains calm. It does no one any good to act irrationally. I recognize that this is a highly emotional situation. For instance, I myself am not fond of making this decision, but all I ask is that people please wait until the evidence comes to light. Then you and everyone will better understand why I banned Merv for the ultimate good of this community. That's all I ask right now during this difficult time. Thank you. Now I'm going to get some sleep. Good night everyone. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 23:15, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

As a minor point of interest, a true apology is one in which the offender says "I am sorry for what I said/did" (taking responsibility for his actions) NOT one in which the offender says "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did" (taking no responsibility for his actions and placing blame on the other party). There is a difference. I am inclined to observe that the efforts to reform the student may not have succeeded because the teachers suffered the same failings. This is just a hypothesis, of course.

I AM one to mince words but I will get to the point anyway (finally). You had an opportunity and ability to handle this privately with Mero. But you chose instead to make a broad, public statement via a project page and associated discussion; you CHOSE to publicly humilate someone who has worked tirelessly on behalf of your pet project when you had the opportunity to be silent and let the pieces fall where they may. From where I sit, this says much more about you and your approach to this "community" than it does about Mero. In the same project page you tout your "executive decision making" powers but try to convince us "we are all one." The latter rings false in the shadow of the former.

Whether I agree with your decision or not is really irrelevant and I certainly do not dispute your right to make the call but I have serious doubts about your sincerity in light of your approach. This doesn't feel like the results of careful consideration and thoughtful examination of facts. It feels like opportunistic public flogging designed to inflict the most damage possible and to "recruit" people to your point of view. These aren't the actions of a good, reasonable administrator.

Of course, everyone here will agree that I am no one of any importance - just the hall monitor - and my opinions don't really matter all that much but I would invite you to consider that what has transpired here (the public nature of your decision implementation) may appease a few but many others will remember this course of events in a less positive light. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 00:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:I'm not going to comment on any opinions here, but you made a false assertion of fact. ''[http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0370100.html Apology]'' has three meanings; loosely, one corresponds to your "I am sorry for what I said/did," and another corresponds to your "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did." --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 11:39, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

== A comment by Elach and replies to it ==

Wow, what an interesting exercise in community this is! And in the transgression of a community’s stated and unstated rules. I think it is great that people care enough to spend the time to debate what is acceptable and what is intolerable and in doing so, they are taking a major step in defining what the Battlestar Wiki community really stands for. (I’m reading a book right now about the trial of Socrates that argues that particular moment in history recast Athenian society forever, and I can’t help but be struck by the parallels.)

Regarding the matter at hand, namely, dear Mr. Merovingian … I have to say I have personally experienced his insensitivity, his high-handedness, and his editorial caprice. These encounters have left me smarting sometimes, and more than once I have thought, Frak this! I don’t need to put up with this s—t! and vowed never to visit Battlestar Wiki again. But I always have, and that probably has more to do with my continuing interest in the show, as well as the kindness, helpfulness and generosity of others I have met here online.

From what I know, and what I have read here, The Merovingian has clearly stepped on a lot of toes and crossed a lot of lines he probably shouldn’t have. But I believe he cares a great deal about Battlestar Galactica, and the world of the fans, and we should try to give him a chance to do the right thing, make amends, and find a new and probably different place for himself in the group … if that is still possible. We owe him that, at the very least. Now, I said, “if that is still possible.” I personally have no problem with him staying, on some amended basis, but that is really a collective decision.

I do know that, regarding his recent mysterious transgressions that have brought him to this precipice, I think we as a community need to know what he is accused of doing, even if it is only “behavior unbecoming” a whatever, not so much for his sake, but for the sake of everybody else. We need to know where the lines are, so we can know when they are being crossed. It may be painful and humiliating for The Merovingian, and difficult and embarrassing for the leaders of Battlestar Wiki, but clearing the air is the only way I believe we can move forward at this point, and openness and plain-dealing should be something we strive for among everyone who wants to participate.

Those are my humble thoughts, anyway. --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 02:31, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::One of the cold facts about the Wiki and all internet boards is that they are not truely public squares. People or companies own them and those people or companies have the right to exercise "landlord" privledges, whether we like it or not. There are no hall monitors, no apriori entitlements to due process and no real obligations to act on an exclusivly logical basis. Joe owns this Wiki and he can evict whoever he wants. The tension this creates for a Wiki is that Wiki's are meant to be democratic exercises in the sense that they are community efforts. This can make the banning of a contributor, especially someone as prolific as Mero, seem aganst the spirit of what this place is meant to be. Which brings us to the issue of Mero.

:::Just to put my biases right on the table: I'm a Mortal Storm and Moist Board memeber and I've publically resisted any of Mero's attempts to curry favor or positions of authority in this fan base in several venues. I don't know him outside his presentation here or on the boards, I just know what tone he strikes online.

:::I support Joe's decision because I think Mero's ban will have the paradoxical effect of making the Wiki a more democratic effort. At place after place after place, Mero treats people he deems unworthy with sneering contempt, presents himself in self aggrandizing ways and seeks to quietly or overtly assume a role of authority. His treatment of newbies at Skiffy is one example. His repeated reffrences to his own intelligence and accomplishments is another. His repeated attempts to gain admin status at Wiki and his advocating for fan moderators at Skiffy rond out the trifecta. He displays in his online behavior the combination of power lust and disdain for others that would make what is a hobby for most of us a huge pain in the ass. I'm a grown man with a job, a family and accomplishments of my own. I come to these places to kick back and have fun, not cow-tow to someone who thinks they run boards with "an iron fist." My gut reaction to these kinds of behaviors is "WTF dude, I'm not gonna hang out for this."

:::Which is exactly the point.

:::With all due respect to the good folks who run this place and all the nice people in this fan base: what we do here is nerdy entertainment, not anything to be taken seriously. Petty nerdy bickering and pretentiousness is par for the course when you get a group of smart and detail oriented folks hanging around together. If it were just that level of stuff from Mero, it would be the usual online social background noise. Mero takes it a step further, treating people in a way that makes them want to go elsewhere, without comment or rebuke, to just go away. That kind of thing is deadly for a Wiki, which is premised on the idea of folks coming together and sharing their contributions in a collaborative, respectful manner.

:::Mero's investment in the Wiki has led him to make overt and subtle statements to both associate him with the Wiki and overstate his role in it's administaration. I did not compile what follows, and I apologize to the person who did for using their work without citation or permission, but it is a selection of what I mean.

:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1521770&Searchpage=8&Main=1521313&Words=wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1521770
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/printthread.php?Board=BattlestarGalactica&main=1634504&type=post
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1643559&Searchpage=7&Main=1643092&Words=wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1643559
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1672875&Searchpage=6&Main=1672384&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1672875
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1693478&Searchpage=6&Main=1692682&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1693478
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/printthread.php?Board=BattlestarGalactica&main=1775993&type=post
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1775993&Searchpage=5&Main=1638887&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1775993]

:::This kind of behavor sends the message that Mero runs this place. He doesn't. It sends the message that it's his playground and that he exercises editorial power. He doesn't. If I ran a place meant to encourage people to contibute and join the fun, this is the very last thing I would want one of my members doing. Joe has been patient and measured in trying to give Mero feedback and to clarify who speaks for this place, but it's continued all the same. When you tell people to stop acting like they speak in your name and they continue to do so, it's time to pull the microphone. Mero doesn't deserve to be tarred and feathered every time he posts. He needs to stop treating people poorly while expecting to be treated like a noble personage, and then talking about his role at the BSW.

:::Ugly, sad business, but the right move.
:::--[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]] 07:48, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

::::I only find links 2 and 4 to be especially damning. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:48, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::::[http://hb.battlestarwiki.org/images/mervsig.jpg was the sig] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:43, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

::::::That sig does not strike me as making any kind of grandiose claim of status or ownership at BSG wiki - it really appears to be a very straightforward advertisement, the sort of which is common on the scifi.com forum, at least. The only harm I can imagine it doing is associating the Merovingian with our site, but that is an inevitability for any user involved in both communities. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::::That sig is completely innocuous. And the "damning" links 2 and 4 are over six months old, from long before Merv undertook to reform his excesses of pride -- an overture that as I recall this community accepted. This is exactly what I'm talking about where a shotgun approach weakens a case. Merv was given another chance, so any case against him should focus almost exclusively on his behaviour SINCE that time, with the older stuff mentioned perhaps as contextual background but not as the primary cause. If post-"reform" evidence is going to be the meat of this 'dossier' that is being assembled by Joe, then I look forward to reading it. But if all it's going to consist of is a rehashing of these old grievances then I can guarantee that I will not be impressed.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 17:02, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::Dear Cranky1c et al., I hear what you guys are saying and the points generally seem well-taken and -substantiated. I'm relatively new here, and quite frankly not that active, but I personally would rather give a guy one chance too many than prematurely condemn him. That's all I'm saying. We will all need a little compassion and another (probably undeserved) chance sometime in our lives. Maybe this is The Merovingian's time. As someone said, this is Joe's creation, his baby, probably he is the only one who can give The Merovingian another chance at this point, and set the conditions for that reprieve. But I believe there are no places in Hell for the overly compassionate. I have probably said too much on this topic already. I'm done. I leave the rest to others. --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 12:19, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

== [[User:Shane|Shane]]'s Comments ==

While Merv might see this as a sudden "ban", I don't really think it was. Merv has been giving tons of opportunity to mend relationships with the community a dozen of times. A simple, "Thank you" or "I am sorry." or "I made a mistake. Please forgive it." would have gone a long way.

I realize now, after all this time, that [[User:Peter Farago]] deserved a sorry from me because of the two RFC's I filled against him in protest in defending Merv's actions. While I got one a while back when my first RFC was posted by Peter.

Merv, if you want to discuss the polices that you broke, all you need to do is look up all the pages in the Battlestar Wiki namespace. The admins gave you tons of chances and though maybe a mistake on their part for now being more tough on the rules, you should have been able to follow your own suggestions as you did when voting for the [[BW:OR]] policy, the first one in-fact. The [[BW:TANK]] was created so I had an avenue to get my ideas out and you know what.. it worked. the [[BW:OR]] was for you, you didn't know that, but you through it was a good idea after the KR incident.

You say you could not use the high complex templates? I was always willing to help, yet I never got a message saying something. I hope, that you can make peace with yourself, otherwise you will never be able to get along with people in real life. If you were so ambitious why you were blocked, do a search on your username in all the forums that you do. Re-read your posts. Look at where you might have said something that might have offended people. You said once that the Battlestar Wiki article that it was deleted and should not have been because it was just like Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha is a bit larger and it has a little bit more fame since it's been around. But did you ever check the AFD page? Joe, an admin of Wikipedia, voted to delete it. ([[State of the Wiki II]])

As for the wiki, drastic actions as in resorting to outside forums to further your cause also inside the wiki was not a good idea. When you first did it with me and the portals, I found info on two different forums. One was SciFi and the other was the GalacicaBS forums. Why am I being smeared to something that would have a positive effect on the wiki as a whole? Why?

Do you want to know why the person came to me? Because they didn't know if they could bring issues to Joe directly. It could have been the other way around and I could have been out-of-the loop up to the ban and still not what was going on. People came to be because I was fair and have always been fair. (Also since I have direct contact with Joe kinda helps, but that's a side factor). I don't know why you think it was the guys over a MS or Frackheads (?). Can't you think that it ''was'' someone who was part of the Wiki? And before you ask yourself, it was not me. Granted, I spend a ton of time here, and know what goes on, I know how people feel.

Anyway, you can contact me via email if you want. You know how.

P.S. Adminship does not grant one "ambasatorship".

P.S.S. If you can prove to the heart that you can be curtiousto others and show that you can repect over people for what they do and how they do it, you will never know if you will be allowed back here. Take this as a vacation as I did. Come back with a fresh view. It might be benifit to your understanding with Joe and the community. You can only prove it to yourself that you can be true to the guidelines of the site that you love.

--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:56, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Merv needs to grow up. The guy has shown that he has little social skills and alienates fans who don't need to know about the board politics. It's not about him; it's about the show. If he wants to show some humility he'll continue to contribute without attribution. Starting with the podcast transcriptions.{{unsigned|Hal Levolier}}
:So "we'll ban you but we want you to submit work anyway"? 'Some nerve' doesn't even begin to describe this comment. If Merv doesn't submit those transcripts it proves nothing other than that he understandably doesn't feel motivated to contribute anything to a community that has declared him an outcast. What else would anyone expect? The sense of entitlement here to hours of the man's free labour is kind of breathtaking. If he is banned, then let him move on with his life and find somewhere else to place his efforts. To make this kind of statement that in order to prove his humility he needs to submit not ONLY for free but without credit, is just repugnant. What has happened to this place?--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::Okay never mind. I just checked and Hal Levolier has never edited anything around here, so while that doesn't render his opinion invalid, he wasn't (at least I hope not) expressing any expectation among the regular contributors. Merv's banned, so he's probably done contributing. Nobody should be expecting otherwise.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Eloch, or Merv, just fork over the podcasts and take your medicine.{{unsigned|Hal Levolier}}
:Hal Levolier, it's interesting that you accuse me of artifice, deceit and breaking the rules when you hide behind unsigned comments that cast aspirations on others apparently just because you don't agree with what they are saying. I am who I say I am, and I stand by my comments as my own, and I will submit to any examination that the administrators of this site care to apply to me. Anyone who is governed by reason and compassion will recognize the truth of what I say and the genuineness of my sentiments. Which is more than can be said for you and your postings. Until I hear from you again (and I'm sure I will), I remain steadfast and eternally ... --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 04:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::Keep it [[Wikipedia:WP:CIVIL|WP:CIVIL]] guys. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:17, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
:::I apologize to Hal, if people feel I have crossed the line. I thought the most I had said was that his own writing does not appear as reasonal, compassionate or genuine as my own. And that only after he accused me of being The Merovingian in disguise, both here and on my own User page. I leave it to the community to decide which is the more uncivil act. But there is enough ill-feeling flying around, and it was never my intention to add to it. So I apologize.--[[User:Elach|Elach]] 11:54, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Takes us a sec to see if it was Merv. So unless otherwise told, it won't be merv. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:05, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Wiki talk:The Merovingian Ban

2006-09-02T22:05:40Z

Dogger: /* A comment by Elach and replies to it */

<div class="messagebox">Please REMEMBER TO BE COURTEOUS and [[Wikipedia:WP:CIVIL|WP:CIVIL]] AS The Merovingian CAN NOT RESPOND. This is a remember to all parties adding comments to this page... myself included. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:00, 1 September 2006 (CDT)</div>
__TOC__
== Comments ==
It must have been a hard decision to take such a drastic action, but I'm sure that this move will only benefit the wiki in the future. --[[User:Ribsy|Ribsy]] 00:14, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I'm intrigued to know what's happened in the last few days for such a hard decision to be made. I was on vacation from the wiki all last week and I dont use Skiffy boards or other forums to know what happens off-wiki... --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:07, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I suspect the off-wiki behavior has just come to a head. But I'd not speculate further. We are what we are outside and inside the wiki. While Merv's face was improving here, it seems he began to claim the wiki as his own, and this isn't a place we can take ownership in. We can all take pride in adding our own contributions to form, together, one great resource for everyone, yes, but we can not take ownership to be point of being catty, rude or representing yourself as a wiki official without authorization. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:42, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
::It was not only that, but his general behavior to people off-wiki -- his behavior even prompted RDM's own wife, Terry, who posts on the SciFi.com boards as "Mrs Ron", to [http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=2056843&Searchpage=1&Main=2056837&Words=moron+The_Merovingian&topic=&Search=true#Post2056843 warn Merv about his's own behavior]. (In light of how she herself is painted as "a champion of [Merv's] bad behavior", I do not envy her current position as well, which apparently [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 mirrors our own] in some ways.) What I do know through conversing with others who aren't contributors to the Wiki, but have their pulse on the fandom, is that he has damaged the wiki through his actions as he is associated with us. (He's made this association clear through a banner on the SciFi.com boards, a banner that I will ask be removed from his signature immediately.) I ''know'' that he's caused damage to the wiki; it's not like any of this is not out there on the boards and the like -- it is. I've tried to establsh damage control, hence the [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy, which, I will freely admit, is a direct response to Merv's previous actions. He has (almost) cost us a very good contributor in the process just within the ''last 48 hours'' and, in talking with others, I have determined that an RFC would have caused much, much more issues than the primary issue we were attempting to fix. I'll make it pretty clear that this decision was not a spur of the moment; I've thought about it intermittently for some time now, until I could put the pieces together all of the events that have transpired for the last six to eight months, without massive bias on either side of the issue. The sad thing is that it all adds up to a very nasty picture, which I refuse to have this wiki be a part of. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:35, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
I dont need to know about the reasons that leave to Merv´s banning ,hes childish behavior and arrogance are very well known arround the BSG fanbase.These action open the gate to our group of fans that avoided these place because we didnt want any involment to do with the Merovignian.
The FRAKHEADS! and the BSG-55 board will celebrate these desition and ad theyr contributions to the BSG wiki project.

Moctezuma.
BSG-55 FRAKHEADS! {{unsigned|Moctezuma}}--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Dont worry about these site image on the contraire,the relevance of the content and the profesional structure are really amazing, im very pleased to read about a young profesional entrepenour like you and the TEAM that makes these site posible.--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
: Thank you for your kind words. I personally appreciate them. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:22, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

== A comment by Dogger and replies to it ==

I don't understand what has prompted this move at this time, and there is nothing in your announcement, Joe, that really explains it. I have been clued out of the community for a few weeks now, and there may well have been some new incident that showed Merv not only to be unworthy of adminship, but unworthy of editing as well. But if there is, you haven't cited it. When I saw the title of this page I expected to see laid out for me a series of recent references to Merv's transgressions both here and off-site. I didn't get it. Why not? Banning people out of the blue for vaguely generalised past behaviour casts, IMO, an even worse impression on the wiki. Is it because he called somebody a moron in that thread? If it is, just say so. Why the hints and characterisations? Is the trigger that MrsRon spoke against him? I wouldn't call what she wrote a scathing indictment, just a mild voice of reason.

Judging from the arguments I have seen from people on this site in such matters, which have been generally very rational and of a high level, I find this announcement disappointing, more for the content of the announcement than the actual decision that was taken. It comes across as an emotional reaction -- something that I thought the wiki was above indulging. If you were going to ban somebody from editing, I would expect this to include a carefully cited set of examples of his behaviour, not a link to a single slur wrapped in several paragraphs of what basically boils down to 'People don't think he's cool and therefore they think the wiki isn't cool.' I suggest that in the future if you ban anyone from doing anything that you dispense entirely with all of the talk about wiki's reputation (which dominates your announcement and is not on point, i.e. it's not the relevant issue), and instead take a much more rational and carefully laid out approach that concentrates on examples (especially recent ones) of Merv's actual behaviour, because without that, there is no 'there' there. And that presents the appearance at least of having arbitrarily and without careful consideration (but merely out of a sense of fed-upness) chosen a side in what is ultimately a personality conflict in fandom, and chosen the side that will result in the least repercussions for the wiki. As in, maybe if you get rid of Merv the whole conflict will just go away? Okay, leave aside the fact that this doesn't seem to be an actual valid reason for banning anybody; more importantly, what happens to the next target chosen for unpopularity by your secret sources? Do we all have to curry favour now with certain off-wiki fan personalities to remain in good standing here? And exactly who are these people, anyway, with their "fingers on the pulse of fandom"? They don't have their fingers on MY pulse. You might as well have said that Merv has been excommunicated because a shadowy figure came to your doorway and slipped you a note after you left an X on your window. It really leaves an awful impression.

I don't really have time to debate this at length, but I think the way this decision was presented reflects very poorly on the wiki, because I find most of the things you have talked about to be not relevant. Think about somebody with no prior experience of this conflict reading what you just wrote, Joe. You have given this hypothetical newbie almost no actual clear and present reason to believe that The Merovingian is still the imperious dictator you say he is, and instead given him/her a major reason that is right in their face to believe exactly that about you and about the wiki.

I'm not asking that you reverse the decision. I don't know enough to say that. As I say, I have not been privy to what's been going on, which is why the paper-thinness of what is on this page is so glaringly obvious. But I hope that in the future any bannings of longtime members that are under consideration will be handled much more carefully and methodically than what I see here. It also would help if there were reference made to violations of an official policy on exactly what is bannable and what is not. Is being unpopular with other fans a bannable offence? You give a very strong impression here that it is.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 03:22, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

: What prompted the banning were the fact that, repeatedly, editors have tried to up and leave regarding his behavior -- behavior which is well documented on the message boards to which he participates as well as the wiki. It is not only pathetic that I have to keep on talking down contributors who have had issues with Merv, but it is also pathetic that people, like Shane (who isn't even an admin, for pete's sake), have to talk people out of doing such an act. Perhaps you didn't know this, as it wasn't common knowledge, but myself and the other administrators, such as Peter, have been endeavoring to help Merv soften his behavior. For a while, it seems he was improving in his behavior, until the complaints -- from people who hardly participate in message boards -- started rolling in ''again''.

: I'm not going to release names because they have come to me in confidence -- though I do hope that they have the courage to come forward, since I believe it would be cathartic for them. But Merv is directly responsible for us almost losing a very good member of this community 24 hours prior to making my decision.

: We have had issues with Merv for quite some time now, including the whole KR thing which, sad to say, almost damaged the wiki more than I've ever let on. This is detailed in his three Requests for Adminship, which I believe you may have read, as well as throughout the wiki. Feel free to do a search in our wiki, or even a Google search. (As I said, it's all out there for review.)

: Merv has also attempted to comport himself as taking ownership of the wiki on various occassions, despite our attempts to curtail such behavior by establishing [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Representation|our Official Representation policy]]. No one here, including myself (who shoulders the burden of financing, tech support, and being the one who tends to mediate issues here), dares take ownership of the wiki because it is a '''team effort'''. '''We are one''' here; everyone works together to build this reference. If there is someone who tries to use Battlestar Wiki as his personal pulpit, such as in the whole KR thing which is documented in [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Citation_Jihad/Archive02#Koenigrules_.2F_Hollywood_North_Report our archives here], then they will reap the consequences of doing such a thing from not only myself, but from the community.

: Fact of the matter is that I haven't included links due to the fact that his behavior outside the wiki and goals are so glaringly apparent that I believed such a thing was unnecessary; I now know why he was so insistant on [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.&oldid=48191#RFA getting adminship here at the wiki as well], which was to solidfy a position to be some sort of prima donna information broker in the fandom. (This motivation doubtless lead to the near-disasterous incident with KR, which Peter should be thanked for mitigating.) I firmly believe that Merv never wanted the responsibility; he wanted the title, which is something that the cynical part of me has always suspected.

: To satisfy your curiousity regarding links and a dossier of his behavior on and off wiki, there are people who are working to create a compilation of all of Merv's replies and actions to date. A link to it, most likely in PDF format, will be uploaded to my website and linked here as an archive for all to see upon completion and review. I personally think such a thing is a waste of time, but I want everything out there because the truth will come out sooner or later, as it always does.

: Also, Merv's assertion that people such as Darth Marley have been mailbombing me with complaints is totally ludicrous and strikes me as an indicator of Merv's paranoia, as well as solidifies what I've found to be a characteristic of his personality: that he will take leaps of logic with pithy information and without thorough research. I have never corresponded with Marley or others (I've talked to Larocque, but that's because I respect him for all his work he's done with the original Battlestar Galactica FAQs and so forth); to continue, I've read what they've said on the boards and had I heeded them ''immediately'', this ban would have happened several months ago. Merv's popularity, or lack thereof, had no bearing on this decision -- it was his actions and his treatment of others both on and off wiki that came to a head. Call it the powder keg just waiting to be lit that Merv's actions (and consequences of his actions) have built up for months, if you will.

: There was no "ban Merv" caucus or calls from said non-existant caucus to ban Merv that lobbied me; Merv acted uncivily and nearly scared off new and even established contributors (that I know about, anyway), as a result, was banned indefinitely, until he wishes to act like a respectful human being and not the overbearing person he's projected himself to be.

: If Merv wants to be a part of a community, he can't act like the progeny of a prima donna and pitbull. Such progency and the goals of a productive community are mutually exclusive and have no place with one another.

: Humility. Integrity. Respect. Honesty. Collaboration. These are things that the wiki stands for and, quite frankly, Merv's actions do not fit in line with the philosophies of this wiki. And, needless to say, Merv is being watched very carefully [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 now more than ever even from people who have better uses for their valuable time]. Think about that for a moment, or for as long as you need to... why would people waste their valuable time to watch him like a hawk?

: I think there is something very wrong with this picture, and it is something I have no desire to have this wiki be a part of. Hence my executive decision. Now I've said enough and have better things to accomplish... do excuse me. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:18, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::Thanks Joe for making such a concerted effort to explain yourself further. I think it helps make this page intelligible. It still bothers me somewhat that most of your complaints are from behaviour that is not clear & present but now ancient history as in it does make the timing seem somewhat arbitrary. If you were going to ban Merv over the KR incident then it should have been done long ago. To now name that incident as a major reason for his banning doesn't make much sense. The things you are saying about fresh altercations with new wiki members are very relevant but you seem to be not at liberty to discuss them further, which is unfortunate because that should be the meat of your case: it is that stuff that would be the most justifiable support for a move like this at this time, not the KR thing. Sometimes when you take a shotgun approach you damage your case, because it isn't clear to anyone exactly why all the stuff is a good reason now but wasn't a good reason then (is there is a timer that goes off six months after a bad act that results in a banning?). It invites speculation as to what is happening behind the scenes. Too bad you can't much talk about what I consider to be the only valid reasons you have named for taking a fresh look at Merv's membership status; knowing the history I'll take your word for it, but laying out this recent evidence would have been far preferable. I hope you know this and will consider how important that is in making this kind of announcement. The wiki is not in control of Merv's actions; but it is in control of its own actions, and the transparency and above-boardness with which you handle a banning speaks much more directly to the character of this place than anything done by one of its members.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree, Dogger - I feel that I must give Joe the benefit of the doubt on this matter, but we are at great risk of setting a bad precedent here. I eagerly anticipate a final report on the off-wiki behavior of Merv's which justified this. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:07, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:Bad precedent, indeed. If I've read your arguments correctly, then generalized bad behavior AWAY from bsgwiki is considerable cause for banning ON bsgwiki. In light of this, I have a list of usernames I'd like to see banned for some serious bad behvaior on skiffy. Where would you like those names sent? What if I wanted to complain about Joe's "executive decision making" on this "community run board?" Who would I submit those anonymous, unrepeatable, and unspecified charges to? Just curious. Would it be possible for you "leaders" to post a really good list of offenses off-board that will get me banned here? I mean, I flipped off the guy who cut me off in traffic today. AND I made a really mean joke about Dualla on Skiffy sometime back and I REALLY upset a lot of people. Can I expect my login here to stop working? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:01, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::If he wanted to be hated by the community in his own fashintion he can, but as soon as you link bad behaviour with the wiki using the wiki as a tool that's not correct. No ''one'' person speaks for the wiki, except Joe. I don't see any other users setting up camp on the SciFi Forums who speaks for the wikiw and then on top of that, "acts in bad faith" using the wiki as a tool. Name someone else who uses the wiki as a refernece on the SciFi forums in a bad manor. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:14, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::So, it was the incident from several months ago that prompted the banning (as opposed to recent, mysterious incidents) because he used battlestarwiki to paint a user in an extremely negative light. Not unlike, um, using the administrative banning function and associated talk pages to publicly humiliate a user with as broad coverage as possible. Oh, wait. Did I say that out loud? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:31, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::I did not say that. Joe statied it's a number of reasons. Current and past. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:41, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Alrighty, I think the blonde girl has finally caught up with the logic train. The banning was the result of an offense committed months ago (that Joe is now also guilty of - using bsgwiki pages to publicly humiliate another member of fandom) and mysterious, unspecified charges levied by persons unknown. Got it. I do appreciate the clarifications. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::Aeryn, I thank you for sharing your point of view with us. It is very welcomed, although I would like to ask that you please calm yourself. This isn't end of the world type stuff we're talking about here.
:::However, you need to know that Merv placed himself in a position where he and the wiki were intertwined; this isn't one of our contributors going out and making mean or sexists jokes on the SciFi Bulletin Boards. (It's up to SciFi's administration on whether or not to deter that kind of behavior, not ours.) Essentially, '''had he not placed himself in a position to act (and insinuate that he was) the wiki's ''unauthorized'' promoter or placed the ''unauthorized'' banner beneath his posts with the URL and icon to this wiki then his off-wiki behavior would have never been brought into question'''. And this is not a one time incident, hence the creation of our [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy which, ironically or not, Merv supported. To go with what Peter said in one of Merv's previous RFAs, I am not concerned about what other people think of a contributor -- unless they ''deliberately'' placed themselves in a position to use the wiki as a backing to advance his own agendas. Agendas that he has made clear in the past. I am concerned about the image of the wiki, as well as ensuring that no ones contributions have been in vain because of the acts of a person or group out to advance an agenda. (This agenda will be made crystal clear once the dossier on Merv's overall behaviors on and off wiki have been completed and published.)
:::I will also state again that everything has a ''cumulative'' effect and Merv's behavior on-wiki has come first circle, much to the point where we nearly lost one very good contributor. For some time now I (and others) have had to deal with Merv's behavior to others and try to mitigate the damage. Were it not for the work of the dedicated individuals in this community to retain those upset members, we would have lost more people than Merv.
:::As you yourself may not be aware, we as admins and contributors have tried to make Merv understand that his treatment of others is destructive and damaging to a community. None of his behaviors to date are a surprise to either myself nor anyone else here who has been for more than six months. The fact that I had to perma-ban Merv disappoints me, because it tells me we have failed to help Merv modify his social skills to a point where he can be respectful of others and their opinions, regardless of whether he views them as "moronic" or vapid from his point of view.
:::At this point, my concern is whether or not the wiki will recover from the damage Merv's inflicted. For a place he claims to love so much, he's endangered all our work here with his actions... and I've sid enough, because I will wait for the dossier to come out and then, as it is said, the truth will attend to itself, because it always does one way or the other. And then you can all do with the dossier what you will; you can believe or not. The choice to believe or not to believe is up to you.
:::Thank you for your interest and your concern. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:51, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Joe, I find your comment to be condenscending and mean-spirited. I engaged your representative in a dialog concerning your unilateral action and your response is a very rude "calm yourself." I demand an apology for your poor judgment in dealing with me since I am, as far as I know, a member in good standing of this community. Your use of harsh words and offensive tone was derogative and completely unwarranted; I am deeply insulted and plan on quitting this board unless you apologize immediately. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:58, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Aeryn, I did not mean to be mean spirited; I'm sorry if you viewed my words as mean spirited, I am merely concerned about ensuring that everyone remains calm. It does no one any good to act irrationally. I recognize that this is a highly emotional situation. For instance, I myself am not fond of making this decision, but all I ask is that people please wait until the evidence comes to light. Then you and everyone will better understand why I banned Merv for the ultimate good of this community. That's all I ask right now during this difficult time. Thank you. Now I'm going to get some sleep. Good night everyone. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 23:15, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

As a minor point of interest, a true apology is one in which the offender says "I am sorry for what I said/did" (taking responsibility for his actions) NOT one in which the offender says "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did" (taking no responsibility for his actions and placing blame on the other party). There is a difference. I am inclined to observe that the efforts to reform the student may not have succeeded because the teachers suffered the same failings. This is just a hypothesis, of course.

I AM one to mince words but I will get to the point anyway (finally). You had an opportunity and ability to handle this privately with Mero. But you chose instead to make a broad, public statement via a project page and associated discussion; you CHOSE to publicly humilate someone who has worked tirelessly on behalf of your pet project when you had the opportunity to be silent and let the pieces fall where they may. From where I sit, this says much more about you and your approach to this "community" than it does about Mero. In the same project page you tout your "executive decision making" powers but try to convince us "we are all one." The latter rings false in the shadow of the former.

Whether I agree with your decision or not is really irrelevant and I certainly do not dispute your right to make the call but I have serious doubts about your sincerity in light of your approach. This doesn't feel like the results of careful consideration and thoughtful examination of facts. It feels like opportunistic public flogging designed to inflict the most damage possible and to "recruit" people to your point of view. These aren't the actions of a good, reasonable administrator.

Of course, everyone here will agree that I am no one of any importance - just the hall monitor - and my opinions don't really matter all that much but I would invite you to consider that what has transpired here (the public nature of your decision implementation) may appease a few but many others will remember this course of events in a less positive light. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 00:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:I'm not going to comment on any opinions here, but you made a false assertion of fact. ''[http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0370100.html Apology]'' has three meanings; loosely, one corresponds to your "I am sorry for what I said/did," and another corresponds to your "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did." --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 11:39, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

== A comment by Elach and replies to it ==

Wow, what an interesting exercise in community this is! And in the transgression of a community’s stated and unstated rules. I think it is great that people care enough to spend the time to debate what is acceptable and what is intolerable and in doing so, they are taking a major step in defining what the Battlestar Wiki community really stands for. (I’m reading a book right now about the trial of Socrates that argues that particular moment in history recast Athenian society forever, and I can’t help but be struck by the parallels.)

Regarding the matter at hand, namely, dear Mr. Merovingian … I have to say I have personally experienced his insensitivity, his high-handedness, and his editorial caprice. These encounters have left me smarting sometimes, and more than once I have thought, Frak this! I don’t need to put up with this s—t! and vowed never to visit Battlestar Wiki again. But I always have, and that probably has more to do with my continuing interest in the show, as well as the kindness, helpfulness and generosity of others I have met here online.

From what I know, and what I have read here, The Merovingian has clearly stepped on a lot of toes and crossed a lot of lines he probably shouldn’t have. But I believe he cares a great deal about Battlestar Galactica, and the world of the fans, and we should try to give him a chance to do the right thing, make amends, and find a new and probably different place for himself in the group … if that is still possible. We owe him that, at the very least. Now, I said, “if that is still possible.” I personally have no problem with him staying, on some amended basis, but that is really a collective decision.

I do know that, regarding his recent mysterious transgressions that have brought him to this precipice, I think we as a community need to know what he is accused of doing, even if it is only “behavior unbecoming” a whatever, not so much for his sake, but for the sake of everybody else. We need to know where the lines are, so we can know when they are being crossed. It may be painful and humiliating for The Merovingian, and difficult and embarrassing for the leaders of Battlestar Wiki, but clearing the air is the only way I believe we can move forward at this point, and openness and plain-dealing should be something we strive for among everyone who wants to participate.

Those are my humble thoughts, anyway. --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 02:31, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::One of the cold facts about the Wiki and all internet boards is that they are not truely public squares. People or companies own them and those people or companies have the right to exercise "landlord" privledges, whether we like it or not. There are no hall monitors, no apriori entitlements to due process and no real obligations to act on an exclusivly logical basis. Joe owns this Wiki and he can evict whoever he wants. The tension this creates for a Wiki is that Wiki's are meant to be democratic exercises in the sense that they are community efforts. This can make the banning of a contributor, especially someone as prolific as Mero, seem aganst the spirit of what this place is meant to be. Which brings us to the issue of Mero.

:::Just to put my biases right on the table: I'm a Mortal Storm and Moist Board memeber and I've publically resisted any of Mero's attempts to curry favor or positions of authority in this fan base in several venues. I don't know him outside his presentation here or on the boards, I just know what tone he strikes online.

:::I support Joe's decision because I think Mero's ban will have the paradoxical effect of making the Wiki a more democratic effort. At place after place after place, Mero treats people he deems unworthy with sneering contempt, presents himself in self aggrandizing ways and seeks to quietly or overtly assume a role of authority. His treatment of newbies at Skiffy is one example. His repeated reffrences to his own intelligence and accomplishments is another. His repeated attempts to gain admin status at Wiki and his advocating for fan moderators at Skiffy rond out the trifecta. He displays in his online behavior the combination of power lust and disdain for others that would make what is a hobby for most of us a huge pain in the ass. I'm a grown man with a job, a family and accomplishments of my own. I come to these places to kick back and have fun, not cow-tow to someone who thinks they run boards with "an iron fist." My gut reaction to these kinds of behaviors is "WTF dude, I'm not gonna hang out for this."

:::Which is exactly the point.

:::With all due respect to the good folks who run this place and all the nice people in this fan base: what we do here is nerdy entertainment, not anything to be taken seriously. Petty nerdy bickering and pretentiousness is par for the course when you get a group of smart and detail oriented folks hanging around together. If it were just that level of stuff from Mero, it would be the usual online social background noise. Mero takes it a step further, treating people in a way that makes them want to go elsewhere, without comment or rebuke, to just go away. That kind of thing is deadly for a Wiki, which is premised on the idea of folks coming together and sharing their contributions in a collaborative, respectful manner.

:::Mero's investment in the Wiki has led him to make overt and subtle statements to both associate him with the Wiki and overstate his role in it's administaration. I did not compile what follows, and I apologize to the person who did for using their work without citation or permission, but it is a selection of what I mean.

:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1521770&Searchpage=8&Main=1521313&Words=wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1521770
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/printthread.php?Board=BattlestarGalactica&main=1634504&type=post
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1643559&Searchpage=7&Main=1643092&Words=wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1643559
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1672875&Searchpage=6&Main=1672384&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1672875
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1693478&Searchpage=6&Main=1692682&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1693478
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/printthread.php?Board=BattlestarGalactica&main=1775993&type=post
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1775993&Searchpage=5&Main=1638887&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1775993]

:::This kind of behavor sends the message that Mero runs this place. He doesn't. It sends the message that it's his playground and that he exercises editorial power. He doesn't. If I ran a place meant to encourage people to contibute and join the fun, this is the very last thing I would want one of my members doing. Joe has been patient and measured in trying to give Mero feedback and to clarify who speaks for this place, but it's continued all the same. When you tell people to stop acting like they speak in your name and they continue to do so, it's time to pull the microphone. Mero doesn't deserve to be tarred and feathered every time he posts. He needs to stop treating people poorly while expecting to be treated like a noble personage, and then talking about his role at the BSW.

:::Ugly, sad business, but the right move.
:::--[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]] 07:48, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

::::I only find links 2 and 4 to be especially damning. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:48, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::::[http://hb.battlestarwiki.org/images/mervsig.jpg was the sig] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:43, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

::::::That sig does not strike me as making any kind of grandiose claim of status or ownership at BSG wiki - it really appears to be a very straightforward advertisement, the sort of which is common on the scifi.com forum, at least. The only harm I can imagine it doing is associating the Merovingian with our site, but that is an inevitability for any user involved in both communities. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::::That sig is completely innocuous. And the "damning" links 2 and 4 are over six months old, from long before Merv undertook to reform his excesses of pride -- an overture that as I recall this community accepted. This is exactly what I'm talking about where a shotgun approach weakens a case. Merv was given another chance, so any case against him should focus almost exclusively on his behaviour SINCE that time. If post-"reform" evidence is going to be the meat of this 'dossier' that is being assembled by Joe, then I look forward to reading it. But if all it's going to consist of is a rehashing of these old grievances then I can guarantee that I will not be impressed.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 17:02, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::Dear Cranky1c et al., I hear what you guys are saying and the points generally seem well-taken and -substantiated. I'm relatively new here, and quite frankly not that active, but I personally would rather give a guy one chance too many than prematurely condemn him. That's all I'm saying. We will all need a little compassion and another (probably undeserved) chance sometime in our lives. Maybe this is The Merovingian's time. As someone said, this is Joe's creation, his baby, probably he is the only one who can give The Merovingian another chance at this point, and set the conditions for that reprieve. But I believe there are no places in Hell for the overly compassionate. I have probably said too much on this topic already. I'm done. I leave the rest to others. --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 12:19, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

== [[User:Shane|Shane]]'s Comments ==

While Merv might see this as a sudden "ban", I don't really think it was. Merv has been giving tons of opportunity to mend relationships with the community a dozen of times. A simple, "Thank you" or "I am sorry." or "I made a mistake. Please forgive it." would have gone a long way.

I realize now, after all this time, that [[User:Peter Farago]] deserved a sorry from me because of the two RFC's I filled against him in protest in defending Merv's actions. While I got one a while back when my first RFC was posted by Peter.

Merv, if you want to discuss the polices that you broke, all you need to do is look up all the pages in the Battlestar Wiki namespace. The admins gave you tons of chances and though maybe a mistake on their part for now being more tough on the rules, you should have been able to follow your own suggestions as you did when voting for the [[BW:OR]] policy, the first one in-fact. The [[BW:TANK]] was created so I had an avenue to get my ideas out and you know what.. it worked. the [[BW:OR]] was for you, you didn't know that, but you through it was a good idea after the KR incident.

You say you could not use the high complex templates? I was always willing to help, yet I never got a message saying something. I hope, that you can make peace with yourself, otherwise you will never be able to get along with people in real life. If you were so ambitious why you were blocked, do a search on your username in all the forums that you do. Re-read your posts. Look at where you might have said something that might have offended people. You said once that the Battlestar Wiki article that it was deleted and should not have been because it was just like Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha is a bit larger and it has a little bit more fame since it's been around. But did you ever check the AFD page? Joe, an admin of Wikipedia, voted to delete it. ([[State of the Wiki II]])

As for the wiki, drastic actions as in resorting to outside forums to further your cause also inside the wiki was not a good idea. When you first did it with me and the portals, I found info on two different forums. One was SciFi and the other was the GalacicaBS forums. Why am I being smeared to something that would have a positive effect on the wiki as a whole? Why?

Do you want to know why the person came to me? Because they didn't know if they could bring issues to Joe directly. It could have been the other way around and I could have been out-of-the loop up to the ban and still not what was going on. People came to be because I was fair and have always been fair. (Also since I have direct contact with Joe kinda helps, but that's a side factor). I don't know why you think it was the guys over a MS or Frackheads (?). Can't you think that it ''was'' someone who was part of the Wiki? And before you ask yourself, it was not me. Granted, I spend a ton of time here, and know what goes on, I know how people feel.

Anyway, you can contact me via email if you want. You know how.

P.S. Adminship does not grant one "ambasatorship".

P.S.S. If you can prove to the heart that you can be curtiousto others and show that you can repect over people for what they do and how they do it, you will never know if you will be allowed back here. Take this as a vacation as I did. Come back with a fresh view. It might be benifit to your understanding with Joe and the community. You can only prove it to yourself that you can be true to the guidelines of the site that you love.

--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:56, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Merv needs to grow up. The guy has shown that he has little social skills and alienates fans who don't need to know about the board politics. It's not about him; it's about the show. If he wants to show some humility he'll continue to contribute without attribution. Starting with the podcast transcriptions.{{unsigned|Hal Levolier}}
:So "we'll ban you but we want you to submit work anyway"? 'Some nerve' doesn't even begin to describe this comment. If Merv doesn't submit those transcripts it proves nothing other than that he understandably doesn't feel motivated to contribute anything to a community that has declared him an outcast. What else would anyone expect? The sense of entitlement here to hours of the man's free labour is kind of breathtaking. If he is banned, then let him move on with his life and find somewhere else to place his efforts. To make this kind of statement that in order to prove his humility he needs to submit not ONLY for free but without credit, is just repugnant. What has happened to this place?--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::Okay never mind. I just checked and Hal Levolier has never edited anything around here, so while that doesn't render his opinion invalid, he wasn't (at least I hope not) expressing any expectation among the regular contributors. Merv's banned, so he's probably done contributing. Nobody should be expecting otherwise.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Eloch, or Merv, just fork over the podcasts and take your medicine.{{unsigned|Hal Levolier}}
:Hal Levolier, it's interesting that you accuse me of artifice, deceit and breaking the rules when you hide behind unsigned comments that cast aspirations on others apparently just because you don't agree with what they are saying. I am who I say I am, and I stand by my comments as my own, and I will submit to any examination that the administrators of this site care to apply to me. Anyone who is governed by reason and compassion will recognize the truth of what I say and the genuineness of my sentiments. Which is more than can be said for you and your postings. Until I hear from you again (and I'm sure I will), I remain steadfast and eternally ... --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 04:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::Keep it [[Wikipedia:WP:CIVIL|WP:CIVIL]] guys. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:17, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
:::I apologize to Hal, if people feel I have crossed the line. I thought the most I had said was that his own writing does not appear as reasonal, compassionate or genuine as my own. And that only after he accused me of being The Merovingian in disguise, both here and on my own User page. I leave it to the community to decide which is the more uncivil act. But there is enough ill-feeling flying around, and it was never my intention to add to it. So I apologize.--[[User:Elach|Elach]] 11:54, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Takes us a sec to see if it was Merv. So unless otherwise told, it won't be merv. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:05, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Wiki talk:The Merovingian Ban

2006-09-02T22:02:27Z

Dogger: /* A comment by Elach and replies to it */

<div class="messagebox">Please REMEMBER TO BE COURTEOUS and [[Wikipedia:WP:CIVIL|WP:CIVIL]] AS The Merovingian CAN NOT RESPOND. This is a remember to all parties adding comments to this page... myself included. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:00, 1 September 2006 (CDT)</div>
__TOC__
== Comments ==
It must have been a hard decision to take such a drastic action, but I'm sure that this move will only benefit the wiki in the future. --[[User:Ribsy|Ribsy]] 00:14, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I'm intrigued to know what's happened in the last few days for such a hard decision to be made. I was on vacation from the wiki all last week and I dont use Skiffy boards or other forums to know what happens off-wiki... --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:07, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I suspect the off-wiki behavior has just come to a head. But I'd not speculate further. We are what we are outside and inside the wiki. While Merv's face was improving here, it seems he began to claim the wiki as his own, and this isn't a place we can take ownership in. We can all take pride in adding our own contributions to form, together, one great resource for everyone, yes, but we can not take ownership to be point of being catty, rude or representing yourself as a wiki official without authorization. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:42, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
::It was not only that, but his general behavior to people off-wiki -- his behavior even prompted RDM's own wife, Terry, who posts on the SciFi.com boards as "Mrs Ron", to [http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=2056843&Searchpage=1&Main=2056837&Words=moron+The_Merovingian&topic=&Search=true#Post2056843 warn Merv about his's own behavior]. (In light of how she herself is painted as "a champion of [Merv's] bad behavior", I do not envy her current position as well, which apparently [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 mirrors our own] in some ways.) What I do know through conversing with others who aren't contributors to the Wiki, but have their pulse on the fandom, is that he has damaged the wiki through his actions as he is associated with us. (He's made this association clear through a banner on the SciFi.com boards, a banner that I will ask be removed from his signature immediately.) I ''know'' that he's caused damage to the wiki; it's not like any of this is not out there on the boards and the like -- it is. I've tried to establsh damage control, hence the [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy, which, I will freely admit, is a direct response to Merv's previous actions. He has (almost) cost us a very good contributor in the process just within the ''last 48 hours'' and, in talking with others, I have determined that an RFC would have caused much, much more issues than the primary issue we were attempting to fix. I'll make it pretty clear that this decision was not a spur of the moment; I've thought about it intermittently for some time now, until I could put the pieces together all of the events that have transpired for the last six to eight months, without massive bias on either side of the issue. The sad thing is that it all adds up to a very nasty picture, which I refuse to have this wiki be a part of. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:35, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
I dont need to know about the reasons that leave to Merv´s banning ,hes childish behavior and arrogance are very well known arround the BSG fanbase.These action open the gate to our group of fans that avoided these place because we didnt want any involment to do with the Merovignian.
The FRAKHEADS! and the BSG-55 board will celebrate these desition and ad theyr contributions to the BSG wiki project.

Moctezuma.
BSG-55 FRAKHEADS! {{unsigned|Moctezuma}}--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Dont worry about these site image on the contraire,the relevance of the content and the profesional structure are really amazing, im very pleased to read about a young profesional entrepenour like you and the TEAM that makes these site posible.--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
: Thank you for your kind words. I personally appreciate them. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:22, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

== A comment by Dogger and replies to it ==

I don't understand what has prompted this move at this time, and there is nothing in your announcement, Joe, that really explains it. I have been clued out of the community for a few weeks now, and there may well have been some new incident that showed Merv not only to be unworthy of adminship, but unworthy of editing as well. But if there is, you haven't cited it. When I saw the title of this page I expected to see laid out for me a series of recent references to Merv's transgressions both here and off-site. I didn't get it. Why not? Banning people out of the blue for vaguely generalised past behaviour casts, IMO, an even worse impression on the wiki. Is it because he called somebody a moron in that thread? If it is, just say so. Why the hints and characterisations? Is the trigger that MrsRon spoke against him? I wouldn't call what she wrote a scathing indictment, just a mild voice of reason.

Judging from the arguments I have seen from people on this site in such matters, which have been generally very rational and of a high level, I find this announcement disappointing, more for the content of the announcement than the actual decision that was taken. It comes across as an emotional reaction -- something that I thought the wiki was above indulging. If you were going to ban somebody from editing, I would expect this to include a carefully cited set of examples of his behaviour, not a link to a single slur wrapped in several paragraphs of what basically boils down to 'People don't think he's cool and therefore they think the wiki isn't cool.' I suggest that in the future if you ban anyone from doing anything that you dispense entirely with all of the talk about wiki's reputation (which dominates your announcement and is not on point, i.e. it's not the relevant issue), and instead take a much more rational and carefully laid out approach that concentrates on examples (especially recent ones) of Merv's actual behaviour, because without that, there is no 'there' there. And that presents the appearance at least of having arbitrarily and without careful consideration (but merely out of a sense of fed-upness) chosen a side in what is ultimately a personality conflict in fandom, and chosen the side that will result in the least repercussions for the wiki. As in, maybe if you get rid of Merv the whole conflict will just go away? Okay, leave aside the fact that this doesn't seem to be an actual valid reason for banning anybody; more importantly, what happens to the next target chosen for unpopularity by your secret sources? Do we all have to curry favour now with certain off-wiki fan personalities to remain in good standing here? And exactly who are these people, anyway, with their "fingers on the pulse of fandom"? They don't have their fingers on MY pulse. You might as well have said that Merv has been excommunicated because a shadowy figure came to your doorway and slipped you a note after you left an X on your window. It really leaves an awful impression.

I don't really have time to debate this at length, but I think the way this decision was presented reflects very poorly on the wiki, because I find most of the things you have talked about to be not relevant. Think about somebody with no prior experience of this conflict reading what you just wrote, Joe. You have given this hypothetical newbie almost no actual clear and present reason to believe that The Merovingian is still the imperious dictator you say he is, and instead given him/her a major reason that is right in their face to believe exactly that about you and about the wiki.

I'm not asking that you reverse the decision. I don't know enough to say that. As I say, I have not been privy to what's been going on, which is why the paper-thinness of what is on this page is so glaringly obvious. But I hope that in the future any bannings of longtime members that are under consideration will be handled much more carefully and methodically than what I see here. It also would help if there were reference made to violations of an official policy on exactly what is bannable and what is not. Is being unpopular with other fans a bannable offence? You give a very strong impression here that it is.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 03:22, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

: What prompted the banning were the fact that, repeatedly, editors have tried to up and leave regarding his behavior -- behavior which is well documented on the message boards to which he participates as well as the wiki. It is not only pathetic that I have to keep on talking down contributors who have had issues with Merv, but it is also pathetic that people, like Shane (who isn't even an admin, for pete's sake), have to talk people out of doing such an act. Perhaps you didn't know this, as it wasn't common knowledge, but myself and the other administrators, such as Peter, have been endeavoring to help Merv soften his behavior. For a while, it seems he was improving in his behavior, until the complaints -- from people who hardly participate in message boards -- started rolling in ''again''.

: I'm not going to release names because they have come to me in confidence -- though I do hope that they have the courage to come forward, since I believe it would be cathartic for them. But Merv is directly responsible for us almost losing a very good member of this community 24 hours prior to making my decision.

: We have had issues with Merv for quite some time now, including the whole KR thing which, sad to say, almost damaged the wiki more than I've ever let on. This is detailed in his three Requests for Adminship, which I believe you may have read, as well as throughout the wiki. Feel free to do a search in our wiki, or even a Google search. (As I said, it's all out there for review.)

: Merv has also attempted to comport himself as taking ownership of the wiki on various occassions, despite our attempts to curtail such behavior by establishing [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Representation|our Official Representation policy]]. No one here, including myself (who shoulders the burden of financing, tech support, and being the one who tends to mediate issues here), dares take ownership of the wiki because it is a '''team effort'''. '''We are one''' here; everyone works together to build this reference. If there is someone who tries to use Battlestar Wiki as his personal pulpit, such as in the whole KR thing which is documented in [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Citation_Jihad/Archive02#Koenigrules_.2F_Hollywood_North_Report our archives here], then they will reap the consequences of doing such a thing from not only myself, but from the community.

: Fact of the matter is that I haven't included links due to the fact that his behavior outside the wiki and goals are so glaringly apparent that I believed such a thing was unnecessary; I now know why he was so insistant on [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.&oldid=48191#RFA getting adminship here at the wiki as well], which was to solidfy a position to be some sort of prima donna information broker in the fandom. (This motivation doubtless lead to the near-disasterous incident with KR, which Peter should be thanked for mitigating.) I firmly believe that Merv never wanted the responsibility; he wanted the title, which is something that the cynical part of me has always suspected.

: To satisfy your curiousity regarding links and a dossier of his behavior on and off wiki, there are people who are working to create a compilation of all of Merv's replies and actions to date. A link to it, most likely in PDF format, will be uploaded to my website and linked here as an archive for all to see upon completion and review. I personally think such a thing is a waste of time, but I want everything out there because the truth will come out sooner or later, as it always does.

: Also, Merv's assertion that people such as Darth Marley have been mailbombing me with complaints is totally ludicrous and strikes me as an indicator of Merv's paranoia, as well as solidifies what I've found to be a characteristic of his personality: that he will take leaps of logic with pithy information and without thorough research. I have never corresponded with Marley or others (I've talked to Larocque, but that's because I respect him for all his work he's done with the original Battlestar Galactica FAQs and so forth); to continue, I've read what they've said on the boards and had I heeded them ''immediately'', this ban would have happened several months ago. Merv's popularity, or lack thereof, had no bearing on this decision -- it was his actions and his treatment of others both on and off wiki that came to a head. Call it the powder keg just waiting to be lit that Merv's actions (and consequences of his actions) have built up for months, if you will.

: There was no "ban Merv" caucus or calls from said non-existant caucus to ban Merv that lobbied me; Merv acted uncivily and nearly scared off new and even established contributors (that I know about, anyway), as a result, was banned indefinitely, until he wishes to act like a respectful human being and not the overbearing person he's projected himself to be.

: If Merv wants to be a part of a community, he can't act like the progeny of a prima donna and pitbull. Such progency and the goals of a productive community are mutually exclusive and have no place with one another.

: Humility. Integrity. Respect. Honesty. Collaboration. These are things that the wiki stands for and, quite frankly, Merv's actions do not fit in line with the philosophies of this wiki. And, needless to say, Merv is being watched very carefully [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 now more than ever even from people who have better uses for their valuable time]. Think about that for a moment, or for as long as you need to... why would people waste their valuable time to watch him like a hawk?

: I think there is something very wrong with this picture, and it is something I have no desire to have this wiki be a part of. Hence my executive decision. Now I've said enough and have better things to accomplish... do excuse me. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:18, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::Thanks Joe for making such a concerted effort to explain yourself further. I think it helps make this page intelligible. It still bothers me somewhat that most of your complaints are from behaviour that is not clear & present but now ancient history as in it does make the timing seem somewhat arbitrary. If you were going to ban Merv over the KR incident then it should have been done long ago. To now name that incident as a major reason for his banning doesn't make much sense. The things you are saying about fresh altercations with new wiki members are very relevant but you seem to be not at liberty to discuss them further, which is unfortunate because that should be the meat of your case: it is that stuff that would be the most justifiable support for a move like this at this time, not the KR thing. Sometimes when you take a shotgun approach you damage your case, because it isn't clear to anyone exactly why all the stuff is a good reason now but wasn't a good reason then (is there is a timer that goes off six months after a bad act that results in a banning?). It invites speculation as to what is happening behind the scenes. Too bad you can't much talk about what I consider to be the only valid reasons you have named for taking a fresh look at Merv's membership status; knowing the history I'll take your word for it, but laying out this recent evidence would have been far preferable. I hope you know this and will consider how important that is in making this kind of announcement. The wiki is not in control of Merv's actions; but it is in control of its own actions, and the transparency and above-boardness with which you handle a banning speaks much more directly to the character of this place than anything done by one of its members.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree, Dogger - I feel that I must give Joe the benefit of the doubt on this matter, but we are at great risk of setting a bad precedent here. I eagerly anticipate a final report on the off-wiki behavior of Merv's which justified this. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:07, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:Bad precedent, indeed. If I've read your arguments correctly, then generalized bad behavior AWAY from bsgwiki is considerable cause for banning ON bsgwiki. In light of this, I have a list of usernames I'd like to see banned for some serious bad behvaior on skiffy. Where would you like those names sent? What if I wanted to complain about Joe's "executive decision making" on this "community run board?" Who would I submit those anonymous, unrepeatable, and unspecified charges to? Just curious. Would it be possible for you "leaders" to post a really good list of offenses off-board that will get me banned here? I mean, I flipped off the guy who cut me off in traffic today. AND I made a really mean joke about Dualla on Skiffy sometime back and I REALLY upset a lot of people. Can I expect my login here to stop working? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:01, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::If he wanted to be hated by the community in his own fashintion he can, but as soon as you link bad behaviour with the wiki using the wiki as a tool that's not correct. No ''one'' person speaks for the wiki, except Joe. I don't see any other users setting up camp on the SciFi Forums who speaks for the wikiw and then on top of that, "acts in bad faith" using the wiki as a tool. Name someone else who uses the wiki as a refernece on the SciFi forums in a bad manor. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:14, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::So, it was the incident from several months ago that prompted the banning (as opposed to recent, mysterious incidents) because he used battlestarwiki to paint a user in an extremely negative light. Not unlike, um, using the administrative banning function and associated talk pages to publicly humiliate a user with as broad coverage as possible. Oh, wait. Did I say that out loud? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:31, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::I did not say that. Joe statied it's a number of reasons. Current and past. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:41, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Alrighty, I think the blonde girl has finally caught up with the logic train. The banning was the result of an offense committed months ago (that Joe is now also guilty of - using bsgwiki pages to publicly humiliate another member of fandom) and mysterious, unspecified charges levied by persons unknown. Got it. I do appreciate the clarifications. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::Aeryn, I thank you for sharing your point of view with us. It is very welcomed, although I would like to ask that you please calm yourself. This isn't end of the world type stuff we're talking about here.
:::However, you need to know that Merv placed himself in a position where he and the wiki were intertwined; this isn't one of our contributors going out and making mean or sexists jokes on the SciFi Bulletin Boards. (It's up to SciFi's administration on whether or not to deter that kind of behavior, not ours.) Essentially, '''had he not placed himself in a position to act (and insinuate that he was) the wiki's ''unauthorized'' promoter or placed the ''unauthorized'' banner beneath his posts with the URL and icon to this wiki then his off-wiki behavior would have never been brought into question'''. And this is not a one time incident, hence the creation of our [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy which, ironically or not, Merv supported. To go with what Peter said in one of Merv's previous RFAs, I am not concerned about what other people think of a contributor -- unless they ''deliberately'' placed themselves in a position to use the wiki as a backing to advance his own agendas. Agendas that he has made clear in the past. I am concerned about the image of the wiki, as well as ensuring that no ones contributions have been in vain because of the acts of a person or group out to advance an agenda. (This agenda will be made crystal clear once the dossier on Merv's overall behaviors on and off wiki have been completed and published.)
:::I will also state again that everything has a ''cumulative'' effect and Merv's behavior on-wiki has come first circle, much to the point where we nearly lost one very good contributor. For some time now I (and others) have had to deal with Merv's behavior to others and try to mitigate the damage. Were it not for the work of the dedicated individuals in this community to retain those upset members, we would have lost more people than Merv.
:::As you yourself may not be aware, we as admins and contributors have tried to make Merv understand that his treatment of others is destructive and damaging to a community. None of his behaviors to date are a surprise to either myself nor anyone else here who has been for more than six months. The fact that I had to perma-ban Merv disappoints me, because it tells me we have failed to help Merv modify his social skills to a point where he can be respectful of others and their opinions, regardless of whether he views them as "moronic" or vapid from his point of view.
:::At this point, my concern is whether or not the wiki will recover from the damage Merv's inflicted. For a place he claims to love so much, he's endangered all our work here with his actions... and I've sid enough, because I will wait for the dossier to come out and then, as it is said, the truth will attend to itself, because it always does one way or the other. And then you can all do with the dossier what you will; you can believe or not. The choice to believe or not to believe is up to you.
:::Thank you for your interest and your concern. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:51, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Joe, I find your comment to be condenscending and mean-spirited. I engaged your representative in a dialog concerning your unilateral action and your response is a very rude "calm yourself." I demand an apology for your poor judgment in dealing with me since I am, as far as I know, a member in good standing of this community. Your use of harsh words and offensive tone was derogative and completely unwarranted; I am deeply insulted and plan on quitting this board unless you apologize immediately. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:58, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Aeryn, I did not mean to be mean spirited; I'm sorry if you viewed my words as mean spirited, I am merely concerned about ensuring that everyone remains calm. It does no one any good to act irrationally. I recognize that this is a highly emotional situation. For instance, I myself am not fond of making this decision, but all I ask is that people please wait until the evidence comes to light. Then you and everyone will better understand why I banned Merv for the ultimate good of this community. That's all I ask right now during this difficult time. Thank you. Now I'm going to get some sleep. Good night everyone. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 23:15, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

As a minor point of interest, a true apology is one in which the offender says "I am sorry for what I said/did" (taking responsibility for his actions) NOT one in which the offender says "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did" (taking no responsibility for his actions and placing blame on the other party). There is a difference. I am inclined to observe that the efforts to reform the student may not have succeeded because the teachers suffered the same failings. This is just a hypothesis, of course.

I AM one to mince words but I will get to the point anyway (finally). You had an opportunity and ability to handle this privately with Mero. But you chose instead to make a broad, public statement via a project page and associated discussion; you CHOSE to publicly humilate someone who has worked tirelessly on behalf of your pet project when you had the opportunity to be silent and let the pieces fall where they may. From where I sit, this says much more about you and your approach to this "community" than it does about Mero. In the same project page you tout your "executive decision making" powers but try to convince us "we are all one." The latter rings false in the shadow of the former.

Whether I agree with your decision or not is really irrelevant and I certainly do not dispute your right to make the call but I have serious doubts about your sincerity in light of your approach. This doesn't feel like the results of careful consideration and thoughtful examination of facts. It feels like opportunistic public flogging designed to inflict the most damage possible and to "recruit" people to your point of view. These aren't the actions of a good, reasonable administrator.

Of course, everyone here will agree that I am no one of any importance - just the hall monitor - and my opinions don't really matter all that much but I would invite you to consider that what has transpired here (the public nature of your decision implementation) may appease a few but many others will remember this course of events in a less positive light. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 00:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:I'm not going to comment on any opinions here, but you made a false assertion of fact. ''[http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0370100.html Apology]'' has three meanings; loosely, one corresponds to your "I am sorry for what I said/did," and another corresponds to your "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did." --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 11:39, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

== A comment by Elach and replies to it ==

Wow, what an interesting exercise in community this is! And in the transgression of a community’s stated and unstated rules. I think it is great that people care enough to spend the time to debate what is acceptable and what is intolerable and in doing so, they are taking a major step in defining what the Battlestar Wiki community really stands for. (I’m reading a book right now about the trial of Socrates that argues that particular moment in history recast Athenian society forever, and I can’t help but be struck by the parallels.)

Regarding the matter at hand, namely, dear Mr. Merovingian … I have to say I have personally experienced his insensitivity, his high-handedness, and his editorial caprice. These encounters have left me smarting sometimes, and more than once I have thought, Frak this! I don’t need to put up with this s—t! and vowed never to visit Battlestar Wiki again. But I always have, and that probably has more to do with my continuing interest in the show, as well as the kindness, helpfulness and generosity of others I have met here online.

From what I know, and what I have read here, The Merovingian has clearly stepped on a lot of toes and crossed a lot of lines he probably shouldn’t have. But I believe he cares a great deal about Battlestar Galactica, and the world of the fans, and we should try to give him a chance to do the right thing, make amends, and find a new and probably different place for himself in the group … if that is still possible. We owe him that, at the very least. Now, I said, “if that is still possible.” I personally have no problem with him staying, on some amended basis, but that is really a collective decision.

I do know that, regarding his recent mysterious transgressions that have brought him to this precipice, I think we as a community need to know what he is accused of doing, even if it is only “behavior unbecoming” a whatever, not so much for his sake, but for the sake of everybody else. We need to know where the lines are, so we can know when they are being crossed. It may be painful and humiliating for The Merovingian, and difficult and embarrassing for the leaders of Battlestar Wiki, but clearing the air is the only way I believe we can move forward at this point, and openness and plain-dealing should be something we strive for among everyone who wants to participate.

Those are my humble thoughts, anyway. --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 02:31, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::One of the cold facts about the Wiki and all internet boards is that they are not truely public squares. People or companies own them and those people or companies have the right to exercise "landlord" privledges, whether we like it or not. There are no hall monitors, no apriori entitlements to due process and no real obligations to act on an exclusivly logical basis. Joe owns this Wiki and he can evict whoever he wants. The tension this creates for a Wiki is that Wiki's are meant to be democratic exercises in the sense that they are community efforts. This can make the banning of a contributor, especially someone as prolific as Mero, seem aganst the spirit of what this place is meant to be. Which brings us to the issue of Mero.

:::Just to put my biases right on the table: I'm a Mortal Storm and Moist Board memeber and I've publically resisted any of Mero's attempts to curry favor or positions of authority in this fan base in several venues. I don't know him outside his presentation here or on the boards, I just know what tone he strikes online.

:::I support Joe's decision because I think Mero's ban will have the paradoxical effect of making the Wiki a more democratic effort. At place after place after place, Mero treats people he deems unworthy with sneering contempt, presents himself in self aggrandizing ways and seeks to quietly or overtly assume a role of authority. His treatment of newbies at Skiffy is one example. His repeated reffrences to his own intelligence and accomplishments is another. His repeated attempts to gain admin status at Wiki and his advocating for fan moderators at Skiffy rond out the trifecta. He displays in his online behavior the combination of power lust and disdain for others that would make what is a hobby for most of us a huge pain in the ass. I'm a grown man with a job, a family and accomplishments of my own. I come to these places to kick back and have fun, not cow-tow to someone who thinks they run boards with "an iron fist." My gut reaction to these kinds of behaviors is "WTF dude, I'm not gonna hang out for this."

:::Which is exactly the point.

:::With all due respect to the good folks who run this place and all the nice people in this fan base: what we do here is nerdy entertainment, not anything to be taken seriously. Petty nerdy bickering and pretentiousness is par for the course when you get a group of smart and detail oriented folks hanging around together. If it were just that level of stuff from Mero, it would be the usual online social background noise. Mero takes it a step further, treating people in a way that makes them want to go elsewhere, without comment or rebuke, to just go away. That kind of thing is deadly for a Wiki, which is premised on the idea of folks coming together and sharing their contributions in a collaborative, respectful manner.

:::Mero's investment in the Wiki has led him to make overt and subtle statements to both associate him with the Wiki and overstate his role in it's administaration. I did not compile what follows, and I apologize to the person who did for using their work without citation or permission, but it is a selection of what I mean.

:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1521770&Searchpage=8&Main=1521313&Words=wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1521770
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/printthread.php?Board=BattlestarGalactica&main=1634504&type=post
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1643559&Searchpage=7&Main=1643092&Words=wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1643559
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1672875&Searchpage=6&Main=1672384&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1672875
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1693478&Searchpage=6&Main=1692682&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1693478
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/printthread.php?Board=BattlestarGalactica&main=1775993&type=post
:::http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=1775993&Searchpage=5&Main=1638887&Words=Wiki&topic=&Search=true#Post1775993]

:::This kind of behavor sends the message that Mero runs this place. He doesn't. It sends the message that it's his playground and that he exercises editorial power. He doesn't. If I ran a place meant to encourage people to contibute and join the fun, this is the very last thing I would want one of my members doing. Joe has been patient and measured in trying to give Mero feedback and to clarify who speaks for this place, but it's continued all the same. When you tell people to stop acting like they speak in your name and they continue to do so, it's time to pull the microphone. Mero doesn't deserve to be tarred and feathered every time he posts. He needs to stop treating people poorly while expecting to be treated like a noble personage, and then talking about his role at the BSW.

:::Ugly, sad business, but the right move.
:::--[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]] 07:48, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

::::I only find links 2 and 4 to be especially damning. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 10:48, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::::[http://hb.battlestarwiki.org/images/mervsig.jpg was the sig] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:43, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

::::::That sig does not strike me as making any kind of grandiose claim of status or ownership at BSG wiki - it really appears to be a very straightforward advertisement, the sort of which is common on the scifi.com forum, at least. The only harm I can imagine it doing is associating the Merovingian with our site, but that is an inevitability for any user involved in both communities. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::::That sig is completely innocuous. And the "damning" links 2 and 4 are over six months old, from long before Merv undertook to reform his excesses of pride -- an overture that as I recall this community accepted. This is exactly what I'm talking about where a shotgun approach weakens a case. Merv was given another chance, so any case against him should focus almost exclusively on his behaviour SINCE that time. If that's going to be the meat of this 'dossier' that is being assembled by Joe, then I look forward to reading it. But if all it's going to consist of is a rehashing of these old grievances then I guarantee that I will not be impressed.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 17:02, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

:::Dear Cranky1c et al., I hear what you guys are saying and the points generally seem well-taken and -substantiated. I'm relatively new here, and quite frankly not that active, but I personally would rather give a guy one chance too many than prematurely condemn him. That's all I'm saying. We will all need a little compassion and another (probably undeserved) chance sometime in our lives. Maybe this is The Merovingian's time. As someone said, this is Joe's creation, his baby, probably he is the only one who can give The Merovingian another chance at this point, and set the conditions for that reprieve. But I believe there are no places in Hell for the overly compassionate. I have probably said too much on this topic already. I'm done. I leave the rest to others. --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 12:19, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

== [[User:Shane|Shane]]'s Comments ==

While Merv might see this as a sudden "ban", I don't really think it was. Merv has been giving tons of opportunity to mend relationships with the community a dozen of times. A simple, "Thank you" or "I am sorry." or "I made a mistake. Please forgive it." would have gone a long way.

I realize now, after all this time, that [[User:Peter Farago]] deserved a sorry from me because of the two RFC's I filled against him in protest in defending Merv's actions. While I got one a while back when my first RFC was posted by Peter.

Merv, if you want to discuss the polices that you broke, all you need to do is look up all the pages in the Battlestar Wiki namespace. The admins gave you tons of chances and though maybe a mistake on their part for now being more tough on the rules, you should have been able to follow your own suggestions as you did when voting for the [[BW:OR]] policy, the first one in-fact. The [[BW:TANK]] was created so I had an avenue to get my ideas out and you know what.. it worked. the [[BW:OR]] was for you, you didn't know that, but you through it was a good idea after the KR incident.

You say you could not use the high complex templates? I was always willing to help, yet I never got a message saying something. I hope, that you can make peace with yourself, otherwise you will never be able to get along with people in real life. If you were so ambitious why you were blocked, do a search on your username in all the forums that you do. Re-read your posts. Look at where you might have said something that might have offended people. You said once that the Battlestar Wiki article that it was deleted and should not have been because it was just like Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha is a bit larger and it has a little bit more fame since it's been around. But did you ever check the AFD page? Joe, an admin of Wikipedia, voted to delete it. ([[State of the Wiki II]])

As for the wiki, drastic actions as in resorting to outside forums to further your cause also inside the wiki was not a good idea. When you first did it with me and the portals, I found info on two different forums. One was SciFi and the other was the GalacicaBS forums. Why am I being smeared to something that would have a positive effect on the wiki as a whole? Why?

Do you want to know why the person came to me? Because they didn't know if they could bring issues to Joe directly. It could have been the other way around and I could have been out-of-the loop up to the ban and still not what was going on. People came to be because I was fair and have always been fair. (Also since I have direct contact with Joe kinda helps, but that's a side factor). I don't know why you think it was the guys over a MS or Frackheads (?). Can't you think that it ''was'' someone who was part of the Wiki? And before you ask yourself, it was not me. Granted, I spend a ton of time here, and know what goes on, I know how people feel.

Anyway, you can contact me via email if you want. You know how.

P.S. Adminship does not grant one "ambasatorship".

P.S.S. If you can prove to the heart that you can be curtiousto others and show that you can repect over people for what they do and how they do it, you will never know if you will be allowed back here. Take this as a vacation as I did. Come back with a fresh view. It might be benifit to your understanding with Joe and the community. You can only prove it to yourself that you can be true to the guidelines of the site that you love.

--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:56, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Merv needs to grow up. The guy has shown that he has little social skills and alienates fans who don't need to know about the board politics. It's not about him; it's about the show. If he wants to show some humility he'll continue to contribute without attribution. Starting with the podcast transcriptions.{{unsigned|Hal Levolier}}
:So "we'll ban you but we want you to submit work anyway"? 'Some nerve' doesn't even begin to describe this comment. If Merv doesn't submit those transcripts it proves nothing other than that he understandably doesn't feel motivated to contribute anything to a community that has declared him an outcast. What else would anyone expect? The sense of entitlement here to hours of the man's free labour is kind of breathtaking. If he is banned, then let him move on with his life and find somewhere else to place his efforts. To make this kind of statement that in order to prove his humility he needs to submit not ONLY for free but without credit, is just repugnant. What has happened to this place?--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::Okay never mind. I just checked and Hal Levolier has never edited anything around here, so while that doesn't render his opinion invalid, he wasn't (at least I hope not) expressing any expectation among the regular contributors. Merv's banned, so he's probably done contributing. Nobody should be expecting otherwise.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Eloch, or Merv, just fork over the podcasts and take your medicine.{{unsigned|Hal Levolier}}
:Hal Levolier, it's interesting that you accuse me of artifice, deceit and breaking the rules when you hide behind unsigned comments that cast aspirations on others apparently just because you don't agree with what they are saying. I am who I say I am, and I stand by my comments as my own, and I will submit to any examination that the administrators of this site care to apply to me. Anyone who is governed by reason and compassion will recognize the truth of what I say and the genuineness of my sentiments. Which is more than can be said for you and your postings. Until I hear from you again (and I'm sure I will), I remain steadfast and eternally ... --[[User:Elach|Elach]] 04:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::Keep it [[Wikipedia:WP:CIVIL|WP:CIVIL]] guys. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 11:17, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
:::I apologize to Hal, if people feel I have crossed the line. I thought the most I had said was that his own writing does not appear as reasonal, compassionate or genuine as my own. And that only after he accused me of being The Merovingian in disguise, both here and on my own User page. I leave it to the community to decide which is the more uncivil act. But there is enough ill-feeling flying around, and it was never my intention to add to it. So I apologize.--[[User:Elach|Elach]] 11:54, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Takes us a sec to see if it was Merv. So unless otherwise told, it won't be merv. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:05, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Wiki talk:The Merovingian Ban

2006-09-02T06:56:04Z

Dogger: /* Shane's Comments */

<div class="messagebox"><h3>Please REMEMBER TO BE COURTEOUS and [[Wikipedia:WP:CIVIL|WP:CIVIL]] AS The Merovingian CAN NOT RESPOND. This is a remember to all parties adding comments to this page... myself included. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:00, 1 September 2006 (CDT)</h3></div>
== Comments ==
It must have been a hard decision to take such a drastic action, but I'm sure that this move will only benefit the wiki in the future. --[[User:Ribsy|Ribsy]] 00:14, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I'm intrigued to know what's happened in the last few days for such a hard decision to be made. I was on vacation from the wiki all last week and I dont use Skiffy boards or other forums to know what happens off-wiki... --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:07, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I suspect the off-wiki behavior has just come to a head. But I'd not speculate further. We are what we are outside and inside the wiki. While Merv's face was improving here, it seems he began to claim the wiki as his own, and this isn't a place we can take ownership in. We can all take pride in adding our own contributions to form, together, one great resource for everyone, yes, but we can not take ownership to be point of being catty, rude or representing yourself as a wiki official without authorization. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:42, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
::It was not only that, but his general behavior to people off-wiki -- his behavior even prompted RDM's own wife, Terry, who posts on the SciFi.com boards as "Mrs Ron", to [http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=2056843&Searchpage=1&Main=2056837&Words=moron+The_Merovingian&topic=&Search=true#Post2056843 warn Merv about his's own behavior]. (In light of how she herself is painted as "a champion of [Merv's] bad behavior", I do not envy her current position as well, which apparently [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 mirrors our own] in some ways.) What I do know through conversing with others who aren't contributors to the Wiki, but have their pulse on the fandom, is that he has damaged the wiki through his actions as he is associated with us. (He's made this association clear through a banner on the SciFi.com boards, a banner that I will ask be removed from his signature immediately.) I ''know'' that he's caused damage to the wiki; it's not like any of this is not out there on the boards and the like -- it is. I've tried to establsh damage control, hence the [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy, which, I will freely admit, is a direct response to Merv's previous actions. He has (almost) cost us a very good contributor in the process just within the ''last 48 hours'' and, in talking with others, I have determined that an RFC would have caused much, much more issues than the primary issue we were attempting to fix. I'll make it pretty clear that this decision was not a spur of the moment; I've thought about it intermittently for some time now, until I could put the pieces together all of the events that have transpired for the last six to eight months, without massive bias on either side of the issue. The sad thing is that it all adds up to a very nasty picture, which I refuse to have this wiki be a part of. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:35, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
I dont need to know about the reasons that leave to Merv´s banning ,hes childish behavior and arrogance are very well known arround the BSG fanbase.These action open the gate to our group of fans that avoided these place because we didnt want any involment to do with the Merovignian.
The FRAKHEADS! and the BSG-55 board will celebrate these desition and ad theyr contributions to the BSG wiki project.

Moctezuma.
BSG-55 FRAKHEADS! {{unsigned|Moctezuma}}--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Dont worry about these site image on the contraire,the relevance of the content and the profesional structure are really amazing, im very pleased to read about a young profesional entrepenour like you and the TEAM that makes these site posible.--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
: Thank you for your kind words. I personally appreciate them. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:22, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't understand what has prompted this move at this time, and there is nothing in your announcement, Joe, that really explains it. I have been clued out of the community for a few weeks now, and there may well have been some new incident that showed Merv not only to be unworthy of adminship, but unworthy of editing as well. But if there is, you haven't cited it. When I saw the title of this page I expected to see laid out for me a series of recent references to Merv's transgressions both here and off-site. I didn't get it. Why not? Banning people out of the blue for vaguely generalised past behaviour casts, IMO, an even worse impression on the wiki. Is it because he called somebody a moron in that thread? If it is, just say so. Why the hints and characterisations? Is the trigger that MrsRon spoke against him? I wouldn't call what she wrote a scathing indictment, just a mild voice of reason.

Judging from the arguments I have seen from people on this site in such matters, which have been generally very rational and of a high level, I find this announcement disappointing, more for the content of the announcement than the actual decision that was taken. It comes across as an emotional reaction -- something that I thought the wiki was above indulging. If you were going to ban somebody from editing, I would expect this to include a carefully cited set of examples of his behaviour, not a link to a single slur wrapped in several paragraphs of what basically boils down to 'People don't think he's cool and therefore they think the wiki isn't cool.' I suggest that in the future if you ban anyone from doing anything that you dispense entirely with all of the talk about wiki's reputation (which dominates your announcement and is not on point, i.e. it's not the relevant issue), and instead take a much more rational and carefully laid out approach that concentrates on examples (especially recent ones) of Merv's actual behaviour, because without that, there is no 'there' there. And that presents the appearance at least of having arbitrarily and without careful consideration (but merely out of a sense of fed-upness) chosen a side in what is ultimately a personality conflict in fandom, and chosen the side that will result in the least repercussions for the wiki. As in, maybe if you get rid of Merv the whole conflict will just go away? Okay, leave aside the fact that this doesn't seem to be an actual valid reason for banning anybody; more importantly, what happens to the next target chosen for unpopularity by your secret sources? Do we all have to curry favour now with certain off-wiki fan personalities to remain in good standing here? And exactly who are these people, anyway, with their "fingers on the pulse of fandom"? They don't have their fingers on MY pulse. You might as well have said that Merv has been excommunicated because a shadowy figure came to your doorway and slipped you a note after you left an X on your window. It really leaves an awful impression.

I don't really have time to debate this at length, but I think the way this decision was presented reflects very poorly on the wiki, because I find most of the things you have talked about to be not relevant. Think about somebody with no prior experience of this conflict reading what you just wrote, Joe. You have given this hypothetical newbie almost no actual clear and present reason to believe that The Merovingian is still the imperious dictator you say he is, and instead given him/her a major reason that is right in their face to believe exactly that about you and about the wiki.

I'm not asking that you reverse the decision. I don't know enough to say that. As I say, I have not been privy to what's been going on, which is why the paper-thinness of what is on this page is so glaringly obvious. But I hope that in the future any bannings of longtime members that are under consideration will be handled much more carefully and methodically than what I see here. It also would help if there were reference made to violations of an official policy on exactly what is bannable and what is not. Is being unpopular with other fans a bannable offence? You give a very strong impression here that it is.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 03:22, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

: What prompted the banning were the fact that, repeatedly, editors have tried to up and leave regarding his behavior -- behavior which is well documented on the message boards to which he participates as well as the wiki. It is not only pathetic that I have to keep on talking down contributors who have had issues with Merv, but it is also pathetic that people, like Shane (who isn't even an admin, for pete's sake), have to talk people out of doing such an act. Perhaps you didn't know this, as it wasn't common knowledge, but myself and the other administrators, such as Peter, have been endeavoring to help Merv soften his behavior. For a while, it seems he was improving in his behavior, until the complaints -- from people who hardly participate in message boards -- started rolling in ''again''.

: I'm not going to release names because they have come to me in confidence -- though I do hope that they have the courage to come forward, since I believe it would be cathartic for them. But Merv is directly responsible for us almost losing a very good member of this community 24 hours prior to making my decision.

: We have had issues with Merv for quite some time now, including the whole KR thing which, sad to say, almost damaged the wiki more than I've ever let on. This is detailed in his three Requests for Adminship, which I believe you may have read, as well as throughout the wiki. Feel free to do a search in our wiki, or even a Google search. (As I said, it's all out there for review.)

: Merv has also attempted to comport himself as taking ownership of the wiki on various occassions, despite our attempts to curtail such behavior by establishing [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Representation|our Official Representation policy]]. No one here, including myself (who shoulders the burden of financing, tech support, and being the one who tends to mediate issues here), dares take ownership of the wiki because it is a '''team effort'''. '''We are one''' here; everyone works together to build this reference. If there is someone who tries to use Battlestar Wiki as his personal pulpit, such as in the whole KR thing which is documented in [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Citation_Jihad/Archive02#Koenigrules_.2F_Hollywood_North_Report our archives here], then they will reap the consequences of doing such a thing from not only myself, but from the community.

: Fact of the matter is that I haven't included links due to the fact that his behavior outside the wiki and goals are so glaringly apparent that I believed such a thing was unnecessary; I now know why he was so insistant on [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.&oldid=48191#RFA getting adminship here at the wiki as well], which was to solidfy a position to be some sort of prima donna information broker in the fandom. (This motivation doubtless lead to the near-disasterous incident with KR, which Peter should be thanked for mitigating.) I firmly believe that Merv never wanted the responsibility; he wanted the title, which is something that the cynical part of me has always suspected.

: To satisfy your curiousity regarding links and a dossier of his behavior on and off wiki, there are people who are working to create a compilation of all of Merv's replies and actions to date. A link to it, most likely in PDF format, will be uploaded to my website and linked here as an archive for all to see upon completion and review. I personally think such a thing is a waste of time, but I want everything out there because the truth will come out sooner or later, as it always does.

: Also, Merv's assertion that people such as Darth Marley have been mailbombing me with complaints is totally ludicrous and strikes me as an indicator of Merv's paranoia, as well as solidifies what I've found to be a characteristic of his personality: that he will take leaps of logic with pithy information and without thorough research. I have never corresponded with Marley or others (I've talked to Larocque, but that's because I respect him for all his work he's done with the original Battlestar Galactica FAQs and so forth); to continue, I've read what they've said on the boards and had I heeded them ''immediately'', this ban would have happened several months ago. Merv's popularity, or lack thereof, had no bearing on this decision -- it was his actions and his treatment of others both on and off wiki that came to a head. Call it the powder keg just waiting to be lit that Merv's actions (and consequences of his actions) have built up for months, if you will.

: There was no "ban Merv" caucus or calls from said non-existant caucus to ban Merv that lobbied me; Merv acted uncivily and nearly scared off new and even established contributors (that I know about, anyway), as a result, was banned indefinitely, until he wishes to act like a respectful human being and not the overbearing person he's projected himself to be.

: If Merv wants to be a part of a community, he can't act like the progeny of a prima donna and pitbull. Such progency and the goals of a productive community are mutually exclusive and have no place with one another.

: Humility. Integrity. Respect. Honesty. Collaboration. These are things that the wiki stands for and, quite frankly, Merv's actions do not fit in line with the philosophies of this wiki. And, needless to say, Merv is being watched very carefully [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 now more than ever even from people who have better uses for their valuable time]. Think about that for a moment, or for as long as you need to... why would people waste their valuable time to watch him like a hawk?

: I think there is something very wrong with this picture, and it is something I have no desire to have this wiki be a part of. Hence my executive decision. Now I've said enough and have better things to accomplish... do excuse me. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:18, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::Thanks Joe for making such a concerted effort to explain yourself further. I think it helps make this page intelligible. It still bothers me somewhat that most of your complaints are from behaviour that is not clear & present but now ancient history as in it does make the timing seem somewhat arbitrary. If you were going to ban Merv over the KR incident then it should have been done long ago. To now name that incident as a major reason for his banning doesn't make much sense. The things you are saying about fresh altercations with new wiki members are very relevant but you seem to be not at liberty to discuss them further, which is unfortunate because that should be the meat of your case: it is that stuff that would be the most justifiable support for a move like this at this time, not the KR thing. Sometimes when you take a shotgun approach you damage your case, because it isn't clear to anyone exactly why all the stuff is a good reason now but wasn't a good reason then (is there is a timer that goes off six months after a bad act that results in a banning?). It invites speculation as to what is happening behind the scenes. Too bad you can't much talk about what I consider to be the only valid reasons you have named for taking a fresh look at Merv's membership status; knowing the history I'll take your word for it, but laying out this recent evidence would have been far preferable. I hope you know this and will consider how important that is in making this kind of announcement. The wiki is not in control of Merv's actions; but it is in control of its own actions, and the transparency and above-boardness with which you handle a banning speaks much more directly to the character of this place than anything done by one of its members.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree, Dogger - I feel that I must give Joe the benefit of the doubt on this matter, but we are at great risk of setting a bad precedent here. I eagerly anticipate a final report on the off-wiki behavior of Merv's which justified this. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:07, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:Bad precedent, indeed. If I've read your arguments correctly, then generalized bad behavior AWAY from bsgwiki is considerable cause for banning ON bsgwiki. In light of this, I have a list of usernames I'd like to see banned for some serious bad behvaior on skiffy. Where would you like those names sent? What if I wanted to complain about Joe's "executive decision making" on this "community run board?" Who would I submit those anonymous, unrepeatable, and unspecified charges to? Just curious. Would it be possible for you "leaders" to post a really good list of offenses off-board that will get me banned here? I mean, I flipped off the guy who cut me off in traffic today. AND I made a really mean joke about Dualla on Skiffy sometime back and I REALLY upset a lot of people. Can I expect my login here to stop working? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:01, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::If he wanted to be hated by the community in his own fashintion he can, but as soon as you link bad behaviour with the wiki using the wiki as a tool that's not correct. No ''one'' person speaks for the wiki, except Joe. I don't see any other users setting up camp on the SciFi Forums who speaks for the wikiw and then on top of that, "acts in bad faith" using the wiki as a tool. Name someone else who uses the wiki as a refernece on the SciFi forums in a bad manor. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:14, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::So, it was the incident from several months ago that prompted the banning (as opposed to recent, mysterious incidents) because he used battlestarwiki to paint a user in an extremely negative light. Not unlike, um, using the administrative banning function and associated talk pages to publicly humiliate a user with as broad coverage as possible. Oh, wait. Did I say that out loud? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:31, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::I did not say that. Joe statied it's a number of reasons. Current and past. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:41, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Alrighty, I think the blonde girl has finally caught up with the logic train. The banning was the result of an offense committed months ago (that Joe is now also guilty of - using bsgwiki pages to publicly humiliate another member of fandom) and mysterious, unspecified charges levied by persons unknown. Got it. I do appreciate the clarifications. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::Aeryn, I thank you for sharing your point of view with us. It is very welcomed, although I would like to ask that you please calm yourself. This isn't end of the world type stuff we're talking about here.
:::However, you need to know that Merv placed himself in a position where he and the wiki were intertwined; this isn't one of our contributors going out and making mean or sexists jokes on the SciFi Bulletin Boards. (It's up to SciFi's administration on whether or not to deter that kind of behavior, not ours.) Essentially, '''had he not placed himself in a position to act (and insinuate that he was) the wiki's ''unauthorized'' promoter or placed the ''unauthorized'' banner beneath his posts with the URL and icon to this wiki then his off-wiki behavior would have never been brought into question'''. And this is not a one time incident, hence the creation of our [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy which, ironically or not, Merv supported. To go with what Peter said in one of Merv's previous RFAs, I am not concerned about what other people think of a contributor -- unless they ''deliberately'' placed themselves in a position to use the wiki as a backing to advance his own agendas. Agendas that he has made clear in the past. I am concerned about the image of the wiki, as well as ensuring that no ones contributions have been in vain because of the acts of a person or group out to advance an agenda. (This agenda will be made crystal clear once the dossier on Merv's overall behaviors on and off wiki have been completed and published.)
:::I will also state again that everything has a ''cumulative'' effect and Merv's behavior on-wiki has come first circle, much to the point where we nearly lost one very good contributor. For some time now I (and others) have had to deal with Merv's behavior to others and try to mitigate the damage. Were it not for the work of the dedicated individuals in this community to retain those upset members, we would have lost more people than Merv.
:::As you yourself may not be aware, we as admins and contributors have tried to make Merv understand that his treatment of others is destructive and damaging to a community. None of his behaviors to date are a surprise to either myself nor anyone else here who has been for more than six months. The fact that I had to perma-ban Merv disappoints me, because it tells me we have failed to help Merv modify his social skills to a point where he can be respectful of others and their opinions, regardless of whether he views them as "moronic" or vapid from his point of view.
:::At this point, my concern is whether or not the wiki will recover from the damage Merv's inflicted. For a place he claims to love so much, he's endangered all our work here with his actions... and I've sid enough, because I will wait for the dossier to come out and then, as it is said, the truth will attend to itself, because it always does one way or the other. And then you can all do with the dossier what you will; you can believe or not. The choice to believe or not to believe is up to you.
:::Thank you for your interest and your concern. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:51, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Joe, I find your comment to be condenscending and mean-spirited. I engaged your representative in a dialog concerning your unilateral action and your response is a very rude "calm yourself." I demand an apology for your poor judgment in dealing with me since I am, as far as I know, a member in good standing of this community. Your use of harsh words and offensive tone was derogative and completely unwarranted; I am deeply insulted and plan on quitting this board unless you apologize immediately. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:58, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Aeryn, I did not mean to be mean spirited; I'm sorry if you viewed my words as mean spirited, I am merely concerned about ensuring that everyone remains calm. It does no one any good to act irrationally. I recognize that this is a highly emotional situation. For instance, I myself am not fond of making this decision, but all I ask is that people please wait until the evidence comes to light. Then you and everyone will better understand why I banned Merv for the ultimate good of this community. That's all I ask right now during this difficult time. Thank you. Now I'm going to get some sleep. Good night everyone. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 23:15, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
As a minor point of interest, a true apology is one in which the offender says "I am sorry for what I said/did" (taking responsibility for his actions) NOT one in which the offender says "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did" (taking no responsibility for his actions and placing blame on the other party). There is a difference. I am inclined to observe that the efforts to reform the student may not have succeeded because the teachers suffered the same failings. This is just a hypothesis, of course.

I AM one to mince words but I will get to the point anyway (finally). You had an opportunity and ability to handle this privately with Mero. But you chose instead to make a broad, public statement via a project page and associated discussion; you CHOSE to publicly humilate someone who has worked tirelessly on behalf of your pet project when you had the opportunity to be silent and let the pieces fall where they may. From where I sit, this says much more about you and your approach to this "community" than it does about Mero. In the same project page you tout your "executive decision making" powers but try to convince us "we are all one." The latter rings false in the shadow of the former.

Whether I agree with your decision or not is really irrelevant and I certainly do not dispute your right to make the call but I have serious doubts about your sincerity in light of your approach. This doesn't feel like the results of careful consideration and thoughtful examination of facts. It feels like opportunistic public flogging designed to inflict the most damage possible and to "recruit" people to your point of view. These aren't the actions of a good, reasonable administrator.

Of course, everyone here will agree that I am no one of any importance - just the hall monitor - and my opinions don't really matter all that much but I would invite you to consider that what has transpired here (the public nature of your decision implementation) may appease a few but many others will remember this course of events in a less positive light. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 00:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

== [[User:Shane|Shane]]'s Comments ==

While Merv might see this as a sudden "ban", I don't really think it was. Merv has been giving tons of opportunity to mend relationships with the community a dozen of times. A simple, "Thank you" or "I am sorry." or "I made a mistake. Please forgive it." would have gone a long way.

I realize now, after all this time, that [[User:Peter Farago]] deserved a sorry from me because of the two RFC's I filled against him in protest in defending Merv's actions. While I got one a while back when my first RFC was posted by Peter.

Merv, if you want to discuss the polices that you broke, all you need to do is look up all the pages in the Battlestar Wiki namespace. The admins gave you tons of chances and though maybe a mistake on their part for now being more tough on the rules, you should have been able to follow your own suggestions as you did when voting for the [[BW:OR]] policy, the first one in-fact. The [[BW:TANK]] was created so I had an avenue to get my ideas out and you know what.. it worked. the [[BW:OR]] was for you, you didn't know that, but you through it was a good idea after the KR incident.

You say you could not use the high complex templates? I was always willing to help, yet I never got a message saying something. I hope, that you can make peace with yourself, otherwise you will never be able to get along with people in real life. If you were so ambitious why you were blocked, do a search on your username in all the forums that you do. Re-read your posts. Look at where you might have said something that might have offended people. You said once that the Battlestar Wiki article that it was deleted and should not have been because it was just like Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha is a bit larger and it has a little bit more fame since it's been around. But did you ever check the AFD page? Joe, an admin of Wikipedia, voted to delete it. ([[State of the Wiki II]])

As for the wiki, drastic actions as in resorting to outside forums to further your cause also inside the wiki was not a good idea. When you first did it with me and the portals, I found info on two different forums. One was SciFi and the other was the GalacicaBS forums. Why am I being smeared to something that would have a positive effect on the wiki as a whole? Why?

Do you want to know why the person came to me? Because they didn't know if they could bring issues to Joe directly. It could have been the other way around and I could have been out-of-the loop up to the ban and still not what was going on. People came to be because I was fair and have always been fair. (Also since I have direct contact with Joe kinda helps, but that's a side factor). I don't know why you think it was the guys over a MS or Frackheads (?). Can't you think that it ''was'' someone who was part of the Wiki? And before you ask yourself, it was not me. Granted, I spend a ton of time here, and know what goes on, I know how people feel.

Anyway, you can contact me via email if you want. You know how.

P.S. Adminship does not grant one "ambasatorship".

P.S.S. If you can prove to the heart that you can be curtiousto others and show that you can repect over people for what they do and how they do it, you will never know if you will be allowed back here. Take this as a vacation as I did. Come back with a fresh view. It might be benifit to your understanding with Joe and the community. You can only prove it to yourself that you can be true to the guidelines of the site that you love.

--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:56, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Merv needs to grow up. The guy has shown that he has little social skills and alienates fans who don't need to know about the board politics. It's not about him; it's about the show. If he wants to show some humility he'll continue to contribute without attribution. Starting with the podcast transcriptions.{{unsigned|Hal Levolier}}
:So "we'll ban you but we want you to submit work anyway"? 'Some nerve' doesn't even begin to describe this comment. If Merv doesn't submit those transcripts it proves nothing other than that he understandably doesn't feel motivated to contribute anything to a community that has declared him an outcast. What else would anyone expect? The sense of entitlement here to hours of the man's free labour is kind of breathtaking. If he is banned, then let him move on with his life and find somewhere else to place his efforts. To make this kind of statement that in order to prove his humility he needs to submit not ONLY for free but without credit, is just repugnant. What has happened to this place?--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::Okay never mind. I just checked and Hal Levolier has never edited anything around here, so while that doesn't render his opinion invalid, he wasn't (at least I hope not) expressing any expectation among the regular contributors. Merv's banned, so he's probably done contributing. Nobody should be expecting otherwise.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Wiki talk:The Merovingian Ban

2006-09-02T06:55:21Z

Dogger: /* Shane's Comments */

<div class="messagebox"><h3>Please REMEMBER TO BE COURTEOUS and [[Wikipedia:WP:CIVIL|WP:CIVIL]] AS The Merovingian CAN NOT RESPOND. This is a remember to all parties adding comments to this page... myself included. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 16:00, 1 September 2006 (CDT)</h3></div>
== Comments ==
It must have been a hard decision to take such a drastic action, but I'm sure that this move will only benefit the wiki in the future. --[[User:Ribsy|Ribsy]] 00:14, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I'm intrigued to know what's happened in the last few days for such a hard decision to be made. I was on vacation from the wiki all last week and I dont use Skiffy boards or other forums to know what happens off-wiki... --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:07, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
:I suspect the off-wiki behavior has just come to a head. But I'd not speculate further. We are what we are outside and inside the wiki. While Merv's face was improving here, it seems he began to claim the wiki as his own, and this isn't a place we can take ownership in. We can all take pride in adding our own contributions to form, together, one great resource for everyone, yes, but we can not take ownership to be point of being catty, rude or representing yourself as a wiki official without authorization. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:42, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
::It was not only that, but his general behavior to people off-wiki -- his behavior even prompted RDM's own wife, Terry, who posts on the SciFi.com boards as "Mrs Ron", to [http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=BattlestarGalactica&Number=2056843&Searchpage=1&Main=2056837&Words=moron+The_Merovingian&topic=&Search=true#Post2056843 warn Merv about his's own behavior]. (In light of how she herself is painted as "a champion of [Merv's] bad behavior", I do not envy her current position as well, which apparently [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 mirrors our own] in some ways.) What I do know through conversing with others who aren't contributors to the Wiki, but have their pulse on the fandom, is that he has damaged the wiki through his actions as he is associated with us. (He's made this association clear through a banner on the SciFi.com boards, a banner that I will ask be removed from his signature immediately.) I ''know'' that he's caused damage to the wiki; it's not like any of this is not out there on the boards and the like -- it is. I've tried to establsh damage control, hence the [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy, which, I will freely admit, is a direct response to Merv's previous actions. He has (almost) cost us a very good contributor in the process just within the ''last 48 hours'' and, in talking with others, I have determined that an RFC would have caused much, much more issues than the primary issue we were attempting to fix. I'll make it pretty clear that this decision was not a spur of the moment; I've thought about it intermittently for some time now, until I could put the pieces together all of the events that have transpired for the last six to eight months, without massive bias on either side of the issue. The sad thing is that it all adds up to a very nasty picture, which I refuse to have this wiki be a part of. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 17:35, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
I dont need to know about the reasons that leave to Merv´s banning ,hes childish behavior and arrogance are very well known arround the BSG fanbase.These action open the gate to our group of fans that avoided these place because we didnt want any involment to do with the Merovignian.
The FRAKHEADS! and the BSG-55 board will celebrate these desition and ad theyr contributions to the BSG wiki project.

Moctezuma.
BSG-55 FRAKHEADS! {{unsigned|Moctezuma}}--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Dont worry about these site image on the contraire,the relevance of the content and the profesional structure are really amazing, im very pleased to read about a young profesional entrepenour like you and the TEAM that makes these site posible.--[[User:Moctezuma|Moctezuma]] 19:17, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
: Thank you for your kind words. I personally appreciate them. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:22, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't understand what has prompted this move at this time, and there is nothing in your announcement, Joe, that really explains it. I have been clued out of the community for a few weeks now, and there may well have been some new incident that showed Merv not only to be unworthy of adminship, but unworthy of editing as well. But if there is, you haven't cited it. When I saw the title of this page I expected to see laid out for me a series of recent references to Merv's transgressions both here and off-site. I didn't get it. Why not? Banning people out of the blue for vaguely generalised past behaviour casts, IMO, an even worse impression on the wiki. Is it because he called somebody a moron in that thread? If it is, just say so. Why the hints and characterisations? Is the trigger that MrsRon spoke against him? I wouldn't call what she wrote a scathing indictment, just a mild voice of reason.

Judging from the arguments I have seen from people on this site in such matters, which have been generally very rational and of a high level, I find this announcement disappointing, more for the content of the announcement than the actual decision that was taken. It comes across as an emotional reaction -- something that I thought the wiki was above indulging. If you were going to ban somebody from editing, I would expect this to include a carefully cited set of examples of his behaviour, not a link to a single slur wrapped in several paragraphs of what basically boils down to 'People don't think he's cool and therefore they think the wiki isn't cool.' I suggest that in the future if you ban anyone from doing anything that you dispense entirely with all of the talk about wiki's reputation (which dominates your announcement and is not on point, i.e. it's not the relevant issue), and instead take a much more rational and carefully laid out approach that concentrates on examples (especially recent ones) of Merv's actual behaviour, because without that, there is no 'there' there. And that presents the appearance at least of having arbitrarily and without careful consideration (but merely out of a sense of fed-upness) chosen a side in what is ultimately a personality conflict in fandom, and chosen the side that will result in the least repercussions for the wiki. As in, maybe if you get rid of Merv the whole conflict will just go away? Okay, leave aside the fact that this doesn't seem to be an actual valid reason for banning anybody; more importantly, what happens to the next target chosen for unpopularity by your secret sources? Do we all have to curry favour now with certain off-wiki fan personalities to remain in good standing here? And exactly who are these people, anyway, with their "fingers on the pulse of fandom"? They don't have their fingers on MY pulse. You might as well have said that Merv has been excommunicated because a shadowy figure came to your doorway and slipped you a note after you left an X on your window. It really leaves an awful impression.

I don't really have time to debate this at length, but I think the way this decision was presented reflects very poorly on the wiki, because I find most of the things you have talked about to be not relevant. Think about somebody with no prior experience of this conflict reading what you just wrote, Joe. You have given this hypothetical newbie almost no actual clear and present reason to believe that The Merovingian is still the imperious dictator you say he is, and instead given him/her a major reason that is right in their face to believe exactly that about you and about the wiki.

I'm not asking that you reverse the decision. I don't know enough to say that. As I say, I have not been privy to what's been going on, which is why the paper-thinness of what is on this page is so glaringly obvious. But I hope that in the future any bannings of longtime members that are under consideration will be handled much more carefully and methodically than what I see here. It also would help if there were reference made to violations of an official policy on exactly what is bannable and what is not. Is being unpopular with other fans a bannable offence? You give a very strong impression here that it is.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 03:22, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

: What prompted the banning were the fact that, repeatedly, editors have tried to up and leave regarding his behavior -- behavior which is well documented on the message boards to which he participates as well as the wiki. It is not only pathetic that I have to keep on talking down contributors who have had issues with Merv, but it is also pathetic that people, like Shane (who isn't even an admin, for pete's sake), have to talk people out of doing such an act. Perhaps you didn't know this, as it wasn't common knowledge, but myself and the other administrators, such as Peter, have been endeavoring to help Merv soften his behavior. For a while, it seems he was improving in his behavior, until the complaints -- from people who hardly participate in message boards -- started rolling in ''again''.

: I'm not going to release names because they have come to me in confidence -- though I do hope that they have the courage to come forward, since I believe it would be cathartic for them. But Merv is directly responsible for us almost losing a very good member of this community 24 hours prior to making my decision.

: We have had issues with Merv for quite some time now, including the whole KR thing which, sad to say, almost damaged the wiki more than I've ever let on. This is detailed in his three Requests for Adminship, which I believe you may have read, as well as throughout the wiki. Feel free to do a search in our wiki, or even a Google search. (As I said, it's all out there for review.)

: Merv has also attempted to comport himself as taking ownership of the wiki on various occassions, despite our attempts to curtail such behavior by establishing [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Representation|our Official Representation policy]]. No one here, including myself (who shoulders the burden of financing, tech support, and being the one who tends to mediate issues here), dares take ownership of the wiki because it is a '''team effort'''. '''We are one''' here; everyone works together to build this reference. If there is someone who tries to use Battlestar Wiki as his personal pulpit, such as in the whole KR thing which is documented in [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Citation_Jihad/Archive02#Koenigrules_.2F_Hollywood_North_Report our archives here], then they will reap the consequences of doing such a thing from not only myself, but from the community.

: Fact of the matter is that I haven't included links due to the fact that his behavior outside the wiki and goals are so glaringly apparent that I believed such a thing was unnecessary; I now know why he was so insistant on [http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.&oldid=48191#RFA getting adminship here at the wiki as well], which was to solidfy a position to be some sort of prima donna information broker in the fandom. (This motivation doubtless lead to the near-disasterous incident with KR, which Peter should be thanked for mitigating.) I firmly believe that Merv never wanted the responsibility; he wanted the title, which is something that the cynical part of me has always suspected.

: To satisfy your curiousity regarding links and a dossier of his behavior on and off wiki, there are people who are working to create a compilation of all of Merv's replies and actions to date. A link to it, most likely in PDF format, will be uploaded to my website and linked here as an archive for all to see upon completion and review. I personally think such a thing is a waste of time, but I want everything out there because the truth will come out sooner or later, as it always does.

: Also, Merv's assertion that people such as Darth Marley have been mailbombing me with complaints is totally ludicrous and strikes me as an indicator of Merv's paranoia, as well as solidifies what I've found to be a characteristic of his personality: that he will take leaps of logic with pithy information and without thorough research. I have never corresponded with Marley or others (I've talked to Larocque, but that's because I respect him for all his work he's done with the original Battlestar Galactica FAQs and so forth); to continue, I've read what they've said on the boards and had I heeded them ''immediately'', this ban would have happened several months ago. Merv's popularity, or lack thereof, had no bearing on this decision -- it was his actions and his treatment of others both on and off wiki that came to a head. Call it the powder keg just waiting to be lit that Merv's actions (and consequences of his actions) have built up for months, if you will.

: There was no "ban Merv" caucus or calls from said non-existant caucus to ban Merv that lobbied me; Merv acted uncivily and nearly scared off new and even established contributors (that I know about, anyway), as a result, was banned indefinitely, until he wishes to act like a respectful human being and not the overbearing person he's projected himself to be.

: If Merv wants to be a part of a community, he can't act like the progeny of a prima donna and pitbull. Such progency and the goals of a productive community are mutually exclusive and have no place with one another.

: Humility. Integrity. Respect. Honesty. Collaboration. These are things that the wiki stands for and, quite frankly, Merv's actions do not fit in line with the philosophies of this wiki. And, needless to say, Merv is being watched very carefully [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1012 now more than ever even from people who have better uses for their valuable time]. Think about that for a moment, or for as long as you need to... why would people waste their valuable time to watch him like a hawk?

: I think there is something very wrong with this picture, and it is something I have no desire to have this wiki be a part of. Hence my executive decision. Now I've said enough and have better things to accomplish... do excuse me. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 09:18, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::Thanks Joe for making such a concerted effort to explain yourself further. I think it helps make this page intelligible. It still bothers me somewhat that most of your complaints are from behaviour that is not clear & present but now ancient history as in it does make the timing seem somewhat arbitrary. If you were going to ban Merv over the KR incident then it should have been done long ago. To now name that incident as a major reason for his banning doesn't make much sense. The things you are saying about fresh altercations with new wiki members are very relevant but you seem to be not at liberty to discuss them further, which is unfortunate because that should be the meat of your case: it is that stuff that would be the most justifiable support for a move like this at this time, not the KR thing. Sometimes when you take a shotgun approach you damage your case, because it isn't clear to anyone exactly why all the stuff is a good reason now but wasn't a good reason then (is there is a timer that goes off six months after a bad act that results in a banning?). It invites speculation as to what is happening behind the scenes. Too bad you can't much talk about what I consider to be the only valid reasons you have named for taking a fresh look at Merv's membership status; knowing the history I'll take your word for it, but laying out this recent evidence would have been far preferable. I hope you know this and will consider how important that is in making this kind of announcement. The wiki is not in control of Merv's actions; but it is in control of its own actions, and the transparency and above-boardness with which you handle a banning speaks much more directly to the character of this place than anything done by one of its members.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::I agree, Dogger - I feel that I must give Joe the benefit of the doubt on this matter, but we are at great risk of setting a bad precedent here. I eagerly anticipate a final report on the off-wiki behavior of Merv's which justified this. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:07, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:Bad precedent, indeed. If I've read your arguments correctly, then generalized bad behavior AWAY from bsgwiki is considerable cause for banning ON bsgwiki. In light of this, I have a list of usernames I'd like to see banned for some serious bad behvaior on skiffy. Where would you like those names sent? What if I wanted to complain about Joe's "executive decision making" on this "community run board?" Who would I submit those anonymous, unrepeatable, and unspecified charges to? Just curious. Would it be possible for you "leaders" to post a really good list of offenses off-board that will get me banned here? I mean, I flipped off the guy who cut me off in traffic today. AND I made a really mean joke about Dualla on Skiffy sometime back and I REALLY upset a lot of people. Can I expect my login here to stop working? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:01, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::If he wanted to be hated by the community in his own fashintion he can, but as soon as you link bad behaviour with the wiki using the wiki as a tool that's not correct. No ''one'' person speaks for the wiki, except Joe. I don't see any other users setting up camp on the SciFi Forums who speaks for the wikiw and then on top of that, "acts in bad faith" using the wiki as a tool. Name someone else who uses the wiki as a refernece on the SciFi forums in a bad manor. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:14, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::So, it was the incident from several months ago that prompted the banning (as opposed to recent, mysterious incidents) because he used battlestarwiki to paint a user in an extremely negative light. Not unlike, um, using the administrative banning function and associated talk pages to publicly humiliate a user with as broad coverage as possible. Oh, wait. Did I say that out loud? -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:31, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::I did not say that. Joe statied it's a number of reasons. Current and past. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:41, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
:::::Alrighty, I think the blonde girl has finally caught up with the logic train. The banning was the result of an offense committed months ago (that Joe is now also guilty of - using bsgwiki pages to publicly humiliate another member of fandom) and mysterious, unspecified charges levied by persons unknown. Got it. I do appreciate the clarifications. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:48, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

:::Aeryn, I thank you for sharing your point of view with us. It is very welcomed, although I would like to ask that you please calm yourself. This isn't end of the world type stuff we're talking about here.
:::However, you need to know that Merv placed himself in a position where he and the wiki were intertwined; this isn't one of our contributors going out and making mean or sexists jokes on the SciFi Bulletin Boards. (It's up to SciFi's administration on whether or not to deter that kind of behavior, not ours.) Essentially, '''had he not placed himself in a position to act (and insinuate that he was) the wiki's ''unauthorized'' promoter or placed the ''unauthorized'' banner beneath his posts with the URL and icon to this wiki then his off-wiki behavior would have never been brought into question'''. And this is not a one time incident, hence the creation of our [[BW:OR|Official Representation]] policy which, ironically or not, Merv supported. To go with what Peter said in one of Merv's previous RFAs, I am not concerned about what other people think of a contributor -- unless they ''deliberately'' placed themselves in a position to use the wiki as a backing to advance his own agendas. Agendas that he has made clear in the past. I am concerned about the image of the wiki, as well as ensuring that no ones contributions have been in vain because of the acts of a person or group out to advance an agenda. (This agenda will be made crystal clear once the dossier on Merv's overall behaviors on and off wiki have been completed and published.)
:::I will also state again that everything has a ''cumulative'' effect and Merv's behavior on-wiki has come first circle, much to the point where we nearly lost one very good contributor. For some time now I (and others) have had to deal with Merv's behavior to others and try to mitigate the damage. Were it not for the work of the dedicated individuals in this community to retain those upset members, we would have lost more people than Merv.
:::As you yourself may not be aware, we as admins and contributors have tried to make Merv understand that his treatment of others is destructive and damaging to a community. None of his behaviors to date are a surprise to either myself nor anyone else here who has been for more than six months. The fact that I had to perma-ban Merv disappoints me, because it tells me we have failed to help Merv modify his social skills to a point where he can be respectful of others and their opinions, regardless of whether he views them as "moronic" or vapid from his point of view.
:::At this point, my concern is whether or not the wiki will recover from the damage Merv's inflicted. For a place he claims to love so much, he's endangered all our work here with his actions... and I've sid enough, because I will wait for the dossier to come out and then, as it is said, the truth will attend to itself, because it always does one way or the other. And then you can all do with the dossier what you will; you can believe or not. The choice to believe or not to believe is up to you.
:::Thank you for your interest and your concern. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:51, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Joe, I find your comment to be condenscending and mean-spirited. I engaged your representative in a dialog concerning your unilateral action and your response is a very rude "calm yourself." I demand an apology for your poor judgment in dealing with me since I am, as far as I know, a member in good standing of this community. Your use of harsh words and offensive tone was derogative and completely unwarranted; I am deeply insulted and plan on quitting this board unless you apologize immediately. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 22:58, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
::::Aeryn, I did not mean to be mean spirited; I'm sorry if you viewed my words as mean spirited, I am merely concerned about ensuring that everyone remains calm. It does no one any good to act irrationally. I recognize that this is a highly emotional situation. For instance, I myself am not fond of making this decision, but all I ask is that people please wait until the evidence comes to light. Then you and everyone will better understand why I banned Merv for the ultimate good of this community. That's all I ask right now during this difficult time. Thank you. Now I'm going to get some sleep. Good night everyone. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 23:15, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
As a minor point of interest, a true apology is one in which the offender says "I am sorry for what I said/did" (taking responsibility for his actions) NOT one in which the offender says "I am sorry you didn't understand what I said/did" (taking no responsibility for his actions and placing blame on the other party). There is a difference. I am inclined to observe that the efforts to reform the student may not have succeeded because the teachers suffered the same failings. This is just a hypothesis, of course.

I AM one to mince words but I will get to the point anyway (finally). You had an opportunity and ability to handle this privately with Mero. But you chose instead to make a broad, public statement via a project page and associated discussion; you CHOSE to publicly humilate someone who has worked tirelessly on behalf of your pet project when you had the opportunity to be silent and let the pieces fall where they may. From where I sit, this says much more about you and your approach to this "community" than it does about Mero. In the same project page you tout your "executive decision making" powers but try to convince us "we are all one." The latter rings false in the shadow of the former.

Whether I agree with your decision or not is really irrelevant and I certainly do not dispute your right to make the call but I have serious doubts about your sincerity in light of your approach. This doesn't feel like the results of careful consideration and thoughtful examination of facts. It feels like opportunistic public flogging designed to inflict the most damage possible and to "recruit" people to your point of view. These aren't the actions of a good, reasonable administrator.

Of course, everyone here will agree that I am no one of any importance - just the hall monitor - and my opinions don't really matter all that much but I would invite you to consider that what has transpired here (the public nature of your decision implementation) may appease a few but many others will remember this course of events in a less positive light. -[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 00:45, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

== [[User:Shane|Shane]]'s Comments ==

While Merv might see this as a sudden "ban", I don't really think it was. Merv has been giving tons of opportunity to mend relationships with the community a dozen of times. A simple, "Thank you" or "I am sorry." or "I made a mistake. Please forgive it." would have gone a long way.

I realize now, after all this time, that [[User:Peter Farago]] deserved a sorry from me because of the two RFC's I filled against him in protest in defending Merv's actions. While I got one a while back when my first RFC was posted by Peter.

Merv, if you want to discuss the polices that you broke, all you need to do is look up all the pages in the Battlestar Wiki namespace. The admins gave you tons of chances and though maybe a mistake on their part for now being more tough on the rules, you should have been able to follow your own suggestions as you did when voting for the [[BW:OR]] policy, the first one in-fact. The [[BW:TANK]] was created so I had an avenue to get my ideas out and you know what.. it worked. the [[BW:OR]] was for you, you didn't know that, but you through it was a good idea after the KR incident.

You say you could not use the high complex templates? I was always willing to help, yet I never got a message saying something. I hope, that you can make peace with yourself, otherwise you will never be able to get along with people in real life. If you were so ambitious why you were blocked, do a search on your username in all the forums that you do. Re-read your posts. Look at where you might have said something that might have offended people. You said once that the Battlestar Wiki article that it was deleted and should not have been because it was just like Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha is a bit larger and it has a little bit more fame since it's been around. But did you ever check the AFD page? Joe, an admin of Wikipedia, voted to delete it. ([[State of the Wiki II]])

As for the wiki, drastic actions as in resorting to outside forums to further your cause also inside the wiki was not a good idea. When you first did it with me and the portals, I found info on two different forums. One was SciFi and the other was the GalacicaBS forums. Why am I being smeared to something that would have a positive effect on the wiki as a whole? Why?

Do you want to know why the person came to me? Because they didn't know if they could bring issues to Joe directly. It could have been the other way around and I could have been out-of-the loop up to the ban and still not what was going on. People came to be because I was fair and have always been fair. (Also since I have direct contact with Joe kinda helps, but that's a side factor). I don't know why you think it was the guys over a MS or Frackheads (?). Can't you think that it ''was'' someone who was part of the Wiki? And before you ask yourself, it was not me. Granted, I spend a ton of time here, and know what goes on, I know how people feel.

Anyway, you can contact me via email if you want. You know how.

P.S. Adminship does not grant one "ambasatorship".

P.S.S. If you can prove to the heart that you can be curtiousto others and show that you can repect over people for what they do and how they do it, you will never know if you will be allowed back here. Take this as a vacation as I did. Come back with a fresh view. It might be benifit to your understanding with Joe and the community. You can only prove it to yourself that you can be true to the guidelines of the site that you love.

--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 14:56, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Merv needs to grow up. The guy has shown that he has little social skills and alienates fans who don't need to know about the board politics. It's not about him; it's about the show. If he wants to show some humility he'll continue to contribute without attribution. Starting with the podcast transcriptions.{{unsigned|Hal Levolier}}
:So "we'll ban you but we want you to submit work anyway"? 'Some nerve' doesn't even begin to describe this comment. If Merv doesn't submit those transcripts it proves nothing other than that he understandably doesn't feel motivated to contribute anything to a community that has declared him an outcast. What else would anyone expect? The sense of entitlement here to hours of the man's free labour is kind of breathtaking. If he is banned, then let him move on with his life and find somewhere else to place his efforts. To make this kind of statement that in order to prove his humility he needs to submit not ONLY for free but without credit, is just repugnant. What has happened to this place?--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:29, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
::Okay never mind. I just checked and Hal Levolier has never edited anything around here, so while that doesn't render his opinion valid, he wasn't (at least I hope not) expressing any expectation among the regular contributors. Merv's banned, so he's probably done contributing. Nobody should be expecting otherwise.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:55, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

User talk:Dogger

2006-09-02T06:44:48Z

Dogger: /* Cleaning up my Talk Page */

Excellent to see you finally turning your talents towards the BattlestarWiki, largest source of BSG info on the net. Stay close to me, and we might just get through this with our lives. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 03:38, 6 February 2006 (EST) (a.k.a. The_Merovingian)

== Welcome ==
A welcome to the most prominent scifi.com'er (outside of Merv) that I've seen over here. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:52, 12 March 2006 (CST)

:Er ... thanks! Is this how I reply? I'm pretty new at this wiki thing, I wandered over for support information about the numbers of remaining pilots to use in arguments, didn't agree with the information, and fixed it. The meat of the fixes stands so I assume everyone was ok with them. Of course, it became pointless to try to track them after the Pegasus arrived, but now with all the changes for Season 3 -- who knows? A List of Pilots Part 2 might be in order.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 22:02, 14 March 2006 (CST)

::Yep. That's all there is to it. The "chat" interface is identical to the article editing. That's a reason why the wikis are better suited to the article creation/editing than for discussion (but then, that's what message boards are for). Usually people indent one level more than the previous speaker, using colons before their paragraph to achieve this effect. (I went ahead and put a colon in front of your paragraph, and then two in front of mine.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:06, 15 March 2006 (CST)

==Proposal for a Logic & Continuity Page==

(NOTICE: It probably was never going to happen anyway, but I've decided that this idea for a logic & continuity page is officially dead. I don't know if the pilot count stuff below is still duplicated elsewhere, but unless somebody asks me to save it, I'm going to clear it off My Talk page, because I don't plan on pursuing it any further.)

I have just read Peter's note that he wants to strike the analysis of the numbers of pilots available in earlier episodes, and I disagree with that. And that started me thinking -- I have always thought it was a little bit odd to have the analysis of the numbers of pilots and vipers on the 'List of Pilots' page. To me they serve two entirely different functions: that of 'databasing' or cataloguing show elements, and that of tracking the show's continuity and logic. I realise the former function is the main purpose of a wiki, but my primary interest lies in the latter.

The reimagined Galactica is written in such a way that it is up to the fans to use their heads to fill in the gaps (especially when it comes to the equipment or technology available) between episodes and plot events. This opens up this show more than any other science fiction TV show to a lot of criticism from people unwilling or unable to fill in those gaps, and I think a wiki page devoted to listing the possible speculations that have been advanced to answer many of the common fan continuity questions would be very valuable. It wouldn't have to be slanted, the top two or three theories could be listed for each so-called plothole. Where there is no theory reasonable enough to actually fill in the missing details then it would be called 'probably a plothole' in the same way that the pilot analysis deals with the effects shots in Flight of the Phoenix.

It wouldn't be a 'fanboy excuses' page, but it would be explicitly based (in a short mission statement at the top) on the idea that due to Ron Moore's 'no technobabble' style, it is up to the fans, not the show's writers, to use our heads to understand the world of BSG. Because the fact is, people like to think the BSG world is self-consistent, and if they don't have the knowledge or the time to think these things through for themselves, it's a valuable service to have a non-combative environment where these gaps are filled for them and maybe they can relax and turn off their plothole radar a bit and enjoy the show more.

I have been thinking for some time about this since I spend a lot of my time on the Skiffy boards repeating the same explanations for missing technical information over and over again, and I have been considering setting up my own 'Logic & Continuity' page. I don't really know if this is covered already in some assembly of your other pages, but if you folks here at the wiki are interested in this I would be willing to shepherd the 'Logic & Continuity' page and fill in most of the information.

I have never done wiki before so I don't really know what the community rules are -- I don't even know if I am posting this proposal in the right place. But I am easygoing, open to other ideas, and I work well collaboratively. If you agree I will probably list the open logic & continuity questions on the page first, and then start filling in some answers from my own old posts on Skiffy. I would do it slowly, I couldn't fill in the page all in a rush or anything.

Also the numerical pilot analysis could be moved to be the first item on the Logic & Continuity page, leaving the List of Pilots a cleaner presentation (although I think it would be wise to leave behind a link to the Logic & Continuity page because there are a lot of posts of mine on Skiffy that refer people to 'List of Pilots' to resolve numerical questions).

Sorry for the overlong explanation of my idea -- but what say you all?

DB.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 06:15, 16 March 2006 (CST)

:Cool idea. I like it. While such explanations and reasoning probably exist around here, they are likely dispersed throughout the wiki. It'd be nice to see them aggregated as sort of an anti-"continuity errors" page. As for the right place to post THIS... well, I'm not quite sure myself. Your user page probably won't get the traffic that the proposal deserves, so you may want to consider moving this to either the [[Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum|Quorum]] or the [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin noticeboard]], though I'd lean towards the Quorum as you seem to be addressing the community at large (not the mop-boys). My only other thought on the matter is (barring some sort of unforeseen outry) to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|go for it]]! Generally the worst thing that can happen is that a page gets deleted outright, but it is far more common for the content to find a new home (or confirm that the content already exists elsewhere) before deleting it. If you need any help starting up the page (in terms of the wiki-stuff), feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, or on the Admin noticeboard. (Also, let me know if you need a hand moving this discussion to one of the above places, if you're interested in hearing some more opinions.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:13, 16 March 2006 (CST)

::Thanks for the advice Steelviper on where to post this. It appears I am going to have to put this idea on hold because of personal time management issues, which is also pushing my participation in the message boards to the wayside. I'm not sure if it's the right project for a wiki, anyway. It may be better accomplished as just a personal website, since it will be mostly full of speculation. But in any case, appropriate or not, I won't be the one to pursue it for quite a while. Thanks for the encouragement, and I'd like to leave this information here as a reminder for when I reconsider picking up this project again.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 04:58, 25 March 2006 (CST)
:::Well there is a "running tally" on the Galactica article which I guess we could expand to include this an be it's own article...--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:07, 25 March 2006 (CST)

=====Pilot Count=====

(NEW NOTE: It probably was never going to happen anyway, but I've decided that this idea for a continuity page is officially dead. I don't know if this pilot count stuff is still duplicated elsewhere, but unless somebody asks me to save it, I'm going to clear it off My Talk page, because I don't plan on pursuing it any further.)

(NOTE: I snagged and reproduced this analysis from the 'List of Pilots' page to my 'my talk' page in case Peter decides to delete it in my absence and clean up the List of Pilots. This is for potential reproduction in any 'Logic & Continuity' page I might propose again in the future. If this is somehow an improper use of wiki resources, please feel free to delete it from this page, there is no need to wait for my okay.)

As of the [[Miniseries]], Starbuck informs Cmdr. [[William Adama]] that "there are 20 of us climbing the walls down in the Ready Room". This is excluding the 20 members of Ripper's wing already sortied, and Apollo, on escort detail, and probably doesn't include ECOs. Also in the miniseries, three Mark VII Vipers are seen in formation inside ''[[Colonial One]]'s'' ragtag caravan before they rendezvous with ''Galactica''. These could have been left behind with the non-FTL capable ships, or could have been carried to [[Ragnar]] in other ships as was Apollo's Viper.

After the accident in "[[Act of Contrition]]," Capt. Adama states to Lt. Thrace that there are 21 pilots remaining, by which he probably refers only to the Viper pilots. It is difficult to imagine that Sergeant [[Hadrian]] made the same distinction when she referred to the 13 killed and 7 injured in the incident, since the most notable victim was actually a Raptor, not a Viper pilot. Of the 11 present for funeral services, at least one ([[Crashdown]]) and possibly two (unidentified #4?) are known to be ECOs. [[Racetrack]] and the fourth ECO are clearly not present. Another one ("Boomer" Valerii) and possibly two (unidentified #5 or #7?) are known to be Raptor pilots. This leaves 7 to 9 Viper pilots depicted in this scene. Adding the 7 injured pilots, we have a total of 14 to 16 Viper pilots accounted for, implying that 5 to 7 surviving and uninjured pilots are not present for some reason (perhaps on [[Combat Air Patrol]] or other duty).

Eight nuggets were then recruited to fill out the ranks, including [[Louanne Katraine|Kat]], [[Brendan Constanza|Hot Dog]] and [[Perry|Chuckles]], bringing the total to 29.
{| align="center"
| [[Image:Nuggetextra1.jpg|75px]] || [[Image:Nuggetextra2.jpg|75px]] || [[Image:Nuggetextra3.jpg|75px]] ||[[Image:Nuggetextra4.jpg|75px]] || [[Image:Nuggetextra5.jpg|35px]]
|-
| align="center" colspan="5" | Unidentified nuggets from "[[Act of Contrition]]." Pilot #3 ([[Stepchild]]) and one other were killed in "[[The Hand of God (RDM)|The Hand of God]]."
|}
In "[[The Hand of God (RDM)|The Hand of God]]," Starbuck is seen giving combat flight training to an expanded class of 14 [[nugget]]s. Although not specifically discussed in this episode, it can only assumed that they have enlisted 6 more candidates from the civilian Fleet, probably from the "next group" that, according to Apollo, had "never even been in a cockpit" at the time of "[[Act of Contrition]]." Later in this episode, a total of 19 Vipers and 2 Raptors are deployed. (Starbuck is inactive at this time due to her [[You Can't Go Home Again|knee injury]].) [[Fireball]], [[Perry|Chuckles]], [[Stepchild]] and one unidentified pilot are killed in action, leaving ''Galactica'' with 31 Viper pilots. (According to scifi.com, three nuggets are killed and four Vipers destroyed in this episode, so we must assume that [[Stepchild]] and the unidentified death were among their number.)

In "[[Scattered]]," ''Galactica'' fields 18 Vipers. If no other pilots than [[Flyboy]] were killed in "[[Valley of Darkness]]," then with [[Joe Palladino]] in the brig, and with [[Louanne Katraine]] on medical leave, ''Galactica'' had at most 28 pilots available for duty by the end of the episode "[[Final Cut]]."

However, in the next episode, "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]," 42 Vipers are sortied -- not only more pilots, but also more planes than ''Galactica'' should have actually available. The most reasonable conclusion is that this is simply an effects gaffe. But if this is taken literally as an increase in their ranks, then ''Galactica'' may have inducted more than 6 extra nuggets into the squadron since "[[Act of Contrition]]," and may be continuing to recruit despite Kat's assertion in "[[Final Cut]]" that "there are no replacements coming up."

After encountering fellow battlestar ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'', ''Galactica'' finally received a number of transfers to fill her depleted ranks. It's unlikely that any ''Pegasus'' crewmen were actually deployed against their compatriots at the climax of the episode. So, with Kat reinstated to flight status, but minus Apollo and Starbuck (transferred to ''Pegasus''), ''Galactica'' can muster 27 Vipers against ''Pegasus''. However, only 15 of ''Galactica's'' Mk. II Vipers can be clearly seen as the episode ends.

As of the episode "[[Scar]]," the Fleet has begun training many new nugget pilots in earnest (with flight simulators aboard the more-advanced ''Pegasus''), and will obtain enough metal ore from asteroid mining to construct 2 entire squadrons of Vipers on ''Pegasus'' (this battlestar has Viper production facilities that ''Galactica'' does not). Following "Scar", it will be more difficult to determine the exact number of Viper pilots (by subtracting the dead from pre-existing numbers) because their numbers are decisively growing.

== Cleaning up my Talk Page ==
AS NOTED ABOVE: It probably was never going to happen anyway, but I've decided that my proposal for a logic & continuity page is officially dead. I don't know if the pilot count stuff I salvaged above is still duplicated elsewhere, but unless somebody asks me to save it, I'm going to clear it off My Talk page, because I don't plan on personally pursuing it any further.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:40, 2 September 2006 (CDT)
:Oops. I accidentally wrote this comment over Steelviper's short note to me to check out his alphabetical index. I didn't mean to do that. (Why wasn't that index ever implemented anyway? There are still too many clicks between me and the link I'm looking for.)--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 01:44, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

User talk:Dogger

2006-09-02T06:40:54Z

Dogger: /* Alpha Index */

User talk:Dogger

2006-09-02T06:39:37Z

Dogger: /* Proposal for a Logic & Continuity Page */

Excellent to see you finally turning your talents towards the BattlestarWiki, largest source of BSG info on the net. Stay close to me, and we might just get through this with our lives. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 03:38, 6 February 2006 (EST) (a.k.a. The_Merovingian)

== Welcome ==
A welcome to the most prominent scifi.com'er (outside of Merv) that I've seen over here. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:52, 12 March 2006 (CST)

:Er ... thanks! Is this how I reply? I'm pretty new at this wiki thing, I wandered over for support information about the numbers of remaining pilots to use in arguments, didn't agree with the information, and fixed it. The meat of the fixes stands so I assume everyone was ok with them. Of course, it became pointless to try to track them after the Pegasus arrived, but now with all the changes for Season 3 -- who knows? A List of Pilots Part 2 might be in order.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 22:02, 14 March 2006 (CST)

::Yep. That's all there is to it. The "chat" interface is identical to the article editing. That's a reason why the wikis are better suited to the article creation/editing than for discussion (but then, that's what message boards are for). Usually people indent one level more than the previous speaker, using colons before their paragraph to achieve this effect. (I went ahead and put a colon in front of your paragraph, and then two in front of mine.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:06, 15 March 2006 (CST)

==Proposal for a Logic & Continuity Page==

(NOTICE: It probably was never going to happen anyway, but I've decided that this idea for a logic & continuity page is officially dead. I don't know if the pilot count stuff below is still duplicated elsewhere, but unless somebody asks me to save it, I'm going to clear it off My Talk page, because I don't plan on pursuing it any further.)

I have just read Peter's note that he wants to strike the analysis of the numbers of pilots available in earlier episodes, and I disagree with that. And that started me thinking -- I have always thought it was a little bit odd to have the analysis of the numbers of pilots and vipers on the 'List of Pilots' page. To me they serve two entirely different functions: that of 'databasing' or cataloguing show elements, and that of tracking the show's continuity and logic. I realise the former function is the main purpose of a wiki, but my primary interest lies in the latter.

The reimagined Galactica is written in such a way that it is up to the fans to use their heads to fill in the gaps (especially when it comes to the equipment or technology available) between episodes and plot events. This opens up this show more than any other science fiction TV show to a lot of criticism from people unwilling or unable to fill in those gaps, and I think a wiki page devoted to listing the possible speculations that have been advanced to answer many of the common fan continuity questions would be very valuable. It wouldn't have to be slanted, the top two or three theories could be listed for each so-called plothole. Where there is no theory reasonable enough to actually fill in the missing details then it would be called 'probably a plothole' in the same way that the pilot analysis deals with the effects shots in Flight of the Phoenix.

It wouldn't be a 'fanboy excuses' page, but it would be explicitly based (in a short mission statement at the top) on the idea that due to Ron Moore's 'no technobabble' style, it is up to the fans, not the show's writers, to use our heads to understand the world of BSG. Because the fact is, people like to think the BSG world is self-consistent, and if they don't have the knowledge or the time to think these things through for themselves, it's a valuable service to have a non-combative environment where these gaps are filled for them and maybe they can relax and turn off their plothole radar a bit and enjoy the show more.

I have been thinking for some time about this since I spend a lot of my time on the Skiffy boards repeating the same explanations for missing technical information over and over again, and I have been considering setting up my own 'Logic & Continuity' page. I don't really know if this is covered already in some assembly of your other pages, but if you folks here at the wiki are interested in this I would be willing to shepherd the 'Logic & Continuity' page and fill in most of the information.

I have never done wiki before so I don't really know what the community rules are -- I don't even know if I am posting this proposal in the right place. But I am easygoing, open to other ideas, and I work well collaboratively. If you agree I will probably list the open logic & continuity questions on the page first, and then start filling in some answers from my own old posts on Skiffy. I would do it slowly, I couldn't fill in the page all in a rush or anything.

Also the numerical pilot analysis could be moved to be the first item on the Logic & Continuity page, leaving the List of Pilots a cleaner presentation (although I think it would be wise to leave behind a link to the Logic & Continuity page because there are a lot of posts of mine on Skiffy that refer people to 'List of Pilots' to resolve numerical questions).

Sorry for the overlong explanation of my idea -- but what say you all?

DB.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 06:15, 16 March 2006 (CST)

:Cool idea. I like it. While such explanations and reasoning probably exist around here, they are likely dispersed throughout the wiki. It'd be nice to see them aggregated as sort of an anti-"continuity errors" page. As for the right place to post THIS... well, I'm not quite sure myself. Your user page probably won't get the traffic that the proposal deserves, so you may want to consider moving this to either the [[Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum|Quorum]] or the [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin noticeboard]], though I'd lean towards the Quorum as you seem to be addressing the community at large (not the mop-boys). My only other thought on the matter is (barring some sort of unforeseen outry) to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages|go for it]]! Generally the worst thing that can happen is that a page gets deleted outright, but it is far more common for the content to find a new home (or confirm that the content already exists elsewhere) before deleting it. If you need any help starting up the page (in terms of the wiki-stuff), feel free to drop me a note on my talk page, or on the Admin noticeboard. (Also, let me know if you need a hand moving this discussion to one of the above places, if you're interested in hearing some more opinions.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:13, 16 March 2006 (CST)

::Thanks for the advice Steelviper on where to post this. It appears I am going to have to put this idea on hold because of personal time management issues, which is also pushing my participation in the message boards to the wayside. I'm not sure if it's the right project for a wiki, anyway. It may be better accomplished as just a personal website, since it will be mostly full of speculation. But in any case, appropriate or not, I won't be the one to pursue it for quite a while. Thanks for the encouragement, and I'd like to leave this information here as a reminder for when I reconsider picking up this project again.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 04:58, 25 March 2006 (CST)
:::Well there is a "running tally" on the Galactica article which I guess we could expand to include this an be it's own article...--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:07, 25 March 2006 (CST)

=====Pilot Count=====

(NEW NOTE: It probably was never going to happen anyway, but I've decided that this idea for a continuity page is officially dead. I don't know if this pilot count stuff is still duplicated elsewhere, but unless somebody asks me to save it, I'm going to clear it off My Talk page, because I don't plan on pursuing it any further.)

(NOTE: I snagged and reproduced this analysis from the 'List of Pilots' page to my 'my talk' page in case Peter decides to delete it in my absence and clean up the List of Pilots. This is for potential reproduction in any 'Logic & Continuity' page I might propose again in the future. If this is somehow an improper use of wiki resources, please feel free to delete it from this page, there is no need to wait for my okay.)

As of the [[Miniseries]], Starbuck informs Cmdr. [[William Adama]] that "there are 20 of us climbing the walls down in the Ready Room". This is excluding the 20 members of Ripper's wing already sortied, and Apollo, on escort detail, and probably doesn't include ECOs. Also in the miniseries, three Mark VII Vipers are seen in formation inside ''[[Colonial One]]'s'' ragtag caravan before they rendezvous with ''Galactica''. These could have been left behind with the non-FTL capable ships, or could have been carried to [[Ragnar]] in other ships as was Apollo's Viper.

After the accident in "[[Act of Contrition]]," Capt. Adama states to Lt. Thrace that there are 21 pilots remaining, by which he probably refers only to the Viper pilots. It is difficult to imagine that Sergeant [[Hadrian]] made the same distinction when she referred to the 13 killed and 7 injured in the incident, since the most notable victim was actually a Raptor, not a Viper pilot. Of the 11 present for funeral services, at least one ([[Crashdown]]) and possibly two (unidentified #4?) are known to be ECOs. [[Racetrack]] and the fourth ECO are clearly not present. Another one ("Boomer" Valerii) and possibly two (unidentified #5 or #7?) are known to be Raptor pilots. This leaves 7 to 9 Viper pilots depicted in this scene. Adding the 7 injured pilots, we have a total of 14 to 16 Viper pilots accounted for, implying that 5 to 7 surviving and uninjured pilots are not present for some reason (perhaps on [[Combat Air Patrol]] or other duty).

Eight nuggets were then recruited to fill out the ranks, including [[Louanne Katraine|Kat]], [[Brendan Constanza|Hot Dog]] and [[Perry|Chuckles]], bringing the total to 29.
{| align="center"
| [[Image:Nuggetextra1.jpg|75px]] || [[Image:Nuggetextra2.jpg|75px]] || [[Image:Nuggetextra3.jpg|75px]] ||[[Image:Nuggetextra4.jpg|75px]] || [[Image:Nuggetextra5.jpg|35px]]
|-
| align="center" colspan="5" | Unidentified nuggets from "[[Act of Contrition]]." Pilot #3 ([[Stepchild]]) and one other were killed in "[[The Hand of God (RDM)|The Hand of God]]."
|}
In "[[The Hand of God (RDM)|The Hand of God]]," Starbuck is seen giving combat flight training to an expanded class of 14 [[nugget]]s. Although not specifically discussed in this episode, it can only assumed that they have enlisted 6 more candidates from the civilian Fleet, probably from the "next group" that, according to Apollo, had "never even been in a cockpit" at the time of "[[Act of Contrition]]." Later in this episode, a total of 19 Vipers and 2 Raptors are deployed. (Starbuck is inactive at this time due to her [[You Can't Go Home Again|knee injury]].) [[Fireball]], [[Perry|Chuckles]], [[Stepchild]] and one unidentified pilot are killed in action, leaving ''Galactica'' with 31 Viper pilots. (According to scifi.com, three nuggets are killed and four Vipers destroyed in this episode, so we must assume that [[Stepchild]] and the unidentified death were among their number.)

In "[[Scattered]]," ''Galactica'' fields 18 Vipers. If no other pilots than [[Flyboy]] were killed in "[[Valley of Darkness]]," then with [[Joe Palladino]] in the brig, and with [[Louanne Katraine]] on medical leave, ''Galactica'' had at most 28 pilots available for duty by the end of the episode "[[Final Cut]]."

However, in the next episode, "[[Flight of the Phoenix]]," 42 Vipers are sortied -- not only more pilots, but also more planes than ''Galactica'' should have actually available. The most reasonable conclusion is that this is simply an effects gaffe. But if this is taken literally as an increase in their ranks, then ''Galactica'' may have inducted more than 6 extra nuggets into the squadron since "[[Act of Contrition]]," and may be continuing to recruit despite Kat's assertion in "[[Final Cut]]" that "there are no replacements coming up."

After encountering fellow battlestar ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]'', ''Galactica'' finally received a number of transfers to fill her depleted ranks. It's unlikely that any ''Pegasus'' crewmen were actually deployed against their compatriots at the climax of the episode. So, with Kat reinstated to flight status, but minus Apollo and Starbuck (transferred to ''Pegasus''), ''Galactica'' can muster 27 Vipers against ''Pegasus''. However, only 15 of ''Galactica's'' Mk. II Vipers can be clearly seen as the episode ends.

As of the episode "[[Scar]]," the Fleet has begun training many new nugget pilots in earnest (with flight simulators aboard the more-advanced ''Pegasus''), and will obtain enough metal ore from asteroid mining to construct 2 entire squadrons of Vipers on ''Pegasus'' (this battlestar has Viper production facilities that ''Galactica'' does not). Following "Scar", it will be more difficult to determine the exact number of Viper pilots (by subtracting the dead from pre-existing numbers) because their numbers are decisively growing.

== Alpha Index ==
I created an alphabetical index over at [[User talk:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha#Did you know...|this talk page]], and was curious if you had any input on how the interface on it should work. (Vertical vs. horizontal, example words, etc.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:28, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

User talk:Dogger

2006-09-01T08:22:12Z

Dogger: Pointing out the incomprehensibility of this page

Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (3)

2006-08-02T05:36:14Z

Dogger: /* The Merovingian */

===[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]]===
[[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship|Back to RFA]].

'''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (3)|action=edit}} Vote here] '''
'''(5/4/0) ending 17:51, 6 August 2006 (CDT)'''

{{User|The Merovingian}} – The Merovingian's history with us has not been entirely smooth. During his first months with us, his unmatched energy and enthusiasm for the project were sadly tempered with an impatience and quickness to anger which did not recommend him for adminship.

In the last few months, his demeanor has improved drastically, and he has acquired a remarkable maturity and level-headedness. This track record was unfortunately marred by an incident three months ago, involving a series of attacks against fan reporter Jim Iaccino, a.k.a. "KoenigRules". The results of this were such that I was forced to oppose his last nomination for adminship - despite his recently improved behavior, I felt he needed to demonstrate that he was capable of adhering to higher standards on a permanent basis.

It is my opinion that Merv has done so. He now makes persuasive arguments in rational tones, he appeals and defers to group consensus when appropriate, and he has been helpful and patient with new users.

Merv has always been a contributor of the highest order. As one of the most serious and vocal opponents of his adminship in the past, it is my pleasure to state my belief that Merv has demonstrated the maturity and patience to wield admin privileges responsibly and effectively. I would be honored to work alongside him as an administrator. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:37, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
:''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:''--I am The Merovingian, and I accept this nomination. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 17:51, 30 July 2006 (CDT)


'''Support'''

#{{support}} as nominator. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:37, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{support}} I am delighted to support, based both on absolutely superb contributions and behavior that has steadily improved to its currently decorous state. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 04:18, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{support}} Has made excellent contributions in the last few weeks. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 06:40, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{support}} I've been highly impressed with his contributions and such here recently. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 13:05, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{Support}} Merv was the second user to greet me when I came here. I was overzealous when I first arrived, but he helped me to temper myself through helpful suggestions that were not rude or even bossy. He's an excellent editor here and I couldn't think of a better choice for admin. --[[User:Homeworld616|Homeworld616]] 01:33, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

'''Oppose'''

#{{oppose}} I've reconsidered my vote light of Merv striking out Cranky's vote. Not that there was anything wrong in striking out Cranky's vote, but the fact that Merv did it shows that he hasn't learned much in the way he deals with people. I would like to respect Peter's judgment that he's now ready for admin-ship, but this incident just pushed me back to the "NO" camp. Thanks Merv. I should also add that I'm utterly baffled that this process has gone on for nearly a year and three previous failed admin votes, in which at least one of them Merv nominated himself, and in the other two he accepted. I guess the one question I have is "why does this position matter" so much? He didn't even refuse the nomination after the KR incident, which would have been the honorable thing to do. In previous RFA's, he's bragged that he had a Plan R ready (recruitment) to essentially troll for votes at other forums. (Mercifully, this was not employed during the last RFA). Still, the question begs to be answered: Why does this position matter so much? Why is being a contributor not good enough? And sadly, I don't agree that he's ready yet. I really wanted to give him a chance.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 00:16, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{Oppose}} '''Strongly''' - Merv has attitude has not changed and I think that people should be reminded of the RFC in how he handles difficulties situations. Not one person owns any such article has people and Merv has told me. No article is of ownership so saying that you are working on your articles should be a presence that he still has the mentality of ownership of the ''wiki''. '''A''' - Merciful and I worked on the Battle template for two weeks and got comments during that time. And once Merciful updated all the pages, Merv objected to it's use and the design. '''B and C''' - In that note, The [[BW:ES]] project has not been finalized nor has anything been set in stone, yet he has gone around to all the episodes and made significant changes without getting any consent with the project group. Posting something on the think tank for project creation, not for doing the standards does not count. The [[BW:ES]] project was not his creation, but [[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] project idea. The podcast project is also something to point out, while there was a field to "view" podcasts from the episode pages, the idea was never implemented because there was to many disagreements. (i.e. [[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Podcast_Transcripts#100.25_done_podcasts_we_should...]] At this point before he did this, the [[BW:TANK]] project did exist.) '''D''' - No project on welcoming committee. It's open for anyone who can post a welcome message to someone and not just posting, but also helping. '''G''' After being a strong opponent to the idea he has graped the idea that he should be the only person in charge of maintaining the portals (e.x. Check Userpage) and decide what should be placed. (e.x. The RDM Portal FA is a current [[BW:FA]] candidate.) The [[Cylon agent speculation]] page has been a project, but disallows other users information on the page. My own conflicts with merv have yet to be resolved. I have ''yet'' to hear an apology from him from the many actions he has done to enrage me leading up the the RFC on me. The [[BW:AN]] post is another thing. And if you look closely at the RFC, he did preach. The RFC was not a discussion forum, but analysis of the situation of people's comments. I can not vote for a person who can not apologizes to someone after they admit they are wrong except he can to people outside the Wiki. (I would expect a public apology to Larocuque on his talk page because he has said he is sorry in this RFA, but you have not done it directly to him. For this, you can not be ready to be an admin) And using the [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.&oldid=67488 System Message namespace for an RFA], shows me that messages are going to be abused. This system is for server related issues regrading updating and databases issues. General information should be posted on the [[BW:CP]] where there is a notice board, but RFAs don't get "riddled" everywhere except someone's user talk page or if they have pages under "Watch" status. Also in the current sub-page of [[BW:TK]], an established project, he objects to a subpage for a list of manual checks for users and admins. The list is going to be design for admins and users alike to see what is going on the wiki and to give shortcuts to the correct pages. Not one person can be the trafficker of information. We each have our own skills that relay on one another. Merv thinks his skills is all this wiki needs. Me, I good at code, not content, but I love the show, Peter good at grammar, CA, good at grammar. Frank is another contributer to info. Merc has been good with design and syntax fix. Spenc is good at condensing things. Talos is good at images. Ford same reasons. And the wiki can not be here at all without Joe. As posted out, Merv does not want us associated with a outside forum in anyway shape or form to function as one. Also to bring back a forum issue is irreverent to why we should not listen to Larocuque's vote. I do agree that Cranky1c's vote should be discounted because it breaks every rule in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|book]], but a simple "Please read the RFA guidelines, would have been a simple enough." Also posting a link where there is adult content is UNWISE without any warning. If any of the pictures are like bad, that is serious bad things that can happen to the Wiki even though you are linking. -[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:38, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
#'''Weak '''{{Oppose}} Ok this was a tough decision and most certainly isnt mean as an attack as an oppose. I definitly think you are over a lot of the bad stuff that happened in the past but there are still times when arguments get a little out of hand and when you make changes before concensus is made. I also think the whole Koenigrules issue was a pretty big thing and its hard to forget that. Apologies are fair enough but you need to think a little more about how your actions can affect other people. I think [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What adminship is not|this]] needs to be made completely clear too. And if you does make admin I most definitly dont want to see posts on Skiffy and other forums of you "speaking on behalf" of the Wiki as has done in the past. I'm still skeptical about if another bad situation is going to arise in the future, and if so then it may bring the whole of the Wiki into disrepute as you would be an admin. So just be very very careful about what you say/do outside of the wiki. Good luck Merv, but im staying neutral on this one. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 10:54, 30 July 2006 (CDT)
#:Ok I'm sorry to do this but i'm moving to oppose. From the comments ive seen from other people here there are some serious issues about Merv's behavour outside of the wiki, and im really not sure we want to bring some of this bad kharma here. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:55, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{oppose}}. I'm sorry, Merv, but I'm obliged to change my vote. Reputations are a hard thing to live down, and you have all but succeeded in doing so on this wiki; you are one of our most valuable contributors. But it seems that your off-wiki reputation has followed you, and this is something that would only happen if you chose to represent yourself too strongly. Be proud of your work, but never over-represent yourself. Further, as Joe as stated, you already do much of what administrators do: As a veteran contributor, you have move page privileges, so you're trusted by all of your contemporaries here. I ask you to note two important points of concern, shown alone in your comments here on this RfA: (1) Be brief. As an admin, you haven't time for verbose commentary, especially when you have a whole wiki to mop (the actual task we admins should do everyday) or need to be watchful for problems outside of yourself. An admin that has to fight fires that he starts can't do his or her job well. Keep your thoughts short, or better, sometimes silence is good, which shows your neutrality or partiality. (2) Name-calling, even allusions to it, must never be done. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:38, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

'''Neutral'''

#{{neutral}} I am voting 'Neutral' for one reason, and one reason alone: caution. In my opinion, it's too soon for this. I wrote at Merv's last RfA that I would like to see how he handles the recent challenges to his reputation. Not that his reputation itself in certain quarters is at all relevant to his adminship, but how he handles it, is. And I think he has been comporting himself very well, all things considered. I don't see anything about his behaviour on this page that really concerns me, and I don't see spitefulness or revenge-taking on his part, which are the things that would have concerned me most. I am impressed and I commend Merv on how he's handled himself, but I would have preferred to have the opportunity to see him maintain it for two or three months, which might have brought fresh irritants into the mix. If this past month had been three months, with the same behaviour from Merv -- I would be voting 'support' right now. In any case, if this RfA passes it would not bother me at all, and Merv would have my congratulations.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 00:29, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

==== Comments ====
*It's only been a month since the last RFA. Why are we going through this again so soon? Edit: Please ignore the last question. I just noticed it was Peter who made the nomination. --[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 19:06, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

*A few things to point out: Laroque6689 is of course, trying to goad me into some sort of inappropriate outburst disproving that my behavior is fine. So instead of taking my word for it, I'll supply links to things he's said and you can decide for yourselves, but essentially, Larocque6689 is one of the regulars from (''Caution: Some of these messageboard posts I'm pointing out containg mature content'') "[http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/index.php The Moist Board]": many of you, my fellow, BattlestarWikipedians don't use the messageboards a lot so to give a quick run through: when they talk about "those internet Original Series fans who hated the new show and clogged the messageboards full of cruft when the Miniseries came out", that's them. ---->Essentially, I refuse to be intimidated by trolls on the messageboads, and do not shy away from saying that Scifi.com's messageboards have little if any moderating and we need moderators to keep order there. More so than ever after a new troll "hatebait", began sexually harassing several members of the messageboard.---->At any rate, many of you saw during my last RFA that these people just go on mudslinging grudge matches and I doubt actually care about the show. For starters, Larocque6689 does not care about KoenigRules. --->Yikes, this is one of the more tired messageboard arguement tactics by a third party; I am not fighting with KoenigRules, have retracted everything about that mishap, and (Although this is based on how he feels) I think things are productively moving foward. The point is, it's been more or less a rehash of an arguement from ''April''. When Larocque6689 can't think of something actually new to use to defame someone, he just reposts the same old arguements into a room to open old wounds. They just don't like it that I want to actually have people behave on Skiffy, observe: "[http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=39112&highlight=#39112 Blame would-be Sciffy moderator The_Merovirgin, who reports posts of his enemies as fast as they are posted).]--Larocque6689". --->Larocque & Co. kind of obsess over me, as seen [http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=42944&highlight=#42944 in this example], just reposting the same things over and over again. --->[http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=46533&highlight=#46533 here's another one] = Larocque and the other TOS trolls really just hate it that I actually want there to be moderators on Skiffy. I mean heck, Koenigrules was there post-GTA's and shared in my disgust at the troll backlash from the likes of hatebait, who kept sexually harassing people but never got banned. They kept running around going "report a post and your a snitch and a troll!" (Trolling being the exact opposite of reporting bad posts). And of course, Larocque has now [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=7948&highlight=#7948 announced my new RFA in another troll-forum]], in the dedicated Hate-The-Merovingian thread. Any surprse that a few hours after we started, someone joined BattlestarWiki (Cranky1c) for the express purpose of voting against me? Well, judge for yourselves Larocque6689's conduct and character; check out his [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/search.php?search_author=larocque6689 List of posts on MortalStorm] and [http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/search.php?search_author=larocque6689 List of posts on Moist Board]. I'm sorry that KoenigRules and I, and the rest of the BSG community, have to keep dealing with people like this. --->Finally, Larocque6689.....is just obviously a malicious user who popped in to vote against me. '''Please take a look at the [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Larocque6689 Full List of Larocque6689's Contributions to BattlestarWiki]:''' Once, on April 12, he made some minor changes to "33" and "Water". Besides that, ''All he's done is come here to yell about me becomeing Administrator....of a website he hardly ever uses'''. Funny that he knew to voice his opinions on my RFA here, when an announcement that there's an Administratorship election in progress wasn't even posteed as a header on top of the website: these TOS trolls (people that actually use the term "GINO"/originated it) just....stalk me on the internet all the time and obsessively read everything I do. Creepy and petty. ---->What are Larocque6689's opinions? Well, judge their worth on their merit I guess. Myself, I would value KoenigRules vote/input on my RFA (even if negative) and have sent him a PM asking if he'd like to vote me up or down. Because KoenigRules knows what KoenigRules thinks, not Larocque6689. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:19, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
**A couple of things Merv. First, it's true I haven't contributed a lot to the Wiki. One of the reasons was that your power-tripping drove me away. I had actully prepared a whole whack of stuff from my own BSG website. At some point I would love to buff up both the TNS and TOS sections, but that's my business. (And to the Wiki-ians, yes, you have permission to use my website as a resource ) Secondly, I'm not trying to goad you into anything - I'm just asking a simple question: "Why does this matter?" Thirdly, someone did alert me to this RFA. I thought it was open, which is why I posted in it. There's no conspiracy at work, it's just a fact. I was going to go "neutral" until you struck out a vote against your adminship (which I really think was out of order). Cranky's vote should have been discarded but not by you. You could have shown restraint: you didn't. Finally, instead of using this opportunity to show your best side, you belittle my (modest) contributions here, try and second-guess my motives, and bring in stuff from other forums which don't have any place here. I did not come here to thwart your latest attempt to become an admin, rather, I just came here with some questions. If you could just calm down for a few moments, this exercise could become productive again. (To the wiki people, I'm sorry I screwed up the formatting, this isn't exactly user-friendly and I'll try my best not to do that again) {{unsigned|Larocque6689}}
***I appreciate that there are complicated inter-personal issues at work here which involve off-wiki activities, but could I please encourage the participants here to refrain from harsh language and mud-slinging? Every user here is entitled to an opinion. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:20, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
****Merv, NEVER link to other websites which contain adult/pornographic images, at the very least without some kind of warning. Some of us use the wiki at work... --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:16, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
*****Merv, you not doing yourself any favors responding to these types of posts. It's making me waver on my support. I appreciate your hard work, but these kinds of attacks are best ignored. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 07:53, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
******Agreed. Best to just let them shout themselves out. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 08:40, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
*******Now that's "Admin" type behavior, and will be appreciated. :-) --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 08:50, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
********Merv, I wasn't trying to goad you into anything. There was a reason I cast a Neutral vote. I had some questions but had no desire to be an impediment to the outcome of the vote. Your striking out Cranky's vote (while procedurally correct) really stepped out of the boundaries of what I consider nominal election behavior. For the very same reason, what right did you have in taking another "Oppose" vote and reclassifying it as a "Weak Oppose"? You aren't in charge of this RFA, other people are, and that's thir responsibility, not yours. In an election, a candidate does not throw out votes cast against him, for the same reason that it's considered improper to stuff the ballot box. Other people are in charge of the ballot box, not the candidates. Your response - which seems to be a standard one - is to toss out the "troll" label and post a bunch of links. You've psycho-analyzed me and claim I "don't really care" about KR. (It's an utterly false claim, if you knew anything about me). I agree with Shane - you owe me an sincere apology, which I would gladly accept if one were offered. I didn't bring any of the off-Wiki stuff into this RFA for the simple reason that they don't belong here. Rather, I asked a question, which remains unanswered. Granted, it's a subjective and kind of fuzzy question, but given the number of times these RFA's have happened, it is a valid one. "Why is this position so important to you?" You've invested a lot of time - emotional and otherwise - in "Plan R" - and simply won't take no for an answer. You could almost add a tagline to your name: "desperately wants to be a Wiki admin." All I just want to know why it matters to you so much to be elevated to this position. Because you really, really want it.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 17:23, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
*********Mercifull moved it himself and added week oppose to it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 17:42, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
**********My bad. I would have struck those remarks and your response, but I guess it's part of the record. Please skip over that sentence. Thanks.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 17:55, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
*I would just like to add that I dont have anything against you Merv, and i've been ''very'' impressed with the contributions you have made here, however as can be seen from this page there are still a lot of issues regarding conflicts with other people and i'm not sure this is the kind of thing we want to bring over to the wiki. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 08:05, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
**Mercifull I don't know if you go to the messageboards a lot, but there is actually not "issues" online except for trolls yelling at me like this. I honestly do not know how KoenigRules feels (his opinion would actually matter) though I hope I made amends with hem. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 08:37, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
***I dont use any BSG/Sci Fi message boards for unfortunatly all I have to go on is what is shown here. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 09:33, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

:For some time now, one of my side projects has been to review Merv's message board postings, as well as the postings that ''related to'' Merv. Granted, there's been a change in his behavior, which became prominent in the aftermath of the KoenigRules incident. It is obvious to me that Merv isn't very well liked and there are reasons, and let's just leave it at that for right now. Yet, an observation I have made is that the same people who decry his behaviors also commit similar behaviors themselves: personal attacks. I'm not going to provide links and all that because Merv's links (warnings are good things Merv) are more than sufficient to illustrate my point: his opponents employ the same disgusting behaviors that they accuse him of. Yes, the KR incident was deplorable, however it is the issue that keeps on being dragged out like a dead horse and beaten ''ad nauseum''. I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but judging from comments from both parties, I believe that they want the issue dead and buried. Essentially, I feel that the decision to elevate Merv to admin status would be controversial, regardless of whether or not people agree that he has changed his behavior. It might also bear badly upon the Wiki, given that Merv has issues with people on the boards.

:Merv is a great contributor to the Wiki. The issue that some people have had is that he has, in the past, spoken as being one of the operators of the Wiki. In fact, while he has never really said as such, people assume him to be the official spokesperson for the Wiki. '''This is not the case.''' I will therefore be codifying that into an official policy, which I will be running through the [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]] as my ill body permits.

:Another thing is that I don't believe Merv ''needs'' the tools. From what I've gathered from his words, the tools would be more of a convenience if anything else. (This by the way is not a vote, hence this being under the comments section.) What I am really saying here is that people think being an administrator is a life-long job title. It isn't. Let me remind people that administrative privileges can be taken away if misused.

:I put this all here because I feel that people should really understand that people don't have to be administrators to help shape the wiki. Adminship is not an entitlement. It is not a title. It is a responsibility. Also, in Larocque's case, if he was scared off by Merv, he shouldn't have been; he should have approached any admin with his concerns. It should not take an RFA to bring these issues up. He's more than welcome to contribute here. As is anyone else. If anyone's been "scared off" for any reason, I would very much like to know this, because this concerns me greatly.

:I've said my piece. Questions? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 12:51, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

: '''The following was moved by [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] at 12:51, 31 July 2006 (CDT). It is an oppose vote that cannot be counted due to Cranky1c being a new user.'''

:{{Oppose}} With all due respect, the arguement that a couple of months of improved behavior is equivalent to "adhering to higher standards on a permanent basis" is unpersuasive. KR was not the subject of a mere prank or fan infighting, but suffered an intrusion in his professional life that can not be overlooked for a nice e-mail and the submission of some articles, no matter how well done. Those of us who work in professional environments know that administrative and organizational memory for this kind of thing is not wiped clean even when it falls below the threshold for disciplinary action. Some errors in judgement are simply incompatable with being trusted with positions of authority, and I believe this is the case here, whatever his contributions. Mero may be a talented contributor and editor, but he should remain so. --<s>[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]] 12:08, 16 March 2006 (EST)</s>
::Member since 31 July 2006. Vote will not be counted.---->As a countermeasure against voter fraud, you have to be a member of BattlestarWiki for at least 3 weeks before you're allowed to vote (and even then, your vote might be cast in a bad light if you only occassionally contribute). This person joined less than 6 hours ago. Yikes. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:32, 30 July 2006 (CDT)
:::Merv, what business do you have in striking out someone's vote in YOUR OWN RFA? That's something for the admins. You have no business discarding ballots for your own election. That takes a LOT of chuztpah. I'm changing to a NO vote. --[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 00:11, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::Note: I'm sorry if I'm not allowed to do that I wasn't sure; we don't do RFA's very often, I thought anyone could point that out. Regardless, no, what was balsy was that we have a 3 week waiting period before voting and you've got people joining a matter of hours ago to try and vote people down (Peter just editing something a few minutes ago; Peter I assume if I have done something wrong you'd have told me? If I have I'm sorry, I wasn't sure what to do)--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:35, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
:::::Merv's action was appropriate, per the precedent we set during Merv's second RFA. See the [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian|relevant page]] for details. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:09, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::::I didn't read the rules closely enough, sorry about that, folks. Fair enough to strike the vote (mistaken sure, fraudulent, c'mon) but that doesn't change the merits of the arguement. Probably should have gone under comments. Still learning to navigate this a little. --[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]]
:::::::By all means (based on past RFA precedent) you are allowed to make comments on an RFA, even if you aren't eligible to vote yet. Perhaps you'd like to move this to Comments?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 09:26, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::::::I tried to move it around to the comments section earlier. Doesn't seem to have taken, could be I haven't done it right. Will Try again latter.--[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]]

:I want to take a minute to clarify my reasons for nominating Merv, and respond to a few valid points that have been brought up.

:Joe states that he doesn't believe Merv "needs" the admin-level tools and privileges. I think it's hard to argue that any one of us "need" those tools to fulfill our functions - there are currently seven administrators, and if any one of us were removed, the others could certainly keep the place running. We did not ''need'' another administrator when we elected CalculatinAvatar and Mercifull, but consensus was that they had demonstrated a capacity to use those powers well, and that their help would be welcome.

:So, the relevant question for me is not whether Merv ''needs'' to be an administrator, but whether he can shoulder those responsibilities and better add to our community with them. I believe this unequivocally. I often took great issue with Merv's behavior from the time I started contributing here until last spring, and did not hesitate to speak out against him. In the time since, I have watched him grow to a reasonable, level-headed, fair-minded and capable contributor who communicates well, admits when he's wrong, and throws himself whole-heartedly into his work, whether that consist of tedious cleanup and drudgework, active discussion on talk pages, or large and complicated articles.

:It first occurred to me that Merv had reached a point where he would be a capable moderator shortly ''before'' the KR incident. I had already intended to nominate him for some time at that point, but the words exchanged at that time shook my conviction deeply, and I decided that Merv would have to demonstrate his responsibility on a much longer basis in order for me to support him. As I stated above, I now believe he has done this.

:Merv is an extremely active contributor, which means that he is often online. When we are confronted by vandals, as we were [[Battlestar_Wiki:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Report_on_Vandalism_by_User:Mickey_McGizzle|last month]], it is essential that we have a rapid response available. Merv, simply by dint of his ernest contribution and near constant presence, would increase our ability to defend the wiki immeasurably. By the same reasoning, Merv would benefit from the rollback function, and he can be trusted to edit pages that, for various reasons, need to be protected.

:So, does Merv ''need'' to be an Admin? Well, no. But neither did CA or Mercifull, and I'm pleased to work alongside both of them. Merv can be trusted, and he should.

:Secondly, in response to [[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] and [[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]], regarding the issue of Merv's off-wiki activities - I frankly could not care less what Merv does outside of the wiki. We all have friends and enemies outside of the wiki, and their opinions of us - and our other activities in the real world - should have very little bearing on our opinions of each other. We have a very narrow focus: creating an encyclopedia for all things ''Galactica'', and maintaining order and harmony among our participants. This is why we don't accept votes from newly registered users with an axe to grind. By the same token, any activities outside of that - petty arguments, posting pornographic links, whatever - are irrelevant to our central goal.

:What ''does'' matter is when our conflicts in the outside world get dragged into the Wiki, or when our actions here insight comment and dissent out there. This was why Merv's actions with regard to KR shocked my so greatly, and shook my growing confidence in him as a contributor. When Merv realized the significance of the situation, he resolved that conflict as quickly and maturely as he could, and I believe that he learned a valuable lesson. It has been three months since then, and at this point I'm willing to stake my reputation as a judge of character on my conviction that it will not happen again.

:Lastly, I want to point out that while every admin elected to date has passed his RFA with unanimous consent, that is going to be an increasingly difficult standard to match going forward. There is at least one user who has questioned my fitness for adminship, and stated that he would have voted against me had he been given the chance. Merv is a controversial figure, and is likely to inspire objection, but I believe that his qualifications are clear. If we ever break our precedent for unanimous acclamation, Merv is the candidate to do it with. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:49, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

::YOu said all of that a lot better than I could Peter (btw Peter and Joe, sorry I forgot to put a warning up before the links to the troll stuff, I should have thought of that, but once Merc pointed it out I did, sorry)--->Merciful: you don't really go to the messageboards a lot you said, but I haven't been in a fight with anyone online for months. The moist board trolls just keep yelling all the time, but I'm not stirring up controversy on a weekly basis; I mean check foryourselves (Joe said he did) I"m not really argueing with anyone. Yes, as you said I tried to fix things with KR as best I could, and I realized not to Jump to conclusions (It's not simply that I'm sorry that this got me in an arguement; I actually now realize my conclusions were totally wrong, as were my actions, and I shouldn't have done any of them). Beyond that there really isn't much "Controversy" in making me an Admin; I mean I'd like to know what a big respected fan like KR thinks, but the moist board people are just the trolls that get kicked off of Skiffy. --->I"m just fumbling for words; Joe and Peter summarized the situation with them more accurately than I can. I hope, Merciful, that you reconsider your switch from Neutral to Oppose, though I understand why you did it and I'm glad about the weak-oppose label you put in; but the reasons you said were controversy --->There really is not current online controversy, as Joe pointed out this is just people posting dead arguements ad nauseum long after they've been buried.--------->On top of all of this is the concern that I'm doing things "outside of the wiki", that is, acting like a spokesperson. After my KR goof (I was angry and not really thinking then) I've made it a point to always point out that I'm not some official spokesperson for Battlestarwiki, to point out to people that other people are here as well and its a group effort. Joe himself noted above that I haven't been doing that (I'm glad he was making sure). Yes, by virtue of the fact that many others aren't on the messageboards but I am, some people confuse things and think I'm in a higher position because I'm the only guy they see; but I mean SteelViper, NoneofyourBusinesss, and Sauron18 also go to the messagebaords; point is you might see people making that mistake, but whenever I have come into contact with them I have made it a point to correct their mistake and explain that BattlestarWiki is a large group effort. --->This also happened in our fan awards, the [[Golden Toaster Awards]]: the trolls on the Skiffy board don't bother to read other fansites, and there were several dozen "Representatives" of these awards on different boards, but I was a ''prominent'' one on Skiffy (I wans't even the only one, there were 2 of us); if you check, they then started positing all of these things going "We are boycotting the GTA's! The Merovingian *RUNS* them!"...and I had to explain that I in fact was ''far'' from running them as like 20 people did more work on those than I. The trolls just think like that.------------>But as for the point of letting messsageboard and BattlestarWiki things mix here, ***''''Do you see any messageboard posters voting here in my favor? Do you see any threads on the messageboards telling people to come vote for me?'''***--->I wanted to be on my best behavior, so I've made it a point ''not'' to mention this current RFA to *anyone* or bring it up on any messageboards. I've only been talking about it ''here''. There are no throngs of Merovingian supporters coming in to vote, who are just from the bboards and not regular contributors. THat's not happening. I wanted to make sure things were restrained here and I handled the situation maturely, without mixing it up with messageboard goings-on. I hope this is proof enough that I am trying my best to make sure that messageboard and wiki activities don't affect each other. THanks. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 16:43, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
:::Merv, there's not a lot I really want to add to the below comment, except that I'd wish you'd stop trying to explain away your critics as "trolls" who belong to "troll boards". You've actually slammed the entire user community of two separate message boards. I think the characterization is undeserved, and cannot fathom why a "joke" board like Moist continues to draw so much derision from some quarters. The humor is rough, but it's a friendly place and the members go there to hang out and have fun. One of Moist's longtime critics is now a "Moist Babe" for life. ;-) I'm not suggesting Merv join up - but maybe it's time to bury the axe, or least the epithets. Also, if your intention is to keep separate your message board activities and your wiki activities, then you're not doing a good job of it. Let me suggest that you do as you claim, and don't talk about the people who don't like you. If you claim that it doesn't bother you, then don't let it bother you. In any case, none of this should have any bearing on this RFA, so please stop peppering your responses with references to the people you claim are "trolls". Let me suggest that when you're at Sciffy, don't bring up the Wiki. And when you're at the Wiki, don't bring up Sciffy. And in the RFA's, keep the other boards out of it.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 23:26, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::Gougef advised me to stop responding to these; he's right that's for the best so I won't make up some long counterarguement. However, before leaving I will point out that A) one of those two "communities I slammed" openly advertises themselves as "we're the board for people that got banned from Scifi.com and feel it is our right to post porn and whatever", and is by no means a "community". B) It is quite difficult for me to not mix messageboard and wiki stuff, when users who rarely if ever actually come to BattlestarWiki such as yourself come here from the messageboards to berate my RFA. Yes, many of my critics are simply trolls and do not represent "the voice of online BSG messageboards". Enough; I'm not even going to lower myself to such an arguementative level as that; I'm following Gougef's advise; no one is playing petty games, I'm not dignifying these attacks with responses from now on. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:42, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
:::::Merv - that above claim about the message board is just another falsehood. That board does indeed host members who have been victimized by the admins at SciFi, but we took just as vigorous an approach against the haitbait porn links as any of the other boards. It's simply unwelcome there. Take a hint! If you want to stop slamming other boards, then stop slamming other boards and lobbing bombs larded with lies. It's really that simple. If you want it to stop, then stop. Also, please note, I have not attacked you here. I joined Mercifull in a Neutral vote and asked a sincere question. You've simply responded with more attacks. I'm also greatly amused at being lumped in with the "trolls"l? Because I've been in this game over twelve years and I can bring a great deal to the table (view [http://members.tripod.com/john_larocque/tns/archive.html]). Time considerations (I contribute to several websites as well as additonal duties) and residual disgust over the KR blacklist several weeks ago had dampened my enthusiasm to import some of my work over here at the Wiki. But I am very proud of the work I have done chronicling both Galactica series over the years. I'm also proud of my associations on the several boards. Whatever you may claim about me, my stand with KR several weeks ago was authentic. Your claim that "I don't really care" is yet another lie you haven't retracted, and which your enablers will probably let go. I am once again going to re-iterate my demand for a retraction and a sincere apology from you on this.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 23:56, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::::NO MAS! NO MAS!. Please for the sake of the sanity of all. Take it elswhere. VIVA LA Reisistance!! --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 07:05, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
::::::To make one final note: You seem to misunderstand, in my above post the messageboard I was referring to specifically was MortalStorm (which openly and proudly posts porn and junk, as it openly describes itself as the "Screw Scifi.com" site); I was ''not'' talking about Moist Board, which as you said does not link porn, etc. Other than that, it is immature to demand some sort of appology; yes, I consider what you and others are doing to be trolling/personal attacks. That's true. I don't know all of your 12 years history with Galactica as you say, all I know is what I've personally seen you doing on the messageboards for the past 2 years, and that is what I'm basing this on. --->What does "MAS" mean?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 10:21, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
:::::::"No mas!" = "No more!" (in Spanish). Though there ended up being "mas" anyway. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:26, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
::::::::I only speak French, Latin, and Quenya :) Larocque6689: I am sorry that this has come to this point, and I always *hope* that in the future all conflicts can be resolved; maybe you didn't realize it happenning, (as I didn't when I exploded at KR for no good reason) but over time on the bboards you've turned into this person that just yells alot when you don't like something, you've resorted to embittered personal attacks, and all sorts of things. Yes, I have had a few problems with this (everyone does at one time or another on the boards) but even *I* have come to trying to compromise over stuff. I hope you do too, as you aren't just some happy-slapping ADD kid on a computer, but actually know and care a lot about the show and can contribute. But what I've ''seen'' more often is you resorting to really bad personally attacks, and pretty often. Currently, yes you are making "trollish" personal attacks; do I think this is inherent to your character? No. I think and hope that you'll simple stop doing this and focus on the future and the show again. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 10:33, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
I have thought about changing my support, but I think that Merv has even learned something today (I tried to help). Merv what did you learn today?? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 21:10, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
:Well I've learned that yelling back isn't going to solve anything, and I've actually got to try to work ''with'' Larocque. '''Larocque, I'm sorry if my language was broad'''; you yourself are not actually a "troll" or anything; I do think that your position about me online, while maybe not malicious, is really overeacting and not accurate; there really isn't a cloud of controversy or arguements following me around online, unless you want to keep dragging up old problems which I'd hoped everyone involved (you, me, KR, everyone) had worked out already. I am sorry if I'm actually confusing your zealous defense of KR with troll attacks, but you must understand that months after the KR arguement trolls keep bringing that up as a good arguement starter (I mean blatant, "we're bored today, lets yell about that again" type things). If you wanted to make a stand on KR, good; but I've tried to work things out with KR and I've already realized that those such as yourself Loracque in the KR camp were in fact right all along. --->I have to deal with trolls from time to time (that is, people who actually get banned for things) who like to yell about this, and further I tried as best I could to discuss things with KR in private, so A) I think I reacted a little strongly in thinking that you came here with nothing but malicious intent, I'm sorry but people have been known to do that so I mistook that, B) I am (I hope) on not nearly as bad terms with KR as you are afraid, I am not yelling at KR and I do in fact support his work in fandom. No, I am not blasting yourwebsite, and as for the messagebaords I mentioned/linked, not everyone on these boards as a whole are bad, though from what I linked I hope you can see that there were quite a few embittered anti-skiffy and anti-Merovingian threads and posters which got me kind of worried. So I'm sorry that you came here upset or thinking otherwise about my intentions; and I in turn got upset at (what I thought) was you being upset at me with little provocation; though of course I hadn't mentioned the pvted attempts to work things out with KR (Which I hope healed wounds and restored trust/respect); though I hope you can empathize that many posts by people (on bboards you've talked on but not really yourself) blasting and hounding me on other sites has had me a little worried and on edge. I hope we can work this out.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:35, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
::Aside from my campaign against the abuse of thge post-reporting tools at Sciffy, I really have been dormant when it comes with "anti-Merv" activities. I'm an admin at MortalStorm and we do have a thread there, but it's mostly for people to let off steam (including the multiple-banned Mocty, patron saint of the Frakheads). We don't have a lot of rules there, but we did have to clamp down hard when haitbait arrived. Mostly, bulletin boards are where people should be able to "hang out", have fun, and talk to each other about things they have in common. That's my philosphy anyway. I msut admit that the tenor of your replies really took me aback. I think that you're too quick on the trigger when it comes to diagnosting (and sometimes misdiagnosing) problems. I could probably give you a few tips on how to deal with situations based on my own non-wiki experience. Personally, I think adminning is a thankless task and often boring, and as a general rule I prefer to play things low-key and remain largely invisible. Anyway, thanks for the reply. You'll find me pleasant to deal with if you are pleasant with me, and hopefully we'll get on better in the future.
:::Thanks, I agree. I think it's just the worst things i see online that stick out. We should be focusing on the ''true'' enemies Larocque, the Emmy Voters. Damn them all to hell. With my last breath I spit at them, for hate's sake. (Actually, that breath is saved for Rick Berman...you konw what i mean). --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:30, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

==== Questions for the candidate ====

''A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:''
:'''1.''' What duties, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out [[Battlestar Wiki:Project List]]'s for a list of projects.
::A. Episode Summaries, episode analysis, episode questions, episode notes. Character bios. Cylon series. Spearheading the Writer/Director category project. Furthing the [[Timeline (RDM)|Timeline]] project (and fighting the grave threat posed by the [[Season two timeline discontinuity]]). The [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies|Battles series]] (which I created). Going through every source of ''information'' available, be it GalacticaStation, GateWorld, NowPlayingMagazine, Lucy Lawless fansites, Ron Moore's blog, the official messageboards, and post as much ''information'' as possible on this Wiki, and turn it into a truly reliable "go-to" site for up to the minute BSG information, **making sure that all of the information we post is properly sourced.
::B. Expanding our Cast and Crew articles, which so far are kind of sparse. This is major ongoing project.

:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions here, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
::A. The battles pages, all of which were of my own design (I made the battleboxes for Lord of the Rings battles on standard wikipedia, and when these were done, I wanted to keep doing something like that so I created the battles series here)
::B. Due to my vast knowledge of BSG trivial facts and analysis, I have made great contributions to the episode guides, and as it's not like I have a life outside of this :) I'm usually the first to post notes for an episode up after it airs (though this is not a rule), and I'm really happy with the episode guide stuff I've done (check the history tabs, etc). I guess a random sampling of some of my better works would be [[Downloaded]], [[Cally]], [[Uniform]], [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]] etc., my great contributions to [[Life Forms of the Twelve Colonies]] (ever vigilant),...and pretty much the entire episode guide. I spearheaded the movement (after debate for months) to give Cylon copies who have become individuals their own character pages, and to consider them separate characters.
::C. Created and implemented the [[Battlestar Wiki:Episode Standardization|Episode Standardization]] project, in which I removed the "mini-reviews" from our Season 1 episode guide and replaced them with (I hope) impartial Analysis.
::D. Helping out on the Welcoming Committee.
::E. I tried to work things out with Koenigrules after what happened the other month; last RFA I was shocked that KR thought I hadn't appologized for what happened (I did, completely, I just made a big mistake which I retract); however rather than draggint things out in the open I tried to work things out through Private Messages on the bboards since my last RFA, which I felt was the more mature thing to do.
::F. Since my initial time at BattlestarWiki, as Peter mentioned above, I've gone from "biting the noobs" to gently trying to help along new users. See [[ User talk:The Merovingian#Diff for future RFA|this page]] for one example. Also, as Homeworld616 said above, he was a new user and rather than becoming impatient that he was unfamiliar with things here (as I might have a year ago) I helped him along with constructive imput.
::G. Updating the [[Portal:Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|Portals Project pages]], and my extensive contributions and revisions/restucturing of the [[Cylon agent speculation]]page ([[Jammer]] = Cylon), as well as [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]]
::H. Asking a large portion of questions on [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques]]; I hate it when other websites get to talk to someone like, Katee Sackhoff, and half the questions are "wow, why are u so hot?" "Wow, is it fun to work on the show?" etc. I'm happy I was able to provide good questions for that which actually addressed several long standing problems (although the ''Wizards'' have gained the upper hand in the [[Season two timeline discontinuity]].
::I. On my own initiative e-mailing [[Bear McCreary]] and [[Sources:Official Communique with Bear McCreary|obtaining his permission]] for BattlestarWiki to post the lyrics to the soundtracks here.

:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
::A. After my last RFA, I Private Messaged Koenigrules and (I hope) worked things out, in private as opposed to dragging it through the public eye.
::B. During the RFC for Shane, rather than preaching fire and brimstone I tried to be restrained and give Shane opportunity to reform his behavior. That could have gotten ugly but I think we handled it well, without having to have temporary bans or anything.

:'''4.''' I have worries that because of the amount of previous RFA's and self nominations that you believe that being an Administrator is very important to you. I don't agree with people using Admin status as a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What adminship is not|"trophy symbol"]], what can you say to alleviate my concerns about this and what would you do as an administrator that you are not currently allowed to do as a user?
::I'd be able to ban vandals, delete pages instead of waiting for an Administrator to come by to delete them, and all in all it wouild make my work alot faster to be one of the "[[Mop Boy]]s" :) --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 08:48, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (3)

2006-08-02T05:29:32Z

Dogger: Dogger votes Neutral

===[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]]===
[[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship|Back to RFA]].

'''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian (3)|action=edit}} Vote here] '''
'''(5/4/0) ending 17:51, 6 August 2006 (CDT)'''

{{User|The Merovingian}} – The Merovingian's history with us has not been entirely smooth. During his first months with us, his unmatched energy and enthusiasm for the project were sadly tempered with an impatience and quickness to anger which did not recommend him for adminship.

In the last few months, his demeanor has improved drastically, and he has acquired a remarkable maturity and level-headedness. This track record was unfortunately marred by an incident three months ago, involving a series of attacks against fan reporter Jim Iaccino, a.k.a. "KoenigRules". The results of this were such that I was forced to oppose his last nomination for adminship - despite his recently improved behavior, I felt he needed to demonstrate that he was capable of adhering to higher standards on a permanent basis.

It is my opinion that Merv has done so. He now makes persuasive arguments in rational tones, he appeals and defers to group consensus when appropriate, and he has been helpful and patient with new users.

Merv has always been a contributor of the highest order. As one of the most serious and vocal opponents of his adminship in the past, it is my pleasure to state my belief that Merv has demonstrated the maturity and patience to wield admin privileges responsibly and effectively. I would be honored to work alongside him as an administrator. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:37, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
:''Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:''--I am The Merovingian, and I accept this nomination. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 17:51, 30 July 2006 (CDT)


'''Support'''

#{{support}} as nominator. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:37, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{support}} I am delighted to support, based both on absolutely superb contributions and behavior that has steadily improved to its currently decorous state. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 04:18, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{support}} Has made excellent contributions in the last few weeks. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 06:40, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{support}} I've been highly impressed with his contributions and such here recently. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 13:05, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{Support}} Merv was the second user to greet me when I came here. I was overzealous when I first arrived, but he helped me to temper myself through helpful suggestions that were not rude or even bossy. He's an excellent editor here and I couldn't think of a better choice for admin. --[[User:Homeworld616|Homeworld616]] 01:33, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

'''Oppose'''

#{{oppose}} I've reconsidered my vote light of Merv striking out Cranky's vote. Not that there was anything wrong in striking out Cranky's vote, but the fact that Merv did it shows that he hasn't learned much in the way he deals with people. I would like to respect Peter's judgment that he's now ready for admin-ship, but this incident just pushed me back to the "NO" camp. Thanks Merv. I should also add that I'm utterly baffled that this process has gone on for nearly a year and three previous failed admin votes, in which at least one of them Merv nominated himself, and in the other two he accepted. I guess the one question I have is "why does this position matter" so much? He didn't even refuse the nomination after the KR incident, which would have been the honorable thing to do. In previous RFA's, he's bragged that he had a Plan R ready (recruitment) to essentially troll for votes at other forums. (Mercifully, this was not employed during the last RFA). Still, the question begs to be answered: Why does this position matter so much? Why is being a contributor not good enough? And sadly, I don't agree that he's ready yet. I really wanted to give him a chance.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 00:16, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{Oppose}} '''Strongly''' - Merv has attitude has not changed and I think that people should be reminded of the RFC in how he handles difficulties situations. Not one person owns any such article has people and Merv has told me. No article is of ownership so saying that you are working on your articles should be a presence that he still has the mentality of ownership of the ''wiki''. '''A''' - Merciful and I worked on the Battle template for two weeks and got comments during that time. And once Merciful updated all the pages, Merv objected to it's use and the design. '''B and C''' - In that note, The [[BW:ES]] project has not been finalized nor has anything been set in stone, yet he has gone around to all the episodes and made significant changes without getting any consent with the project group. Posting something on the think tank for project creation, not for doing the standards does not count. The [[BW:ES]] project was not his creation, but [[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] project idea. The podcast project is also something to point out, while there was a field to "view" podcasts from the episode pages, the idea was never implemented because there was to many disagreements. (i.e. [[Battlestar_Wiki_talk:Podcast_Transcripts#100.25_done_podcasts_we_should...]] At this point before he did this, the [[BW:TANK]] project did exist.) '''D''' - No project on welcoming committee. It's open for anyone who can post a welcome message to someone and not just posting, but also helping. '''G''' After being a strong opponent to the idea he has graped the idea that he should be the only person in charge of maintaining the portals (e.x. Check Userpage) and decide what should be placed. (e.x. The RDM Portal FA is a current [[BW:FA]] candidate.) The [[Cylon agent speculation]] page has been a project, but disallows other users information on the page. My own conflicts with merv have yet to be resolved. I have ''yet'' to hear an apology from him from the many actions he has done to enrage me leading up the the RFC on me. The [[BW:AN]] post is another thing. And if you look closely at the RFC, he did preach. The RFC was not a discussion forum, but analysis of the situation of people's comments. I can not vote for a person who can not apologizes to someone after they admit they are wrong except he can to people outside the Wiki. (I would expect a public apology to Larocuque on his talk page because he has said he is sorry in this RFA, but you have not done it directly to him. For this, you can not be ready to be an admin) And using the [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.&oldid=67488 System Message namespace for an RFA], shows me that messages are going to be abused. This system is for server related issues regrading updating and databases issues. General information should be posted on the [[BW:CP]] where there is a notice board, but RFAs don't get "riddled" everywhere except someone's user talk page or if they have pages under "Watch" status. Also in the current sub-page of [[BW:TK]], an established project, he objects to a subpage for a list of manual checks for users and admins. The list is going to be design for admins and users alike to see what is going on the wiki and to give shortcuts to the correct pages. Not one person can be the trafficker of information. We each have our own skills that relay on one another. Merv thinks his skills is all this wiki needs. Me, I good at code, not content, but I love the show, Peter good at grammar, CA, good at grammar. Frank is another contributer to info. Merc has been good with design and syntax fix. Spenc is good at condensing things. Talos is good at images. Ford same reasons. And the wiki can not be here at all without Joe. As posted out, Merv does not want us associated with a outside forum in anyway shape or form to function as one. Also to bring back a forum issue is irreverent to why we should not listen to Larocuque's vote. I do agree that Cranky1c's vote should be discounted because it breaks every rule in the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|book]], but a simple "Please read the RFA guidelines, would have been a simple enough." Also posting a link where there is adult content is UNWISE without any warning. If any of the pictures are like bad, that is serious bad things that can happen to the Wiki even though you are linking. -[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:38, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
#'''Weak '''{{Oppose}} Ok this was a tough decision and most certainly isnt mean as an attack as an oppose. I definitly think you are over a lot of the bad stuff that happened in the past but there are still times when arguments get a little out of hand and when you make changes before concensus is made. I also think the whole Koenigrules issue was a pretty big thing and its hard to forget that. Apologies are fair enough but you need to think a little more about how your actions can affect other people. I think [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What adminship is not|this]] needs to be made completely clear too. And if you does make admin I most definitly dont want to see posts on Skiffy and other forums of you "speaking on behalf" of the Wiki as has done in the past. I'm still skeptical about if another bad situation is going to arise in the future, and if so then it may bring the whole of the Wiki into disrepute as you would be an admin. So just be very very careful about what you say/do outside of the wiki. Good luck Merv, but im staying neutral on this one. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 10:54, 30 July 2006 (CDT)
#:Ok I'm sorry to do this but i'm moving to oppose. From the comments ive seen from other people here there are some serious issues about Merv's behavour outside of the wiki, and im really not sure we want to bring some of this bad kharma here. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 03:55, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
#{{oppose}}. I'm sorry, Merv, but I'm obliged to change my vote. Reputations are a hard thing to live down, and you have all but succeeded in doing so on this wiki; you are one of our most valuable contributors. But it seems that your off-wiki reputation has followed you, and this is something that would only happen if you chose to represent yourself too strongly. Be proud of your work, but never over-represent yourself. Further, as Joe as stated, you already do much of what administrators do: As a veteran contributor, you have move page privileges, so you're trusted by all of your contemporaries here. I ask you to note two important points of concern, shown alone in your comments here on this RfA: (1) Be brief. As an admin, you haven't time for verbose commentary, especially when you have a whole wiki to mop (the actual task we admins should do everyday) or need to be watchful for problems outside of yourself. An admin that has to fight fires that he starts can't do his or her job well. Keep your thoughts short, or better, sometimes silence is good, which shows your neutrality or partiality. (2) Name-calling, even allusions to it, must never be done. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:38, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

'''Neutral'''

#{{neutral}} I am voting 'Neutral' for one reason, and one reason alone: caution. In my opinion, it's too soon for this. I wrote at Merv's last RfA that I would like to see how he handles the recent challenges to his reputation. Not that his reputation itself in certain quarters is at all relevant to his adminship, but how he handles it, is. And I think he has been comporting himself very well, all things considered. I don't see spitefulness or revenge-taking on his part, which are the things that would have concerned me most. I am impressed and I commend Merv on how he's handled himself, but I would have preferred to have the opportunity to see him maintain it for two or three months, which might have brought fresh irritants into the mix. If this past month had been three months, with the same behaviour from Merv -- I would be voting 'support' right now. In any case, if this RfA passes it would not bother me at all, and Merv would have my congratulations.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 00:29, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

==== Comments ====
*It's only been a month since the last RFA. Why are we going through this again so soon? Edit: Please ignore the last question. I just noticed it was Peter who made the nomination. --[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 19:06, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

*A few things to point out: Laroque6689 is of course, trying to goad me into some sort of inappropriate outburst disproving that my behavior is fine. So instead of taking my word for it, I'll supply links to things he's said and you can decide for yourselves, but essentially, Larocque6689 is one of the regulars from (''Caution: Some of these messageboard posts I'm pointing out containg mature content'') "[http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/index.php The Moist Board]": many of you, my fellow, BattlestarWikipedians don't use the messageboards a lot so to give a quick run through: when they talk about "those internet Original Series fans who hated the new show and clogged the messageboards full of cruft when the Miniseries came out", that's them. ---->Essentially, I refuse to be intimidated by trolls on the messageboads, and do not shy away from saying that Scifi.com's messageboards have little if any moderating and we need moderators to keep order there. More so than ever after a new troll "hatebait", began sexually harassing several members of the messageboard.---->At any rate, many of you saw during my last RFA that these people just go on mudslinging grudge matches and I doubt actually care about the show. For starters, Larocque6689 does not care about KoenigRules. --->Yikes, this is one of the more tired messageboard arguement tactics by a third party; I am not fighting with KoenigRules, have retracted everything about that mishap, and (Although this is based on how he feels) I think things are productively moving foward. The point is, it's been more or less a rehash of an arguement from ''April''. When Larocque6689 can't think of something actually new to use to defame someone, he just reposts the same old arguements into a room to open old wounds. They just don't like it that I want to actually have people behave on Skiffy, observe: "[http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=39112&highlight=#39112 Blame would-be Sciffy moderator The_Merovirgin, who reports posts of his enemies as fast as they are posted).]--Larocque6689". --->Larocque & Co. kind of obsess over me, as seen [http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=42944&highlight=#42944 in this example], just reposting the same things over and over again. --->[http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=46533&highlight=#46533 here's another one] = Larocque and the other TOS trolls really just hate it that I actually want there to be moderators on Skiffy. I mean heck, Koenigrules was there post-GTA's and shared in my disgust at the troll backlash from the likes of hatebait, who kept sexually harassing people but never got banned. They kept running around going "report a post and your a snitch and a troll!" (Trolling being the exact opposite of reporting bad posts). And of course, Larocque has now [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=7948&highlight=#7948 announced my new RFA in another troll-forum]], in the dedicated Hate-The-Merovingian thread. Any surprse that a few hours after we started, someone joined BattlestarWiki (Cranky1c) for the express purpose of voting against me? Well, judge for yourselves Larocque6689's conduct and character; check out his [http://www.mortalstorm.com/phpbb2/search.php?search_author=larocque6689 List of posts on MortalStorm] and [http://www.stallioncornell.com/board/search.php?search_author=larocque6689 List of posts on Moist Board]. I'm sorry that KoenigRules and I, and the rest of the BSG community, have to keep dealing with people like this. --->Finally, Larocque6689.....is just obviously a malicious user who popped in to vote against me. '''Please take a look at the [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Larocque6689 Full List of Larocque6689's Contributions to BattlestarWiki]:''' Once, on April 12, he made some minor changes to "33" and "Water". Besides that, ''All he's done is come here to yell about me becomeing Administrator....of a website he hardly ever uses'''. Funny that he knew to voice his opinions on my RFA here, when an announcement that there's an Administratorship election in progress wasn't even posteed as a header on top of the website: these TOS trolls (people that actually use the term "GINO"/originated it) just....stalk me on the internet all the time and obsessively read everything I do. Creepy and petty. ---->What are Larocque6689's opinions? Well, judge their worth on their merit I guess. Myself, I would value KoenigRules vote/input on my RFA (even if negative) and have sent him a PM asking if he'd like to vote me up or down. Because KoenigRules knows what KoenigRules thinks, not Larocque6689. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:19, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
**A couple of things Merv. First, it's true I haven't contributed a lot to the Wiki. One of the reasons was that your power-tripping drove me away. I had actully prepared a whole whack of stuff from my own BSG website. At some point I would love to buff up both the TNS and TOS sections, but that's my business. (And to the Wiki-ians, yes, you have permission to use my website as a resource ) Secondly, I'm not trying to goad you into anything - I'm just asking a simple question: "Why does this matter?" Thirdly, someone did alert me to this RFA. I thought it was open, which is why I posted in it. There's no conspiracy at work, it's just a fact. I was going to go "neutral" until you struck out a vote against your adminship (which I really think was out of order). Cranky's vote should have been discarded but not by you. You could have shown restraint: you didn't. Finally, instead of using this opportunity to show your best side, you belittle my (modest) contributions here, try and second-guess my motives, and bring in stuff from other forums which don't have any place here. I did not come here to thwart your latest attempt to become an admin, rather, I just came here with some questions. If you could just calm down for a few moments, this exercise could become productive again. (To the wiki people, I'm sorry I screwed up the formatting, this isn't exactly user-friendly and I'll try my best not to do that again) {{unsigned|Larocque6689}}
***I appreciate that there are complicated inter-personal issues at work here which involve off-wiki activities, but could I please encourage the participants here to refrain from harsh language and mud-slinging? Every user here is entitled to an opinion. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:20, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
****Merv, NEVER link to other websites which contain adult/pornographic images, at the very least without some kind of warning. Some of us use the wiki at work... --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 04:16, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
*****Merv, you not doing yourself any favors responding to these types of posts. It's making me waver on my support. I appreciate your hard work, but these kinds of attacks are best ignored. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 07:53, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
******Agreed. Best to just let them shout themselves out. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 08:40, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
*******Now that's "Admin" type behavior, and will be appreciated. :-) --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 08:50, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
********Merv, I wasn't trying to goad you into anything. There was a reason I cast a Neutral vote. I had some questions but had no desire to be an impediment to the outcome of the vote. Your striking out Cranky's vote (while procedurally correct) really stepped out of the boundaries of what I consider nominal election behavior. For the very same reason, what right did you have in taking another "Oppose" vote and reclassifying it as a "Weak Oppose"? You aren't in charge of this RFA, other people are, and that's thir responsibility, not yours. In an election, a candidate does not throw out votes cast against him, for the same reason that it's considered improper to stuff the ballot box. Other people are in charge of the ballot box, not the candidates. Your response - which seems to be a standard one - is to toss out the "troll" label and post a bunch of links. You've psycho-analyzed me and claim I "don't really care" about KR. (It's an utterly false claim, if you knew anything about me). I agree with Shane - you owe me an sincere apology, which I would gladly accept if one were offered. I didn't bring any of the off-Wiki stuff into this RFA for the simple reason that they don't belong here. Rather, I asked a question, which remains unanswered. Granted, it's a subjective and kind of fuzzy question, but given the number of times these RFA's have happened, it is a valid one. "Why is this position so important to you?" You've invested a lot of time - emotional and otherwise - in "Plan R" - and simply won't take no for an answer. You could almost add a tagline to your name: "desperately wants to be a Wiki admin." All I just want to know why it matters to you so much to be elevated to this position. Because you really, really want it.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 17:23, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
*********Mercifull moved it himself and added week oppose to it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 17:42, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
**********My bad. I would have struck those remarks and your response, but I guess it's part of the record. Please skip over that sentence. Thanks.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 17:55, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
*I would just like to add that I dont have anything against you Merv, and i've been ''very'' impressed with the contributions you have made here, however as can be seen from this page there are still a lot of issues regarding conflicts with other people and i'm not sure this is the kind of thing we want to bring over to the wiki. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 08:05, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
**Mercifull I don't know if you go to the messageboards a lot, but there is actually not "issues" online except for trolls yelling at me like this. I honestly do not know how KoenigRules feels (his opinion would actually matter) though I hope I made amends with hem. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 08:37, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
***I dont use any BSG/Sci Fi message boards for unfortunatly all I have to go on is what is shown here. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 09:33, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

:For some time now, one of my side projects has been to review Merv's message board postings, as well as the postings that ''related to'' Merv. Granted, there's been a change in his behavior, which became prominent in the aftermath of the KoenigRules incident. It is obvious to me that Merv isn't very well liked and there are reasons, and let's just leave it at that for right now. Yet, an observation I have made is that the same people who decry his behaviors also commit similar behaviors themselves: personal attacks. I'm not going to provide links and all that because Merv's links (warnings are good things Merv) are more than sufficient to illustrate my point: his opponents employ the same disgusting behaviors that they accuse him of. Yes, the KR incident was deplorable, however it is the issue that keeps on being dragged out like a dead horse and beaten ''ad nauseum''. I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but judging from comments from both parties, I believe that they want the issue dead and buried. Essentially, I feel that the decision to elevate Merv to admin status would be controversial, regardless of whether or not people agree that he has changed his behavior. It might also bear badly upon the Wiki, given that Merv has issues with people on the boards.

:Merv is a great contributor to the Wiki. The issue that some people have had is that he has, in the past, spoken as being one of the operators of the Wiki. In fact, while he has never really said as such, people assume him to be the official spokesperson for the Wiki. '''This is not the case.''' I will therefore be codifying that into an official policy, which I will be running through the [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]] as my ill body permits.

:Another thing is that I don't believe Merv ''needs'' the tools. From what I've gathered from his words, the tools would be more of a convenience if anything else. (This by the way is not a vote, hence this being under the comments section.) What I am really saying here is that people think being an administrator is a life-long job title. It isn't. Let me remind people that administrative privileges can be taken away if misused.

:I put this all here because I feel that people should really understand that people don't have to be administrators to help shape the wiki. Adminship is not an entitlement. It is not a title. It is a responsibility. Also, in Larocque's case, if he was scared off by Merv, he shouldn't have been; he should have approached any admin with his concerns. It should not take an RFA to bring these issues up. He's more than welcome to contribute here. As is anyone else. If anyone's been "scared off" for any reason, I would very much like to know this, because this concerns me greatly.

:I've said my piece. Questions? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 12:51, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

: '''The following was moved by [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] at 12:51, 31 July 2006 (CDT). It is an oppose vote that cannot be counted due to Cranky1c being a new user.'''

:{{Oppose}} With all due respect, the arguement that a couple of months of improved behavior is equivalent to "adhering to higher standards on a permanent basis" is unpersuasive. KR was not the subject of a mere prank or fan infighting, but suffered an intrusion in his professional life that can not be overlooked for a nice e-mail and the submission of some articles, no matter how well done. Those of us who work in professional environments know that administrative and organizational memory for this kind of thing is not wiped clean even when it falls below the threshold for disciplinary action. Some errors in judgement are simply incompatable with being trusted with positions of authority, and I believe this is the case here, whatever his contributions. Mero may be a talented contributor and editor, but he should remain so. --<s>[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]] 12:08, 16 March 2006 (EST)</s>
::Member since 31 July 2006. Vote will not be counted.---->As a countermeasure against voter fraud, you have to be a member of BattlestarWiki for at least 3 weeks before you're allowed to vote (and even then, your vote might be cast in a bad light if you only occassionally contribute). This person joined less than 6 hours ago. Yikes. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:32, 30 July 2006 (CDT)
:::Merv, what business do you have in striking out someone's vote in YOUR OWN RFA? That's something for the admins. You have no business discarding ballots for your own election. That takes a LOT of chuztpah. I'm changing to a NO vote. --[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 00:11, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::Note: I'm sorry if I'm not allowed to do that I wasn't sure; we don't do RFA's very often, I thought anyone could point that out. Regardless, no, what was balsy was that we have a 3 week waiting period before voting and you've got people joining a matter of hours ago to try and vote people down (Peter just editing something a few minutes ago; Peter I assume if I have done something wrong you'd have told me? If I have I'm sorry, I wasn't sure what to do)--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:35, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
:::::Merv's action was appropriate, per the precedent we set during Merv's second RFA. See the [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/The Merovingian|relevant page]] for details. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:09, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::::I didn't read the rules closely enough, sorry about that, folks. Fair enough to strike the vote (mistaken sure, fraudulent, c'mon) but that doesn't change the merits of the arguement. Probably should have gone under comments. Still learning to navigate this a little. --[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]]
:::::::By all means (based on past RFA precedent) you are allowed to make comments on an RFA, even if you aren't eligible to vote yet. Perhaps you'd like to move this to Comments?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 09:26, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::::::I tried to move it around to the comments section earlier. Doesn't seem to have taken, could be I haven't done it right. Will Try again latter.--[[User:Cranky1c|Cranky1c]]

:I want to take a minute to clarify my reasons for nominating Merv, and respond to a few valid points that have been brought up.

:Joe states that he doesn't believe Merv "needs" the admin-level tools and privileges. I think it's hard to argue that any one of us "need" those tools to fulfill our functions - there are currently seven administrators, and if any one of us were removed, the others could certainly keep the place running. We did not ''need'' another administrator when we elected CalculatinAvatar and Mercifull, but consensus was that they had demonstrated a capacity to use those powers well, and that their help would be welcome.

:So, the relevant question for me is not whether Merv ''needs'' to be an administrator, but whether he can shoulder those responsibilities and better add to our community with them. I believe this unequivocally. I often took great issue with Merv's behavior from the time I started contributing here until last spring, and did not hesitate to speak out against him. In the time since, I have watched him grow to a reasonable, level-headed, fair-minded and capable contributor who communicates well, admits when he's wrong, and throws himself whole-heartedly into his work, whether that consist of tedious cleanup and drudgework, active discussion on talk pages, or large and complicated articles.

:It first occurred to me that Merv had reached a point where he would be a capable moderator shortly ''before'' the KR incident. I had already intended to nominate him for some time at that point, but the words exchanged at that time shook my conviction deeply, and I decided that Merv would have to demonstrate his responsibility on a much longer basis in order for me to support him. As I stated above, I now believe he has done this.

:Merv is an extremely active contributor, which means that he is often online. When we are confronted by vandals, as we were [[Battlestar_Wiki:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Report_on_Vandalism_by_User:Mickey_McGizzle|last month]], it is essential that we have a rapid response available. Merv, simply by dint of his ernest contribution and near constant presence, would increase our ability to defend the wiki immeasurably. By the same reasoning, Merv would benefit from the rollback function, and he can be trusted to edit pages that, for various reasons, need to be protected.

:So, does Merv ''need'' to be an Admin? Well, no. But neither did CA or Mercifull, and I'm pleased to work alongside both of them. Merv can be trusted, and he should.

:Secondly, in response to [[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] and [[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]], regarding the issue of Merv's off-wiki activities - I frankly could not care less what Merv does outside of the wiki. We all have friends and enemies outside of the wiki, and their opinions of us - and our other activities in the real world - should have very little bearing on our opinions of each other. We have a very narrow focus: creating an encyclopedia for all things ''Galactica'', and maintaining order and harmony among our participants. This is why we don't accept votes from newly registered users with an axe to grind. By the same token, any activities outside of that - petty arguments, posting pornographic links, whatever - are irrelevant to our central goal.

:What ''does'' matter is when our conflicts in the outside world get dragged into the Wiki, or when our actions here insight comment and dissent out there. This was why Merv's actions with regard to KR shocked my so greatly, and shook my growing confidence in him as a contributor. When Merv realized the significance of the situation, he resolved that conflict as quickly and maturely as he could, and I believe that he learned a valuable lesson. It has been three months since then, and at this point I'm willing to stake my reputation as a judge of character on my conviction that it will not happen again.

:Lastly, I want to point out that while every admin elected to date has passed his RFA with unanimous consent, that is going to be an increasingly difficult standard to match going forward. There is at least one user who has questioned my fitness for adminship, and stated that he would have voted against me had he been given the chance. Merv is a controversial figure, and is likely to inspire objection, but I believe that his qualifications are clear. If we ever break our precedent for unanimous acclamation, Merv is the candidate to do it with. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:49, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

::YOu said all of that a lot better than I could Peter (btw Peter and Joe, sorry I forgot to put a warning up before the links to the troll stuff, I should have thought of that, but once Merc pointed it out I did, sorry)--->Merciful: you don't really go to the messageboards a lot you said, but I haven't been in a fight with anyone online for months. The moist board trolls just keep yelling all the time, but I'm not stirring up controversy on a weekly basis; I mean check foryourselves (Joe said he did) I"m not really argueing with anyone. Yes, as you said I tried to fix things with KR as best I could, and I realized not to Jump to conclusions (It's not simply that I'm sorry that this got me in an arguement; I actually now realize my conclusions were totally wrong, as were my actions, and I shouldn't have done any of them). Beyond that there really isn't much "Controversy" in making me an Admin; I mean I'd like to know what a big respected fan like KR thinks, but the moist board people are just the trolls that get kicked off of Skiffy. --->I"m just fumbling for words; Joe and Peter summarized the situation with them more accurately than I can. I hope, Merciful, that you reconsider your switch from Neutral to Oppose, though I understand why you did it and I'm glad about the weak-oppose label you put in; but the reasons you said were controversy --->There really is not current online controversy, as Joe pointed out this is just people posting dead arguements ad nauseum long after they've been buried.--------->On top of all of this is the concern that I'm doing things "outside of the wiki", that is, acting like a spokesperson. After my KR goof (I was angry and not really thinking then) I've made it a point to always point out that I'm not some official spokesperson for Battlestarwiki, to point out to people that other people are here as well and its a group effort. Joe himself noted above that I haven't been doing that (I'm glad he was making sure). Yes, by virtue of the fact that many others aren't on the messageboards but I am, some people confuse things and think I'm in a higher position because I'm the only guy they see; but I mean SteelViper, NoneofyourBusinesss, and Sauron18 also go to the messagebaords; point is you might see people making that mistake, but whenever I have come into contact with them I have made it a point to correct their mistake and explain that BattlestarWiki is a large group effort. --->This also happened in our fan awards, the [[Golden Toaster Awards]]: the trolls on the Skiffy board don't bother to read other fansites, and there were several dozen "Representatives" of these awards on different boards, but I was a ''prominent'' one on Skiffy (I wans't even the only one, there were 2 of us); if you check, they then started positing all of these things going "We are boycotting the GTA's! The Merovingian *RUNS* them!"...and I had to explain that I in fact was ''far'' from running them as like 20 people did more work on those than I. The trolls just think like that.------------>But as for the point of letting messsageboard and BattlestarWiki things mix here, ***''''Do you see any messageboard posters voting here in my favor? Do you see any threads on the messageboards telling people to come vote for me?'''***--->I wanted to be on my best behavior, so I've made it a point ''not'' to mention this current RFA to *anyone* or bring it up on any messageboards. I've only been talking about it ''here''. There are no throngs of Merovingian supporters coming in to vote, who are just from the bboards and not regular contributors. THat's not happening. I wanted to make sure things were restrained here and I handled the situation maturely, without mixing it up with messageboard goings-on. I hope this is proof enough that I am trying my best to make sure that messageboard and wiki activities don't affect each other. THanks. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 16:43, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
:::Merv, there's not a lot I really want to add to the below comment, except that I'd wish you'd stop trying to explain away your critics as "trolls" who belong to "troll boards". You've actually slammed the entire user community of two separate message boards. I think the characterization is undeserved, and cannot fathom why a "joke" board like Moist continues to draw so much derision from some quarters. The humor is rough, but it's a friendly place and the members go there to hang out and have fun. One of Moist's longtime critics is now a "Moist Babe" for life. ;-) I'm not suggesting Merv join up - but maybe it's time to bury the axe, or least the epithets. Also, if your intention is to keep separate your message board activities and your wiki activities, then you're not doing a good job of it. Let me suggest that you do as you claim, and don't talk about the people who don't like you. If you claim that it doesn't bother you, then don't let it bother you. In any case, none of this should have any bearing on this RFA, so please stop peppering your responses with references to the people you claim are "trolls". Let me suggest that when you're at Sciffy, don't bring up the Wiki. And when you're at the Wiki, don't bring up Sciffy. And in the RFA's, keep the other boards out of it.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 23:26, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::Gougef advised me to stop responding to these; he's right that's for the best so I won't make up some long counterarguement. However, before leaving I will point out that A) one of those two "communities I slammed" openly advertises themselves as "we're the board for people that got banned from Scifi.com and feel it is our right to post porn and whatever", and is by no means a "community". B) It is quite difficult for me to not mix messageboard and wiki stuff, when users who rarely if ever actually come to BattlestarWiki such as yourself come here from the messageboards to berate my RFA. Yes, many of my critics are simply trolls and do not represent "the voice of online BSG messageboards". Enough; I'm not even going to lower myself to such an arguementative level as that; I'm following Gougef's advise; no one is playing petty games, I'm not dignifying these attacks with responses from now on. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:42, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
:::::Merv - that above claim about the message board is just another falsehood. That board does indeed host members who have been victimized by the admins at SciFi, but we took just as vigorous an approach against the haitbait porn links as any of the other boards. It's simply unwelcome there. Take a hint! If you want to stop slamming other boards, then stop slamming other boards and lobbing bombs larded with lies. It's really that simple. If you want it to stop, then stop. Also, please note, I have not attacked you here. I joined Mercifull in a Neutral vote and asked a sincere question. You've simply responded with more attacks. I'm also greatly amused at being lumped in with the "trolls"l? Because I've been in this game over twelve years and I can bring a great deal to the table (view [http://members.tripod.com/john_larocque/tns/archive.html]). Time considerations (I contribute to several websites as well as additonal duties) and residual disgust over the KR blacklist several weeks ago had dampened my enthusiasm to import some of my work over here at the Wiki. But I am very proud of the work I have done chronicling both Galactica series over the years. I'm also proud of my associations on the several boards. Whatever you may claim about me, my stand with KR several weeks ago was authentic. Your claim that "I don't really care" is yet another lie you haven't retracted, and which your enablers will probably let go. I am once again going to re-iterate my demand for a retraction and a sincere apology from you on this.--[[User:Larocque6689|Larocque6689]] 23:56, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
::::::NO MAS! NO MAS!. Please for the sake of the sanity of all. Take it elswhere. VIVA LA Reisistance!! --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 07:05, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
::::::To make one final note: You seem to misunderstand, in my above post the messageboard I was referring to specifically was MortalStorm (which openly and proudly posts porn and junk, as it openly describes itself as the "Screw Scifi.com" site); I was ''not'' talking about Moist Board, which as you said does not link porn, etc. Other than that, it is immature to demand some sort of appology; yes, I consider what you and others are doing to be trolling/personal attacks. That's true. I don't know all of your 12 years history with Galactica as you say, all I know is what I've personally seen you doing on the messageboards for the past 2 years, and that is what I'm basing this on. --->What does "MAS" mean?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 10:21, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
:::::::"No mas!" = "No more!" (in Spanish). Though there ended up being "mas" anyway. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:26, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
::::::::I only speak French, Latin, and Quenya :) Larocque6689: I am sorry that this has come to this point, and I always *hope* that in the future all conflicts can be resolved; maybe you didn't realize it happenning, (as I didn't when I exploded at KR for no good reason) but over time on the bboards you've turned into this person that just yells alot when you don't like something, you've resorted to embittered personal attacks, and all sorts of things. Yes, I have had a few problems with this (everyone does at one time or another on the boards) but even *I* have come to trying to compromise over stuff. I hope you do too, as you aren't just some happy-slapping ADD kid on a computer, but actually know and care a lot about the show and can contribute. But what I've ''seen'' more often is you resorting to really bad personally attacks, and pretty often. Currently, yes you are making "trollish" personal attacks; do I think this is inherent to your character? No. I think and hope that you'll simple stop doing this and focus on the future and the show again. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 10:33, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
I have thought about changing my support, but I think that Merv has even learned something today (I tried to help). Merv what did you learn today?? --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 21:10, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
:Well I've learned that yelling back isn't going to solve anything, and I've actually got to try to work ''with'' Larocque. '''Larocque, I'm sorry if my language was broad'''; you yourself are not actually a "troll" or anything; I do think that your position about me online, while maybe not malicious, is really overeacting and not accurate; there really isn't a cloud of controversy or arguements following me around online, unless you want to keep dragging up old problems which I'd hoped everyone involved (you, me, KR, everyone) had worked out already. I am sorry if I'm actually confusing your zealous defense of KR with troll attacks, but you must understand that months after the KR arguement trolls keep bringing that up as a good arguement starter (I mean blatant, "we're bored today, lets yell about that again" type things). If you wanted to make a stand on KR, good; but I've tried to work things out with KR and I've already realized that those such as yourself Loracque in the KR camp were in fact right all along. --->I have to deal with trolls from time to time (that is, people who actually get banned for things) who like to yell about this, and further I tried as best I could to discuss things with KR in private, so A) I think I reacted a little strongly in thinking that you came here with nothing but malicious intent, I'm sorry but people have been known to do that so I mistook that, B) I am (I hope) on not nearly as bad terms with KR as you are afraid, I am not yelling at KR and I do in fact support his work in fandom. No, I am not blasting yourwebsite, and as for the messagebaords I mentioned/linked, not everyone on these boards as a whole are bad, though from what I linked I hope you can see that there were quite a few embittered anti-skiffy and anti-Merovingian threads and posters which got me kind of worried. So I'm sorry that you came here upset or thinking otherwise about my intentions; and I in turn got upset at (what I thought) was you being upset at me with little provocation; though of course I hadn't mentioned the pvted attempts to work things out with KR (Which I hope healed wounds and restored trust/respect); though I hope you can empathize that many posts by people (on bboards you've talked on but not really yourself) blasting and hounding me on other sites has had me a little worried and on edge. I hope we can work this out.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:35, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
::Aside from my campaign against the abuse of thge post-reporting tools at Sciffy, I really have been dormant when it comes with "anti-Merv" activities. I'm an admin at MortalStorm and we do have a thread there, but it's mostly for people to let off steam (including the multiple-banned Mocty, patron saint of the Frakheads). We don't have a lot of rules there, but we did have to clamp down hard when haitbait arrived. Mostly, bulletin boards are where people should be able to "hang out", have fun, and talk to each other about things they have in common. That's my philosphy anyway. I msut admit that the tenor of your replies really took me aback. I think that you're too quick on the trigger when it comes to diagnosting (and sometimes misdiagnosing) problems. I could probably give you a few tips on how to deal with situations based on my own non-wiki experience. Personally, I think adminning is a thankless task and often boring, and as a general rule I prefer to play things low-key and remain largely invisible. Anyway, thanks for the reply. You'll find me pleasant to deal with if you are pleasant with me, and hopefully we'll get on better in the future.
:::Thanks, I agree. I think it's just the worst things i see online that stick out. We should be focusing on the ''true'' enemies Larocque, the Emmy Voters. Damn them all to hell. With my last breath I spit at them, for hate's sake. (Actually, that breath is saved for Rick Berman...you konw what i mean). --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:30, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

==== Questions for the candidate ====

''A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:''
:'''1.''' What duties, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out [[Battlestar Wiki:Project List]]'s for a list of projects.
::A. Episode Summaries, episode analysis, episode questions, episode notes. Character bios. Cylon series. Spearheading the Writer/Director category project. Furthing the [[Timeline (RDM)|Timeline]] project (and fighting the grave threat posed by the [[Season two timeline discontinuity]]). The [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies|Battles series]] (which I created). Going through every source of ''information'' available, be it GalacticaStation, GateWorld, NowPlayingMagazine, Lucy Lawless fansites, Ron Moore's blog, the official messageboards, and post as much ''information'' as possible on this Wiki, and turn it into a truly reliable "go-to" site for up to the minute BSG information, **making sure that all of the information we post is properly sourced.
::B. Expanding our Cast and Crew articles, which so far are kind of sparse. This is major ongoing project.

:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions here, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
::A. The battles pages, all of which were of my own design (I made the battleboxes for Lord of the Rings battles on standard wikipedia, and when these were done, I wanted to keep doing something like that so I created the battles series here)
::B. Due to my vast knowledge of BSG trivial facts and analysis, I have made great contributions to the episode guides, and as it's not like I have a life outside of this :) I'm usually the first to post notes for an episode up after it airs (though this is not a rule), and I'm really happy with the episode guide stuff I've done (check the history tabs, etc). I guess a random sampling of some of my better works would be [[Downloaded]], [[Cally]], [[Uniform]], [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies]] etc., my great contributions to [[Life Forms of the Twelve Colonies]] (ever vigilant),...and pretty much the entire episode guide. I spearheaded the movement (after debate for months) to give Cylon copies who have become individuals their own character pages, and to consider them separate characters.
::C. Created and implemented the [[Battlestar Wiki:Episode Standardization|Episode Standardization]] project, in which I removed the "mini-reviews" from our Season 1 episode guide and replaced them with (I hope) impartial Analysis.
::D. Helping out on the Welcoming Committee.
::E. I tried to work things out with Koenigrules after what happened the other month; last RFA I was shocked that KR thought I hadn't appologized for what happened (I did, completely, I just made a big mistake which I retract); however rather than draggint things out in the open I tried to work things out through Private Messages on the bboards since my last RFA, which I felt was the more mature thing to do.
::F. Since my initial time at BattlestarWiki, as Peter mentioned above, I've gone from "biting the noobs" to gently trying to help along new users. See [[ User talk:The Merovingian#Diff for future RFA|this page]] for one example. Also, as Homeworld616 said above, he was a new user and rather than becoming impatient that he was unfamiliar with things here (as I might have a year ago) I helped him along with constructive imput.
::G. Updating the [[Portal:Battlestar Galactica (RDM)|Portals Project pages]], and my extensive contributions and revisions/restucturing of the [[Cylon agent speculation]]page ([[Jammer]] = Cylon), as well as [[Science in the Re-imagined Series]]
::H. Asking a large portion of questions on [[Battlestar Wiki:Official Communiques]]; I hate it when other websites get to talk to someone like, Katee Sackhoff, and half the questions are "wow, why are u so hot?" "Wow, is it fun to work on the show?" etc. I'm happy I was able to provide good questions for that which actually addressed several long standing problems (although the ''Wizards'' have gained the upper hand in the [[Season two timeline discontinuity]].
::I. On my own initiative e-mailing [[Bear McCreary]] and [[Sources:Official Communique with Bear McCreary|obtaining his permission]] for BattlestarWiki to post the lyrics to the soundtracks here.

:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
::A. After my last RFA, I Private Messaged Koenigrules and (I hope) worked things out, in private as opposed to dragging it through the public eye.
::B. During the RFC for Shane, rather than preaching fire and brimstone I tried to be restrained and give Shane opportunity to reform his behavior. That could have gotten ugly but I think we handled it well, without having to have temporary bans or anything.

:'''4.''' I have worries that because of the amount of previous RFA's and self nominations that you believe that being an Administrator is very important to you. I don't agree with people using Admin status as a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What adminship is not|"trophy symbol"]], what can you say to alleviate my concerns about this and what would you do as an administrator that you are not currently allowed to do as a user?
::I'd be able to ban vandals, delete pages instead of waiting for an Administrator to come by to delete them, and all in all it wouild make my work alot faster to be one of the "[[Mop Boy]]s" :) --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 08:48, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Survivor count

2006-06-23T21:24:15Z

Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad

2006-04-24T00:43:31Z

Dogger: /* Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report */

== Citation Consistency ==

"Zoic" is a name that sounds like what Shaggy from "Scooby Doo" would make when surprised, I think.

Despite being the special effects company for the series, I wonder how much of their information still holds weight. I noticed that Peter gave neither negative or positive weight to this source. As we go through pages, two issues are going to crop up, of which one may need to move to the Standards page.

* Consistent and useful '''visual''' separation and identification of TOS and RDM information and characters. I find the mingling of TOS and RDM data in the same article confusing and lengthens an article unnecessarily. More germane to this project, it will also keep RDM and TOS stats from cohabitating and confusing the citation process.
* We need to cite official sources for TOS information on the project page, keeping in mind this wiki is for both series. There are surely more TOS fan sites than RDM, and things like games, fan fiction and the like over the years have surely diluted what is official and not.
* The level of detail or a standard of detail on technical pages needs some kind of governor. At which point is something being reasonable in description (such as ''Galactica's'' rail guns) or is embellishment or technobabble that just gives fan service (like "''Galactica'' uses a BFG-3244 Rail Gun with Strapless Attachment")? I'd be more strict on this info than any other since tech is tech and such "facts" should not be different from what is seen on screen.

I think color coding article titles to identify TOS and RDM pages (rather than using "TOS" and "RDM") may be better on the eye. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:05, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

:I intended Zoic to fall under point 3, for "crew" - ie, of roughly the same reliability as that interview where Lorena Gale talked about how Elosha used to do "a lot of drugs". --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:21, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

::I believe the actual word is spelled thus: ZOIKS! Caps are not optional. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:21, 10 October 2005 (EDT)

==Request for name change==

I am uncomfortable with the use of the term "Jihad". I would rather we use the term "Crusade", or perhaps "Inquisition"; I think "Inquisition" is best (i.e. Spanish Inquisition [no one suspects the Inquisition!] b/c it's rooting out unsourced information). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 13 October, 2005

:Striving for accuracy certainly has better overtones than any use of "crusade", and "inquisition" has draconian connotations. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:11, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:: I, uh, don't get Peter's post. Does that means he agrees or doesn't? Anyway, I'm fine with Jihad because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think could be, sarcastically, applied to the purpose of this project. However, I'm also fine with Inquisition because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think... You can see where I'm going with this, no? Also, the Spanish Inquisition sketch is my favorite Monty Python sketch in the history of Monty Python's being viewed by me. And I'd love for my comments on changing citation errors (if I ever see any, because I'm bad at seeing them) to be "Our chief weapon is Fear. Fear and surprise. Our TWO chief weapons are fear, surprise and a fanatical devotion to citation. Ah. Our THREE chief weapons are: Fear, surprise, a--" You get the idea.

:: I find it interesting that the name and the two proposed substitutes are all tied to religeon? We could have a Citation Rampage. Or a Citation Mosh Pit. Heh. Maybe we should be the Ministry of Citation. I always liked ministries. We would then address each other as "Minister Day" and "Minister Farago", etc. Or maybe one of you can come up with a more [[Wikipedia:Nineteen Eighty-Four|Orwellian]] name. That would be cool. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:52, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::To clarify: I like Citation Jihad. I came up with it, after all... --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:08, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: "Jihad", in this context, does indeed present - shall we say - disconcerting ramifications for those of us who are not Christian. While humurous to most of us (I hate to splash cold water) the casual use of such a revered term amongst a potential audience of Islamic adherrants is a wee bit less than delicate... especially in light of the suspicion many perfectly native or naturalized citizens of Mid-Eastern descent faced immediately subsequent to 9/11... and the suspicion they currently face every time they reenter the U.S.
:::: While rather fascinating that we should find ourselves encountering a problem delt with in more artfull ways in our favorite television program, it is nevertheless significant (dare I say important) that we handle this question of naming with a sense of diplomacy. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:12, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:::::I was unsettled--albeit briefly--with the name initially, but I'm not into political correctness. "Jihad" is correct in definition. Currently, however, some take the word with the same emotional charge as Muslims would hear "Crusade," since, essentially in the context of past conflicts between Christians and Muslins at war, both signify a religious purge. In any case, the term sites a religious note that might sour some.

:::::But before you knock Peter for his choice, consider our subject matter: "Battlestar Galactica" is a morality play in the tradition of the original Star Trek series, which addresses in allegory the Muslim/Judeo-Christian issue present through current terrorism against the West as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict by using the Humano-Cylon/Human and God/Lords of Kobol issue. If nothing else, the use of the term "Jihad" in its purest form is actually appropriate and striking so for this Wiki. Don't let the Al Qaeda terrorists or other extremists make you afraid of a word when in fact, it is THEY that slur it from its true meaning. Peter has always shown a concise use of words that has little to no ambiguity--I should know since he frequently slices my edits to their essence when I use too many words. I'll back up Peter on this one. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:43, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::Taking these points into account, I would greatly prefer "Inquisition" over "Jihad" or "Crusade". -- Ricimer, October 14, 2005

:::::::Good point. And very nicely said I might add. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 13:10, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::: I hope you don't mind, Watcher, I indented your previous post one more. Anyway, I like Johad fine. I actually find it kind of refreshing to use it for something that's ''not'' violent. I'm not Muslim, so I can't speak to that. However, as an American I don't feel, I dunno, threatened by the name, or anything. When I first saw it, it gave me pause, but that pause was me thinking, "Whew. Someone's probably gonna throw a fit about that one." --[[User:Day|Day]] 14:13, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::::Well I'm sorry but I do and I have. What's the consensus on this? --Ricimer, October 13, 2005

::::::::::Not a problem Day. I think there might have been an unintentional slip during one of the edits (notice the time/date stamps) but I seem to constantly screw this detail up anyway. Feel free. I may read as insufferably serious but I assure you that's not the case. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 16:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::::::: Good deal, Watcher. Anyway... I was about to make a post about not wanting anyone to feel threatened by this project, but I find I have to revise that. I don't want ''members'' of the project to feel threatened by the name. I hope people who don't cite sources are scared witless of us. ;) Anyway, as much as I like using Jihad, I tend to like to not offend reasonable people, so I'd be okay with a change, I guess. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:21, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::::::: A note on nesting - if Watcher was replying to Spencerian, not Ricimer, it should be indented to the level of Spencerian's comment + 1, not Ricimer's + 1. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:42, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Ah. Good to know. I shall endeavour to remember this. --[[User:Day|Day]] 22:47, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

===Votes===
We need to come to some kind of consensus, I think. So, first, is to change or not change. If we decide to change, then we can quibble over what to change to. Place your name under the appropriate heading.

====No Change====
# --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:14, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Not afraid of words when used properly. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:56, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Name doesn't bother me. [[User:Talos|Talos]] 19:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:51, 24 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Ditto Spencerian. Let's not fear words when used properly. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 21:28, 27 October 2005 (EDT)

====Change====
# Reluctantly --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 06:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Wholeheartedly --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 09:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Normally I don't care about words, but I have to admit, that in today's world, some words have become too negatively charged. --[[User:Cp.hayes|cp.hayes]] 14:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Wholeheartedly --[[User:Lone Odessan|Lone Odessan]] 19:36, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
== BSG: The Magazine ==

I saw [http://www.titanmagazines.com/titanmag/app;jsessionid=57DACB1E3C47F38A718593747C30F921?service=direct/1/HomeUS/$NavigationBar.$DirectLink$2&sp=S8 this] on the news stand at Fry's and thought it was worth picking up an issue to see what was in it. I've so far read a whole of two pages, so I don't know much about it, except that it has an article on Pyramid that was interesting. Does anyone else know anything about this magazine? How reliable is it? I'm going to edit the Pyramid article with some things that are revealed about the rules. How should I cite this, exactly? I'm gonna go with page numbers and title for now. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:24, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:Given that we haven't had much about the RDM show in print, I'd carefully use it to compare to the canonical stuff we have. If things are consistent, I'd say it's a reliable source since I strongly suspect that USA/Universal may have to sign off on its content. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:58, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
::I say we put it on level 4, (sci-fi and skyone websites), provisionally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::: Correction. The title is ''Battlestar Galactica, the Official Magazine'' even thought the words are not in that order on the cover. And, I must say, the thing was really clumsily edited. There are missing periods, 'and' for 'a', 'their' for 'they're', tense mixing, Obvious typos. Yech. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:04, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

==Citation Format==
Also, we should choose a citation format and stick with it. Opinions? MLA, APA, Chicago? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:Damn it, Peter. I knew you were a student. You're going to force me to dig up a book or stand with the kids at the college bookstore, aren't you? :) [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:: Are you kidding? I just graduated and never once bought a book on citation. All that can be [http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/legacylib/mlahcc.html found] [http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/workshop/citmla.htm on] [[Wikipedia:APA style|the]] [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html net]. I've only ever used MLA style before, however, I'd be willing, given the nature of web pages, to use something that just had footnotes with numbering. There was some tool Wikipedia has for this that I read about, but I don't remember much about it except that it seemed cool. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:06, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
:::I would find MLA with numbered footnotes ideal. For "personal communication", we would do well to follow [[User:MASON|MASON]]'s example of including them in subpages, such as [[Mercury class battlestar/Sources]] (That should be linked to from the main article text, however.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Joe also mentioned possibly that we should scan things. What kinds of things? And, I assume those should go on a Sources page, too, neh? I think for whatever's on the sources page, we could do the foot note like this: (3) Personal communication (''or whatever relevant info''). See ''link to Sources page''. I also think Sources pages should have a link back. WHat do y'all think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:25, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::I Agree. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:14, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::By scans, I mean scans of publication articles and so forth. Scans should not be of the whole article but a snippet of the applicable text that was cited (enough to qualify as fair use). Also, as for linking the sources subpage, I created a template, {{tl|source}} that can be placed next to the applicable information. The template automatically links to the Source subpage. (Format: Article title/Sources.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::: How does that work, then, Joe? The syntax, I mean? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:29, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

==Character Ages==
Character ages across the site appear to be based on the age of the actors who play them. This would normally be reasonable, but the Timeline of BSG does not match the progress of time in the real world - the characters have aged at most three and a half months in the same time that their actors have aged two years. Since we can't infer ages more accurately than a casual visitor could be glancing at a character photograph, I would rather this information simply not be included. Opinions? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:45, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

: I concur. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:57, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

: Another thought: Ages are hard to pin down... I mean, we might learn that it is someones XXth birthday in some future episode. Wonderful. However, it's somewhat meaningless. An "Age" attribute in the template needs to be "as of" some date. Right now we use the Holocost as that date, but we're no longer exactly certain how far ago that was. So, if it's Cally's, say, 25th or whatever birthday in the episode after next... how old was she at the Holocost? 24, or so, I guess, but you see my point? I think the best solution, and perhaps this should be brought up on the characters project page, too, is to make the "Age" attribute on the template hide-able and then blank everyone's age out unless we know explicitly a number. I also think we should say it thusly: Age: 23 (as of [[Scattered]]) --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:50, 27 October 2005 (EDT)

==Railguns==
From the ''Official Magazine'' issue #1, p. 60: "Every Battlestar class warship has 24 primary railgun turrets as well as over 500 point defense turrets at its disposal." I don't have access to a scanner to prove that it says that, so you'll have to take my word on it. I'm not saying this is indisputable proof, but that it's maybe more than fanon, anyway. --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:46, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
:The magazine is wrong. Based on on-screen evidence, the large turrets on ''Galactica'' cannot be [[railgun]]s unless we drastically redefine the very idea. This certainly trumps throwaway technobabble in a fan magazine. IMO, the only thing that should give us pause is if a character on the show specifically refers to them as railguns, which hasn't happened yet. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:51, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

:: Okay. I'll buy that. I bet that what's actually going on here is that someone somewhere who makes these desicions doesn't, actually, know what the heck they're talking about. I mean... What're we to do if someone busts out a ray gun and says, "This shoots a red lazer!" and then, *zap*, it's green? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:27, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

::: Oops. Ya did it now. Let's just hope TNS' writers don't become overwhelmed by the details and go the way of Space 1999. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:24, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

==Twelve Lords of Kobol==
Ricimer stated in his edit summary: "It has been stated numerous times that there are 12 Lords of Kobol".

This statement is true if by "numerous times" you mean "never". I've been over all the episode transcripts and found nothing. On this page, of all places, you should provide a source before deleting a comment. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:54, 11 November 2005 (EST)

==Magazine Content==
Ltcrashdown, thank you for your informative additions to [[Saul Tigh]] and other articles. However, for them to stand, we need to do two things:
#Make certain that we are ''not'' quoting the magazine word-for-word, or that where we feel compelled to do so, we set the text off and cite it directly.
#In general, any information from the magazine needs to be cited as well. To do this, we need to know some of the publication information, including:
#*The publication's name
#*The article's author
#*The article's title
#*Date and issue number
#*Pages referenced
Thanks for helping to keep Battlestar Wiki accurate. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:50, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:Where do I place this information in the area where I quote it in Tigh's article? --Ltcrashdown 23:05, 1 February 2006 (EST)

::I will be happy to show you the proper format if you can provide the above information. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:15, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:::Here is everything I referenced from the Magazine in the articles I altered. --Ltcrashdown 23:25, 1 February 2006 (EST)
:::Publication: Battlestar Gallactica the Official Magazine #3
:::Feb/Mar 2006
:::The Tigh info, Rising Star refence to Picon, and Battlestar Athena came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh, Page 62'
:::The Alert Fighters and Colonial Day information came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Galactica Glossary page 60'
:::The Colors for the Colonies comes from 'Encyclopedia Galactica pages 50-55'. I also compared it to information in Battlestar Galactica The Official Companion.
:::There were no authors listed for any of the articles.

::::Can you post quotes here containing the relevant details? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:29, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:::::I am familiar with the magazine, and feel that we should *provisionally* allow information from the "encyclopedia" stuff at the end, but I also *suspect* that they make that stuff up without input from RDM. I don't know. It is the "Official" magazine. Should be on the same level as info from Scifi.com (which has been known to be wrong, etc.) HOWEVER, things that are straightfoward "interviews" which are a simple transcript of an interview; hard to argue that (like when actors reveal insights about their character based on stuff from the series bible we didn't know before). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:35, 1 February 2006 (EST)

::::::Actually, I just saw that the magazine claims that Colonial Day is a biannual holiday; First, where would they get that idea? Second, Ron D. Moore ''stated'' in his blog that it is "not a biannual holiday; it's an annual holiday held every year". I wonder why someone got the idea to ask that. Etc. So it's now known to be not entirely accurate. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:40, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Okay, I'll try to post everything I found word-for-word. --Ltcrashdown 23:43, 1 February 2006 (EST)

'Colony: Aerelon' is a listing under the personnel file indicating his planet of origin.

Tigh's history specificaly says, 'Saul Tigh entered the fleet as a deckhand but rose through the ranks and was a CPO (Chief Petty Officer) by the time the First Cylon War broke out.' Ltaer it reads, 'Tigh joined the Colonial Officer Candidate School and was reassigned as a Viper pilot, something he excelled in, earning a string of medals in his post aboard the Battlestar Athena.' This is the only refence to the Battlestar Athena.

Tigh's post-War history is given with 'Adama reenlisted with the service and Tigh spent two years drinking before Adama pulled strings to get him back into service. Saul Tigh was straightening his life out when he met his wife Ellen, who he courted and married within two months. Ellen did not take well to military life, and her repeated infidelities drove him back to drink. Ellen and Saul separated shortly before the Cylon attack.'

The Rising Star info was taken from later in teh article with the sentence, 'Three weeks after the Cylon attack Tigh's wife was discovered on the Rising Star, a carrier from Picon.'

The definitions are:
'Colonial Day - An biannual holiday which celebrates the signing of the Articles of Colonization.'
'Alert Fighters - A rotating group of Colonial Vipers which are constantly ready for immediate launch. Their function is to act as support for the Combat Air Patrol.

The colonial colors are just images, so there's nothing to type, but it corresponds with the same colors in the Official Battlestar Companion.

:Excellent, thank you.

:The MLA citation format for a magazine article with no author is as follows:

::"Title of Article." Title of Magazine. Date: Pages.

:So, to use the Saul Tigh article as an example:

::"Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh." Battlestar Galactica: The Official Magazine. Feb./Mar. 2006: 62.

:Introduce a footnote in the main body text using the <nowiki>{{note}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{note_label}}</nowiki> tags, and place the corresponding citation in a <nowiki>==Sources==</nowiki> header after <nowiki>#{{ref}}</nowiki> and/or <nowiki>{{ref_label}}</nowiki> as appropriate. I will restore your edits to the Saul Tigh article and cite them, to give you an idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:00, 2 February 2006 (EST)

::You should also restore the 'Twelve Colonies' changes since all i did there was add Saul to the Aerelon natives and correctly match the Colors with their colonies. --Ltcrashdown 00:02, 2 February 2006 (EST)

::::Maybe he was busted down from CPO during the second year of the war. Or maybe as a Chief Petty Officer, he once served as a Gunner's Mate (though this is a bit of a stretch, I admit). --Ltcrashdown 00:22, 2 February 2006 (EST)

:::This information, however, is contradicted by the deleted scenes from "Valley of Darkness" where Tigh says that in the second year of the War, he was a "Petty Officer...gunner's mate" and not ''already'' a Chief Petty Officer when the war broke out.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:14, 2 February 2006 (EST)

:::::"Let's cut through it, shall we?" The magazine is obviously compiled by people who are worse fanboys than ''we'' are, and lack our zeal for accuracy. I mean, if they can't even spell "Gemenon" properly, I'm not really inclined to give them much credence. Their information should be taken with a very large grain of salt, when we take it at all. Frankly, I'm a little worried they're going to start using ''us'' as a source.

:::::(Dear lord, I'm using sci-fi quotes out of context and Ricimer's talking in a civil tone of voice. It's like we've ''merged''.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:30, 2 February 2006 (EST)

Realize that it my ''business'' to know (of course you know, etc etc). Enough Batman-villian-esque theatrics. ***I only have the first issue, and need to read the other issues. Frankly, it's a combination of *REEALLY* good and really *BAD* material. Basically, they've got 5 or so articles that are worthwhile; but they're exclusive, plus they also give out concept art unavailble elsewhere. Long story short, *I would pay money for the few good articles in it*, but the problem is they want to "pad out" the magazine to get a certain length (and I'm going, "I would pay the same amount of money if you didn't pad it, because the other stuff doesn't add much") I mean, the first one has this *really annoying* '''LITERALLY''' Fanfic letter "from Starbuck" describing an air-combat manuever she pulled off in a Viper (in an article about Vipers). Now, let me remind everyone: ***It's a good magazine and has many good articles. It's just that some of the articles are obviously "filler". Thus, as I said, apart from the flat-out Interviews with cast members or articles written by like David Eick, Garry Hurtzel, production team members, etc. should be held under great critical skepticism. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:45, 2 February 2006 (EST)

: This whole thread has been a great read. Very interesting. I have the first issue of this magazine. I sourced it for the [[Pyramid (RDM)]] article some. I remember thinking mostly as you do, Ricimer: Some great stuff, the rest ''horrid''. They're good for interviews, artwork and not much else. The first issue had an interesting thing at the end that seems to be a synopsis of an interview (if I remmeber right) with the head costume person, which I keep meaning to reread and use to add some real-life info to [[Uniform]]. I've also been looking for the other issues in the place where I got the first one, but I can't find it. I a little wary of subscribing to the thing... It just seems like there's a line being crossed there. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:06, 2 February 2006 (EST)

==To Do==
*Deprecate citation templates in favor of [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php#_ref-NYT_1 <ref> tags]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:44, 2 February 2006 (EST)

==BSG Books==

There was recently a novelization for the battlestar galactica mini-series. I was going to get a copy and add information from it to the wikipedia. Does anyone else think this should be done, assuming the novelization yields any new details (i.e. ships, pilots, etc.) --Ltcrashdown 00:14, 4 February 2006 (EST)

: Its come up before. That's where, I think, we got the name Natasi for one of [[Number Six]]'s copies. We're kind of wary of it, but I think there's further discussion on Six's Talk page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:51, 4 February 2006 (EST)

::I'm going to post my point by point analysis of it in a matter of hours. It is, on the whole, quite poorly written, and I don't think he had any official stuff to go on, just making it up. Regardless, per "Memory Alpha" template, it deserves it's own page which I will comment more on, but we should not base beliefs on it. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 02:57, 4 February 2006 (EST)

== Sources namespace ==

Just to let everyone know, Sources have their own namespace (i.e. [[Sources:Pegasus (RDM)]]). This avoids having to use the subpage suggestion I had earlier proposed. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 13:11, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

==Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report==
"Koenigrules" (KR) is the alias of Jim Iaccino, a popular reporter of BSG spoilers, whose reports are often cited and reposted by other sources. [http://lvpodcasts.autopodcaster.com/download.php?filename=Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3/Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3 Recent comments] made on the "[http://www.subject2discussion.com/ Subject 2 Discussion]" segment of the "[http://www.lvrocks.com/ LV Rocks]" radio program (transcribed at [[Sources:Precipice]]) raised the possibility that KR is merely re-reporting publically available information, and does not appear to be a credible primary source.

[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] investigated this possibility, and posted his findings to [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]]. [[User:Peter Farago|I]] raised the possibility of instating a policy against citing KR's reports as credible sources on Battlestar Wiki, which was seconded by [[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]].

Consequently, I am opening a formal vote here on the matter. Please review [[Sources:Precipice]], its putative [http://www.nowcasting.com/sides/Episodic/BATTLESTAR%20GALACTICA/301%20Occupation/Selloi_Dedona_4pgs.pdf source material], and The Merovingian's comments on [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]] prior to casting your vote, and feel free to raise any questions below. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:18, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Update:''' Koenigrules has responded to a number of our concerns via e-mail. You can read my correspondence with him at [[Sources:Correspondence with Jim Iaccino]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

===In favor of a policy against citing KR as a primary source===
#<del>[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:36, 19 April 2006 (CDT) - I feel like this guy betrayed us. And it's getting worse; 4-5 news sites report things he says as fact; he is not helping at all. Dogger said: "''He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail.''"-->He put that more clearly than I could. Way to go Dogger. :)</del>
#[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:11, 20 April 2006 (CDT) If he originates nothing, we lose nothing by not citing him.
#[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:34, 20 April 2006 (CDT) - We do NOT claim to be a primary source here, and everything that is stated as fact should be citable elsewhere. Our sources are therefore our foundation, so they should be held to a high standard.
#[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:30, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 03:16, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I'm against the publication of anything except the facts.
# [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 17:12, 21 April 2006 (CDT) This is site is a reference, it would be misleading to publish anything other than citable information.
#[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 17:15, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I must concur. Too much flotsam.
#[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 20:38, 21 April 2006 (CDT) <del>I've never heard KR 'reveal' anything that I haven't already seen from another source. I have always seen him as just somebody who reads the same things I read and then repeats them in another venue, but with an extra helping of certainty.</del> He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail. <del>Perhaps what he does might have some value as a 'digest' of what is being talked about, but I don't see why anyone but the most naive listener would consider him as a primary source.</del>
:::I have struck out parts of my comments that seem to have been proven wrong by some of the history presented in the thread on Skiffy. However, I cannot in good conscience change my vote because of the simple fact that I don't think that anyone claiming an anonymous source should really be considered a primary source, even if that source is genuine. Perhaps 'blacklist' is the wrong word. I simply see this as a test case for what is the appropriate kind of evidence that should be cited as authoritative. Singling out KR is probably unfair, but that doesn't change what I honestly think to be not an appropriate primary source for a wiki. If there were a vote to have a policy against citing any anonymous source as a primary source, then I would be in favour of that too. I consider this vote to be just an example of what I think should be an overall principle. For example, if KR were to name his source, then I don't see any reason not to consider citing that information. The problem I have is not with KR honesty in particular -- it's with the idea of citing a source without giving the reader the benefit of evaluating its reliability, and that includes anonymity as well as the mixing of facts with speculation.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 19:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Gouge|Frankie Gouge]] 02:20, 22 April 2006 (EDT) Credibility is too hard to earn to risk needlessly. Plenty of other sites to get speculative spoilers.
#[[User:Bowersj8|Bowersj8]] 14:31, 22 April 2006 (EDT)

===Opposed===

===Abstain===
#[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 07:33, 23 April 2006 (CDT) Changed to abstain because I don't feel I know enough about this issue to choose either way.
#[[User:Quig|Quig]] 10:09, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:34, 19 April 2006 (CDT) Abstaining until his next broadcast.
#[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:53, 20 April 2006 (CDT) After reading the unfortunate thread on the Skiffy board and the dialgoue established between Peter and KR, I will abstain until I determine whether or not this whole thing was worth the heartache for all concerned.
#[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:33, 23 April 2006 (CDT) Waiting for all the facts...
#[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:39, 23 April 2006 (CDT)As I've offered to give KR benefit of the doubt in compromise if he'd just be more mindful that at times when he was speculating or when he was giving spoilers was confusing, I'm switching my vote to abstain.

==Compromise Proposal re KoenigRules==
While KoenigRules and several of his collleagues insist that he does indeed have access to some sort of spoilers, all of them still will not confirm the veracity of these sources. Seeing as this is what they would do both if they were REAL and if they were NOT REAL sources, we thus arrive at an impasse. Therefore, I want to find some civil compromise over this: I'm a Uniter, not a Divider, and if we start turning on each other Rick Berman's new crackpot scheme to make Star Trek XI: Starfleet Academy will eat us BSG fans alive. '''Proposal''': If KoenigRules promises to be more careful in the future in his interviews, to *'''make it clear'''* when he is giving away '''direct information from his source(s)''', and when he is making a '''speculation''' ''based'' on either this purported source material, ''or'' just his own personal '''opinion''', we will reverse our decision to hold a vote to reject him as a reliable source. For example, if KoenigRules says in an interview "I think Baltar is a Cylon", he should really make it clear that that is just his opinion and not supported by any spoiler source information that he might have, as news sites might miscontrue his comments and lead to a world of trouble. However, the matter of HollyWoodNorthReport itself, which has come under frequent attack from many sites for improperly forgetting to use citations when they source material from other fansites, should be considered a separate matter.

I hope we can all agree to this.

:I don't think this subissue needs a vote. Koenigrules has indicated to me that he'll be able to reply here by monday. If he can adequately address the concerns we've raised, then naturally, the above discussion will be re-evaluated in light of that. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

===Support===
#--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:48, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

===Oppose===

Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad

2006-04-24T00:36:51Z

Dogger: /* Clarification of my vote in favour */

== Citation Consistency ==

"Zoic" is a name that sounds like what Shaggy from "Scooby Doo" would make when surprised, I think.

Despite being the special effects company for the series, I wonder how much of their information still holds weight. I noticed that Peter gave neither negative or positive weight to this source. As we go through pages, two issues are going to crop up, of which one may need to move to the Standards page.

* Consistent and useful '''visual''' separation and identification of TOS and RDM information and characters. I find the mingling of TOS and RDM data in the same article confusing and lengthens an article unnecessarily. More germane to this project, it will also keep RDM and TOS stats from cohabitating and confusing the citation process.
* We need to cite official sources for TOS information on the project page, keeping in mind this wiki is for both series. There are surely more TOS fan sites than RDM, and things like games, fan fiction and the like over the years have surely diluted what is official and not.
* The level of detail or a standard of detail on technical pages needs some kind of governor. At which point is something being reasonable in description (such as ''Galactica's'' rail guns) or is embellishment or technobabble that just gives fan service (like "''Galactica'' uses a BFG-3244 Rail Gun with Strapless Attachment")? I'd be more strict on this info than any other since tech is tech and such "facts" should not be different from what is seen on screen.

I think color coding article titles to identify TOS and RDM pages (rather than using "TOS" and "RDM") may be better on the eye. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:05, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

:I intended Zoic to fall under point 3, for "crew" - ie, of roughly the same reliability as that interview where Lorena Gale talked about how Elosha used to do "a lot of drugs". --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:21, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

::I believe the actual word is spelled thus: ZOIKS! Caps are not optional. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:21, 10 October 2005 (EDT)

==Request for name change==

I am uncomfortable with the use of the term "Jihad". I would rather we use the term "Crusade", or perhaps "Inquisition"; I think "Inquisition" is best (i.e. Spanish Inquisition [no one suspects the Inquisition!] b/c it's rooting out unsourced information). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 13 October, 2005

:Striving for accuracy certainly has better overtones than any use of "crusade", and "inquisition" has draconian connotations. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:11, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:: I, uh, don't get Peter's post. Does that means he agrees or doesn't? Anyway, I'm fine with Jihad because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think could be, sarcastically, applied to the purpose of this project. However, I'm also fine with Inquisition because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think... You can see where I'm going with this, no? Also, the Spanish Inquisition sketch is my favorite Monty Python sketch in the history of Monty Python's being viewed by me. And I'd love for my comments on changing citation errors (if I ever see any, because I'm bad at seeing them) to be "Our chief weapon is Fear. Fear and surprise. Our TWO chief weapons are fear, surprise and a fanatical devotion to citation. Ah. Our THREE chief weapons are: Fear, surprise, a--" You get the idea.

:: I find it interesting that the name and the two proposed substitutes are all tied to religeon? We could have a Citation Rampage. Or a Citation Mosh Pit. Heh. Maybe we should be the Ministry of Citation. I always liked ministries. We would then address each other as "Minister Day" and "Minister Farago", etc. Or maybe one of you can come up with a more [[Wikipedia:Nineteen Eighty-Four|Orwellian]] name. That would be cool. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:52, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::To clarify: I like Citation Jihad. I came up with it, after all... --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:08, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: "Jihad", in this context, does indeed present - shall we say - disconcerting ramifications for those of us who are not Christian. While humurous to most of us (I hate to splash cold water) the casual use of such a revered term amongst a potential audience of Islamic adherrants is a wee bit less than delicate... especially in light of the suspicion many perfectly native or naturalized citizens of Mid-Eastern descent faced immediately subsequent to 9/11... and the suspicion they currently face every time they reenter the U.S.
:::: While rather fascinating that we should find ourselves encountering a problem delt with in more artfull ways in our favorite television program, it is nevertheless significant (dare I say important) that we handle this question of naming with a sense of diplomacy. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:12, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:::::I was unsettled--albeit briefly--with the name initially, but I'm not into political correctness. "Jihad" is correct in definition. Currently, however, some take the word with the same emotional charge as Muslims would hear "Crusade," since, essentially in the context of past conflicts between Christians and Muslins at war, both signify a religious purge. In any case, the term sites a religious note that might sour some.

:::::But before you knock Peter for his choice, consider our subject matter: "Battlestar Galactica" is a morality play in the tradition of the original Star Trek series, which addresses in allegory the Muslim/Judeo-Christian issue present through current terrorism against the West as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict by using the Humano-Cylon/Human and God/Lords of Kobol issue. If nothing else, the use of the term "Jihad" in its purest form is actually appropriate and striking so for this Wiki. Don't let the Al Qaeda terrorists or other extremists make you afraid of a word when in fact, it is THEY that slur it from its true meaning. Peter has always shown a concise use of words that has little to no ambiguity--I should know since he frequently slices my edits to their essence when I use too many words. I'll back up Peter on this one. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:43, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::Taking these points into account, I would greatly prefer "Inquisition" over "Jihad" or "Crusade". -- Ricimer, October 14, 2005

:::::::Good point. And very nicely said I might add. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 13:10, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::: I hope you don't mind, Watcher, I indented your previous post one more. Anyway, I like Johad fine. I actually find it kind of refreshing to use it for something that's ''not'' violent. I'm not Muslim, so I can't speak to that. However, as an American I don't feel, I dunno, threatened by the name, or anything. When I first saw it, it gave me pause, but that pause was me thinking, "Whew. Someone's probably gonna throw a fit about that one." --[[User:Day|Day]] 14:13, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::::Well I'm sorry but I do and I have. What's the consensus on this? --Ricimer, October 13, 2005

::::::::::Not a problem Day. I think there might have been an unintentional slip during one of the edits (notice the time/date stamps) but I seem to constantly screw this detail up anyway. Feel free. I may read as insufferably serious but I assure you that's not the case. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 16:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::::::: Good deal, Watcher. Anyway... I was about to make a post about not wanting anyone to feel threatened by this project, but I find I have to revise that. I don't want ''members'' of the project to feel threatened by the name. I hope people who don't cite sources are scared witless of us. ;) Anyway, as much as I like using Jihad, I tend to like to not offend reasonable people, so I'd be okay with a change, I guess. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:21, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::::::: A note on nesting - if Watcher was replying to Spencerian, not Ricimer, it should be indented to the level of Spencerian's comment + 1, not Ricimer's + 1. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:42, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Ah. Good to know. I shall endeavour to remember this. --[[User:Day|Day]] 22:47, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

===Votes===
We need to come to some kind of consensus, I think. So, first, is to change or not change. If we decide to change, then we can quibble over what to change to. Place your name under the appropriate heading.

====No Change====
# --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:14, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Not afraid of words when used properly. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:56, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Name doesn't bother me. [[User:Talos|Talos]] 19:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:51, 24 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Ditto Spencerian. Let's not fear words when used properly. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 21:28, 27 October 2005 (EDT)

====Change====
# Reluctantly --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 06:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Wholeheartedly --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 09:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Normally I don't care about words, but I have to admit, that in today's world, some words have become too negatively charged. --[[User:Cp.hayes|cp.hayes]] 14:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Wholeheartedly --[[User:Lone Odessan|Lone Odessan]] 19:36, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
== BSG: The Magazine ==

I saw [http://www.titanmagazines.com/titanmag/app;jsessionid=57DACB1E3C47F38A718593747C30F921?service=direct/1/HomeUS/$NavigationBar.$DirectLink$2&sp=S8 this] on the news stand at Fry's and thought it was worth picking up an issue to see what was in it. I've so far read a whole of two pages, so I don't know much about it, except that it has an article on Pyramid that was interesting. Does anyone else know anything about this magazine? How reliable is it? I'm going to edit the Pyramid article with some things that are revealed about the rules. How should I cite this, exactly? I'm gonna go with page numbers and title for now. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:24, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:Given that we haven't had much about the RDM show in print, I'd carefully use it to compare to the canonical stuff we have. If things are consistent, I'd say it's a reliable source since I strongly suspect that USA/Universal may have to sign off on its content. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:58, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
::I say we put it on level 4, (sci-fi and skyone websites), provisionally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::: Correction. The title is ''Battlestar Galactica, the Official Magazine'' even thought the words are not in that order on the cover. And, I must say, the thing was really clumsily edited. There are missing periods, 'and' for 'a', 'their' for 'they're', tense mixing, Obvious typos. Yech. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:04, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

==Citation Format==
Also, we should choose a citation format and stick with it. Opinions? MLA, APA, Chicago? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:Damn it, Peter. I knew you were a student. You're going to force me to dig up a book or stand with the kids at the college bookstore, aren't you? :) [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:: Are you kidding? I just graduated and never once bought a book on citation. All that can be [http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/legacylib/mlahcc.html found] [http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/workshop/citmla.htm on] [[Wikipedia:APA style|the]] [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html net]. I've only ever used MLA style before, however, I'd be willing, given the nature of web pages, to use something that just had footnotes with numbering. There was some tool Wikipedia has for this that I read about, but I don't remember much about it except that it seemed cool. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:06, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
:::I would find MLA with numbered footnotes ideal. For "personal communication", we would do well to follow [[User:MASON|MASON]]'s example of including them in subpages, such as [[Mercury class battlestar/Sources]] (That should be linked to from the main article text, however.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Joe also mentioned possibly that we should scan things. What kinds of things? And, I assume those should go on a Sources page, too, neh? I think for whatever's on the sources page, we could do the foot note like this: (3) Personal communication (''or whatever relevant info''). See ''link to Sources page''. I also think Sources pages should have a link back. WHat do y'all think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:25, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::I Agree. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:14, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::By scans, I mean scans of publication articles and so forth. Scans should not be of the whole article but a snippet of the applicable text that was cited (enough to qualify as fair use). Also, as for linking the sources subpage, I created a template, {{tl|source}} that can be placed next to the applicable information. The template automatically links to the Source subpage. (Format: Article title/Sources.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::: How does that work, then, Joe? The syntax, I mean? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:29, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

==Character Ages==
Character ages across the site appear to be based on the age of the actors who play them. This would normally be reasonable, but the Timeline of BSG does not match the progress of time in the real world - the characters have aged at most three and a half months in the same time that their actors have aged two years. Since we can't infer ages more accurately than a casual visitor could be glancing at a character photograph, I would rather this information simply not be included. Opinions? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:45, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

: I concur. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:57, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

: Another thought: Ages are hard to pin down... I mean, we might learn that it is someones XXth birthday in some future episode. Wonderful. However, it's somewhat meaningless. An "Age" attribute in the template needs to be "as of" some date. Right now we use the Holocost as that date, but we're no longer exactly certain how far ago that was. So, if it's Cally's, say, 25th or whatever birthday in the episode after next... how old was she at the Holocost? 24, or so, I guess, but you see my point? I think the best solution, and perhaps this should be brought up on the characters project page, too, is to make the "Age" attribute on the template hide-able and then blank everyone's age out unless we know explicitly a number. I also think we should say it thusly: Age: 23 (as of [[Scattered]]) --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:50, 27 October 2005 (EDT)

==Railguns==
From the ''Official Magazine'' issue #1, p. 60: "Every Battlestar class warship has 24 primary railgun turrets as well as over 500 point defense turrets at its disposal." I don't have access to a scanner to prove that it says that, so you'll have to take my word on it. I'm not saying this is indisputable proof, but that it's maybe more than fanon, anyway. --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:46, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
:The magazine is wrong. Based on on-screen evidence, the large turrets on ''Galactica'' cannot be [[railgun]]s unless we drastically redefine the very idea. This certainly trumps throwaway technobabble in a fan magazine. IMO, the only thing that should give us pause is if a character on the show specifically refers to them as railguns, which hasn't happened yet. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:51, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

:: Okay. I'll buy that. I bet that what's actually going on here is that someone somewhere who makes these desicions doesn't, actually, know what the heck they're talking about. I mean... What're we to do if someone busts out a ray gun and says, "This shoots a red lazer!" and then, *zap*, it's green? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:27, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

::: Oops. Ya did it now. Let's just hope TNS' writers don't become overwhelmed by the details and go the way of Space 1999. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:24, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

==Twelve Lords of Kobol==
Ricimer stated in his edit summary: "It has been stated numerous times that there are 12 Lords of Kobol".

This statement is true if by "numerous times" you mean "never". I've been over all the episode transcripts and found nothing. On this page, of all places, you should provide a source before deleting a comment. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:54, 11 November 2005 (EST)

==Magazine Content==
Ltcrashdown, thank you for your informative additions to [[Saul Tigh]] and other articles. However, for them to stand, we need to do two things:
#Make certain that we are ''not'' quoting the magazine word-for-word, or that where we feel compelled to do so, we set the text off and cite it directly.
#In general, any information from the magazine needs to be cited as well. To do this, we need to know some of the publication information, including:
#*The publication's name
#*The article's author
#*The article's title
#*Date and issue number
#*Pages referenced
Thanks for helping to keep Battlestar Wiki accurate. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:50, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:Where do I place this information in the area where I quote it in Tigh's article? --Ltcrashdown 23:05, 1 February 2006 (EST)

::I will be happy to show you the proper format if you can provide the above information. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:15, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:::Here is everything I referenced from the Magazine in the articles I altered. --Ltcrashdown 23:25, 1 February 2006 (EST)
:::Publication: Battlestar Gallactica the Official Magazine #3
:::Feb/Mar 2006
:::The Tigh info, Rising Star refence to Picon, and Battlestar Athena came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh, Page 62'
:::The Alert Fighters and Colonial Day information came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Galactica Glossary page 60'
:::The Colors for the Colonies comes from 'Encyclopedia Galactica pages 50-55'. I also compared it to information in Battlestar Galactica The Official Companion.
:::There were no authors listed for any of the articles.

::::Can you post quotes here containing the relevant details? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:29, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:::::I am familiar with the magazine, and feel that we should *provisionally* allow information from the "encyclopedia" stuff at the end, but I also *suspect* that they make that stuff up without input from RDM. I don't know. It is the "Official" magazine. Should be on the same level as info from Scifi.com (which has been known to be wrong, etc.) HOWEVER, things that are straightfoward "interviews" which are a simple transcript of an interview; hard to argue that (like when actors reveal insights about their character based on stuff from the series bible we didn't know before). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:35, 1 February 2006 (EST)

::::::Actually, I just saw that the magazine claims that Colonial Day is a biannual holiday; First, where would they get that idea? Second, Ron D. Moore ''stated'' in his blog that it is "not a biannual holiday; it's an annual holiday held every year". I wonder why someone got the idea to ask that. Etc. So it's now known to be not entirely accurate. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:40, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Okay, I'll try to post everything I found word-for-word. --Ltcrashdown 23:43, 1 February 2006 (EST)

'Colony: Aerelon' is a listing under the personnel file indicating his planet of origin.

Tigh's history specificaly says, 'Saul Tigh entered the fleet as a deckhand but rose through the ranks and was a CPO (Chief Petty Officer) by the time the First Cylon War broke out.' Ltaer it reads, 'Tigh joined the Colonial Officer Candidate School and was reassigned as a Viper pilot, something he excelled in, earning a string of medals in his post aboard the Battlestar Athena.' This is the only refence to the Battlestar Athena.

Tigh's post-War history is given with 'Adama reenlisted with the service and Tigh spent two years drinking before Adama pulled strings to get him back into service. Saul Tigh was straightening his life out when he met his wife Ellen, who he courted and married within two months. Ellen did not take well to military life, and her repeated infidelities drove him back to drink. Ellen and Saul separated shortly before the Cylon attack.'

The Rising Star info was taken from later in teh article with the sentence, 'Three weeks after the Cylon attack Tigh's wife was discovered on the Rising Star, a carrier from Picon.'

The definitions are:
'Colonial Day - An biannual holiday which celebrates the signing of the Articles of Colonization.'
'Alert Fighters - A rotating group of Colonial Vipers which are constantly ready for immediate launch. Their function is to act as support for the Combat Air Patrol.

The colonial colors are just images, so there's nothing to type, but it corresponds with the same colors in the Official Battlestar Companion.

:Excellent, thank you.

:The MLA citation format for a magazine article with no author is as follows:

::"Title of Article." Title of Magazine. Date: Pages.

:So, to use the Saul Tigh article as an example:

::"Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh." Battlestar Galactica: The Official Magazine. Feb./Mar. 2006: 62.

:Introduce a footnote in the main body text using the <nowiki>{{note}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{note_label}}</nowiki> tags, and place the corresponding citation in a <nowiki>==Sources==</nowiki> header after <nowiki>#{{ref}}</nowiki> and/or <nowiki>{{ref_label}}</nowiki> as appropriate. I will restore your edits to the Saul Tigh article and cite them, to give you an idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:00, 2 February 2006 (EST)

::You should also restore the 'Twelve Colonies' changes since all i did there was add Saul to the Aerelon natives and correctly match the Colors with their colonies. --Ltcrashdown 00:02, 2 February 2006 (EST)

::::Maybe he was busted down from CPO during the second year of the war. Or maybe as a Chief Petty Officer, he once served as a Gunner's Mate (though this is a bit of a stretch, I admit). --Ltcrashdown 00:22, 2 February 2006 (EST)

:::This information, however, is contradicted by the deleted scenes from "Valley of Darkness" where Tigh says that in the second year of the War, he was a "Petty Officer...gunner's mate" and not ''already'' a Chief Petty Officer when the war broke out.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:14, 2 February 2006 (EST)

:::::"Let's cut through it, shall we?" The magazine is obviously compiled by people who are worse fanboys than ''we'' are, and lack our zeal for accuracy. I mean, if they can't even spell "Gemenon" properly, I'm not really inclined to give them much credence. Their information should be taken with a very large grain of salt, when we take it at all. Frankly, I'm a little worried they're going to start using ''us'' as a source.

:::::(Dear lord, I'm using sci-fi quotes out of context and Ricimer's talking in a civil tone of voice. It's like we've ''merged''.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:30, 2 February 2006 (EST)

Realize that it my ''business'' to know (of course you know, etc etc). Enough Batman-villian-esque theatrics. ***I only have the first issue, and need to read the other issues. Frankly, it's a combination of *REEALLY* good and really *BAD* material. Basically, they've got 5 or so articles that are worthwhile; but they're exclusive, plus they also give out concept art unavailble elsewhere. Long story short, *I would pay money for the few good articles in it*, but the problem is they want to "pad out" the magazine to get a certain length (and I'm going, "I would pay the same amount of money if you didn't pad it, because the other stuff doesn't add much") I mean, the first one has this *really annoying* '''LITERALLY''' Fanfic letter "from Starbuck" describing an air-combat manuever she pulled off in a Viper (in an article about Vipers). Now, let me remind everyone: ***It's a good magazine and has many good articles. It's just that some of the articles are obviously "filler". Thus, as I said, apart from the flat-out Interviews with cast members or articles written by like David Eick, Garry Hurtzel, production team members, etc. should be held under great critical skepticism. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:45, 2 February 2006 (EST)

: This whole thread has been a great read. Very interesting. I have the first issue of this magazine. I sourced it for the [[Pyramid (RDM)]] article some. I remember thinking mostly as you do, Ricimer: Some great stuff, the rest ''horrid''. They're good for interviews, artwork and not much else. The first issue had an interesting thing at the end that seems to be a synopsis of an interview (if I remmeber right) with the head costume person, which I keep meaning to reread and use to add some real-life info to [[Uniform]]. I've also been looking for the other issues in the place where I got the first one, but I can't find it. I a little wary of subscribing to the thing... It just seems like there's a line being crossed there. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:06, 2 February 2006 (EST)

==To Do==
*Deprecate citation templates in favor of [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php#_ref-NYT_1 <ref> tags]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:44, 2 February 2006 (EST)

==BSG Books==

There was recently a novelization for the battlestar galactica mini-series. I was going to get a copy and add information from it to the wikipedia. Does anyone else think this should be done, assuming the novelization yields any new details (i.e. ships, pilots, etc.) --Ltcrashdown 00:14, 4 February 2006 (EST)

: Its come up before. That's where, I think, we got the name Natasi for one of [[Number Six]]'s copies. We're kind of wary of it, but I think there's further discussion on Six's Talk page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:51, 4 February 2006 (EST)

::I'm going to post my point by point analysis of it in a matter of hours. It is, on the whole, quite poorly written, and I don't think he had any official stuff to go on, just making it up. Regardless, per "Memory Alpha" template, it deserves it's own page which I will comment more on, but we should not base beliefs on it. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 02:57, 4 February 2006 (EST)

== Sources namespace ==

Just to let everyone know, Sources have their own namespace (i.e. [[Sources:Pegasus (RDM)]]). This avoids having to use the subpage suggestion I had earlier proposed. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 13:11, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

==Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report==
"Koenigrules" (KR) is the alias of Jim Iaccino, a popular reporter of BSG spoilers, whose reports are often cited and reposted by other sources. [http://lvpodcasts.autopodcaster.com/download.php?filename=Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3/Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3 Recent comments] made on the "[http://www.subject2discussion.com/ Subject 2 Discussion]" segment of the "[http://www.lvrocks.com/ LV Rocks]" radio program (transcribed at [[Sources:Precipice]]) raised the possibility that KR is merely re-reporting publically available information, and does not appear to be a credible primary source.

[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] investigated this possibility, and posted his findings to [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]]. [[User:Peter Farago|I]] raised the possibility of instating a policy against citing KR's reports as credible sources on Battlestar Wiki, which was seconded by [[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]].

Consequently, I am opening a formal vote here on the matter. Please review [[Sources:Precipice]], its putative [http://www.nowcasting.com/sides/Episodic/BATTLESTAR%20GALACTICA/301%20Occupation/Selloi_Dedona_4pgs.pdf source material], and The Merovingian's comments on [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]] prior to casting your vote, and feel free to raise any questions below. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:18, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Update:''' Koenigrules has responded to a number of our concerns via e-mail. You can read my correspondence with him at [[Sources:Correspondence with Jim Iaccino]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

===In favor of a policy against citing KR as a primary source===
#<del>[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:36, 19 April 2006 (CDT) - I feel like this guy betrayed us. And it's getting worse; 4-5 news sites report things he says as fact; he is not helping at all. Dogger said: "''He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail.''"-->He put that more clearly than I could. Way to go Dogger. :)</del>
#[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:11, 20 April 2006 (CDT) If he originates nothing, we lose nothing by not citing him.
#[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:34, 20 April 2006 (CDT) - We do NOT claim to be a primary source here, and everything that is stated as fact should be citable elsewhere. Our sources are therefore our foundation, so they should be held to a high standard.
#[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:30, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 03:16, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I'm against the publication of anything except the facts.
# [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 17:12, 21 April 2006 (CDT) This is site is a reference, it would be misleading to publish anything other than citable information.
#[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 17:15, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I must concur. Too much flotsam.
#[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 20:38, 21 April 2006 (CDT) <del>I've never heard KR 'reveal' anything that I haven't already seen from another source. I have always seen him as just somebody who reads the same things I read and then repeats them in another venue, but with an extra helping of certainty.</del> He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail. <del>Perhaps what he does might have some value as a 'digest' of what is being talked about, but I don't see why anyone but the most naive listener would consider him as a primary source.</del>
:::I have struck out parts of my comments that seem to have been proven wrong by some of the history presented in the thread on Skiffy. However, I cannot in good conscience change my vote because of the simple fact that I don't think that anyone claiming an anonymous source should really be considered a primary source, even if that source is genuine. Perhaps 'blacklist' is the wrong word. I simply see this as a test case for what is the appropriate kind of evidence that should be cited as authoritative. Singling out KR is probably unfair, but that doesn't change what I honestly think to be not an appropriate source for a wiki. If you there were a vote to have a policy against citing ANY ANONYMOUS SOURCE as a primary source, then I would be in favour of that too. I consider this vote to be just an example of what I think should be an overall principle. For example, if KR were to name his source, then I don't see any reason not to consider citing that information. The problem I have is not with KR in particular -- it's with the idea of citing a source without giving the reader the benefit of evaluating its reliability, and that includes anonymity as well as the mixing of facts with speculation.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 19:36, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Gouge|Frankie Gouge]] 02:20, 22 April 2006 (EDT) Credibility is too hard to earn to risk needlessly. Plenty of other sites to get speculative spoilers.
#[[User:Bowersj8|Bowersj8]] 14:31, 22 April 2006 (EDT)

===Opposed===

===Abstain===
#[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 07:33, 23 April 2006 (CDT) Changed to abstain because I don't feel I know enough about this issue to choose either way.
#[[User:Quig|Quig]] 10:09, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:34, 19 April 2006 (CDT) Abstaining until his next broadcast.
#[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:53, 20 April 2006 (CDT) After reading the unfortunate thread on the Skiffy board and the dialgoue established between Peter and KR, I will abstain until I determine whether or not this whole thing was worth the heartache for all concerned.
#[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:33, 23 April 2006 (CDT) Waiting for all the facts...
#[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:39, 23 April 2006 (CDT)As I've offered to give KR benefit of the doubt in compromise if he'd just be more mindful that at times when he was speculating or when he was giving spoilers was confusing, I'm switching my vote to abstain.

==Compromise Proposal re KoenigRules==
While KoenigRules and several of his collleagues insist that he does indeed have access to some sort of spoilers, all of them still will not confirm the veracity of these sources. Seeing as this is what they would do both if they were REAL and if they were NOT REAL sources, we thus arrive at an impasse. Therefore, I want to find some civil compromise over this: I'm a Uniter, not a Divider, and if we start turning on each other Rick Berman's new crackpot scheme to make Star Trek XI: Starfleet Academy will eat us BSG fans alive. '''Proposal''': If KoenigRules promises to be more careful in the future in his interviews, to *'''make it clear'''* when he is giving away '''direct information from his source(s)''', and when he is making a '''speculation''' ''based'' on either this purported source material, ''or'' just his own personal '''opinion''', we will reverse our decision to hold a vote to reject him as a reliable source. For example, if KoenigRules says in an interview "I think Baltar is a Cylon", he should really make it clear that that is just his opinion and not supported by any spoiler source information that he might have, as news sites might miscontrue his comments and lead to a world of trouble. However, the matter of HollyWoodNorthReport itself, which has come under frequent attack from many sites for improperly forgetting to use citations when they source material from other fansites, should be considered a separate matter.

I hope we can all agree to this.

:I don't think this subissue needs a vote. Koenigrules has indicated to me that he'll be able to reply here by monday. If he can adequately address the concerns we've raised, then naturally, the above discussion will be re-evaluated in light of that. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:21, 23 April 2006 (CDT)

===Support===
#--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:48, 22 April 2006 (CDT)

===Oppose===

Talk:Precipice/Archive 1

2006-04-22T04:04:54Z

Dogger: /* Question about Koenigrules */

==Spoiler Source==
I've listened through a couple episodes of the linked radio show. It appears to be a political talk show - which episode contained the spoiler details, and how were they presented? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:39, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
:Further, could you tell us which specific episode this info appears in? What if this guy just saw the same early (wrong) script drafts I mentioned before, then read them on radio as if fact? --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:55, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
::Peter, I'm trying to get to the bottom of all of these rumors: '''I consider them all as "accurate" as the unfounded rumors that the show would move to NBC!''' I asked Ron's wife in the messageboard but she has yet to return for a day or two and I'm iffy on whether or not she'd answer questions like this: I prefeced it by saying that I wasn't just a fan, but reporting it on BattleStarWiki and would spread corrections to other news sites, etc. (roving reporter) so I didn't just sound like one man that wanted to know. I hope that helped. But seriously, all of this isn't adding up. --->if you follow the link to that supposed early draft page, ''half of it'' has cross out marks on it. And usually most of an episode is heavily revised. ''IF'' this is even real! --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:59, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
:::The cross-out marks are for the parts that the oracle character isn't in, since it's a casting side for that particular role. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:04, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
::::Gotcha. My other complaints stand. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:26, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Kuralyov, if you can't provide an exact source, this needs to be deleted. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:20, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
:That's kind of what I meant, yeah Peter. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 20:28, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
::Well, I wanted to give him a chance to get back to us about it. Do we even have a source for the title? If not, we should just delete the page outright. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:29, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Yes, but meanwhile, we have to have SOMETHING for "Occupation" even though I think it's not true, because Gateworld and such already reported it, but just to keep warnings in saying that we don't know how true it is. We've all seen wrong rumors before, haven't we? Last time I trusted one of these things, I thought that ''Cally'' would kill Crashdown in "Fragged"! After that I realized how unreliable these "early reports" are. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 20:32, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
::::We're not talking about Occupation here, and the source of those rumors (the casting side) is a settled matter anyway. Gateworld is no longer cited. The question is, do we have a source for "Precipice"? Even gateworld would be sufficient here, just something better than Kuralyov's word and a link to a talk radio station. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:36, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
::::Yes. To be honest, when I followed the link I couldn't even find the interview, but this may be due to my own lack of techno savvy :) --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 20:39, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::I must be having trouble communicating today - No, I couldn't find it either, which is why I've brought this up. If Kuralyov can identify the particular interview in question, then we can cite it directly and keep the content he added here. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:43, 14 April 2006 (CDT)
::::::Found it. Transcribing. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:50, 14 April 2006 (CDT)

===LV Rocks Transcript===

: ''Transcription moved to [[Sources:Precipice]].'' -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 12:30, 15 April 2006 (CDT)

==Question about Koenigrules==

I know that he is a big name on Galacticastation.com, and a regular contributor at Subject2Discussion since its inception, but just exactly how "sourced" is this source? How does Koenigrules know this stuff? Is it possible...that he simply read the same stuff we did? What are HIS qualifications? Great work transcribing Peter. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])

:Having transcribed this, it's obvious that he knows absolutely nothing more than what we do from having skimmed the casting side and made a few logical predictions. The only new piece of information we have here is the title for the episode, so at least we have someone to cite; but I'm not at all satisfied with this as a source. Nothing else here was original information, so I'd like to find out the originator for the title. FYI to Kuralyov: I'm not going to do this again, so do your homework next time you post spoilers: quotes and citations. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:29, 15 April 2006 (CDT)
::I had thought as much. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 13:05, 15 April 2006 (CDT)

::Another bit of original information was that Ellen Tigh will die in the first couple of episodes. You can't really infer that from the casting side. --[[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 10:28, 15 April 2006 (EST)

'''It all falls into place now''': I finally found out who Koenigrules is. Apparently, he is "a writer for Hollywood North Report, and has been since January 05". This happened some time ago and not all of you may have been here, but remember when we had our ''own'' problems with HollywoodNorthReport? Well, some time ago during season 2.0 I noticed that ''most'' of HNR's material at that time was a combination of information taken from either ''BattlestarWiki'', or ''The Patriot Resource'' (a very good BSG news site). Anyway, contact was made with the guy who runs Patriot Resource, and he too noted that HNR seemed to be taking material without crediting the sources. --->What HNR tends to do is one of two things: they often take news from other sites, but unlike BattlestarWiki (which always sources news and says where we got it) HNR rarely if ever sourced its material (half-intentionally giving the impression that they were a great news site with original content). The downshot of this was A) it's a little rude, more importantly B) it makes it hard to determine the truth behind news they report. The second thing they did was literally cut and paste article information from ''The Patriot Resource'' and ''BattlestarWiki'', whole cloth. By which I mean the difference is that at BattlestarWiki, of course we get information from other places, but we don't just copy them word for word (if we do we put that in quotes and give it an off site link citation). But we like, read an article somewhere, then RE-write the information here, '''in our own words'''. --->Hollywoodnorthreport just '''cut and paste''' articles, without crediting them. ---->Anyway, the guy who runs ''The Patriot Resource'' was quite nice, and before I could think of what to do, he actually **wrote a letter to HollyWoodNorthReport, pointing out that they were taking information from both his site AND BattlestarWiki, without crediting us. The response he got was lukewarm at best; they basically denied any of it, said it was free content, whatever, and told us to go away. We were rebuffed. Yes, on occassion HNR gets original info...because they've got people in Vancouver who can make trips to the set for interviews and such, but most of their other "news" is just taken from other sources without crediting them.
For example, check out this recent thread hyping HNR that Koenigrules made [http://mboard.scifi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1774784&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1 here]: on the one hand, I point out to him a flaw in his claims: you see, Koenigrules reported the rumor...and then Gateworld and Galacticastation reported ''what he said''--->my point being that they weren't "confirming" it from their own independent sources that is, they just actually said "source: Koenigrules". So I told him "you cannot cite this as proof that there are "multiple cites corroborating your rumors"....when they were just citing ''him in the first place''. This happened once before: we reported something here, then PatriotResource reported it (but CITED us), then Gateworld and Galacticastation in turn cited HIM, and finally, HollyWoodNorthReport ran the news as FACT, without giving any citations, and actually said "5 different sites are saying this, so it must be Confirmed!" (this is what made me e-mail the guy who runs Patriot Resource in the first place). ----->Secondly, you will note on the same thread that user TwobrainedCylon says" "Is HollywoodNorthReport EVER going to stop using the viper image they stole from me? They should at least swipe a Mark II viper pic to represent this series rather than continuing to rip off my stuff."--->So it appears that HollyWoodNorth Report on a regular basis tends to take information or artwork from around the internet, and refuse to credit anyone else for it, and present it as Their Own.

You see, there are those guest cast lists that I meantioned before, right? Or the early shooting scripts, which say the NAME ONLY of what scene will be filmed what day (such as "Tigh in prison cell with Cavil"....this doesn't give away other plot points, just that Tigh meets Cavil in a prison cell). '''It is now my firm belief that Koenigrules and his associates at HollyWoodNorth Report try to credit everything they ever hear as true and created entirely by them. In fact, they know no more than we do.''' You see, I asked Koenigrules (on the official messageboard) "What exactly is your source?" and he said "I have an inside source close to production that I am unwilling to divulge"......well, isn't that more than a little "conventient"? '''For all we know, he just showed up as Subject2Discussion one day, claiming to have an exclusive leak source, when it fact all he sees are the casting scripts easily available to hundreds of people free online'''.

Now, benefit of the doubt, logically if he HAD an inside source he could not divulge their identity--->so the only logical thing to do, would be to check all of the reports his "source" has informed him about in the past, and check if they turned out right (often months passed between when he reported it and the episode). So I asked him directly, "what is something that you have reported based on this, if you cannot tell me what your source is?" He said "'''That [[Crashdown]], [[Elosha]], and [[Hot Dog]] would die".''' There are several flaws in this: first off, he just said "die"; he did not say who would kill them. Most people could have guessed by [[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]] that Crashdown was going to die on Kobol, based on the plot setup. Further, guest cast script overview page said something like "Roslin mourns over Elosha"...you could guess she'd die.--->You see, if we based our information on the early spec scripts Koenigrules does...well, in the early draft of "Bastille Day" that went out Cally died, in the early draft of "Fragged" circulated we were told that ''Cally'' shot Crashdown, etc. etc. Perhaps worst of all, '''Hot Dog is not dead''', he is alive and well at the end of the season. In the personal message to me, he said Hot Dog was dead. I responsed that assuredly, he meant someone else, as "Hot Dog" is not dead. And he responded, confirming his position that "Bodie Olmos's character is dead'.

Yikes. How these HNR guys like Koenigrules got into "news" source positions, I do not know. But it all seems to make sense now. By the way, has anyone else actually listened to his appearanced on Subject2Discussion, such as the most recent one about "Precipice"? At the end, he literally says "'''BSG would be great with a smaller cast and more special effects. More people will spread through word of mouth that there are great special effects, and ratings will go up"'''--->One of the central tenants of the [[Naturalistic science fiction]] underlying BSG is that it focuses on *many characters and their fleshed out interactions*, as opposed to the emphasis on flashy special effects which ruined Star Trek.

I do not want to drag ''BattlestarWiki'' into this, and I must admit it is very unsavory to do. But if any of you have listened to the "reports" he gives S2D, I believe you will agree, that something must be done. He is feeding wrong information to S2D, presenting it as fact, and as he has duped S2D into believing him, because S2D (a reliable news source) reports it, other cites like Gateworld and Galacticastation then report it. This is a serious problem. I do not want to bring it up on BattlstarWiki again, and I think it most unsavory that I have to be saying these things at all. But I'd prefer finding out the TRUTH about BSG, and verifying our sources like good wikipedians, instead of standing around and doing nothing. Updates as I get them. Five by Five. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:22, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

:I'm perfectly happy with a blanket policy against citing Koenigrules or HNR. How do others feel about promulgating this on <del>Battlestar Wiki:Spoiler Policy</del>[[Battlestar Wiki:Citation Jihad]]? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:49, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

::I agree on principle, but I'd have agreed if only to say "Let it be promulgated." Oops, I meant "So say we all." --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 23:22, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

:::I'll open a proper vote there with the relevant information. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:25, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

:::Peter, more importantly, I have secured MY OWN interview on Subject2Discussion this Tuesday April 25, due to my capacity as official spokesperson for the [[Golden Toaster Awards]]. I plan on getting my foot in the door in the first interview, talking about the GTAs and ****Promoting BattlestarWiki; FOR TOO LONG have we been the "little secret" of BSG on the internet; many sites use us as a news source, MOST of the messageboard users I've met either use us, or have begun to use us after following my advise. We do most of the work and too little of the credit. I want to start speaking for ''BattlestarWiki'' as well. That's what my first interview will cover, I hope it's succesful. In my second one, first week of May, I intend to expose Koenigrules----->do I have permission to say "**'''BattlestarWiki'''** has a standing policy not to trust *anything* Koenigrules says, or his website HNR". Do I have permission to use the weight of BattlestarWiki behind me? If you tell me not to, I will try to use the weight of BSWiki; although I will still mention, just annectodally as a fan, that this site doesn't trust him: **We have the chance to make a real change here guys. Can I actually say "BattlestarWiki condemns his "Spoilers" as blatantly false, speculation or stolen? or some variation of all of this. Because ***if you tell me to TONE DOWN the BattlestarWiki connection I WILL. If you don't want to get involved in this, I will just say that yes, I am a prolific editor at BSWiki and that BSWiki has even stopped trusting him. But would you like me to condemn him? (Maybe not "condemn" your choice of words); if we can expose this man who has been playing Subject2Discussion for fools for the past ''year'', it might be a real boon to the street cred of BattlestarWiki. I will obey your decision. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:31, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

::::I'm basically opposed to anybody but Joe speaking as the single voice of the wiki, and even then only under extraordinary circumstances. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:36, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

:::::Absolutely correct. Others should chime in on whether they agree or disagree so we can have an informed dialogue going, but I want to know what Joe thinks. It is his site, and his prerogative. By his command. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:42, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
::::::You could just say 'Active member of BSG Wiki along with other people that contribute to the site...' if Joe does not get back to you in time. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:10, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::::He could, but I hope he doesn't. Strictly as a matter of ettiquette, I think it would be bad idea to attack the host's other guests, and it has the potential to reflect poorly on both Merv and the BSG wiki as a whole. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
::::::::Totally agree, but if you don't stand up for people reading directly off your site without citeing the infromation as KR did, I would (but I will not) get the infomation out that he is just gathering "info" from a muliatude of sites and that his "listeners" should go to those sites that he read off, either Gateworld, scifi, or here. What would stop someone else from doing it in the future. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:25, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::::::He'll probably keep doing it anyway. The best way to undermine his credibility is by being more timely, better sourced, and more accurate than he is. Even if he rips us off, at least we'll have the advantage of naming our sources; if he names his sources too, then we won't have anything left to complain about. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:34, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

Here's what I think... I don't mind Merv stating that Koenigrules information is ripped from other sites (this is true), and I don't mind him saying that we don't source his information -- '''because''' we ourselves avoid citing information that comes from dubious, unverifiable sources. Therefore, I am in support of putting KR (and, to an extent, HNR) on a blacklist of sites we don't source.

If Merv is to point out anything, it's how KR gets his information and how unreliable some of his information is (i.e. the Hot Dog thing) and how inspecific his information is (it's generic information, really, and gives no other details). No matter how bad KR is with his so-called "reporting", we should never resort to ad hominem attacks. Period. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

:Can we move this entire conversation into its own thread? --[[User:Peter StrayCat0|StrayCat0]] 09:45, 20 April 2006 (PST)

I dislike having to add more information to this, but I asked a user that has been on the official messageboard since the Miniseries, and they gave me this ''very'' informative summation of Koenigrules' history:

:"When the show started in the UK, several of us discovered bittorrent and downloaded the episodes. At the time Koenigrules never gave out spoilers. When the series started in the US, of course you could get spoilers by reading the threads opened by the british and those who had downloaded the episodes.

:KR became a spoiler source during the hiatus to the second season, and he usually gave them in the S2D show. They weren't neither memorable nor rather long. Just a line or two. Most of the times he stepped in as some sort of "source confirmation". Your fight with him on this issue is old and many people have claimed the same things that you claim. KR has always stated that he contacts the production team, usually the PR office, and that he has somebody in the crew that gives him some spoilers.

:During the first season, he was the one who claimed that Dirk Benedict was going to be the Cylon God. An ugly flame war started between the TOaSters and him. Later they laughed at him when it didn't happen, but somehow he was vindicated when RDM said in his blog that indeed he had considered Dirk Benedict for that role but later on he dropped it altoghether.

:My opinion regarding KR? He has access to some (if not all) the casting "sides" before everybody else, which is where he gets his information. The rest are just plain wild ass guess on his part. As for Tigh losing an eye. I would keep it as unconfirmed rumor, it could very well be a typo after all."

(I couldn't just link it sorry, it was in an e-mail). This really solidifies my belief that his "spoilers" consist of listing off the one or two sentence plot points he can glean from available online sources. I do not intend to attack "the messenger" Joe, I assure you: What outraged me was ***not so much that he takes material from our site and others, but that he is ***Reporting his '''speculation''' as if it is FACT, and as a result other web sites like Gateworld have been reporting it as fact. I don't really mind that he is reporting what he sees on messageboards and such. It's that he's reporting his *opinions* as fact, and then claiming to have a non-existant "inside source" which has fooled everyone into thinking his position is legitimate. I will handle the situation maturely. Though I must admit, it is hard to avoid his character....when his character and behavior is what we question. Nonetheless, I really want to handle this delicately. But it ''must'' be done. Thank you for your support. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 13:14, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

:BTW, another message I got from a fan who's fanart was stolen by HNR (this is an arguement against HNR as a whole, not KR himself, but it does reflect on our opinion towards everyone associated with how that site works:
::"Sounds about right. I've asked these guys a few times not to use my art and '''they told me to screw myself '''... along wiht some descriptions about how I actually deserved to be dumped on for being such a creep so why was I bothering them in the first place. Not so much as a credit line from these people.
::To be fair, its my understanding that KR did ask them to remove it but that request fell flat on its face. I place this at others feet. I don't blame KR for this theft.

::However, '''Michael Hinman''' did once again tell me that '''I should be honored they stole from me''', which is a common theme with that guy and not the first time he's been involved in my stuff getting swiped and misused. '''He's got a conception that everything he's involved in is so terrific that if he or another person on the team steal your stuff, you should be thrilled they thought to steal from you'''. Strange thinking in my book but I never did understand Hinman." --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:39, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
:::Please don't get me started on Hinman... What I will say, however, is that his belief that it is an "honor" to steal from others chimes with my view of him. This is mainly because I had worked with him before (more than six years ago, now than I think about it), and yes his thinking is unique in the universe, to state the least. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 23:56, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

::::You have worked with him....''before''? Don't tell me that you were both once the best of friends until one day it became clear that while you believe that Scifi Fans should work towards tolerance and peaceful co-existance with baseline humans, he believed that Scifi Fans will always be repressed by baseline humans and felt that one day we must rise up against them?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:01, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::Actually, I did believe he had been a friend of mine. I'm not going to drag out the dirty laundry that I have long since burned, but your view of his general attitude does jive with mine, now that I think about it. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 00:07, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

::::::I was just comparing you guys to Prof. X and Magneto :) You've left us all pretty intrigued. But you don't need to elaborate more if you don't want to. You're Prof X right? --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:17, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

:::::::Yikes, have you heard the April 18th interview he gave? He didn't know who [[Duck]] was, and then he blatantly ADMITS to just reciting that magazine interview that Katee Sackhoff recently gave, which I *JUST* posted up on our news page! (source link is in there). I mean he flat out said "did you read this newsmagazine, Katee said..."....and acts like he's a fantastic source of exclusive information. And yikes is he slow; he kept making stupid duck jokes after being told who "Duck" was. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:27, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

::::::::::Dear....God.....at the end of April 18 he goes "Are there really 12 Cylon Models" even though Moore has said there's only 12....and he THINKS BALTAR IS A CYLON....he even acknowledges that Moore has stated repeatedly that Baltar IS a human...and his response to this is "well for all we know Ron Moore is lying".....yikes. On top of that, we've seen that they can't be, as Cylons are not copies of people and have only existed for a few years. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:36, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

::::::::Haven't listened to the interview. I'll see if I can listen to it later. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 00:45, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

::A number of months ago, Koenigrules posted on Ragnar Anchorage that the Cylon point-of-view episode was cancelled. I pointed that, logically, it couldn't have been cancelled due to another poster's reported on-set experience (s/he lives in the Vancouver area, I'm drawing a blank as to their screen-name). Everyone believed Koenigrules, though. Later, when I pointed out he had been wrong, he said that a different Cylon point-of-view episode had been cancelled, which was really just a theory I myself had come up earlier as an explanation - as we did know that an episode had indeed been cancelled, due to Downloaded being referred to as "2-17, which will really be 2-18" during the afforementioned on-set visit. He did not know the truth, which came out in the RDM podcast - that the cancelled episode was to have been a clip show. --[[User:Noneofyourbusiness|Noneofyourbusiness]] 23:37, 21 April 2006 (EST)

:::That's actually a pretty good point. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:02, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

:::So KOENIGRULES was the source of that misinformation? I argued against that for quite a while, based on episode-number evidence. Nobody would believe me. Probably because of KR's reputation.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 23:04, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad

2006-04-22T01:38:34Z

Dogger: /* In favor of a policy against citing KR as a primary source */

== Citation Consistency ==

"Zoic" is a name that sounds like what Shaggy from "Scooby Doo" would make when surprised, I think.

Despite being the special effects company for the series, I wonder how much of their information still holds weight. I noticed that Peter gave neither negative or positive weight to this source. As we go through pages, two issues are going to crop up, of which one may need to move to the Standards page.

* Consistent and useful '''visual''' separation and identification of TOS and RDM information and characters. I find the mingling of TOS and RDM data in the same article confusing and lengthens an article unnecessarily. More germane to this project, it will also keep RDM and TOS stats from cohabitating and confusing the citation process.
* We need to cite official sources for TOS information on the project page, keeping in mind this wiki is for both series. There are surely more TOS fan sites than RDM, and things like games, fan fiction and the like over the years have surely diluted what is official and not.
* The level of detail or a standard of detail on technical pages needs some kind of governor. At which point is something being reasonable in description (such as ''Galactica's'' rail guns) or is embellishment or technobabble that just gives fan service (like "''Galactica'' uses a BFG-3244 Rail Gun with Strapless Attachment")? I'd be more strict on this info than any other since tech is tech and such "facts" should not be different from what is seen on screen.

I think color coding article titles to identify TOS and RDM pages (rather than using "TOS" and "RDM") may be better on the eye. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:05, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

:I intended Zoic to fall under point 3, for "crew" - ie, of roughly the same reliability as that interview where Lorena Gale talked about how Elosha used to do "a lot of drugs". --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:21, 29 September 2005 (EDT)

::I believe the actual word is spelled thus: ZOIKS! Caps are not optional. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:21, 10 October 2005 (EDT)

==Request for name change==

I am uncomfortable with the use of the term "Jihad". I would rather we use the term "Crusade", or perhaps "Inquisition"; I think "Inquisition" is best (i.e. Spanish Inquisition [no one suspects the Inquisition!] b/c it's rooting out unsourced information). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 13 October, 2005

:Striving for accuracy certainly has better overtones than any use of "crusade", and "inquisition" has draconian connotations. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:11, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:: I, uh, don't get Peter's post. Does that means he agrees or doesn't? Anyway, I'm fine with Jihad because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think could be, sarcastically, applied to the purpose of this project. However, I'm also fine with Inquisition because it implies a religeous devotion and a fanaticism that I think... You can see where I'm going with this, no? Also, the Spanish Inquisition sketch is my favorite Monty Python sketch in the history of Monty Python's being viewed by me. And I'd love for my comments on changing citation errors (if I ever see any, because I'm bad at seeing them) to be "Our chief weapon is Fear. Fear and surprise. Our TWO chief weapons are fear, surprise and a fanatical devotion to citation. Ah. Our THREE chief weapons are: Fear, surprise, a--" You get the idea.

:: I find it interesting that the name and the two proposed substitutes are all tied to religeon? We could have a Citation Rampage. Or a Citation Mosh Pit. Heh. Maybe we should be the Ministry of Citation. I always liked ministries. We would then address each other as "Minister Day" and "Minister Farago", etc. Or maybe one of you can come up with a more [[Wikipedia:Nineteen Eighty-Four|Orwellian]] name. That would be cool. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:52, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::To clarify: I like Citation Jihad. I came up with it, after all... --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:08, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: "Jihad", in this context, does indeed present - shall we say - disconcerting ramifications for those of us who are not Christian. While humurous to most of us (I hate to splash cold water) the casual use of such a revered term amongst a potential audience of Islamic adherrants is a wee bit less than delicate... especially in light of the suspicion many perfectly native or naturalized citizens of Mid-Eastern descent faced immediately subsequent to 9/11... and the suspicion they currently face every time they reenter the U.S.
:::: While rather fascinating that we should find ourselves encountering a problem delt with in more artfull ways in our favorite television program, it is nevertheless significant (dare I say important) that we handle this question of naming with a sense of diplomacy. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:12, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:::::I was unsettled--albeit briefly--with the name initially, but I'm not into political correctness. "Jihad" is correct in definition. Currently, however, some take the word with the same emotional charge as Muslims would hear "Crusade," since, essentially in the context of past conflicts between Christians and Muslins at war, both signify a religious purge. In any case, the term sites a religious note that might sour some.

:::::But before you knock Peter for his choice, consider our subject matter: "Battlestar Galactica" is a morality play in the tradition of the original Star Trek series, which addresses in allegory the Muslim/Judeo-Christian issue present through current terrorism against the West as well as the Israel/Palestine conflict by using the Humano-Cylon/Human and God/Lords of Kobol issue. If nothing else, the use of the term "Jihad" in its purest form is actually appropriate and striking so for this Wiki. Don't let the Al Qaeda terrorists or other extremists make you afraid of a word when in fact, it is THEY that slur it from its true meaning. Peter has always shown a concise use of words that has little to no ambiguity--I should know since he frequently slices my edits to their essence when I use too many words. I'll back up Peter on this one. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:43, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::Taking these points into account, I would greatly prefer "Inquisition" over "Jihad" or "Crusade". -- Ricimer, October 14, 2005

:::::::Good point. And very nicely said I might add. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 13:10, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::: I hope you don't mind, Watcher, I indented your previous post one more. Anyway, I like Johad fine. I actually find it kind of refreshing to use it for something that's ''not'' violent. I'm not Muslim, so I can't speak to that. However, as an American I don't feel, I dunno, threatened by the name, or anything. When I first saw it, it gave me pause, but that pause was me thinking, "Whew. Someone's probably gonna throw a fit about that one." --[[User:Day|Day]] 14:13, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::::Well I'm sorry but I do and I have. What's the consensus on this? --Ricimer, October 13, 2005

::::::::::Not a problem Day. I think there might have been an unintentional slip during one of the edits (notice the time/date stamps) but I seem to constantly screw this detail up anyway. Feel free. I may read as insufferably serious but I assure you that's not the case. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 16:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::::::: Good deal, Watcher. Anyway... I was about to make a post about not wanting anyone to feel threatened by this project, but I find I have to revise that. I don't want ''members'' of the project to feel threatened by the name. I hope people who don't cite sources are scared witless of us. ;) Anyway, as much as I like using Jihad, I tend to like to not offend reasonable people, so I'd be okay with a change, I guess. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:21, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::::::::: A note on nesting - if Watcher was replying to Spencerian, not Ricimer, it should be indented to the level of Spencerian's comment + 1, not Ricimer's + 1. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:42, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Ah. Good to know. I shall endeavour to remember this. --[[User:Day|Day]] 22:47, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

===Votes===
We need to come to some kind of consensus, I think. So, first, is to change or not change. If we decide to change, then we can quibble over what to change to. Place your name under the appropriate heading.

====No Change====
# --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:14, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Not afraid of words when used properly. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:56, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Name doesn't bother me. [[User:Talos|Talos]] 19:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:51, 24 October 2005 (EDT)
# --Ditto Spencerian. Let's not fear words when used properly. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 21:28, 27 October 2005 (EDT)

====Change====
# Reluctantly --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 06:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Wholeheartedly --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 09:46, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Normally I don't care about words, but I have to admit, that in today's world, some words have become too negatively charged. --[[User:Cp.hayes|cp.hayes]] 14:30, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
# Wholeheartedly --[[User:Lone Odessan|Lone Odessan]] 19:36, 23 October 2005 (EDT)
== BSG: The Magazine ==

I saw [http://www.titanmagazines.com/titanmag/app;jsessionid=57DACB1E3C47F38A718593747C30F921?service=direct/1/HomeUS/$NavigationBar.$DirectLink$2&sp=S8 this] on the news stand at Fry's and thought it was worth picking up an issue to see what was in it. I've so far read a whole of two pages, so I don't know much about it, except that it has an article on Pyramid that was interesting. Does anyone else know anything about this magazine? How reliable is it? I'm going to edit the Pyramid article with some things that are revealed about the rules. How should I cite this, exactly? I'm gonna go with page numbers and title for now. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:24, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:Given that we haven't had much about the RDM show in print, I'd carefully use it to compare to the canonical stuff we have. If things are consistent, I'd say it's a reliable source since I strongly suspect that USA/Universal may have to sign off on its content. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:58, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
::I say we put it on level 4, (sci-fi and skyone websites), provisionally. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)

::: Correction. The title is ''Battlestar Galactica, the Official Magazine'' even thought the words are not in that order on the cover. And, I must say, the thing was really clumsily edited. There are missing periods, 'and' for 'a', 'their' for 'they're', tense mixing, Obvious typos. Yech. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:04, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

==Citation Format==
Also, we should choose a citation format and stick with it. Opinions? MLA, APA, Chicago? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 18:41, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:Damn it, Peter. I knew you were a student. You're going to force me to dig up a book or stand with the kids at the college bookstore, aren't you? :) [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 22:50, 13 October 2005 (EDT)
:: Are you kidding? I just graduated and never once bought a book on citation. All that can be [http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/legacylib/mlahcc.html found] [http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/workshop/citmla.htm on] [[Wikipedia:APA style|the]] [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html net]. I've only ever used MLA style before, however, I'd be willing, given the nature of web pages, to use something that just had footnotes with numbering. There was some tool Wikipedia has for this that I read about, but I don't remember much about it except that it seemed cool. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:06, 14 October 2005 (EDT)
:::I would find MLA with numbered footnotes ideal. For "personal communication", we would do well to follow [[User:MASON|MASON]]'s example of including them in subpages, such as [[Mercury class battlestar/Sources]] (That should be linked to from the main article text, however.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::: Joe also mentioned possibly that we should scan things. What kinds of things? And, I assume those should go on a Sources page, too, neh? I think for whatever's on the sources page, we could do the foot note like this: (3) Personal communication (''or whatever relevant info''). See ''link to Sources page''. I also think Sources pages should have a link back. WHat do y'all think? --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:25, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::I Agree. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:14, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::By scans, I mean scans of publication articles and so forth. Scans should not be of the whole article but a snippet of the applicable text that was cited (enough to qualify as fair use). Also, as for linking the sources subpage, I created a template, {{tl|source}} that can be placed next to the applicable information. The template automatically links to the Source subpage. (Format: Article title/Sources.) Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:16, 14 October 2005 (EDT)

:::::: How does that work, then, Joe? The syntax, I mean? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:29, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

==Character Ages==
Character ages across the site appear to be based on the age of the actors who play them. This would normally be reasonable, but the Timeline of BSG does not match the progress of time in the real world - the characters have aged at most three and a half months in the same time that their actors have aged two years. Since we can't infer ages more accurately than a casual visitor could be glancing at a character photograph, I would rather this information simply not be included. Opinions? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:45, 15 October 2005 (EDT)

: I concur. --[[User:Day|Day]] 12:57, 17 October 2005 (EDT)

: Another thought: Ages are hard to pin down... I mean, we might learn that it is someones XXth birthday in some future episode. Wonderful. However, it's somewhat meaningless. An "Age" attribute in the template needs to be "as of" some date. Right now we use the Holocost as that date, but we're no longer exactly certain how far ago that was. So, if it's Cally's, say, 25th or whatever birthday in the episode after next... how old was she at the Holocost? 24, or so, I guess, but you see my point? I think the best solution, and perhaps this should be brought up on the characters project page, too, is to make the "Age" attribute on the template hide-able and then blank everyone's age out unless we know explicitly a number. I also think we should say it thusly: Age: 23 (as of [[Scattered]]) --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:50, 27 October 2005 (EDT)

==Railguns==
From the ''Official Magazine'' issue #1, p. 60: "Every Battlestar class warship has 24 primary railgun turrets as well as over 500 point defense turrets at its disposal." I don't have access to a scanner to prove that it says that, so you'll have to take my word on it. I'm not saying this is indisputable proof, but that it's maybe more than fanon, anyway. --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:46, 18 October 2005 (EDT)
:The magazine is wrong. Based on on-screen evidence, the large turrets on ''Galactica'' cannot be [[railgun]]s unless we drastically redefine the very idea. This certainly trumps throwaway technobabble in a fan magazine. IMO, the only thing that should give us pause is if a character on the show specifically refers to them as railguns, which hasn't happened yet. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:51, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

:: Okay. I'll buy that. I bet that what's actually going on here is that someone somewhere who makes these desicions doesn't, actually, know what the heck they're talking about. I mean... What're we to do if someone busts out a ray gun and says, "This shoots a red lazer!" and then, *zap*, it's green? --[[User:Day|Day]] 03:27, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

::: Oops. Ya did it now. Let's just hope TNS' writers don't become overwhelmed by the details and go the way of Space 1999. --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 04:24, 18 October 2005 (EDT)

==Twelve Lords of Kobol==
Ricimer stated in his edit summary: "It has been stated numerous times that there are 12 Lords of Kobol".

This statement is true if by "numerous times" you mean "never". I've been over all the episode transcripts and found nothing. On this page, of all places, you should provide a source before deleting a comment. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:54, 11 November 2005 (EST)

==Magazine Content==
Ltcrashdown, thank you for your informative additions to [[Saul Tigh]] and other articles. However, for them to stand, we need to do two things:
#Make certain that we are ''not'' quoting the magazine word-for-word, or that where we feel compelled to do so, we set the text off and cite it directly.
#In general, any information from the magazine needs to be cited as well. To do this, we need to know some of the publication information, including:
#*The publication's name
#*The article's author
#*The article's title
#*Date and issue number
#*Pages referenced
Thanks for helping to keep Battlestar Wiki accurate. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:50, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:Where do I place this information in the area where I quote it in Tigh's article? --Ltcrashdown 23:05, 1 February 2006 (EST)

::I will be happy to show you the proper format if you can provide the above information. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:15, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:::Here is everything I referenced from the Magazine in the articles I altered. --Ltcrashdown 23:25, 1 February 2006 (EST)
:::Publication: Battlestar Gallactica the Official Magazine #3
:::Feb/Mar 2006
:::The Tigh info, Rising Star refence to Picon, and Battlestar Athena came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh, Page 62'
:::The Alert Fighters and Colonial Day information came from the article named 'Cylon Intelligence Report: Galactica Glossary page 60'
:::The Colors for the Colonies comes from 'Encyclopedia Galactica pages 50-55'. I also compared it to information in Battlestar Galactica The Official Companion.
:::There were no authors listed for any of the articles.

::::Can you post quotes here containing the relevant details? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:29, 1 February 2006 (EST)

:::::I am familiar with the magazine, and feel that we should *provisionally* allow information from the "encyclopedia" stuff at the end, but I also *suspect* that they make that stuff up without input from RDM. I don't know. It is the "Official" magazine. Should be on the same level as info from Scifi.com (which has been known to be wrong, etc.) HOWEVER, things that are straightfoward "interviews" which are a simple transcript of an interview; hard to argue that (like when actors reveal insights about their character based on stuff from the series bible we didn't know before). --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:35, 1 February 2006 (EST)

::::::Actually, I just saw that the magazine claims that Colonial Day is a biannual holiday; First, where would they get that idea? Second, Ron D. Moore ''stated'' in his blog that it is "not a biannual holiday; it's an annual holiday held every year". I wonder why someone got the idea to ask that. Etc. So it's now known to be not entirely accurate. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 23:40, 1 February 2006 (EST)

Okay, I'll try to post everything I found word-for-word. --Ltcrashdown 23:43, 1 February 2006 (EST)

'Colony: Aerelon' is a listing under the personnel file indicating his planet of origin.

Tigh's history specificaly says, 'Saul Tigh entered the fleet as a deckhand but rose through the ranks and was a CPO (Chief Petty Officer) by the time the First Cylon War broke out.' Ltaer it reads, 'Tigh joined the Colonial Officer Candidate School and was reassigned as a Viper pilot, something he excelled in, earning a string of medals in his post aboard the Battlestar Athena.' This is the only refence to the Battlestar Athena.

Tigh's post-War history is given with 'Adama reenlisted with the service and Tigh spent two years drinking before Adama pulled strings to get him back into service. Saul Tigh was straightening his life out when he met his wife Ellen, who he courted and married within two months. Ellen did not take well to military life, and her repeated infidelities drove him back to drink. Ellen and Saul separated shortly before the Cylon attack.'

The Rising Star info was taken from later in teh article with the sentence, 'Three weeks after the Cylon attack Tigh's wife was discovered on the Rising Star, a carrier from Picon.'

The definitions are:
'Colonial Day - An biannual holiday which celebrates the signing of the Articles of Colonization.'
'Alert Fighters - A rotating group of Colonial Vipers which are constantly ready for immediate launch. Their function is to act as support for the Combat Air Patrol.

The colonial colors are just images, so there's nothing to type, but it corresponds with the same colors in the Official Battlestar Companion.

:Excellent, thank you.

:The MLA citation format for a magazine article with no author is as follows:

::"Title of Article." Title of Magazine. Date: Pages.

:So, to use the Saul Tigh article as an example:

::"Cylon Intelligence Report: Personnel File: Saul Tigh." Battlestar Galactica: The Official Magazine. Feb./Mar. 2006: 62.

:Introduce a footnote in the main body text using the <nowiki>{{note}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{note_label}}</nowiki> tags, and place the corresponding citation in a <nowiki>==Sources==</nowiki> header after <nowiki>#{{ref}}</nowiki> and/or <nowiki>{{ref_label}}</nowiki> as appropriate. I will restore your edits to the Saul Tigh article and cite them, to give you an idea. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:00, 2 February 2006 (EST)

::You should also restore the 'Twelve Colonies' changes since all i did there was add Saul to the Aerelon natives and correctly match the Colors with their colonies. --Ltcrashdown 00:02, 2 February 2006 (EST)

::::Maybe he was busted down from CPO during the second year of the war. Or maybe as a Chief Petty Officer, he once served as a Gunner's Mate (though this is a bit of a stretch, I admit). --Ltcrashdown 00:22, 2 February 2006 (EST)

:::This information, however, is contradicted by the deleted scenes from "Valley of Darkness" where Tigh says that in the second year of the War, he was a "Petty Officer...gunner's mate" and not ''already'' a Chief Petty Officer when the war broke out.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:14, 2 February 2006 (EST)

:::::"Let's cut through it, shall we?" The magazine is obviously compiled by people who are worse fanboys than ''we'' are, and lack our zeal for accuracy. I mean, if they can't even spell "Gemenon" properly, I'm not really inclined to give them much credence. Their information should be taken with a very large grain of salt, when we take it at all. Frankly, I'm a little worried they're going to start using ''us'' as a source.

:::::(Dear lord, I'm using sci-fi quotes out of context and Ricimer's talking in a civil tone of voice. It's like we've ''merged''.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:30, 2 February 2006 (EST)

Realize that it my ''business'' to know (of course you know, etc etc). Enough Batman-villian-esque theatrics. ***I only have the first issue, and need to read the other issues. Frankly, it's a combination of *REEALLY* good and really *BAD* material. Basically, they've got 5 or so articles that are worthwhile; but they're exclusive, plus they also give out concept art unavailble elsewhere. Long story short, *I would pay money for the few good articles in it*, but the problem is they want to "pad out" the magazine to get a certain length (and I'm going, "I would pay the same amount of money if you didn't pad it, because the other stuff doesn't add much") I mean, the first one has this *really annoying* '''LITERALLY''' Fanfic letter "from Starbuck" describing an air-combat manuever she pulled off in a Viper (in an article about Vipers). Now, let me remind everyone: ***It's a good magazine and has many good articles. It's just that some of the articles are obviously "filler". Thus, as I said, apart from the flat-out Interviews with cast members or articles written by like David Eick, Garry Hurtzel, production team members, etc. should be held under great critical skepticism. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 00:45, 2 February 2006 (EST)

: This whole thread has been a great read. Very interesting. I have the first issue of this magazine. I sourced it for the [[Pyramid (RDM)]] article some. I remember thinking mostly as you do, Ricimer: Some great stuff, the rest ''horrid''. They're good for interviews, artwork and not much else. The first issue had an interesting thing at the end that seems to be a synopsis of an interview (if I remmeber right) with the head costume person, which I keep meaning to reread and use to add some real-life info to [[Uniform]]. I've also been looking for the other issues in the place where I got the first one, but I can't find it. I a little wary of subscribing to the thing... It just seems like there's a line being crossed there. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:06, 2 February 2006 (EST)

==To Do==
*Deprecate citation templates in favor of [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php#_ref-NYT_1 <ref> tags]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 00:44, 2 February 2006 (EST)

==BSG Books==

There was recently a novelization for the battlestar galactica mini-series. I was going to get a copy and add information from it to the wikipedia. Does anyone else think this should be done, assuming the novelization yields any new details (i.e. ships, pilots, etc.) --Ltcrashdown 00:14, 4 February 2006 (EST)

: Its come up before. That's where, I think, we got the name Natasi for one of [[Number Six]]'s copies. We're kind of wary of it, but I think there's further discussion on Six's Talk page. --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:51, 4 February 2006 (EST)

::I'm going to post my point by point analysis of it in a matter of hours. It is, on the whole, quite poorly written, and I don't think he had any official stuff to go on, just making it up. Regardless, per "Memory Alpha" template, it deserves it's own page which I will comment more on, but we should not base beliefs on it. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 02:57, 4 February 2006 (EST)

== Sources namespace ==

Just to let everyone know, Sources have their own namespace (i.e. [[Sources:Pegasus (RDM)]]). This avoids having to use the subpage suggestion I had earlier proposed. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 13:11, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

==Koenigrules / Hollywood North Report==
"Koenigrules" (KR) is the alias of Jim Iaccino, a popular reporter of BSG spoilers, whose reports are often cited and reposted by other sources. [http://lvpodcasts.autopodcaster.com/download.php?filename=Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3/Subject_2_Discussion_04_11_2006.mp3 Recent comments] made on the "[http://www.subject2discussion.com/ Subject 2 Discussion]" segment of the "[http://www.lvrocks.com/ LV Rocks]" radio program (transcribed at [[Sources:Precipice]]) raised the possibility that KR is merely re-reporting publically available information, and does not appear to be a credible primary source.

[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] investigated this possibility, and posted his findings to [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]]. [[User:Peter Farago|I]] raised the possibility of instating a policy against citing KR's reports as credible sources on Battlestar Wiki, which was seconded by [[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]].

Consequently, I am opening a formal vote here on the matter. Please review [[Sources:Precipice]], its putative [http://www.nowcasting.com/sides/Episodic/BATTLESTAR%20GALACTICA/301%20Occupation/Selloi_Dedona_4pgs.pdf source material], and The Merovingian's comments on [[Talk:Precipice#Question about Koenigrules]] prior to casting your vote, and feel free to raise any questions below. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:18, 20 April 2006 (CDT)

'''Vote ends 20:34, 26 April 2006, server time.'''

===In favor of a policy against citing KR as a primary source===
#[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:34, 19 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:36, 19 April 2006 (CDT) - I feel like this guy betrayed us. And it's getting worse; 4-5 news sites report things he says as fact; he is not helping at all.
#[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:09, 20 April 2006 (CDT) I think he just read the infromation we had posted. That interview was almost excatly what we have on the site. lol. Vote to against citing KR.
#[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:11, 20 April 2006 (CDT) If he originates nothing, we lose nothing by not citing him.
#[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:34, 20 April 2006 (CDT) - We do NOT claim to be a primary source here, and everything that is stated as fact should be citable elsewhere. Our sources are therefore our foundation, so they should be held to a high standard.
#[[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:53, 20 April 2006 (CDT) Per above.
#[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:30, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:21, 20 April 2006 (CDT)
#[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 03:16, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I'm against the publication of anything except the facts.
#[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 07:35, 21 April 2006 (CDT) Ditto to all above
# [[User:Mazzy|Mazzy]] 17:12, 21 April 2006 (CDT) This is site is a reference, it would be misleading to publish anything other than citable information.
#[[User:AerynSun44|AerynSun44]] 17:15, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I must concur. Too much flotsam.
#[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 20:38, 21 April 2006 (CDT) I've never heard KR 'reveal' anything that I haven't already seen from another source. I have always seen him as just somebody who reads the same things I read and then repeats them in another venue, but with an extra helping of certainty. He often fails to differentiate what he is reporting from his own speculation, an oversight compounded by the fact that his speculation is hampered by a lack of attention to detail. Perhaps what he does might have some value as a 'digest' of what is being talked about, but I don't see why anyone but the most naive listener would consider him as a primary source.

===Opposed===

User talk:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha

2006-04-13T19:33:51Z

Dogger: /* Did you know... */

Mind if I play around with this Main Page setup on my own Steelviper?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 18:43, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

:Steelviper, I also think it a better idea to do what MemoryAlpha did and just call categories what they are "Articles of Interest", etc. as making up our own fun names for sections would just confuse newcomers. --19:42, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

== Did you know... ==

I love this section of the MA front page and I think we'll be able to amass enough random trivia to do well with a counter-part. I bet there's a way to have it randomly pick, say, 5 from a list every midnight or 3am or something (server time). I'd prefer this to the way the Quote of the day works, so that we don't have the same 5 appearing together every time they appear and we don't have to worry if we don't have 1800 trivia ideas. I'd also love to implement the QotD like that (pick randomly at midnight a new one from a list, rather than have one assigned to each calendar day). This would allow for continued growth as RDM continues, rather than having to have a database limited to 365 (well, for 33 out of 4 years, anyway). --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 23:33, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
:Alternatively, and preferably, I could just update the trivia every day myself. I trust that more than randomizers, which don't have good judgement, otherwise we might get stuck with 5 things saying what the colors of the walls are. We don't have enough info yet to update them daily. Memory Alpha can because they've got 10 movies and over 700 episodes to choose from. We've got 33 episodes (plus a Miniseries). Even if we tacked on the one season of TOS, we don't have enough to sustain that kind of thing. One every week or so, done manually for optimum quailty, is the better path for the near future. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:47, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
:: This is all possiable, but there is a problem though. Right now the quotes aren't in a database. We could easily do that, but that's not the problem. The problem is that I have to set up some scripts to first input quotes, then have a script "running" on the server that would have to run at midnight. From there that "outputed" data would have to go in the correct form. (This is where bot's come in.) It's the same concept for "Did you know..." random pick. That even gets more complicated. Most of the Wikipedia stuff (FA, POTD, NEWS) is run by tons of people and they have 1 million articles, so they have a large selection. MemoryAlpha has a little more stuff. I persoanlly don't see the effort for such little content. We would need to set up the boards that selects FA or what quotes go in. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:22, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::I have a better idea:
::::A) We do not have enough trivia to warrant a bot randomly picking trivia on a daily basis from a large pool, therefore we should not do that B) I will pick the triva myself, on a roughly weekly basis, and if someone disagrees with it, they can leave a note in Talk to change it--->similar to how our Quote of the Day system works now. C)If others are unwilling to make the effort, I will be willing to sacrifice my time to the endeavor.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::A)not enought content towarrent the effort. B) Knock yourself out C)Other people can contribuate to the "Did you know..." Group effort. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:04, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::: Would this section work similar to the quote of the day, or would it just be random from a database? Can MediaWiki do this as default or will it need a new extension. Wouldnt be too hard to write up in php. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 03:14, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

::::::: Merv, I don't want to, no offense to you, rely on a single user to update this thing. I think we either do it in an automated way (and if it's picking five every day from a database of 15, that's fine with me) or leave it simply open for all to update as they see fit (like the rest of the Wiki). However, I don't think that a lack of volume means we shouldn't automate the thing. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]])

(Unindenting, but still related to the MA thing). Over at MA, they've already [[Memoryalpha:Template talk:DidYouKnow|run into this issue]]. Currently the English MA site is still manual, I believe. The German language site, though, has a template for each week, and kind of like the "Quote of the Day". So the code on the main page would access the current week's DYK's, and users can go as far ahead as they want to lay down future DYK's that will automatically be highlighted when that week comes around. Sort of a compromise on the automation vs. human quality. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:56, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

I don't really mind the MA design, but it doesn't really address what I think is the number one problem navigating this site, and that is the distance (in terms of clicks, page scrolling, etc.) between the front-page visitor and as quick an understanding as possible of the categories and types of articles there are available. For an example of a page that I think works fairly well in this regard (not a wiki) [http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/ go here]. Notice that in the sidebar I have easy and immediate access to both an alphabetical listing, 'latest entries', 'maps', as well as divisions naturally suggested by the subject matter like 'Races' and 'Places'. Also notice the way the list is designed as a tight compromise between comprehensiveness and my ability to take in all of it in a single glance. They don't give me a full alphabetical list to page through, nor do they give me a link that says 'alphabetical index'. Instead, they give me 26 links for 26 letters. This two-tiered approach to categorisation is superior, because it's a manageable list that leads to a manageable list. It's a good lay of the land. I want to be able to look at the front page and get as good a 'lay of the land' as possible in a single glance. For example, I don't want to see a link that says 'Characters'. I want to see a section called 'Characters' followed by a set of subcategories (Pilots, Soldiers, Command Staff, Government, Civilians), all on the top of the front page among the other second-tier indices. I would even say that it would be an improvement to turn the Memory Alpha organisation on its head. Put the index stuff at the top (but organised more along the lines of the Encyclopedia of Arda, perhaps in two columns to allow even more categories than Races and Places). And put these bells and whistles which are really just icing, at bottom 'below the fold', so that as people scroll, pure hard information starts to fade more into entertainment. That would be my ideal set of priorities for the front page, so take it for what it's worth to you, I will support whatever design the group settles upon.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 15:26, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

:I must say Encyclopedia of Arda is run really well. I love that site. I don't know if that works on Wikitech very well, but a good point Dogger. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:40, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

::Below is the closest I've been able to come to an alphabetical index. It's pretty compact. Would you be more interested in a vertical alignment with example words like Arda, or is the horizontal alignment ok? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:24, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

::{|id="toc" class="toc plainlinks" summary="Contents"
|-
|[http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=A A] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=B B] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=C C] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=D D] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=E E] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=F F] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=G G] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=H H] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=I I] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=J J] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=K K] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=L L] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=M M] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=N N] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=O O] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=P P] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=R R] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=S S] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=T T] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=U U] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=V V] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=W W] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=X X] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=Y Y] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=Z Z]
|}

:::I like it, Steelviper. It gets the job done. Minor criticisms: (a) When I pick 'R' if there is room it includes 'S' and 'T', which might be useful in some circumstances, but the trouble is that it forces me to scroll further to get at all the 'R's. Since I just clicked 'R' to deprioritise some of the 'R' entries in favour of some 'S' entries which appear at the top of the results, doesn't make much sense. I don't know if this is imposed on you by the wiki tools, or if this is a matter of choice, but it would be better to use all three columns for 'R's, and then to start another 3 columns below that for 'S's, etc. If the only way to achieve three columns of 'R's is to have only 'R's on the page, then I think that would be preferable. (b) I find the distinction between subcategory 'R's and article 'R's to be confusing, and a bit annoying in that it pushes the actual 'R' articles further down the scroll. There aren't that many subcategories, but in the future, there could be. There could be so many subcategories that none of the actual 'R' articles are visible without scrolling, and then you've got a another real problem with deemphasising the most-looked-for results of the click. Not knowing whether this is easy to do, my ideal layout would be: three columns of 'R' articles at the top; scroll down to reveal three columns of 'R' subcategories; scroll drown to reveal three columns of 'S' articles, and then another three columns of 'S' subcategories. That's assuming that we'll keep all the same information on that page and just change the layout. I would not have problem with removing everything from the 'R' page except the 'R' articles proper, and listing subcategories elsewhere in a more conceptual organisation. Alphabetical is alphabetical, and categorical is categorical. There seems to me to be limited value in hybridising them like that by alphabetising categories. Once again, my standard disclaimer: feel free to completely ignore me.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:30, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

== Alignment ==
Lawful good. Er. If anybody more knowledgable about html/wikitables reads this, I'd appreciate any help at getting the "Pages of Interest" to align at the top of the box that it's in rather than centering like it currently is. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:00, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:Looks like I got it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Control Panel ==
All the sections on the page lack "edit" buttons, just like MemoryAlpha. As an aid to you, the editor, I figured I'd publish a quick little control panel that exposes edit buttons for all the content sections.
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/DidYouKnow&action=edit Did You Know] - a trivia section (see discussion above)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/ArticleOfTheWeek&action=edit Article of the Week] - a featured article section (would need some procedure/policy), and maybe automation
* [[Template:Article/Spoiler-free]] - this is the "news" template from the current main page (anything you do to this will show on main page as well)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/PagesofInterest&action=edit Pages of Interest] - highlights popular pages and pages that need work
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/Encyclopedia&action=edit Encyclopedia] - exposes the categories currently. Uses actual category names instead of going to hub pages like the memoryalpha version.
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box4]] - used in "community", "The Community" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box5]] - used in "community", "The Fan Stuff" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box6]] - used in "community", "The Wiki" on main page

That's it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

==Motion to use this template instead of the Portl project's new front page==

Excellent work Steelviper; I couldn't have done this. Needs some minor tweaking here or there, adding Cylon categories etc (I'll get to that today), otherwise I'm in love with this format. Who else thinks that this would be good as our new front page? I think it is easy to use and quiet informative, as well as intuitive. Plus it's "battle-tested" as it were. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:48, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

:This is a (nearly complete) implementation of a replica of the MA design. I hoped that it could be used as a springboard for figuring out ideas for a main page redesign. Maybe we should discuss the positives and negatives of this design, in hopes of identifying the features we're trying to achieve. For example... I'm not a huge fan of the "Encyclopedia" as it stands. I just exposed categories, but category navigation isn't always the most intuitive, and in the case of the episode guide categories can be pretty ugly (yeah, they're all there, but there's no order to them). Any main page design would probably incorporate finished portals. Also, MA has some categories for Main characters, recurring characters, etc., which I think we might benefit from. The problem of major character navigation remains. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:58, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
::Just saying that, perhaps through my constant association with MA over the years, I just kind of like this one more.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:15, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

::: I like this lay-out, but I think we should outline specific goals and make sure this lay-out is meeting them before we put it up. It may be doing everything we want it to do, but I'd like to make sure. Basically, I don't want to get into copying this lay-out just because it works for MA. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 22:06, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

User talk:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha

2006-04-13T19:30:36Z

Dogger: opinion of alphabetical linkbar

Mind if I play around with this Main Page setup on my own Steelviper?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 18:43, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

:Steelviper, I also think it a better idea to do what MemoryAlpha did and just call categories what they are "Articles of Interest", etc. as making up our own fun names for sections would just confuse newcomers. --19:42, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

== Did you know... ==

I love this section of the MA front page and I think we'll be able to amass enough random trivia to do well with a counter-part. I bet there's a way to have it randomly pick, say, 5 from a list every midnight or 3am or something (server time). I'd prefer this to the way the Quote of the day works, so that we don't have the same 5 appearing together every time they appear and we don't have to worry if we don't have 1800 trivia ideas. I'd also love to implement the QotD like that (pick randomly at midnight a new one from a list, rather than have one assigned to each calendar day). This would allow for continued growth as RDM continues, rather than having to have a database limited to 365 (well, for 33 out of 4 years, anyway). --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 23:33, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
:Alternatively, and preferably, I could just update the trivia every day myself. I trust that more than randomizers, which don't have good judgement, otherwise we might get stuck with 5 things saying what the colors of the walls are. We don't have enough info yet to update them daily. Memory Alpha can because they've got 10 movies and over 700 episodes to choose from. We've got 33 episodes (plus a Miniseries). Even if we tacked on the one season of TOS, we don't have enough to sustain that kind of thing. One every week or so, done manually for optimum quailty, is the better path for the near future. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:47, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
:: This is all possiable, but there is a problem though. Right now the quotes aren't in a database. We could easily do that, but that's not the problem. The problem is that I have to set up some scripts to first input quotes, then have a script "running" on the server that would have to run at midnight. From there that "outputed" data would have to go in the correct form. (This is where bot's come in.) It's the same concept for "Did you know..." random pick. That even gets more complicated. Most of the Wikipedia stuff (FA, POTD, NEWS) is run by tons of people and they have 1 million articles, so they have a large selection. MemoryAlpha has a little more stuff. I persoanlly don't see the effort for such little content. We would need to set up the boards that selects FA or what quotes go in. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:22, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::I have a better idea:
::::A) We do not have enough trivia to warrant a bot randomly picking trivia on a daily basis from a large pool, therefore we should not do that B) I will pick the triva myself, on a roughly weekly basis, and if someone disagrees with it, they can leave a note in Talk to change it--->similar to how our Quote of the Day system works now. C)If others are unwilling to make the effort, I will be willing to sacrifice my time to the endeavor.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::A)not enought content towarrent the effort. B) Knock yourself out C)Other people can contribuate to the "Did you know..." Group effort. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:04, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::: Would this section work similar to the quote of the day, or would it just be random from a database? Can MediaWiki do this as default or will it need a new extension. Wouldnt be too hard to write up in php. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 03:14, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

::::::: Merv, I don't want to, no offense to you, rely on a single user to update this thing. I think we either do it in an automated way (and if it's picking five every day from a database of 15, that's fine with me) or leave it simply open for all to update as they see fit (like the rest of the Wiki). However, I don't think that a lack of volume means we shouldn't automate the thing. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]])

(Unindenting, but still related to the MA thing). Over at MA, they've already [[Memoryalpha:Template talk:DidYouKnow|run into this issue]]. Currently the English MA site is still manual, I believe. The German language site, though, has a template for each week, and kind of like the "Quote of the Day". So the code on the main page would access the current week's DYK's, and users can go as far ahead as they want to lay down future DYK's that will automatically be highlighted when that week comes around. Sort of a compromise on the automation vs. human quality. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:56, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

I don't really mind the MA design, but it doesn't really address what I think is the number one problem navigating this site, and that is the distance (in terms of clicks, page scrolling, etc.) between the front-page visitor and as quick an understanding as possible of the categories and types of articles there are available. For an example of a page that I think works fairly well in this regard (not a wiki) [http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/ go here]. Notice that in the sidebar I have easy and immediate access to both an alphabetical listing, 'latest entries', 'maps', as well as divisions naturally suggested by the subject matter like 'Races' and 'Places'. Also notice the way the list is designed as a tight compromise between comprehensiveness and my ability to take in all of it in a single glance. They don't give me a full alphabetical list to page through, nor do they give me a link that says 'alphabetical index'. Instead, they give me 26 links for 26 letters. This two-tiered approach to categorisation is superior, because it's a manageable list that leads to a manageable list. It's a good lay of the land. I want to be able to look at the front page and get as good a 'lay of the land' as possible in a single glance. For example, I don't want to see a link that says 'Characters'. I want to see a section called 'Characters' followed by a set of subcategories (Pilots, Soldiers, Command Staff, Government, Civilians), all on the top of the front page among the other second-tier indices. I would even say that it would be an improvement to turn the Memory Alpha organisation on its head. Put the index stuff at the top (but organised more along the lines of the Encyclopedia of Arda, perhaps in two columns to allow even more categories than Races and Places). And put these bells and whistles which are really just icing, at bottom 'below the fold', so that as people scroll, pure hard information starts to fade more into entertainment. That would be my ideal set of priorities for the front page, so take it for what it's worth to you, I will support whatever design the group settles upon.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 15:26, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

:I must say Encyclopedia of Arda is run really well. I love that site. I don't know if that works on Wikitech very well, but a good point Dogger. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:40, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

::Below is the closest I've been able to come to an alphabetical index. It's pretty compact. Would you be more interested in a vertical alignment with example words like Arda, or is the horizontal alignment ok? --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:24, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

::{|id="toc" class="toc plainlinks" summary="Contents"
|-
|[http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=A A] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=B B] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=C C] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=D D] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=E E] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=F F] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=G G] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=H H] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=I I] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=J J] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=K K] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=L L] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=M M] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=N N] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=O O] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=P P] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=R R] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=S S] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=T T] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=U U] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=V V] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=W W] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=X X] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=Y Y] [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Category:A_to_Z&from=Z Z]
|}

:::I like it, Steelviper. It gets the job done. Minor criticisms: (a) When I pick 'R' if there is room it includes 'S' and 'T', which might be useful in some circumstances, but the trouble is that it forces me to scroll further to get at all the 'R's. Since I just clicked 'R' to deprioritise some of the 'R' entries in favour of some 'S' entries which appear at the top of the results, doesn't make much sense. I don't know if this is imposed on you by the wiki tools, or if this is a matter of choice, but it would be better to use all three columns for 'R's, and then to start another 3 columns below that for 'S's, etc. If the only way to achieve three columns of 'R's is to have only 'R's on the page, then I think that would be preferable. (b) I find the distinction between subcategory 'R's and article 'R's to be confusing, and a bit annoying in that it pushes the actual 'R' articles further down the scroll. There aren't that many subcategories, but in the future, there could be. There could be so many subcategories that none of the actual 'R' articles are visible without scrolling, and then you've got a another real problem with deemphasising the most-looked-for results of the click. Not knowing whether this is easy to do, my ideal layout would be: three columns of 'R' articles at the top; scroll down to reveal three columns of 'R' subcategories; scroll drown to reveal three columns of 'S' articles, and then another three columns of 'S' subcategories. That's assuming that we'll keep all the same information on that page and just change the layout. I would not have problem with removing everything from the 'R' page except the 'R' articles proper, and listing subcategories elsewhere in a more conceptual organisation. Alphabetical is alphabetical, and categorical is categorical. There seems to me to be limited value in hybridising them like that. Once again, my standard disclaimer: feel free to completely ignore me.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:30, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

== Alignment ==
Lawful good. Er. If anybody more knowledgable about html/wikitables reads this, I'd appreciate any help at getting the "Pages of Interest" to align at the top of the box that it's in rather than centering like it currently is. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:00, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:Looks like I got it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Control Panel ==
All the sections on the page lack "edit" buttons, just like MemoryAlpha. As an aid to you, the editor, I figured I'd publish a quick little control panel that exposes edit buttons for all the content sections.
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/DidYouKnow&action=edit Did You Know] - a trivia section (see discussion above)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/ArticleOfTheWeek&action=edit Article of the Week] - a featured article section (would need some procedure/policy), and maybe automation
* [[Template:Article/Spoiler-free]] - this is the "news" template from the current main page (anything you do to this will show on main page as well)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/PagesofInterest&action=edit Pages of Interest] - highlights popular pages and pages that need work
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/Encyclopedia&action=edit Encyclopedia] - exposes the categories currently. Uses actual category names instead of going to hub pages like the memoryalpha version.
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box4]] - used in "community", "The Community" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box5]] - used in "community", "The Fan Stuff" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box6]] - used in "community", "The Wiki" on main page

That's it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

==Motion to use this template instead of the Portl project's new front page==

Excellent work Steelviper; I couldn't have done this. Needs some minor tweaking here or there, adding Cylon categories etc (I'll get to that today), otherwise I'm in love with this format. Who else thinks that this would be good as our new front page? I think it is easy to use and quiet informative, as well as intuitive. Plus it's "battle-tested" as it were. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:48, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

:This is a (nearly complete) implementation of a replica of the MA design. I hoped that it could be used as a springboard for figuring out ideas for a main page redesign. Maybe we should discuss the positives and negatives of this design, in hopes of identifying the features we're trying to achieve. For example... I'm not a huge fan of the "Encyclopedia" as it stands. I just exposed categories, but category navigation isn't always the most intuitive, and in the case of the episode guide categories can be pretty ugly (yeah, they're all there, but there's no order to them). Any main page design would probably incorporate finished portals. Also, MA has some categories for Main characters, recurring characters, etc., which I think we might benefit from. The problem of major character navigation remains. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:58, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
::Just saying that, perhaps through my constant association with MA over the years, I just kind of like this one more.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:15, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

::: I like this lay-out, but I think we should outline specific goals and make sure this lay-out is meeting them before we put it up. It may be doing everything we want it to do, but I'd like to make sure. Basically, I don't want to get into copying this lay-out just because it works for MA. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 22:06, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

User talk:The Merovingian

2006-04-08T21:39:38Z

Dogger: /* Point Out Mistakes */

''Why is a raven like a writing desk?''

== Regarding your RfA ==

Hi Ricimer, while your RfA did not pass, I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that you are fully capable of passing the RfA, should it come up again within, say, six months. If you have any concerns, feel free to address them with Peter, myself, or any of the other major contributors. Have a happy New Year! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 12:31, 30 December 2005 (EST)

:I have yet to play my trump card. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 12:32, 30 December 2005 (EST)

:: Should I be afraid? *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 20:21, 31 December 2005 (EST)

::: "Plan R" --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:12, 5 March 2006 (CST)

:::: Plan R = Plan Recruitment --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:56, 26 March 2006 (CST)

== Battle Template ==

You're the guy who came up with this, right? Do you think that a) the thing could be made into an actual template (like the Character Data one with dissappearing/reappearing fields, etc) and b) it could be re-designed to look like the Character Data one (in terms of looking like the rest of the theme (the red/black is the default theme, isn't it?)? I don't know how these two things would be accomplished, but I thought I'd put this out there and see what you thought as far as feasability and also as far as ''should'' we do it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:00, 18 January 2006 (EST)

As you are the instigator of the battle template, I would like your opinion on this subject.

I have been checking through the TOS battle pages and found that the category listings vary. Sometimes it is listed as Battle of X, other times X, Battle of. When they are listed alphabetically they are under B in the first instance and X (or whatver) in the second. Which way round would you prefer? --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 01:30, 14 March 2006 (CST)
:I don't even touch Original Series stuff. If there's anything there, it was someone trying to copy the template onto a different article. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:21, 14 March 2006 (CST)

== User name change ==

Just letting you know that I changed your name from Ricimer to The Merovingian. Let me know if you encounter any issues, not that I'm expecting any but just in case Murphy's Law decides to come and play. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 23:19, 7 February 2006 (EST)

: Also on this topic: You should probably update the first sentence of your User page to reflect the name change. If you want, I could probably get a decent screen-grab of the identically named character from the Matrix. Unfortunately, I don't have a DVD from which to grab pictures that stars any of the folks who founded Paris. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:24, 8 February 2006 (EST)
::Yes, actually, that would help immensly. I need one of The Merovingian when he's in Club Hel, standing at the balcony looking imperiously down at Neo. A shot that shows his whole body instead of a closeup would be preferred. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 02:13, 8 February 2006 (EST)
:::You should watch "Revolutions" again. Merv isn't peering down at Neo but at Morpheus, Trinity, and Seraph (Neo never visits Club Hel in the movie series, although the Path of Neo video game takes him there while the Club is closed). I'll also try to get a screencap for you if time allows. My Matrix knowledge may be better than my BSG knowledge (note witty, illustrated user page; I've been almost tempted to change my user name to something more appropriate... ;) By the way, I like your revised user page. Merv is one of those characters whose deserved more exploration on the same level as the Oracle and the Architect. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:45, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:"Neo" just came out; I was thinking Seraph & Co., just typed the wrong thing. (''That little Judas! I'm going to have him killed and buried in a shallow grave, then dig him up and kill him again...'''That's the beauty of a shallow grave!''') ''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 16:52, 8 February 2006 (EST)

::I actually took a philosphy class and my choice for a paper was on ''The Matrix''. Basically, I've made several of the more...insightful speculations about The Merovingian on his Wikipdia article. You see, Morpheus and Neo represent Socrates: wanting to get out of "The Cave" to the real world beyond, etc. However, I believe (and I'm the only person I know of who's thought of this; I didn't read it anywhere, but thought it up after reading ''Leviathan'') that The Merovingian is the embodiment of Thomas Hobbes in The Matrix. He spouts off Hobbesian thought all of the time. Hobbes said that "choice is an illusion" that the only constant is "cause and effect", and that the best thing we can do with our lives is kind of movie along with the flow of causality in such a way that we enjoy all of the *physical, transient* pleasures that we can, while we can. Live a life of comfornt and luxury, etc. The Merovingian *lives out* this ideal: He's living in complete luxury, like at Le Vrai, the Chateau, Club Hel (and he has affairds with women all the time, etc), he wields a great deal of physical power...yet recognizes that it's all just "a game" devoid of purpose; it's transient, etc. He's stopped seeing any higher meaning in anything. --->Hobbes was a big critic of Socrates, and his philosophy was the polar opposte of Socrates' thought. In the same way, The Merovingian opposes Neo and Morpheus' philoshpy of getting out of the Matrix.
:I hold with the theory that he's a former One, that got his brain pattern scanned into a computer to outlive the death of his body. But he got so disillusioned with all of the lies and how the quest for freedom was just a reset button, that he turned against all of this and became the master of the Exiles, living the complete opposite of all of this (note; he ''really hates'' the Oracle, and views everything Neo says about her with extreme sarcasm). Plus, the initials "LV" on the walls of "Le Vrai" are Roman numerals for "LV" = 55. Now, we've already seen 303= Trinity, 101= Neo. So there's something about The Merovingian and the number "5". On top of this, when we first meet him there are 5 glasses set out in front of him (and Persephone, his Trinity-analog, has 3 chocolates on her plate). --->There have been 5 "Ones" before Neo. I think the Merovingian is the ''first'' "One". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 17:01, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::Yeah, that theory and his Hobbes relationship (I think--it may be in a book I read) is on the Wikipedia article. I edited the article in dispute of Merv being a past One. It all comes down to some logic points. ''Why'' does he hate the Oracle so much? Because she succeeded where he failed. She stabilized the Matrix by adding true choice, where Merv was likely tapped by the Architect earlier to program basic cause-effect subroutines in the Matrix code as well as manage the root-programs in Matrix-beta-2 that could be used to help with these changes (these programs he now holds for his own purposes). The Architect realized the utopian flaw in beta-1 and thought that simple cause-effect (combined with the root-programs--the monsters of myth) would be sufficient to convince the human minds. He was wrong, of course. Remember that the Merovingian is big on cause-effect, and the Oracle states that he is one the oldest of them all, which makes his human origin very unlikely as the machines by then were fully distrustful of humanity and saw itself as a steward, not bothering to hear out humanity anymore than we would listen to the needs of an ant. The One is purely human; if the Merovingian were a "One", he would have been generated within beta-2, and, as a result, would not be like the Ones that base their power from true choice (particularly the power to ''dis''believe what they see and act otherwise). To add to that: Merv could also be very mad at the Oracle because, in the Oracle's version of the Matrix, any powers he may have had in beta-2 are practically non-existent. (You gave me a new take the character now from that...hmm.) Oh, and "La Vrai" means, "The Truth", which is just Merv's way of protesting of what's around him..vulgarities of "choice". Only in his establishments, by the name implication, will the populace understand the "truth" about what is illusion to him (choice) and real (cause and effect).

:::I wrote a paper about the origin of the One (with a bit on Merv) for a SF convention that will BLOW. YOUR. MIND. If you like, I'd be happy to send you a PDF of it. I've not published this as yet, so it's a unique read that incorporates the above. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:29, 8 February 2006 (EST)

::::I would like to BLOW. MY. MIND. as well... ''the preceeding, signed comment and small recommendation that Spence forward me a copy of his insightful paper on Merv was made by [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] on 17:47, 8 February 2006 (EST) :-)''

::::: Actually, Spence... Could you just, maybe, copy it to User:Spencerian/Matrix or something? It might save you from forwarding it to a billion people. If you don't like that idea, then put me on your forwarding list. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:19, 9 February 2006 (EST)

:There, I must disagree with you. The Merovingian is not "the oldest of us" but "one of the oldest of us", which would still fit my interpretation. Further, in ''Leviathan'' Hobbes goes on a tangent where he says that because everything in life is "cause and effect", logically, we should '''in theory''' be able to predict the future, because life has no external factors (god, random choice, etc. Fate/causality rules all). But he adds that '''in practice''', this is impossible, simply because there are so many variants that the human mind cannot grasp at once--->it reminds me of discussions of ''psychohistory'' in "Prelude to Foundation"; hen Hari Seldon originally presented his first paper theorizing that psychohistory was ''possible'', he explained that he did not yet have a working model because his paper essentially just proved that you could actually analyze all of the "antecedants" of life in a computer model. I.e. if the universe is so compex that the only functional "model" of it is something as big and complicated as the universe itself, such a model is useless. However, he said that you ''could'' actually make a model smaller than the universe itself..
::Well, the point is that according to The Merovingian's own Hobbesian principles, he is in a possition SIMULTANEOUSLY A) He believes the world to be governed by nothing but causality, and therefore, he should be able to predict the future, but B) THE VERY SAME principles that idea is based on also state that predicting the future is ''Practically'' impossible. This might get a little annoying to him. --->So then there's The Oracle, who CAN predict the future, while he cannot (though in theory, he should). Therefore, this adds another level of hate for her, and he wants the "eyes of the Oracle" (which he's "Wanted ever since I came ''here'') because he's jealous. And who's to say the Machines would not want to tap the talen of the "grotesque" human mind in designing/running a more human world (beta-2)? I digress. P.S. Don't get me started on MXO's Agent Pace...--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 18:13, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::Yes, Merv is one of the oldest, not the oldest. Merv was only half-right, which is why his Matrix worked only halfway. Predicting the future is not impossible if the events in the world ''work like a computer program does.'' He wanted to predict things logically--but, with choice involved, prediction becomes far less logical or predictable. When people in his Matrix version realized they, too, could guess the logical cause and effect, they lost believablity in their Matrix. The Oracle's Matrix has no such problem for the most part. Hey, you haven't an email address to send you my paper (Joe just got a copy). You can send me your address privately to my email if you care not to post it publicly. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:57, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::: '''Tangent''': I once tried to start up a Matrix-themed MUSH which was to be placed in an unspecified previous iteration of the Matrix, only a few years after the death of the One that started the thing. We had some lengthy debates about how to implement the Oracle or make any sort of assertions that would A) be specific enough so as to be cool when they came true but, b) be vague enough so as to be possible in a roleplaying environment that included, well, ''choice''. Eventually, though, all the staffers got busy doing [http://www.guildwars.com other] [[Main Page|things]]. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:19, 9 February 2006 (EST)

: Merovingian, eh? I must say I like it, much preferable to Ricimer - and I'm not a troll. [[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 02:33, 21 February 2006 (EST)

::Prove it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:02, 21 February 2006 (EST)

To get back on topic, almost. I got you something, Merv: [[:Image:Merv.jpg]]. It's only 200px wide because of the native resolution of the capture. It should be fine for use on your user page, but it looked just horrid blown up. I also capped one without the green lights, but I liked this one better. Lemme know what you think. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 02:40, 1 April 2006 (CST)

==A ''Revelation'' I've Had==

[AgentSmith]Let me share a ''revelation'' I've had [/Agentsmith]. In case you are new, most here are of the consensus that my attitude towards edits is overall blunt/brusk, not "polite", etc. (it's just letters on a screen, so I just never gauged "politeness" much; not that I make personal attacks, just that I "cut through it" and say what I'm thinkin'). Anyway, '''Day''' summarized some of this pretty well on Talk:Perry when he said just now: "''your jumping off the cuff with aggressive language at people who simply disagree with you. It may be a matter that would be handled by inflection, were you interacting in real life, but you should realize that when you're dealing with text only, you have only very gross control over inflection: normal, bold and italics. And they can be construed as meaning many things. As a side note, I've noticed you like to use bold and such a lot and so, sometimes, you do combinations or all-caps or asterisks for further emphasis. I mean this in only an entirely constructive way, but... I have no idea how to interpret those passages except as very loud, so they're more confuysing to me, personally, than helpful.''". Well, I think I've '''finally realized what the crux of the problem was:'''

Loss of essence. A profound sense of fatiuge, a feeling of emptiness...caused by terrorists trying to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, through water fluoridation. It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core terrorist works. He hold no value for human life, not even his own. Well, I can no longer sit back and allow terrorist infiltration, terrorist indoctrination, terrorist subversion and the international terrorist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.--->Hahaha, sorry. I can never resist a good plug for the old ''Dr. Strangelove'' routine.

But I digress.

No, seriously. I finally realized what the crux of all of this friction has been: As you know, I am a prolific poster on the official messageboard. '''I think the problem is, I've been posting on BattlestarWiki as if it were a messageboard'''. You see, messageboards aren't as formal and a lot of, well, yelling, arguing as part of debate, etc., is actually ''the norm'' there. Further, when it comes to '''my''' ''overuse'' of ''' ''**inflection**'' '''....I'm just *used* to typing that way because that's how you highlight and emphasize stuff on messageboard posts (it's sort of how you make up for not being able to see visible social cues, etc.) Also--->Posts on messageboards can sometimes fill an entire Microsoft word single-spaced document page. They can get really long. So you've really got to highlight the beginning of every new idea or paragraph like that to make your point, etc.

But on the whole, it's just a different atmosphere, more "pack-mentality" to establish dominance through a show of force (GREAT Farscape joke about that one in the first episode of the fourth season...but I digress.), and a fanatical amount of information, etc.

I realize it took me a while, but I've finally come to the full realization that '''My Talk page posts, etc. seem kind of rough because I'm just typing like these are messageboard posts'''. (Messageboard posts disappared practially after 5 minutes, so you try to have as big an impact as possible, while here they just stay there for long periods, etc.)

So, I've realized that that's what's been going on, and I realize now (from experience) just how different a wiki is from that, so I will alter my tone accordingly. (Of course, I'll still '''highlight''' stuff that might seem important, but not go overboard). --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:36, 10 February 2006 (EST)

:Excellent! That's an angle I hadn't considered. The signal to noise ratio is definitely much higher here than at some other places. Heck, the fact that people were still discussing a question I asked around the first of December is an excellent demonstration between the way things happen around here and the official board. I hope you have begun to see that the people here value what you have to say/contribute (without the need to clamor to be heard above the din). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 10 February 2006 (EST)

:: That may be a very apt metaphor, SV. Reading Merv's posts is sometimes like listening to someone who thinks your in the other room, but really you're right behind them. Roughly, "Hey. I'm already ''listening'', '''Dude'''." *wink* Anyway, I hope this is exactly the issue at, uh... issue, here. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:24, 10 February 2006 (EST)

== Template Categories ==
What are you looking for for the writers and directors? A navigation template? Or a category (I ran into [[:Category:Directors]] after I created one)? I'd be glad to help, I just don't have a concept of what you're needing. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:19, 10 February 2006 (EST)

When I write pages about Sharon, Number Six, etc. I write at the bootom "Category:Cylons" (with double brackets around it). I think we need a Category set for "Writers" and "Directors" (in place of "Cylons"). However, one or two episodes split the "Writers" credit between "Teleplay" and "Story by" (see official site episode guide). I just put "Story by" into "Story by" slots in the guide, and Writer for who wrote the Teleplay: Regardless, I think both Teleplay and Story writers should fall under the "Writers" category, and I will make note of which was which on their individual pages.
----->Essentially, I realized we had no "At a Glance" method of seeing the past work of a writer or director. Essentially, I see that episode 3.12 is coming up, and I see "hmm, who is this? why, I'll click on his name and get a list of other episodes he's done.....oh no! He wrote the abysmal "Black Market"!...or..."Hmm, she wrote the wonderful "Resistance"...this should be interesting. I'm trying to make A) pages for all of the writers and directors, and B) lists on those individual pages of all the episodes they've worked on, so, logically--->C)We should have a more fully developed category system for "Writers" and "Diretors" (the rudiments of which are present on the main page, but which were never fully developed. I felt that now is a good a time as any.)--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 20:33, 10 February 2006 (EST)
:There's a directors category already, and a Category:Director: Michael Rymer, which is a subcategory of Michael Rymer. Thus if you tag an episode with Category:Director: Michael Rymer it should fall under the Michael Rymer category. The directors category would then just be a container for all those subcategories. So we just need a Category:Director: X where X is each director (and make sure that each of those has the category of Director, so that they show up as subcategories). We could then make a template, I guess, but since we're talking about just having to add one category tag at the bottom, I'm not sure it merits a template. I'll start up the Category:Writers, if you want, if you could list out which Directors and Writers we need to capture. We may want to consult with Farago on this, as he has a knack for categorization. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:44, 10 February 2006 (EST)
::Ah. There's already a Category:Writers as well. Looks like somebody planned ahead. It looks like we'd just need to make the subcategories then. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:47, 10 February 2006 (EST)

==Just to say==
Merv, I just wanted to say that I think you've been putting an excellent face forward recently. Keep it up. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:23, 19 February 2006 (EST)

''All is proceeding according to plan..''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 21:07, 19 February 2006 (EST)

== Welcoming Committee ==
Thanks for taking on some of the welcoming committee responsibilities. I think the new users appreciate it (and Joe probably appreciates not being the only one who does the greeting). I tend to only pick up that job when the new user crosses paths with something I am working on. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:21, 3 March 2006 (CST)

:I am just a humble servant of this wiki and the information therein, I ask nothing in return. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 14:47, 3 March 2006 (CST)

This is a test to see what time my signature says--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:11, 17 March 2006 (CST)
:That's odd; what are our signatures saying Central Standard Time Intead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), that is, Grenwich Mean Time?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)

== RFA ==

Because it looks like you didn't see it, notice that a user has added a question to the stock three. I think it would be safe to say it's because he was wondering what your would be. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:22, 18 March 2006 (CST)
:Day, I will gladly answer any questions, but I note that you did not have to answer such a question when ''you'' were running for Administrator. Irrelevant; I mean I can answer it--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 00:44, 19 March 2006 (CST)
::I'm sure we all would have been happy to answer if anyone had asked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:28, 19 March 2006 (CST)

== http://openpolitics.ca/wiki+etiquette ==

As this page puts it...

'''Be Respectful'''
Open politics has high standards for debate and civil discourse. If we wanted to participate in name calling and ad hominem attacks, we could visit our legislature. As an editor, you can relocate, revise or remove any content or contributions which give offense or are out of place. Participants who have differing points of view are invited to issue challenges to each other - a formalized competition of ideas which serves the public interest by allowing detailed head to head comparisons of differing positions on an issue.

You do not need to place my name in the comment's system. I find that offensive. Read http://openpolitics.ca/ad+hominem to better explain why.

'''Maintaining the correct Point of View'''
A page that has been collaboratively written by dozens, if not hundreds of people will be quite a mess unless the participants all agree to write from a point of view. When describing issues, Open Politics uses a neutral point of view - when talking about same sex marriage as an issue, one should not discuss whether they are for or against it at the top of the page. Hold off on stating your opinion? until you get further down - to the position statements.

My edit was correct and if it needed to be removed, it should have been talked about first. My addition was completely under the guidelines of '''''Wiki Etiquette'''''.

'''Understand how wiki works'''
In a wiki based web service, each page is dedicated to deliberating on a specific topic, which is determined by the page name. Everyone who views the page is welcome to edit the content of the page, making contributions in any way that (they think) helps. If others agree your contribution was helpful it will stay there - a "good edit."

Again, until you came along this evening, it had staied there for a day.

I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:55, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:"...high standards for debate and civil discourse... I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me."
:You linked to a sub-par definition/explanation of '''ad hominem.''' Wikipedia's, e.g., is much more detailed (and better formatted).
:A delay of a day is less than the gap between my reads of recent changes (and probably all but 4-5 users') so it hardly counts as a consensus of positive peer reviews. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 02:24, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::How can any Administrator '''possibly''' consider the '''crude threat''' "I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me." to be "proper Wiki Etiquette" or "respectful", all matters aside? --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:50, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::: I've already addressed that issue in private. I don't forsee it occuring again.
::: On an unrelated note, I was the one that came up with the {{tl|welcome}} message -- and it's a template, not a bot. No bots are operational as of yet. (As such, the template is added manually by users.) Just wanted to let you know about that piece of information. Obviously, any concerns should come to my desk per se, as always. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:01, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::::Yes of course; that was actually quite helpful.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:47, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::Well, you don't go on another site making fun of another person explaining why their ideas are bad. Merv, I think you need to appoligize for your remarks on the BSG fourm on Scifi.com. If not, I will be sure to post this entire thread as a reason for why you should not be an Administrator on this Wiki. While I voted because of other reasons the last time on your RFA, and moved my vote to netural, I would have kept my vote to oppose. In six months or so I will be very busy with my job so I am going to make a note on my calander to come back, and still vote no and post a PDF document of your thread. You will also know, that even though I can not post there, I can still read, and have sent the PDF document to Joe, for harressing a member of the site. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 10:01, 26 March 2006 (CST)

: I have read the post. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in your behavior, Merv. It's quite unbecoming.
: May I request, in the strongest possible terms, that you keep your thoughts on the Wiki in the Wiki? Things like this not only reflect badly on yourself but on every contributor here. Thank you. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 12:43, 26 March 2006 (CST)

==The Merovingian's Opinions On Things That Should Be Done At BattlestarWiki==
I have been at a Science Fiction convention this past week. During this time, my access to the internet was limited (well, relative to my usual levels) and I made a long post at Scifi.com describing various opinions I have about things that need to be done at ''BattlestarWiki'': these are my opinions, and I have not assumed as a given that they will be realized. Some were displeased, and rightly so, that I did not state them here: Actually, '''I was going to make a long post on my Talk page as soon as I got back anyway, relating the opinions I stated there. I do appologize that I did not *immediately* post them here as well, because I was not trying to go behind anyone's back'''. Joe, I should post things about BattlestarWiki here first, and I will NEVER post something on another messageboard that I would be unwilling to post here (cursing, defaming remarks, etc. that I would not also make here); I am sorry, but I cannot limit my thoughts on BattlestarWiki to this Wiki; however, you have my promise and assurance that I have never said anything that I thought was innapropriate, nor will I EVER cross that line. Indeed, ''Not'' keeping my thoughts on this Wiki, limited to this Wiki, has resulted in a great awareness about this website spreading across the messageboards. That said, I agree, I will never make comments about this Wiki again which were as large or personally directed as the ones I made. I should have done this here first.

With that preamble, here is a list of things '''mostly for my own personal reference''', which I think: I can post such things, I would think, on my own Talk page, and if posting this reflects poorly on my next bid for Administratorship...well then it does, and everyone who might disagree with these opinions won't have to deal with an Administrator who feels this way, so I see no reason for them to complain about me saying these things here. Logically, that would be the outcome. And if some people support me, well then, they do. ''Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.'':

#Our current links system is fairly intuitive, and at most needed some minor tweaking. Shane's Portal project is a disaster waiting to happen. It's needlessly complicated. What with creating myriad subcategories and such, it's actually making it MORE confusing to use. He has created dozens of new portals---->but have we seen any finished results? I thought it would be best to at least see a ''test'' portal, like one for the Cylons series, but we haven't--->the new pages which show just a lot a pictures of Cylons and mostly broken links don't make a lot of sense. '''Maybe Shane intends to finish this up and I am wrong''', but for the past all I've seen is broken links and promises left half finished. If Shane does not start showing actual results of any degree with his portals project, we should reconsider whether we actually need these new changes, or if they are redundant. And if they are redundant, we should remove them as expediently as possible instead of letting them sit on the wiki half finished.
#Shane is a new user to BattlestarWiki, and started the biggest reorganization of the wiki since it's inception; for this, I actually applaud him. But it is not his familiarity with wiki code that I question, it is his disgression, and his his temperment. '''When I or Administrators cautioned him to at least slow down his changes or justify certain things, such warnings were tacitly ignored, and have lately been met with thinly veiled threats. This is not good wiki behavior.'''
#If I were an Administrator, I would ''not'' have banned Shane by now. He is no troll. However, I would caution him strongly to tone down his behavior.
#Many of the new Writers and Directors pages are just dead link stub pages. I will try to fill them in when I have time.
#I don't think AI Bots are very practical for use on ''BattlestarWiki''. It has been said that if they are used, their performance will be closely monitored: [yodaspeak]''How embarrasing, it would be''[/yodaspeak] if a bot made an exceedingly long string of mistakes that took forever to clear up. If you want to try it out, okay, we shall see how it progresses. I'm just no big fan.
#I think the Cylon-related Hallucinations page is ridiculously unnecessary; it is just the information from the ChipSix subsection of "Number Six" plus some minor points on the Hallucinatory Baltar from Downloaded: Ron Moore confirmed in his podcast that Hallucinatary Baltar ''really is'' just a hallucination, and they thought that would be an interesting twist. --->I'd remove it. However, Joe has said that such speculation pages are to be supported: I would remove it simply because there is so little real information to put there (appart from the ChipSix stuff which could be moved back). So I've marked it with a cleanup tag instead. I think we can all agree to that.
#When I created the Battles Series, I made a clear list of what defines a battle; the "Fall of New Caprica" is not a battle. However, now that I'm back I'm going to clean it up. '''I would personally like to delete it''', but, as some think it was an important event, I'm going to clean it up i.e. remove stuff that isn't just a copy/paste of "New Caprica" article and keep the relevant military stuff. I think we can all agree to that. (BTW; I laid out a set of rules on "What makes a Battle page" on the Standards and Conventions Talk page; I'm not sure if we adopted this as an actual rule or a "guideline"; do not reply here; please voice your concerns on the matter on Standards and Conventions Talk. If it doesn't become an actual "rule" fine, just keep it on Talk to give people a general idea of how it works).
#The page "[[Toaster]]" was turned into a "joke" page against my will. It's an actual term on the show, and I am ashamed that we have done this to an actual page; ''MemoryAlpha'', the Star Trek Wiki, would never have allowed this. I am adamant that it must be reverted back to non-joke form. And I think the page "[[Flashlight]]", which is entirely a joke page, should be deleted as well. Maybe everyone would like a ''single article'' with the header "BattlestarWiki Internal Jokes Page". I wouldn't get rid of that because it's labeled as what it is---->But making the '''actual article on "Toaster" a joke is misleading and sets a low precedent'''. ---->We've already debated this, it's nothing new, and I have already lost several debates to change it back. Okay. I'm not going to head over to "Toaster" and change it back. I'm just stating in the open, that my official standing is, "I do not like this".
#We should edit down and practice '''concision''' on overlong Question sections, but we should ''not'' make it a policy to wipe these sections entirely. Visitors come here to check out questions and several, ''factually based'' counterpoints about them--->Things not so much supported/presenting an opinion should be moved to Analysis, and these should be check so there is no utterly wild speculation; wild speculation should be removed. It's often hard to quantify the line between educated guess and speculation, of course, and we must be cautious in these.
#We have started using "Succession Boxes" for Presidents, Ship commanders, etc. I believe that if we only know of one person that has ever held an office...we shouldn't bother making a box. For example; the "[[Laura Roslin]]" article does not require a succesion box for "Secretary of Education", when we have no information about anyone who was Sec of Ed before *or* after her: she's the only one. It's redundant, I belive, with the character's own article information and with their "role" box. It's making the page needlessly cluttered.

That about wraps it up. I am sorry if I have hurt any feelings, this is not my intent: facts are my goal, and not malice. And I fully realize that '''I might lose a civilized debate'''; simply because I am arguing strongly for an opinion on categorization or something does not mean I am threatening to destroy ''BattlestarWiki''. "I know when I'm beat", and I will obey the Administrators when given a direct order. I will not continue to pursue revert wars while debate is ongoing on a subject, and '''if it has *officially* been declared that debate is over, rest assured that I will yield'''. It is hard to express emotional nuance using just text messages here, but I am not expecting some kind of Inquisition to be started. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:34, 26 March 2006 (CST)

== What's this all about? ==

Care to [[User talk:Task Bot|explain this]], because from my end it looks like a personal attack. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 11:19, 27 March 2006 (CST)
:Oh I'm sorry that's just a joke from ''Blade Runner''; Task Bot is a robot AI, so I just thought it cute to ask "him" a question which in ''Blade Runner'' was the question that stumped the robotic Replicants during the Voight-Kampf test. It's just a BR joke. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:51, 27 March 2006 (CST)

== Asking a man in a mask who he is... ==

Merv. Just saw V for Vendetta. If I still lived in Austin, I'd go to my favorite comics shop tomorrow and pick it up. As is... I'll have to wait for my next trip. Anyway... I enjoyed it quite much. Thought you might want to discuss it. If you're interested, we could do it here or feel free to email or IM me. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 02:23, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:You do realize that I have a full Guy Fawkes costume and mask and I run around my college terrorizing our campus Republicans? The first day I went to the convention I wore my standard Doctor Who attire, the second day I went in a V costume. ''Fairness, justice, and freedom are more than just words...they are perspectives...'''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 03:43, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:: That's creepy. Maybe I should start to call you Elrond, then. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 11:43, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:::That's not funny. I'm also I diehard LOTR fanatic. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 11:50, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:::: So am I. That's why I find it so funny. I was talking, some time ago, with some friends about what we'd do if we could make a Hollyqood movie parodying the LotR movies. One would be to say what they messed up (Haldir at Helm's Deep, for instance) and another was to have Elrond in shades and call Strider "Mis-ter Aaaaragorn." Also, hobbits would all have been gay. Of course. But then, we've been making those jokes about the Fellowship since before the movies. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 22:54, 1 April 2006 (CST)
:::::.....you seriously have never heard about the gag reel? There's a blooper reel of LOTR which they've made, but just for conventions and reporter interviews and the cast, but never for DVD. Maybe it will be released in the half-mythical 25th Anniversary addition (with an hour of deleted or new footage! haha-->listen to the ROTK commentary). Anyway, Hugo Weaving stated that they had one really good blooper scene which he made up himself: You see, for whatever reason, that scene when Elrond comes in the tent and gives Aragorn his sword Anduril, the shot of Elrond taking his hood off to reveal himself so you can see who he is and saying his first few lines, was not going well. Jackson kept making them do it, over and over again. It got annoying. So what he did was he put on a pair of his Agent Smith shades underneath the cloak, them when they shot it pulled his hood back, and said in Agent Smith voice: "You must join with the Matrix...Mr. Aragorn". Of course it's not just ''what'' he said; I mean more than half of this is in the ''delivery'', how he does that almost-robot emotionless voice for Agent Smith. So that's "out there" but has never been released to the general public...yet.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:09, 1 April 2006 (CST)

== Diff for future RFA ==
I just wanted a place to keep this [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaver&diff=prev&oldid=44123 diff] for future RFA purposes (as an example of newbie interaction). It'd be kinda creepy on my user page, so I'm putting it here. This page is getting a bit long (your talk page sees SIGNIFICANTLY more traffic than mine), so it may get archived, but at least I'll know where to find it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:30, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
: Well okay if you wanted to clean up your own userpage:
::"''Reaver, please try not to post fanfic stuff like you did on [[Mercury class battlestar]] in the future. Also, you added an image of a "Pegasus uniform patch" to the [[Pegasus (RDM)]] article: We've actually proven, through multiple screenshots and closeups, that Pegasus is in fact part of BSG-62, and that's what it says on their emblems. In the first episode it was in, "Pegasus", the sets and emblems were all a little blurry, so we weren't entirely sure what it was and there was much debate ("is that a 6? and 8? a 2? a 5? etc. etc.) Anyway, the next episode, "Resurrection Ship, Part I", showed many clearer shots that established that it was Sixty-two. However, many months passed between those times----->I've seen that "BSG-63" patch around a lot: one of the custom-scifi emblem production companies did a rush-job, and they made a patch that ''incorrectly'' says "Pegasus BSG-63", but it's sixty two. At the scifi con last month I went to that had Richard Hatch, I actually pointed this out to a vendor or two selling them, and was surprised that they said I was like the 5th or 6th person to point this out to them that day. I really hope that misprinted patch fades away without any more people getting confused by it. I hope this helps. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 13:48, 6 April 2006 (CDT)''" -- For future reference. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:46, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Point Out Mistakes ==

You don't have to point out the mistakes I made and post them directly into the comments. That is very rude. My name also never has to be in the comments also merv. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:29, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:Merv's edit summaries seem to me to have been composed in good faith. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:32, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::Shane, if I have a comment that is only a sentence long, I put it in the edit summary box, rather than going to all the confusion of putting it on a separate talk page; this doesn't mean I am attempting to "hide" it, how could I? It's in plain sight, and I intend people to see it. And I don't want everyone to be reading a rude remark or personal attack: that's not what I am writing--->the entire concept behind the summary box is that we explain why we're editing something--->if I just edited it without explanation, ''this'' would be considered rude. I am making these changes in good faith and explaining what I think is wrong with them. Rather than pouting that I am "attacking" you Shane, you should be focusing on doing a better job in the future. I hope this improves. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:35, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:''(Shane...we have no idea how many officers are on a ship. You made that up.)'' could have been ''(removed officers; speculation)'', and I would not have said anything because of course I made it up. It isn't documented any where that I know. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:45, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::Nothing I said was incredibly offensive. And you shouldn't make things up. Shane, you cannot shrug off your own mistakes by accusing everyone that is trying to correct you of "ganging up" on you. The thing you should be doing is learning from your mistakes, listing to criticism in order to edit articles better. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:48, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:::funny how all the stuff I did was edited by you at least 2 or three times. You proved my Proof, and by the end, all my edits are different because you didn't like the style. There are others in this "Proof" and all the evidence I need to prove it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:54, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::::To be honest I really don't understand what you just said: Yes, I edited several changes you made, and did so several times: how does this "prove" anything? ''What'' does it "prove"? That I'm editing things? I've already...said that. What? I can't understand your comment--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 16:30, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

The entire tone of this disturbs me. Shane, you have many good ideas and considerable skill at the rather arcane wikicode. This is a waste of your time, Merv's time, and third parties' time. 
Assume temporarily Merv hates and, consequently, mocks you.
:This doesn't matter. Others will presumably note this and discount any personal attacks. Any edits he makes to your work out of spite will ultimately only be kept if the consensus is in favor of them, i.e. they are improvements; the motivation behind an improvement ultimately doesn't matter.
:Spending time on something that does not matter is a waste.
:Waste is bad.
:You should not spend time on Merv hating and mocking you.
Assume temporary Merv does not hate you and, consequently, is not mocking you.
:Merv hating and mocking you does not matter, for lack of existence.
:Following the above, you should not spend time on Merv hating and mocking you.
Either way, you should not spend time on this. [The above to "The entire tone..." are my edits; the tabs are not being used to indicate reply.] --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:17, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

From the perspective of a prolific Skiffy poster, I have to say that thicker skins all around on this wiki would be a valuable asset to this community. Perhaps you should all spend a little bit more time on the boards -- I think the bar as what sinks to the level of 'insult' might be adjusted a little.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 16:37, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

User talk:The Merovingian

2006-04-08T21:38:22Z

Dogger: /* Point Out Mistakes */

''Why is a raven like a writing desk?''

== Regarding your RfA ==

Hi Ricimer, while your RfA did not pass, I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that you are fully capable of passing the RfA, should it come up again within, say, six months. If you have any concerns, feel free to address them with Peter, myself, or any of the other major contributors. Have a happy New Year! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 12:31, 30 December 2005 (EST)

:I have yet to play my trump card. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 12:32, 30 December 2005 (EST)

:: Should I be afraid? *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 20:21, 31 December 2005 (EST)

::: "Plan R" --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:12, 5 March 2006 (CST)

:::: Plan R = Plan Recruitment --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:56, 26 March 2006 (CST)

== Battle Template ==

You're the guy who came up with this, right? Do you think that a) the thing could be made into an actual template (like the Character Data one with dissappearing/reappearing fields, etc) and b) it could be re-designed to look like the Character Data one (in terms of looking like the rest of the theme (the red/black is the default theme, isn't it?)? I don't know how these two things would be accomplished, but I thought I'd put this out there and see what you thought as far as feasability and also as far as ''should'' we do it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:00, 18 January 2006 (EST)

As you are the instigator of the battle template, I would like your opinion on this subject.

I have been checking through the TOS battle pages and found that the category listings vary. Sometimes it is listed as Battle of X, other times X, Battle of. When they are listed alphabetically they are under B in the first instance and X (or whatver) in the second. Which way round would you prefer? --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 01:30, 14 March 2006 (CST)
:I don't even touch Original Series stuff. If there's anything there, it was someone trying to copy the template onto a different article. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:21, 14 March 2006 (CST)

== User name change ==

Just letting you know that I changed your name from Ricimer to The Merovingian. Let me know if you encounter any issues, not that I'm expecting any but just in case Murphy's Law decides to come and play. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 23:19, 7 February 2006 (EST)

: Also on this topic: You should probably update the first sentence of your User page to reflect the name change. If you want, I could probably get a decent screen-grab of the identically named character from the Matrix. Unfortunately, I don't have a DVD from which to grab pictures that stars any of the folks who founded Paris. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:24, 8 February 2006 (EST)
::Yes, actually, that would help immensly. I need one of The Merovingian when he's in Club Hel, standing at the balcony looking imperiously down at Neo. A shot that shows his whole body instead of a closeup would be preferred. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 02:13, 8 February 2006 (EST)
:::You should watch "Revolutions" again. Merv isn't peering down at Neo but at Morpheus, Trinity, and Seraph (Neo never visits Club Hel in the movie series, although the Path of Neo video game takes him there while the Club is closed). I'll also try to get a screencap for you if time allows. My Matrix knowledge may be better than my BSG knowledge (note witty, illustrated user page; I've been almost tempted to change my user name to something more appropriate... ;) By the way, I like your revised user page. Merv is one of those characters whose deserved more exploration on the same level as the Oracle and the Architect. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:45, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:"Neo" just came out; I was thinking Seraph & Co., just typed the wrong thing. (''That little Judas! I'm going to have him killed and buried in a shallow grave, then dig him up and kill him again...'''That's the beauty of a shallow grave!''') ''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 16:52, 8 February 2006 (EST)

::I actually took a philosphy class and my choice for a paper was on ''The Matrix''. Basically, I've made several of the more...insightful speculations about The Merovingian on his Wikipdia article. You see, Morpheus and Neo represent Socrates: wanting to get out of "The Cave" to the real world beyond, etc. However, I believe (and I'm the only person I know of who's thought of this; I didn't read it anywhere, but thought it up after reading ''Leviathan'') that The Merovingian is the embodiment of Thomas Hobbes in The Matrix. He spouts off Hobbesian thought all of the time. Hobbes said that "choice is an illusion" that the only constant is "cause and effect", and that the best thing we can do with our lives is kind of movie along with the flow of causality in such a way that we enjoy all of the *physical, transient* pleasures that we can, while we can. Live a life of comfornt and luxury, etc. The Merovingian *lives out* this ideal: He's living in complete luxury, like at Le Vrai, the Chateau, Club Hel (and he has affairds with women all the time, etc), he wields a great deal of physical power...yet recognizes that it's all just "a game" devoid of purpose; it's transient, etc. He's stopped seeing any higher meaning in anything. --->Hobbes was a big critic of Socrates, and his philosophy was the polar opposte of Socrates' thought. In the same way, The Merovingian opposes Neo and Morpheus' philoshpy of getting out of the Matrix.
:I hold with the theory that he's a former One, that got his brain pattern scanned into a computer to outlive the death of his body. But he got so disillusioned with all of the lies and how the quest for freedom was just a reset button, that he turned against all of this and became the master of the Exiles, living the complete opposite of all of this (note; he ''really hates'' the Oracle, and views everything Neo says about her with extreme sarcasm). Plus, the initials "LV" on the walls of "Le Vrai" are Roman numerals for "LV" = 55. Now, we've already seen 303= Trinity, 101= Neo. So there's something about The Merovingian and the number "5". On top of this, when we first meet him there are 5 glasses set out in front of him (and Persephone, his Trinity-analog, has 3 chocolates on her plate). --->There have been 5 "Ones" before Neo. I think the Merovingian is the ''first'' "One". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 17:01, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::Yeah, that theory and his Hobbes relationship (I think--it may be in a book I read) is on the Wikipedia article. I edited the article in dispute of Merv being a past One. It all comes down to some logic points. ''Why'' does he hate the Oracle so much? Because she succeeded where he failed. She stabilized the Matrix by adding true choice, where Merv was likely tapped by the Architect earlier to program basic cause-effect subroutines in the Matrix code as well as manage the root-programs in Matrix-beta-2 that could be used to help with these changes (these programs he now holds for his own purposes). The Architect realized the utopian flaw in beta-1 and thought that simple cause-effect (combined with the root-programs--the monsters of myth) would be sufficient to convince the human minds. He was wrong, of course. Remember that the Merovingian is big on cause-effect, and the Oracle states that he is one the oldest of them all, which makes his human origin very unlikely as the machines by then were fully distrustful of humanity and saw itself as a steward, not bothering to hear out humanity anymore than we would listen to the needs of an ant. The One is purely human; if the Merovingian were a "One", he would have been generated within beta-2, and, as a result, would not be like the Ones that base their power from true choice (particularly the power to ''dis''believe what they see and act otherwise). To add to that: Merv could also be very mad at the Oracle because, in the Oracle's version of the Matrix, any powers he may have had in beta-2 are practically non-existent. (You gave me a new take the character now from that...hmm.) Oh, and "La Vrai" means, "The Truth", which is just Merv's way of protesting of what's around him..vulgarities of "choice". Only in his establishments, by the name implication, will the populace understand the "truth" about what is illusion to him (choice) and real (cause and effect).

:::I wrote a paper about the origin of the One (with a bit on Merv) for a SF convention that will BLOW. YOUR. MIND. If you like, I'd be happy to send you a PDF of it. I've not published this as yet, so it's a unique read that incorporates the above. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:29, 8 February 2006 (EST)

::::I would like to BLOW. MY. MIND. as well... ''the preceeding, signed comment and small recommendation that Spence forward me a copy of his insightful paper on Merv was made by [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] on 17:47, 8 February 2006 (EST) :-)''

::::: Actually, Spence... Could you just, maybe, copy it to User:Spencerian/Matrix or something? It might save you from forwarding it to a billion people. If you don't like that idea, then put me on your forwarding list. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:19, 9 February 2006 (EST)

:There, I must disagree with you. The Merovingian is not "the oldest of us" but "one of the oldest of us", which would still fit my interpretation. Further, in ''Leviathan'' Hobbes goes on a tangent where he says that because everything in life is "cause and effect", logically, we should '''in theory''' be able to predict the future, because life has no external factors (god, random choice, etc. Fate/causality rules all). But he adds that '''in practice''', this is impossible, simply because there are so many variants that the human mind cannot grasp at once--->it reminds me of discussions of ''psychohistory'' in "Prelude to Foundation"; hen Hari Seldon originally presented his first paper theorizing that psychohistory was ''possible'', he explained that he did not yet have a working model because his paper essentially just proved that you could actually analyze all of the "antecedants" of life in a computer model. I.e. if the universe is so compex that the only functional "model" of it is something as big and complicated as the universe itself, such a model is useless. However, he said that you ''could'' actually make a model smaller than the universe itself..
::Well, the point is that according to The Merovingian's own Hobbesian principles, he is in a possition SIMULTANEOUSLY A) He believes the world to be governed by nothing but causality, and therefore, he should be able to predict the future, but B) THE VERY SAME principles that idea is based on also state that predicting the future is ''Practically'' impossible. This might get a little annoying to him. --->So then there's The Oracle, who CAN predict the future, while he cannot (though in theory, he should). Therefore, this adds another level of hate for her, and he wants the "eyes of the Oracle" (which he's "Wanted ever since I came ''here'') because he's jealous. And who's to say the Machines would not want to tap the talen of the "grotesque" human mind in designing/running a more human world (beta-2)? I digress. P.S. Don't get me started on MXO's Agent Pace...--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 18:13, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::Yes, Merv is one of the oldest, not the oldest. Merv was only half-right, which is why his Matrix worked only halfway. Predicting the future is not impossible if the events in the world ''work like a computer program does.'' He wanted to predict things logically--but, with choice involved, prediction becomes far less logical or predictable. When people in his Matrix version realized they, too, could guess the logical cause and effect, they lost believablity in their Matrix. The Oracle's Matrix has no such problem for the most part. Hey, you haven't an email address to send you my paper (Joe just got a copy). You can send me your address privately to my email if you care not to post it publicly. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:57, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::: '''Tangent''': I once tried to start up a Matrix-themed MUSH which was to be placed in an unspecified previous iteration of the Matrix, only a few years after the death of the One that started the thing. We had some lengthy debates about how to implement the Oracle or make any sort of assertions that would A) be specific enough so as to be cool when they came true but, b) be vague enough so as to be possible in a roleplaying environment that included, well, ''choice''. Eventually, though, all the staffers got busy doing [http://www.guildwars.com other] [[Main Page|things]]. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:19, 9 February 2006 (EST)

: Merovingian, eh? I must say I like it, much preferable to Ricimer - and I'm not a troll. [[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 02:33, 21 February 2006 (EST)

::Prove it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:02, 21 February 2006 (EST)

To get back on topic, almost. I got you something, Merv: [[:Image:Merv.jpg]]. It's only 200px wide because of the native resolution of the capture. It should be fine for use on your user page, but it looked just horrid blown up. I also capped one without the green lights, but I liked this one better. Lemme know what you think. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 02:40, 1 April 2006 (CST)

==A ''Revelation'' I've Had==

[AgentSmith]Let me share a ''revelation'' I've had [/Agentsmith]. In case you are new, most here are of the consensus that my attitude towards edits is overall blunt/brusk, not "polite", etc. (it's just letters on a screen, so I just never gauged "politeness" much; not that I make personal attacks, just that I "cut through it" and say what I'm thinkin'). Anyway, '''Day''' summarized some of this pretty well on Talk:Perry when he said just now: "''your jumping off the cuff with aggressive language at people who simply disagree with you. It may be a matter that would be handled by inflection, were you interacting in real life, but you should realize that when you're dealing with text only, you have only very gross control over inflection: normal, bold and italics. And they can be construed as meaning many things. As a side note, I've noticed you like to use bold and such a lot and so, sometimes, you do combinations or all-caps or asterisks for further emphasis. I mean this in only an entirely constructive way, but... I have no idea how to interpret those passages except as very loud, so they're more confuysing to me, personally, than helpful.''". Well, I think I've '''finally realized what the crux of the problem was:'''

Loss of essence. A profound sense of fatiuge, a feeling of emptiness...caused by terrorists trying to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, through water fluoridation. It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core terrorist works. He hold no value for human life, not even his own. Well, I can no longer sit back and allow terrorist infiltration, terrorist indoctrination, terrorist subversion and the international terrorist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.--->Hahaha, sorry. I can never resist a good plug for the old ''Dr. Strangelove'' routine.

But I digress.

No, seriously. I finally realized what the crux of all of this friction has been: As you know, I am a prolific poster on the official messageboard. '''I think the problem is, I've been posting on BattlestarWiki as if it were a messageboard'''. You see, messageboards aren't as formal and a lot of, well, yelling, arguing as part of debate, etc., is actually ''the norm'' there. Further, when it comes to '''my''' ''overuse'' of ''' ''**inflection**'' '''....I'm just *used* to typing that way because that's how you highlight and emphasize stuff on messageboard posts (it's sort of how you make up for not being able to see visible social cues, etc.) Also--->Posts on messageboards can sometimes fill an entire Microsoft word single-spaced document page. They can get really long. So you've really got to highlight the beginning of every new idea or paragraph like that to make your point, etc.

But on the whole, it's just a different atmosphere, more "pack-mentality" to establish dominance through a show of force (GREAT Farscape joke about that one in the first episode of the fourth season...but I digress.), and a fanatical amount of information, etc.

I realize it took me a while, but I've finally come to the full realization that '''My Talk page posts, etc. seem kind of rough because I'm just typing like these are messageboard posts'''. (Messageboard posts disappared practially after 5 minutes, so you try to have as big an impact as possible, while here they just stay there for long periods, etc.)

So, I've realized that that's what's been going on, and I realize now (from experience) just how different a wiki is from that, so I will alter my tone accordingly. (Of course, I'll still '''highlight''' stuff that might seem important, but not go overboard). --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:36, 10 February 2006 (EST)

:Excellent! That's an angle I hadn't considered. The signal to noise ratio is definitely much higher here than at some other places. Heck, the fact that people were still discussing a question I asked around the first of December is an excellent demonstration between the way things happen around here and the official board. I hope you have begun to see that the people here value what you have to say/contribute (without the need to clamor to be heard above the din). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 10 February 2006 (EST)

:: That may be a very apt metaphor, SV. Reading Merv's posts is sometimes like listening to someone who thinks your in the other room, but really you're right behind them. Roughly, "Hey. I'm already ''listening'', '''Dude'''." *wink* Anyway, I hope this is exactly the issue at, uh... issue, here. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:24, 10 February 2006 (EST)

== Template Categories ==
What are you looking for for the writers and directors? A navigation template? Or a category (I ran into [[:Category:Directors]] after I created one)? I'd be glad to help, I just don't have a concept of what you're needing. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:19, 10 February 2006 (EST)

When I write pages about Sharon, Number Six, etc. I write at the bootom "Category:Cylons" (with double brackets around it). I think we need a Category set for "Writers" and "Directors" (in place of "Cylons"). However, one or two episodes split the "Writers" credit between "Teleplay" and "Story by" (see official site episode guide). I just put "Story by" into "Story by" slots in the guide, and Writer for who wrote the Teleplay: Regardless, I think both Teleplay and Story writers should fall under the "Writers" category, and I will make note of which was which on their individual pages.
----->Essentially, I realized we had no "At a Glance" method of seeing the past work of a writer or director. Essentially, I see that episode 3.12 is coming up, and I see "hmm, who is this? why, I'll click on his name and get a list of other episodes he's done.....oh no! He wrote the abysmal "Black Market"!...or..."Hmm, she wrote the wonderful "Resistance"...this should be interesting. I'm trying to make A) pages for all of the writers and directors, and B) lists on those individual pages of all the episodes they've worked on, so, logically--->C)We should have a more fully developed category system for "Writers" and "Diretors" (the rudiments of which are present on the main page, but which were never fully developed. I felt that now is a good a time as any.)--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 20:33, 10 February 2006 (EST)
:There's a directors category already, and a Category:Director: Michael Rymer, which is a subcategory of Michael Rymer. Thus if you tag an episode with Category:Director: Michael Rymer it should fall under the Michael Rymer category. The directors category would then just be a container for all those subcategories. So we just need a Category:Director: X where X is each director (and make sure that each of those has the category of Director, so that they show up as subcategories). We could then make a template, I guess, but since we're talking about just having to add one category tag at the bottom, I'm not sure it merits a template. I'll start up the Category:Writers, if you want, if you could list out which Directors and Writers we need to capture. We may want to consult with Farago on this, as he has a knack for categorization. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:44, 10 February 2006 (EST)
::Ah. There's already a Category:Writers as well. Looks like somebody planned ahead. It looks like we'd just need to make the subcategories then. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:47, 10 February 2006 (EST)

==Just to say==
Merv, I just wanted to say that I think you've been putting an excellent face forward recently. Keep it up. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:23, 19 February 2006 (EST)

''All is proceeding according to plan..''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 21:07, 19 February 2006 (EST)

== Welcoming Committee ==
Thanks for taking on some of the welcoming committee responsibilities. I think the new users appreciate it (and Joe probably appreciates not being the only one who does the greeting). I tend to only pick up that job when the new user crosses paths with something I am working on. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:21, 3 March 2006 (CST)

:I am just a humble servant of this wiki and the information therein, I ask nothing in return. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 14:47, 3 March 2006 (CST)

This is a test to see what time my signature says--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:11, 17 March 2006 (CST)
:That's odd; what are our signatures saying Central Standard Time Intead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), that is, Grenwich Mean Time?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)

== RFA ==

Because it looks like you didn't see it, notice that a user has added a question to the stock three. I think it would be safe to say it's because he was wondering what your would be. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:22, 18 March 2006 (CST)
:Day, I will gladly answer any questions, but I note that you did not have to answer such a question when ''you'' were running for Administrator. Irrelevant; I mean I can answer it--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 00:44, 19 March 2006 (CST)
::I'm sure we all would have been happy to answer if anyone had asked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:28, 19 March 2006 (CST)

== http://openpolitics.ca/wiki+etiquette ==

As this page puts it...

'''Be Respectful'''
Open politics has high standards for debate and civil discourse. If we wanted to participate in name calling and ad hominem attacks, we could visit our legislature. As an editor, you can relocate, revise or remove any content or contributions which give offense or are out of place. Participants who have differing points of view are invited to issue challenges to each other - a formalized competition of ideas which serves the public interest by allowing detailed head to head comparisons of differing positions on an issue.

You do not need to place my name in the comment's system. I find that offensive. Read http://openpolitics.ca/ad+hominem to better explain why.

'''Maintaining the correct Point of View'''
A page that has been collaboratively written by dozens, if not hundreds of people will be quite a mess unless the participants all agree to write from a point of view. When describing issues, Open Politics uses a neutral point of view - when talking about same sex marriage as an issue, one should not discuss whether they are for or against it at the top of the page. Hold off on stating your opinion? until you get further down - to the position statements.

My edit was correct and if it needed to be removed, it should have been talked about first. My addition was completely under the guidelines of '''''Wiki Etiquette'''''.

'''Understand how wiki works'''
In a wiki based web service, each page is dedicated to deliberating on a specific topic, which is determined by the page name. Everyone who views the page is welcome to edit the content of the page, making contributions in any way that (they think) helps. If others agree your contribution was helpful it will stay there - a "good edit."

Again, until you came along this evening, it had staied there for a day.

I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:55, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:"...high standards for debate and civil discourse... I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me."
:You linked to a sub-par definition/explanation of '''ad hominem.''' Wikipedia's, e.g., is much more detailed (and better formatted).
:A delay of a day is less than the gap between my reads of recent changes (and probably all but 4-5 users') so it hardly counts as a consensus of positive peer reviews. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 02:24, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::How can any Administrator '''possibly''' consider the '''crude threat''' "I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me." to be "proper Wiki Etiquette" or "respectful", all matters aside? --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:50, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::: I've already addressed that issue in private. I don't forsee it occuring again.
::: On an unrelated note, I was the one that came up with the {{tl|welcome}} message -- and it's a template, not a bot. No bots are operational as of yet. (As such, the template is added manually by users.) Just wanted to let you know about that piece of information. Obviously, any concerns should come to my desk per se, as always. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:01, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::::Yes of course; that was actually quite helpful.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:47, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::Well, you don't go on another site making fun of another person explaining why their ideas are bad. Merv, I think you need to appoligize for your remarks on the BSG fourm on Scifi.com. If not, I will be sure to post this entire thread as a reason for why you should not be an Administrator on this Wiki. While I voted because of other reasons the last time on your RFA, and moved my vote to netural, I would have kept my vote to oppose. In six months or so I will be very busy with my job so I am going to make a note on my calander to come back, and still vote no and post a PDF document of your thread. You will also know, that even though I can not post there, I can still read, and have sent the PDF document to Joe, for harressing a member of the site. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 10:01, 26 March 2006 (CST)

: I have read the post. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in your behavior, Merv. It's quite unbecoming.
: May I request, in the strongest possible terms, that you keep your thoughts on the Wiki in the Wiki? Things like this not only reflect badly on yourself but on every contributor here. Thank you. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 12:43, 26 March 2006 (CST)

==The Merovingian's Opinions On Things That Should Be Done At BattlestarWiki==
I have been at a Science Fiction convention this past week. During this time, my access to the internet was limited (well, relative to my usual levels) and I made a long post at Scifi.com describing various opinions I have about things that need to be done at ''BattlestarWiki'': these are my opinions, and I have not assumed as a given that they will be realized. Some were displeased, and rightly so, that I did not state them here: Actually, '''I was going to make a long post on my Talk page as soon as I got back anyway, relating the opinions I stated there. I do appologize that I did not *immediately* post them here as well, because I was not trying to go behind anyone's back'''. Joe, I should post things about BattlestarWiki here first, and I will NEVER post something on another messageboard that I would be unwilling to post here (cursing, defaming remarks, etc. that I would not also make here); I am sorry, but I cannot limit my thoughts on BattlestarWiki to this Wiki; however, you have my promise and assurance that I have never said anything that I thought was innapropriate, nor will I EVER cross that line. Indeed, ''Not'' keeping my thoughts on this Wiki, limited to this Wiki, has resulted in a great awareness about this website spreading across the messageboards. That said, I agree, I will never make comments about this Wiki again which were as large or personally directed as the ones I made. I should have done this here first.

With that preamble, here is a list of things '''mostly for my own personal reference''', which I think: I can post such things, I would think, on my own Talk page, and if posting this reflects poorly on my next bid for Administratorship...well then it does, and everyone who might disagree with these opinions won't have to deal with an Administrator who feels this way, so I see no reason for them to complain about me saying these things here. Logically, that would be the outcome. And if some people support me, well then, they do. ''Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.'':

#Our current links system is fairly intuitive, and at most needed some minor tweaking. Shane's Portal project is a disaster waiting to happen. It's needlessly complicated. What with creating myriad subcategories and such, it's actually making it MORE confusing to use. He has created dozens of new portals---->but have we seen any finished results? I thought it would be best to at least see a ''test'' portal, like one for the Cylons series, but we haven't--->the new pages which show just a lot a pictures of Cylons and mostly broken links don't make a lot of sense. '''Maybe Shane intends to finish this up and I am wrong''', but for the past all I've seen is broken links and promises left half finished. If Shane does not start showing actual results of any degree with his portals project, we should reconsider whether we actually need these new changes, or if they are redundant. And if they are redundant, we should remove them as expediently as possible instead of letting them sit on the wiki half finished.
#Shane is a new user to BattlestarWiki, and started the biggest reorganization of the wiki since it's inception; for this, I actually applaud him. But it is not his familiarity with wiki code that I question, it is his disgression, and his his temperment. '''When I or Administrators cautioned him to at least slow down his changes or justify certain things, such warnings were tacitly ignored, and have lately been met with thinly veiled threats. This is not good wiki behavior.'''
#If I were an Administrator, I would ''not'' have banned Shane by now. He is no troll. However, I would caution him strongly to tone down his behavior.
#Many of the new Writers and Directors pages are just dead link stub pages. I will try to fill them in when I have time.
#I don't think AI Bots are very practical for use on ''BattlestarWiki''. It has been said that if they are used, their performance will be closely monitored: [yodaspeak]''How embarrasing, it would be''[/yodaspeak] if a bot made an exceedingly long string of mistakes that took forever to clear up. If you want to try it out, okay, we shall see how it progresses. I'm just no big fan.
#I think the Cylon-related Hallucinations page is ridiculously unnecessary; it is just the information from the ChipSix subsection of "Number Six" plus some minor points on the Hallucinatory Baltar from Downloaded: Ron Moore confirmed in his podcast that Hallucinatary Baltar ''really is'' just a hallucination, and they thought that would be an interesting twist. --->I'd remove it. However, Joe has said that such speculation pages are to be supported: I would remove it simply because there is so little real information to put there (appart from the ChipSix stuff which could be moved back). So I've marked it with a cleanup tag instead. I think we can all agree to that.
#When I created the Battles Series, I made a clear list of what defines a battle; the "Fall of New Caprica" is not a battle. However, now that I'm back I'm going to clean it up. '''I would personally like to delete it''', but, as some think it was an important event, I'm going to clean it up i.e. remove stuff that isn't just a copy/paste of "New Caprica" article and keep the relevant military stuff. I think we can all agree to that. (BTW; I laid out a set of rules on "What makes a Battle page" on the Standards and Conventions Talk page; I'm not sure if we adopted this as an actual rule or a "guideline"; do not reply here; please voice your concerns on the matter on Standards and Conventions Talk. If it doesn't become an actual "rule" fine, just keep it on Talk to give people a general idea of how it works).
#The page "[[Toaster]]" was turned into a "joke" page against my will. It's an actual term on the show, and I am ashamed that we have done this to an actual page; ''MemoryAlpha'', the Star Trek Wiki, would never have allowed this. I am adamant that it must be reverted back to non-joke form. And I think the page "[[Flashlight]]", which is entirely a joke page, should be deleted as well. Maybe everyone would like a ''single article'' with the header "BattlestarWiki Internal Jokes Page". I wouldn't get rid of that because it's labeled as what it is---->But making the '''actual article on "Toaster" a joke is misleading and sets a low precedent'''. ---->We've already debated this, it's nothing new, and I have already lost several debates to change it back. Okay. I'm not going to head over to "Toaster" and change it back. I'm just stating in the open, that my official standing is, "I do not like this".
#We should edit down and practice '''concision''' on overlong Question sections, but we should ''not'' make it a policy to wipe these sections entirely. Visitors come here to check out questions and several, ''factually based'' counterpoints about them--->Things not so much supported/presenting an opinion should be moved to Analysis, and these should be check so there is no utterly wild speculation; wild speculation should be removed. It's often hard to quantify the line between educated guess and speculation, of course, and we must be cautious in these.
#We have started using "Succession Boxes" for Presidents, Ship commanders, etc. I believe that if we only know of one person that has ever held an office...we shouldn't bother making a box. For example; the "[[Laura Roslin]]" article does not require a succesion box for "Secretary of Education", when we have no information about anyone who was Sec of Ed before *or* after her: she's the only one. It's redundant, I belive, with the character's own article information and with their "role" box. It's making the page needlessly cluttered.

That about wraps it up. I am sorry if I have hurt any feelings, this is not my intent: facts are my goal, and not malice. And I fully realize that '''I might lose a civilized debate'''; simply because I am arguing strongly for an opinion on categorization or something does not mean I am threatening to destroy ''BattlestarWiki''. "I know when I'm beat", and I will obey the Administrators when given a direct order. I will not continue to pursue revert wars while debate is ongoing on a subject, and '''if it has *officially* been declared that debate is over, rest assured that I will yield'''. It is hard to express emotional nuance using just text messages here, but I am not expecting some kind of Inquisition to be started. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:34, 26 March 2006 (CST)

== What's this all about? ==

Care to [[User talk:Task Bot|explain this]], because from my end it looks like a personal attack. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 11:19, 27 March 2006 (CST)
:Oh I'm sorry that's just a joke from ''Blade Runner''; Task Bot is a robot AI, so I just thought it cute to ask "him" a question which in ''Blade Runner'' was the question that stumped the robotic Replicants during the Voight-Kampf test. It's just a BR joke. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:51, 27 March 2006 (CST)

== Asking a man in a mask who he is... ==

Merv. Just saw V for Vendetta. If I still lived in Austin, I'd go to my favorite comics shop tomorrow and pick it up. As is... I'll have to wait for my next trip. Anyway... I enjoyed it quite much. Thought you might want to discuss it. If you're interested, we could do it here or feel free to email or IM me. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 02:23, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:You do realize that I have a full Guy Fawkes costume and mask and I run around my college terrorizing our campus Republicans? The first day I went to the convention I wore my standard Doctor Who attire, the second day I went in a V costume. ''Fairness, justice, and freedom are more than just words...they are perspectives...'''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 03:43, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:: That's creepy. Maybe I should start to call you Elrond, then. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 11:43, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:::That's not funny. I'm also I diehard LOTR fanatic. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 11:50, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:::: So am I. That's why I find it so funny. I was talking, some time ago, with some friends about what we'd do if we could make a Hollyqood movie parodying the LotR movies. One would be to say what they messed up (Haldir at Helm's Deep, for instance) and another was to have Elrond in shades and call Strider "Mis-ter Aaaaragorn." Also, hobbits would all have been gay. Of course. But then, we've been making those jokes about the Fellowship since before the movies. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 22:54, 1 April 2006 (CST)
:::::.....you seriously have never heard about the gag reel? There's a blooper reel of LOTR which they've made, but just for conventions and reporter interviews and the cast, but never for DVD. Maybe it will be released in the half-mythical 25th Anniversary addition (with an hour of deleted or new footage! haha-->listen to the ROTK commentary). Anyway, Hugo Weaving stated that they had one really good blooper scene which he made up himself: You see, for whatever reason, that scene when Elrond comes in the tent and gives Aragorn his sword Anduril, the shot of Elrond taking his hood off to reveal himself so you can see who he is and saying his first few lines, was not going well. Jackson kept making them do it, over and over again. It got annoying. So what he did was he put on a pair of his Agent Smith shades underneath the cloak, them when they shot it pulled his hood back, and said in Agent Smith voice: "You must join with the Matrix...Mr. Aragorn". Of course it's not just ''what'' he said; I mean more than half of this is in the ''delivery'', how he does that almost-robot emotionless voice for Agent Smith. So that's "out there" but has never been released to the general public...yet.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:09, 1 April 2006 (CST)

== Diff for future RFA ==
I just wanted a place to keep this [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaver&diff=prev&oldid=44123 diff] for future RFA purposes (as an example of newbie interaction). It'd be kinda creepy on my user page, so I'm putting it here. This page is getting a bit long (your talk page sees SIGNIFICANTLY more traffic than mine), so it may get archived, but at least I'll know where to find it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:30, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
: Well okay if you wanted to clean up your own userpage:
::"''Reaver, please try not to post fanfic stuff like you did on [[Mercury class battlestar]] in the future. Also, you added an image of a "Pegasus uniform patch" to the [[Pegasus (RDM)]] article: We've actually proven, through multiple screenshots and closeups, that Pegasus is in fact part of BSG-62, and that's what it says on their emblems. In the first episode it was in, "Pegasus", the sets and emblems were all a little blurry, so we weren't entirely sure what it was and there was much debate ("is that a 6? and 8? a 2? a 5? etc. etc.) Anyway, the next episode, "Resurrection Ship, Part I", showed many clearer shots that established that it was Sixty-two. However, many months passed between those times----->I've seen that "BSG-63" patch around a lot: one of the custom-scifi emblem production companies did a rush-job, and they made a patch that ''incorrectly'' says "Pegasus BSG-63", but it's sixty two. At the scifi con last month I went to that had Richard Hatch, I actually pointed this out to a vendor or two selling them, and was surprised that they said I was like the 5th or 6th person to point this out to them that day. I really hope that misprinted patch fades away without any more people getting confused by it. I hope this helps. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 13:48, 6 April 2006 (CDT)''" -- For future reference. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:46, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Point Out Mistakes ==

You don't have to point out the mistakes I made and post them directly into the comments. That is very rude. My name also never has to be in the comments also merv. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:29, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:Merv's edit summaries seem to me to have been composed in good faith. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:32, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::Shane, if I have a comment that is only a sentence long, I put it in the edit summary box, rather than going to all the confusion of putting it on a separate talk page; this doesn't mean I am attempting to "hide" it, how could I? It's in plain sight, and I intend people to see it. And I don't want everyone to be reading a rude remark or personal attack: that's not what I am writing--->the entire concept behind the summary box is that we explain why we're editing something--->if I just edited it without explanation, ''this'' would be considered rude. I am making these changes in good faith and explaining what I think is wrong with them. Rather than pouting that I am "attacking" you Shane, you should be focusing on doing a better job in the future. I hope this improves. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:35, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:''(Shane...we have no idea how many officers are on a ship. You made that up.)'' could have been ''(removed officers; speculation)'', and I would not have said anything because of course I made it up. It isn't documented any where that I know. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:45, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::Nothing I said was incredibly offensive. And you shouldn't make things up. Shane, you cannot shrug off your own mistakes by accusing everyone that is trying to correct you of "ganging up" on you. The thing you should be doing is learning from your mistakes, listing to criticism in order to edit articles better. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:48, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:::funny how all the stuff I did was edited by you at least 2 or three times. You proved my Proof, and by the end, all my edits are different because you didn't like the style. There are others in this "Proof" and all the evidence I need to prove it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:54, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::::To be honest I really don't understand what you just said: Yes, I edited several changes you made, and did so several times: how does this "prove" anything? ''What'' does it "prove"? That I'm editing things? I've already...said that. What? I can't understand your comment--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 16:30, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

The entire tone of this disturbs me. Shane, you have many good ideas and considerable skill at the rather arcane wikicode. This is a waste of your time, Merv's time, and third parties' time. 
Assume temporarily Merv hates and, consequently, mocks you.
:This doesn't matter. Others will presumably note this and discount any personal attacks. Any edits he makes to your work out of spite will ultimately only be kept if the consensus is in favor of them, i.e. they are improvements; the motivation behind an improvement ultimately doesn't matter.
:Spending time on something that does not matter is a waste.
:Waste is bad.
:You should not spend time on Merv hating and mocking you.
Assume temporary Merv does not hate you and, consequently, is not mocking you.
:Merv hating and mocking you does not matter, for lack of existence.
:Following the above, you should not spend time on Merv hating and mocking you.
Either way, you should not spend time on this. [The above to "The entire tone..." are my edits; the tabs are not being used to indicate reply.] --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:17, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

From the perspective of a prolific Skiffy poster, I have to say that thicker skins all around on this wiki would be a valuable asset to this community. Perhaps you should all spend a little bit more time on the boards -- I think the wiki bar as what rises to an 'insult' might be raised a little.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 16:37, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

User talk:The Merovingian

2006-04-08T21:37:24Z

Dogger: Comment on thin-skinned wiki culture.

''Why is a raven like a writing desk?''

== Regarding your RfA ==

Hi Ricimer, while your RfA did not pass, I firmly and wholeheartedly believe that you are fully capable of passing the RfA, should it come up again within, say, six months. If you have any concerns, feel free to address them with Peter, myself, or any of the other major contributors. Have a happy New Year! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 12:31, 30 December 2005 (EST)

:I have yet to play my trump card. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 12:32, 30 December 2005 (EST)

:: Should I be afraid? *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 20:21, 31 December 2005 (EST)

::: "Plan R" --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:12, 5 March 2006 (CST)

:::: Plan R = Plan Recruitment --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:56, 26 March 2006 (CST)

== Battle Template ==

You're the guy who came up with this, right? Do you think that a) the thing could be made into an actual template (like the Character Data one with dissappearing/reappearing fields, etc) and b) it could be re-designed to look like the Character Data one (in terms of looking like the rest of the theme (the red/black is the default theme, isn't it?)? I don't know how these two things would be accomplished, but I thought I'd put this out there and see what you thought as far as feasability and also as far as ''should'' we do it. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:00, 18 January 2006 (EST)

As you are the instigator of the battle template, I would like your opinion on this subject.

I have been checking through the TOS battle pages and found that the category listings vary. Sometimes it is listed as Battle of X, other times X, Battle of. When they are listed alphabetically they are under B in the first instance and X (or whatver) in the second. Which way round would you prefer? --[[User:Grafix|Grafix]] 01:30, 14 March 2006 (CST)
:I don't even touch Original Series stuff. If there's anything there, it was someone trying to copy the template onto a different article. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:21, 14 March 2006 (CST)

== User name change ==

Just letting you know that I changed your name from Ricimer to The Merovingian. Let me know if you encounter any issues, not that I'm expecting any but just in case Murphy's Law decides to come and play. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 23:19, 7 February 2006 (EST)

: Also on this topic: You should probably update the first sentence of your User page to reflect the name change. If you want, I could probably get a decent screen-grab of the identically named character from the Matrix. Unfortunately, I don't have a DVD from which to grab pictures that stars any of the folks who founded Paris. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:24, 8 February 2006 (EST)
::Yes, actually, that would help immensly. I need one of The Merovingian when he's in Club Hel, standing at the balcony looking imperiously down at Neo. A shot that shows his whole body instead of a closeup would be preferred. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 02:13, 8 February 2006 (EST)
:::You should watch "Revolutions" again. Merv isn't peering down at Neo but at Morpheus, Trinity, and Seraph (Neo never visits Club Hel in the movie series, although the Path of Neo video game takes him there while the Club is closed). I'll also try to get a screencap for you if time allows. My Matrix knowledge may be better than my BSG knowledge (note witty, illustrated user page; I've been almost tempted to change my user name to something more appropriate... ;) By the way, I like your revised user page. Merv is one of those characters whose deserved more exploration on the same level as the Oracle and the Architect. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:45, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:"Neo" just came out; I was thinking Seraph & Co., just typed the wrong thing. (''That little Judas! I'm going to have him killed and buried in a shallow grave, then dig him up and kill him again...'''That's the beauty of a shallow grave!''') ''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 16:52, 8 February 2006 (EST)

::I actually took a philosphy class and my choice for a paper was on ''The Matrix''. Basically, I've made several of the more...insightful speculations about The Merovingian on his Wikipdia article. You see, Morpheus and Neo represent Socrates: wanting to get out of "The Cave" to the real world beyond, etc. However, I believe (and I'm the only person I know of who's thought of this; I didn't read it anywhere, but thought it up after reading ''Leviathan'') that The Merovingian is the embodiment of Thomas Hobbes in The Matrix. He spouts off Hobbesian thought all of the time. Hobbes said that "choice is an illusion" that the only constant is "cause and effect", and that the best thing we can do with our lives is kind of movie along with the flow of causality in such a way that we enjoy all of the *physical, transient* pleasures that we can, while we can. Live a life of comfornt and luxury, etc. The Merovingian *lives out* this ideal: He's living in complete luxury, like at Le Vrai, the Chateau, Club Hel (and he has affairds with women all the time, etc), he wields a great deal of physical power...yet recognizes that it's all just "a game" devoid of purpose; it's transient, etc. He's stopped seeing any higher meaning in anything. --->Hobbes was a big critic of Socrates, and his philosophy was the polar opposte of Socrates' thought. In the same way, The Merovingian opposes Neo and Morpheus' philoshpy of getting out of the Matrix.
:I hold with the theory that he's a former One, that got his brain pattern scanned into a computer to outlive the death of his body. But he got so disillusioned with all of the lies and how the quest for freedom was just a reset button, that he turned against all of this and became the master of the Exiles, living the complete opposite of all of this (note; he ''really hates'' the Oracle, and views everything Neo says about her with extreme sarcasm). Plus, the initials "LV" on the walls of "Le Vrai" are Roman numerals for "LV" = 55. Now, we've already seen 303= Trinity, 101= Neo. So there's something about The Merovingian and the number "5". On top of this, when we first meet him there are 5 glasses set out in front of him (and Persephone, his Trinity-analog, has 3 chocolates on her plate). --->There have been 5 "Ones" before Neo. I think the Merovingian is the ''first'' "One". --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 17:01, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::Yeah, that theory and his Hobbes relationship (I think--it may be in a book I read) is on the Wikipedia article. I edited the article in dispute of Merv being a past One. It all comes down to some logic points. ''Why'' does he hate the Oracle so much? Because she succeeded where he failed. She stabilized the Matrix by adding true choice, where Merv was likely tapped by the Architect earlier to program basic cause-effect subroutines in the Matrix code as well as manage the root-programs in Matrix-beta-2 that could be used to help with these changes (these programs he now holds for his own purposes). The Architect realized the utopian flaw in beta-1 and thought that simple cause-effect (combined with the root-programs--the monsters of myth) would be sufficient to convince the human minds. He was wrong, of course. Remember that the Merovingian is big on cause-effect, and the Oracle states that he is one the oldest of them all, which makes his human origin very unlikely as the machines by then were fully distrustful of humanity and saw itself as a steward, not bothering to hear out humanity anymore than we would listen to the needs of an ant. The One is purely human; if the Merovingian were a "One", he would have been generated within beta-2, and, as a result, would not be like the Ones that base their power from true choice (particularly the power to ''dis''believe what they see and act otherwise). To add to that: Merv could also be very mad at the Oracle because, in the Oracle's version of the Matrix, any powers he may have had in beta-2 are practically non-existent. (You gave me a new take the character now from that...hmm.) Oh, and "La Vrai" means, "The Truth", which is just Merv's way of protesting of what's around him..vulgarities of "choice". Only in his establishments, by the name implication, will the populace understand the "truth" about what is illusion to him (choice) and real (cause and effect).

:::I wrote a paper about the origin of the One (with a bit on Merv) for a SF convention that will BLOW. YOUR. MIND. If you like, I'd be happy to send you a PDF of it. I've not published this as yet, so it's a unique read that incorporates the above. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:29, 8 February 2006 (EST)

::::I would like to BLOW. MY. MIND. as well... ''the preceeding, signed comment and small recommendation that Spence forward me a copy of his insightful paper on Merv was made by [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] on 17:47, 8 February 2006 (EST) :-)''

::::: Actually, Spence... Could you just, maybe, copy it to User:Spencerian/Matrix or something? It might save you from forwarding it to a billion people. If you don't like that idea, then put me on your forwarding list. --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:19, 9 February 2006 (EST)

:There, I must disagree with you. The Merovingian is not "the oldest of us" but "one of the oldest of us", which would still fit my interpretation. Further, in ''Leviathan'' Hobbes goes on a tangent where he says that because everything in life is "cause and effect", logically, we should '''in theory''' be able to predict the future, because life has no external factors (god, random choice, etc. Fate/causality rules all). But he adds that '''in practice''', this is impossible, simply because there are so many variants that the human mind cannot grasp at once--->it reminds me of discussions of ''psychohistory'' in "Prelude to Foundation"; hen Hari Seldon originally presented his first paper theorizing that psychohistory was ''possible'', he explained that he did not yet have a working model because his paper essentially just proved that you could actually analyze all of the "antecedants" of life in a computer model. I.e. if the universe is so compex that the only functional "model" of it is something as big and complicated as the universe itself, such a model is useless. However, he said that you ''could'' actually make a model smaller than the universe itself..
::Well, the point is that according to The Merovingian's own Hobbesian principles, he is in a possition SIMULTANEOUSLY A) He believes the world to be governed by nothing but causality, and therefore, he should be able to predict the future, but B) THE VERY SAME principles that idea is based on also state that predicting the future is ''Practically'' impossible. This might get a little annoying to him. --->So then there's The Oracle, who CAN predict the future, while he cannot (though in theory, he should). Therefore, this adds another level of hate for her, and he wants the "eyes of the Oracle" (which he's "Wanted ever since I came ''here'') because he's jealous. And who's to say the Machines would not want to tap the talen of the "grotesque" human mind in designing/running a more human world (beta-2)? I digress. P.S. Don't get me started on MXO's Agent Pace...--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 18:13, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::Yes, Merv is one of the oldest, not the oldest. Merv was only half-right, which is why his Matrix worked only halfway. Predicting the future is not impossible if the events in the world ''work like a computer program does.'' He wanted to predict things logically--but, with choice involved, prediction becomes far less logical or predictable. When people in his Matrix version realized they, too, could guess the logical cause and effect, they lost believablity in their Matrix. The Oracle's Matrix has no such problem for the most part. Hey, you haven't an email address to send you my paper (Joe just got a copy). You can send me your address privately to my email if you care not to post it publicly. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 19:57, 8 February 2006 (EST)

:::: '''Tangent''': I once tried to start up a Matrix-themed MUSH which was to be placed in an unspecified previous iteration of the Matrix, only a few years after the death of the One that started the thing. We had some lengthy debates about how to implement the Oracle or make any sort of assertions that would A) be specific enough so as to be cool when they came true but, b) be vague enough so as to be possible in a roleplaying environment that included, well, ''choice''. Eventually, though, all the staffers got busy doing [http://www.guildwars.com other] [[Main Page|things]]. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 00:19, 9 February 2006 (EST)

: Merovingian, eh? I must say I like it, much preferable to Ricimer - and I'm not a troll. [[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 02:33, 21 February 2006 (EST)

::Prove it. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:02, 21 February 2006 (EST)

To get back on topic, almost. I got you something, Merv: [[:Image:Merv.jpg]]. It's only 200px wide because of the native resolution of the capture. It should be fine for use on your user page, but it looked just horrid blown up. I also capped one without the green lights, but I liked this one better. Lemme know what you think. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 02:40, 1 April 2006 (CST)

==A ''Revelation'' I've Had==

[AgentSmith]Let me share a ''revelation'' I've had [/Agentsmith]. In case you are new, most here are of the consensus that my attitude towards edits is overall blunt/brusk, not "polite", etc. (it's just letters on a screen, so I just never gauged "politeness" much; not that I make personal attacks, just that I "cut through it" and say what I'm thinkin'). Anyway, '''Day''' summarized some of this pretty well on Talk:Perry when he said just now: "''your jumping off the cuff with aggressive language at people who simply disagree with you. It may be a matter that would be handled by inflection, were you interacting in real life, but you should realize that when you're dealing with text only, you have only very gross control over inflection: normal, bold and italics. And they can be construed as meaning many things. As a side note, I've noticed you like to use bold and such a lot and so, sometimes, you do combinations or all-caps or asterisks for further emphasis. I mean this in only an entirely constructive way, but... I have no idea how to interpret those passages except as very loud, so they're more confuysing to me, personally, than helpful.''". Well, I think I've '''finally realized what the crux of the problem was:'''

Loss of essence. A profound sense of fatiuge, a feeling of emptiness...caused by terrorists trying to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids, through water fluoridation. It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core terrorist works. He hold no value for human life, not even his own. Well, I can no longer sit back and allow terrorist infiltration, terrorist indoctrination, terrorist subversion and the international terrorist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.--->Hahaha, sorry. I can never resist a good plug for the old ''Dr. Strangelove'' routine.

But I digress.

No, seriously. I finally realized what the crux of all of this friction has been: As you know, I am a prolific poster on the official messageboard. '''I think the problem is, I've been posting on BattlestarWiki as if it were a messageboard'''. You see, messageboards aren't as formal and a lot of, well, yelling, arguing as part of debate, etc., is actually ''the norm'' there. Further, when it comes to '''my''' ''overuse'' of ''' ''**inflection**'' '''....I'm just *used* to typing that way because that's how you highlight and emphasize stuff on messageboard posts (it's sort of how you make up for not being able to see visible social cues, etc.) Also--->Posts on messageboards can sometimes fill an entire Microsoft word single-spaced document page. They can get really long. So you've really got to highlight the beginning of every new idea or paragraph like that to make your point, etc.

But on the whole, it's just a different atmosphere, more "pack-mentality" to establish dominance through a show of force (GREAT Farscape joke about that one in the first episode of the fourth season...but I digress.), and a fanatical amount of information, etc.

I realize it took me a while, but I've finally come to the full realization that '''My Talk page posts, etc. seem kind of rough because I'm just typing like these are messageboard posts'''. (Messageboard posts disappared practially after 5 minutes, so you try to have as big an impact as possible, while here they just stay there for long periods, etc.)

So, I've realized that that's what's been going on, and I realize now (from experience) just how different a wiki is from that, so I will alter my tone accordingly. (Of course, I'll still '''highlight''' stuff that might seem important, but not go overboard). --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 03:36, 10 February 2006 (EST)

:Excellent! That's an angle I hadn't considered. The signal to noise ratio is definitely much higher here than at some other places. Heck, the fact that people were still discussing a question I asked around the first of December is an excellent demonstration between the way things happen around here and the official board. I hope you have begun to see that the people here value what you have to say/contribute (without the need to clamor to be heard above the din). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:30, 10 February 2006 (EST)

:: That may be a very apt metaphor, SV. Reading Merv's posts is sometimes like listening to someone who thinks your in the other room, but really you're right behind them. Roughly, "Hey. I'm already ''listening'', '''Dude'''." *wink* Anyway, I hope this is exactly the issue at, uh... issue, here. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:24, 10 February 2006 (EST)

== Template Categories ==
What are you looking for for the writers and directors? A navigation template? Or a category (I ran into [[:Category:Directors]] after I created one)? I'd be glad to help, I just don't have a concept of what you're needing. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:19, 10 February 2006 (EST)

When I write pages about Sharon, Number Six, etc. I write at the bootom "Category:Cylons" (with double brackets around it). I think we need a Category set for "Writers" and "Directors" (in place of "Cylons"). However, one or two episodes split the "Writers" credit between "Teleplay" and "Story by" (see official site episode guide). I just put "Story by" into "Story by" slots in the guide, and Writer for who wrote the Teleplay: Regardless, I think both Teleplay and Story writers should fall under the "Writers" category, and I will make note of which was which on their individual pages.
----->Essentially, I realized we had no "At a Glance" method of seeing the past work of a writer or director. Essentially, I see that episode 3.12 is coming up, and I see "hmm, who is this? why, I'll click on his name and get a list of other episodes he's done.....oh no! He wrote the abysmal "Black Market"!...or..."Hmm, she wrote the wonderful "Resistance"...this should be interesting. I'm trying to make A) pages for all of the writers and directors, and B) lists on those individual pages of all the episodes they've worked on, so, logically--->C)We should have a more fully developed category system for "Writers" and "Diretors" (the rudiments of which are present on the main page, but which were never fully developed. I felt that now is a good a time as any.)--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 20:33, 10 February 2006 (EST)
:There's a directors category already, and a Category:Director: Michael Rymer, which is a subcategory of Michael Rymer. Thus if you tag an episode with Category:Director: Michael Rymer it should fall under the Michael Rymer category. The directors category would then just be a container for all those subcategories. So we just need a Category:Director: X where X is each director (and make sure that each of those has the category of Director, so that they show up as subcategories). We could then make a template, I guess, but since we're talking about just having to add one category tag at the bottom, I'm not sure it merits a template. I'll start up the Category:Writers, if you want, if you could list out which Directors and Writers we need to capture. We may want to consult with Farago on this, as he has a knack for categorization. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:44, 10 February 2006 (EST)
::Ah. There's already a Category:Writers as well. Looks like somebody planned ahead. It looks like we'd just need to make the subcategories then. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 20:47, 10 February 2006 (EST)

==Just to say==
Merv, I just wanted to say that I think you've been putting an excellent face forward recently. Keep it up. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:23, 19 February 2006 (EST)

''All is proceeding according to plan..''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 21:07, 19 February 2006 (EST)

== Welcoming Committee ==
Thanks for taking on some of the welcoming committee responsibilities. I think the new users appreciate it (and Joe probably appreciates not being the only one who does the greeting). I tend to only pick up that job when the new user crosses paths with something I am working on. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:21, 3 March 2006 (CST)

:I am just a humble servant of this wiki and the information therein, I ask nothing in return. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 14:47, 3 March 2006 (CST)

This is a test to see what time my signature says--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:11, 17 March 2006 (CST)
:That's odd; what are our signatures saying Central Standard Time Intead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), that is, Grenwich Mean Time?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 23:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)

== RFA ==

Because it looks like you didn't see it, notice that a user has added a question to the stock three. I think it would be safe to say it's because he was wondering what your would be. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 21:22, 18 March 2006 (CST)
:Day, I will gladly answer any questions, but I note that you did not have to answer such a question when ''you'' were running for Administrator. Irrelevant; I mean I can answer it--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] 00:44, 19 March 2006 (CST)
::I'm sure we all would have been happy to answer if anyone had asked. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:28, 19 March 2006 (CST)

== http://openpolitics.ca/wiki+etiquette ==

As this page puts it...

'''Be Respectful'''
Open politics has high standards for debate and civil discourse. If we wanted to participate in name calling and ad hominem attacks, we could visit our legislature. As an editor, you can relocate, revise or remove any content or contributions which give offense or are out of place. Participants who have differing points of view are invited to issue challenges to each other - a formalized competition of ideas which serves the public interest by allowing detailed head to head comparisons of differing positions on an issue.

You do not need to place my name in the comment's system. I find that offensive. Read http://openpolitics.ca/ad+hominem to better explain why.

'''Maintaining the correct Point of View'''
A page that has been collaboratively written by dozens, if not hundreds of people will be quite a mess unless the participants all agree to write from a point of view. When describing issues, Open Politics uses a neutral point of view - when talking about same sex marriage as an issue, one should not discuss whether they are for or against it at the top of the page. Hold off on stating your opinion? until you get further down - to the position statements.

My edit was correct and if it needed to be removed, it should have been talked about first. My addition was completely under the guidelines of '''''Wiki Etiquette'''''.

'''Understand how wiki works'''
In a wiki based web service, each page is dedicated to deliberating on a specific topic, which is determined by the page name. Everyone who views the page is welcome to edit the content of the page, making contributions in any way that (they think) helps. If others agree your contribution was helpful it will stay there - a "good edit."

Again, until you came along this evening, it had staied there for a day.

I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:55, 26 March 2006 (CST)

:"...high standards for debate and civil discourse... I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me."
:You linked to a sub-par definition/explanation of '''ad hominem.''' Wikipedia's, e.g., is much more detailed (and better formatted).
:A delay of a day is less than the gap between my reads of recent changes (and probably all but 4-5 users') so it hardly counts as a consensus of positive peer reviews. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 02:24, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::How can any Administrator '''possibly''' consider the '''crude threat''' "I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me." to be "proper Wiki Etiquette" or "respectful", all matters aside? --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:50, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::: I've already addressed that issue in private. I don't forsee it occuring again.
::: On an unrelated note, I was the one that came up with the {{tl|welcome}} message -- and it's a template, not a bot. No bots are operational as of yet. (As such, the template is added manually by users.) Just wanted to let you know about that piece of information. Obviously, any concerns should come to my desk per se, as always. :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:01, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::::Yes of course; that was actually quite helpful.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:47, 26 March 2006 (CST)

::Well, you don't go on another site making fun of another person explaining why their ideas are bad. Merv, I think you need to appoligize for your remarks on the BSG fourm on Scifi.com. If not, I will be sure to post this entire thread as a reason for why you should not be an Administrator on this Wiki. While I voted because of other reasons the last time on your RFA, and moved my vote to netural, I would have kept my vote to oppose. In six months or so I will be very busy with my job so I am going to make a note on my calander to come back, and still vote no and post a PDF document of your thread. You will also know, that even though I can not post there, I can still read, and have sent the PDF document to Joe, for harressing a member of the site. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 10:01, 26 March 2006 (CST)

: I have read the post. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in your behavior, Merv. It's quite unbecoming.
: May I request, in the strongest possible terms, that you keep your thoughts on the Wiki in the Wiki? Things like this not only reflect badly on yourself but on every contributor here. Thank you. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 12:43, 26 March 2006 (CST)

==The Merovingian's Opinions On Things That Should Be Done At BattlestarWiki==
I have been at a Science Fiction convention this past week. During this time, my access to the internet was limited (well, relative to my usual levels) and I made a long post at Scifi.com describing various opinions I have about things that need to be done at ''BattlestarWiki'': these are my opinions, and I have not assumed as a given that they will be realized. Some were displeased, and rightly so, that I did not state them here: Actually, '''I was going to make a long post on my Talk page as soon as I got back anyway, relating the opinions I stated there. I do appologize that I did not *immediately* post them here as well, because I was not trying to go behind anyone's back'''. Joe, I should post things about BattlestarWiki here first, and I will NEVER post something on another messageboard that I would be unwilling to post here (cursing, defaming remarks, etc. that I would not also make here); I am sorry, but I cannot limit my thoughts on BattlestarWiki to this Wiki; however, you have my promise and assurance that I have never said anything that I thought was innapropriate, nor will I EVER cross that line. Indeed, ''Not'' keeping my thoughts on this Wiki, limited to this Wiki, has resulted in a great awareness about this website spreading across the messageboards. That said, I agree, I will never make comments about this Wiki again which were as large or personally directed as the ones I made. I should have done this here first.

With that preamble, here is a list of things '''mostly for my own personal reference''', which I think: I can post such things, I would think, on my own Talk page, and if posting this reflects poorly on my next bid for Administratorship...well then it does, and everyone who might disagree with these opinions won't have to deal with an Administrator who feels this way, so I see no reason for them to complain about me saying these things here. Logically, that would be the outcome. And if some people support me, well then, they do. ''Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen.'':

#Our current links system is fairly intuitive, and at most needed some minor tweaking. Shane's Portal project is a disaster waiting to happen. It's needlessly complicated. What with creating myriad subcategories and such, it's actually making it MORE confusing to use. He has created dozens of new portals---->but have we seen any finished results? I thought it would be best to at least see a ''test'' portal, like one for the Cylons series, but we haven't--->the new pages which show just a lot a pictures of Cylons and mostly broken links don't make a lot of sense. '''Maybe Shane intends to finish this up and I am wrong''', but for the past all I've seen is broken links and promises left half finished. If Shane does not start showing actual results of any degree with his portals project, we should reconsider whether we actually need these new changes, or if they are redundant. And if they are redundant, we should remove them as expediently as possible instead of letting them sit on the wiki half finished.
#Shane is a new user to BattlestarWiki, and started the biggest reorganization of the wiki since it's inception; for this, I actually applaud him. But it is not his familiarity with wiki code that I question, it is his disgression, and his his temperment. '''When I or Administrators cautioned him to at least slow down his changes or justify certain things, such warnings were tacitly ignored, and have lately been met with thinly veiled threats. This is not good wiki behavior.'''
#If I were an Administrator, I would ''not'' have banned Shane by now. He is no troll. However, I would caution him strongly to tone down his behavior.
#Many of the new Writers and Directors pages are just dead link stub pages. I will try to fill them in when I have time.
#I don't think AI Bots are very practical for use on ''BattlestarWiki''. It has been said that if they are used, their performance will be closely monitored: [yodaspeak]''How embarrasing, it would be''[/yodaspeak] if a bot made an exceedingly long string of mistakes that took forever to clear up. If you want to try it out, okay, we shall see how it progresses. I'm just no big fan.
#I think the Cylon-related Hallucinations page is ridiculously unnecessary; it is just the information from the ChipSix subsection of "Number Six" plus some minor points on the Hallucinatory Baltar from Downloaded: Ron Moore confirmed in his podcast that Hallucinatary Baltar ''really is'' just a hallucination, and they thought that would be an interesting twist. --->I'd remove it. However, Joe has said that such speculation pages are to be supported: I would remove it simply because there is so little real information to put there (appart from the ChipSix stuff which could be moved back). So I've marked it with a cleanup tag instead. I think we can all agree to that.
#When I created the Battles Series, I made a clear list of what defines a battle; the "Fall of New Caprica" is not a battle. However, now that I'm back I'm going to clean it up. '''I would personally like to delete it''', but, as some think it was an important event, I'm going to clean it up i.e. remove stuff that isn't just a copy/paste of "New Caprica" article and keep the relevant military stuff. I think we can all agree to that. (BTW; I laid out a set of rules on "What makes a Battle page" on the Standards and Conventions Talk page; I'm not sure if we adopted this as an actual rule or a "guideline"; do not reply here; please voice your concerns on the matter on Standards and Conventions Talk. If it doesn't become an actual "rule" fine, just keep it on Talk to give people a general idea of how it works).
#The page "[[Toaster]]" was turned into a "joke" page against my will. It's an actual term on the show, and I am ashamed that we have done this to an actual page; ''MemoryAlpha'', the Star Trek Wiki, would never have allowed this. I am adamant that it must be reverted back to non-joke form. And I think the page "[[Flashlight]]", which is entirely a joke page, should be deleted as well. Maybe everyone would like a ''single article'' with the header "BattlestarWiki Internal Jokes Page". I wouldn't get rid of that because it's labeled as what it is---->But making the '''actual article on "Toaster" a joke is misleading and sets a low precedent'''. ---->We've already debated this, it's nothing new, and I have already lost several debates to change it back. Okay. I'm not going to head over to "Toaster" and change it back. I'm just stating in the open, that my official standing is, "I do not like this".
#We should edit down and practice '''concision''' on overlong Question sections, but we should ''not'' make it a policy to wipe these sections entirely. Visitors come here to check out questions and several, ''factually based'' counterpoints about them--->Things not so much supported/presenting an opinion should be moved to Analysis, and these should be check so there is no utterly wild speculation; wild speculation should be removed. It's often hard to quantify the line between educated guess and speculation, of course, and we must be cautious in these.
#We have started using "Succession Boxes" for Presidents, Ship commanders, etc. I believe that if we only know of one person that has ever held an office...we shouldn't bother making a box. For example; the "[[Laura Roslin]]" article does not require a succesion box for "Secretary of Education", when we have no information about anyone who was Sec of Ed before *or* after her: she's the only one. It's redundant, I belive, with the character's own article information and with their "role" box. It's making the page needlessly cluttered.

That about wraps it up. I am sorry if I have hurt any feelings, this is not my intent: facts are my goal, and not malice. And I fully realize that '''I might lose a civilized debate'''; simply because I am arguing strongly for an opinion on categorization or something does not mean I am threatening to destroy ''BattlestarWiki''. "I know when I'm beat", and I will obey the Administrators when given a direct order. I will not continue to pursue revert wars while debate is ongoing on a subject, and '''if it has *officially* been declared that debate is over, rest assured that I will yield'''. It is hard to express emotional nuance using just text messages here, but I am not expecting some kind of Inquisition to be started. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 22:34, 26 March 2006 (CST)

== What's this all about? ==

Care to [[User talk:Task Bot|explain this]], because from my end it looks like a personal attack. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 11:19, 27 March 2006 (CST)
:Oh I'm sorry that's just a joke from ''Blade Runner''; Task Bot is a robot AI, so I just thought it cute to ask "him" a question which in ''Blade Runner'' was the question that stumped the robotic Replicants during the Voight-Kampf test. It's just a BR joke. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:51, 27 March 2006 (CST)

== Asking a man in a mask who he is... ==

Merv. Just saw V for Vendetta. If I still lived in Austin, I'd go to my favorite comics shop tomorrow and pick it up. As is... I'll have to wait for my next trip. Anyway... I enjoyed it quite much. Thought you might want to discuss it. If you're interested, we could do it here or feel free to email or IM me. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 02:23, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:You do realize that I have a full Guy Fawkes costume and mask and I run around my college terrorizing our campus Republicans? The first day I went to the convention I wore my standard Doctor Who attire, the second day I went in a V costume. ''Fairness, justice, and freedom are more than just words...they are perspectives...'''--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 03:43, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:: That's creepy. Maybe I should start to call you Elrond, then. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 11:43, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:::That's not funny. I'm also I diehard LOTR fanatic. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 11:50, 1 April 2006 (CST)

:::: So am I. That's why I find it so funny. I was talking, some time ago, with some friends about what we'd do if we could make a Hollyqood movie parodying the LotR movies. One would be to say what they messed up (Haldir at Helm's Deep, for instance) and another was to have Elrond in shades and call Strider "Mis-ter Aaaaragorn." Also, hobbits would all have been gay. Of course. But then, we've been making those jokes about the Fellowship since before the movies. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 22:54, 1 April 2006 (CST)
:::::.....you seriously have never heard about the gag reel? There's a blooper reel of LOTR which they've made, but just for conventions and reporter interviews and the cast, but never for DVD. Maybe it will be released in the half-mythical 25th Anniversary addition (with an hour of deleted or new footage! haha-->listen to the ROTK commentary). Anyway, Hugo Weaving stated that they had one really good blooper scene which he made up himself: You see, for whatever reason, that scene when Elrond comes in the tent and gives Aragorn his sword Anduril, the shot of Elrond taking his hood off to reveal himself so you can see who he is and saying his first few lines, was not going well. Jackson kept making them do it, over and over again. It got annoying. So what he did was he put on a pair of his Agent Smith shades underneath the cloak, them when they shot it pulled his hood back, and said in Agent Smith voice: "You must join with the Matrix...Mr. Aragorn". Of course it's not just ''what'' he said; I mean more than half of this is in the ''delivery'', how he does that almost-robot emotionless voice for Agent Smith. So that's "out there" but has never been released to the general public...yet.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:09, 1 April 2006 (CST)

== Diff for future RFA ==
I just wanted a place to keep this [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User_talk:Reaver&diff=prev&oldid=44123 diff] for future RFA purposes (as an example of newbie interaction). It'd be kinda creepy on my user page, so I'm putting it here. This page is getting a bit long (your talk page sees SIGNIFICANTLY more traffic than mine), so it may get archived, but at least I'll know where to find it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:30, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
: Well okay if you wanted to clean up your own userpage:
::"''Reaver, please try not to post fanfic stuff like you did on [[Mercury class battlestar]] in the future. Also, you added an image of a "Pegasus uniform patch" to the [[Pegasus (RDM)]] article: We've actually proven, through multiple screenshots and closeups, that Pegasus is in fact part of BSG-62, and that's what it says on their emblems. In the first episode it was in, "Pegasus", the sets and emblems were all a little blurry, so we weren't entirely sure what it was and there was much debate ("is that a 6? and 8? a 2? a 5? etc. etc.) Anyway, the next episode, "Resurrection Ship, Part I", showed many clearer shots that established that it was Sixty-two. However, many months passed between those times----->I've seen that "BSG-63" patch around a lot: one of the custom-scifi emblem production companies did a rush-job, and they made a patch that ''incorrectly'' says "Pegasus BSG-63", but it's sixty two. At the scifi con last month I went to that had Richard Hatch, I actually pointed this out to a vendor or two selling them, and was surprised that they said I was like the 5th or 6th person to point this out to them that day. I really hope that misprinted patch fades away without any more people getting confused by it. I hope this helps. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 13:48, 6 April 2006 (CDT)''" -- For future reference. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:46, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Point Out Mistakes ==

You don't have to point out the mistakes I made and post them directly into the comments. That is very rude. My name also never has to be in the comments also merv. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:29, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:Merv's edit summaries seem to me to have been composed in good faith. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:32, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::Shane, if I have a comment that is only a sentence long, I put it in the edit summary box, rather than going to all the confusion of putting it on a separate talk page; this doesn't mean I am attempting to "hide" it, how could I? It's in plain sight, and I intend people to see it. And I don't want everyone to be reading a rude remark or personal attack: that's not what I am writing--->the entire concept behind the summary box is that we explain why we're editing something--->if I just edited it without explanation, ''this'' would be considered rude. I am making these changes in good faith and explaining what I think is wrong with them. Rather than pouting that I am "attacking" you Shane, you should be focusing on doing a better job in the future. I hope this improves. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:35, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:''(Shane...we have no idea how many officers are on a ship. You made that up.)'' could have been ''(removed officers; speculation)'', and I would not have said anything because of course I made it up. It isn't documented any where that I know. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:45, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::Nothing I said was incredibly offensive. And you shouldn't make things up. Shane, you cannot shrug off your own mistakes by accusing everyone that is trying to correct you of "ganging up" on you. The thing you should be doing is learning from your mistakes, listing to criticism in order to edit articles better. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 15:48, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
:::funny how all the stuff I did was edited by you at least 2 or three times. You proved my Proof, and by the end, all my edits are different because you didn't like the style. There are others in this "Proof" and all the evidence I need to prove it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 15:54, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
::::To be honest I really don't understand what you just said: Yes, I edited several changes you made, and did so several times: how does this "prove" anything? ''What'' does it "prove"? That I'm editing things? I've already...said that. What? I can't understand your comment--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 16:30, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

The entire tone of this disturbs me. Shane, you have many good ideas and considerable skill at the rather arcane wikicode. This is a waste of your time, Merv's time, and third parties' time. 
Assume temporarily Merv hates and, consequently, mocks you.
:This doesn't matter. Others will presumably note this and discount any personal attacks. Any edits he makes to your work out of spite will ultimately only be kept if the consensus is in favor of them, i.e. they are improvements; the motivation behind an improvement ultimately doesn't matter.
:Spending time on something that does not matter is a waste.
:Waste is bad.
:You should not spend time on Merv hating and mocking you.
Assume temporary Merv does not hate you and, consequently, is not mocking you.
:Merv hating and mocking you does not matter, for lack of existence.
:Following the above, you should not spend time on Merv hating and mocking you.
Either way, you should not spend time on this. [The above to "The entire tone..." are my edits; the tabs are not being used to indicate reply.] --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 16:17, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

I have to say that from the perspective of a prolific Skiffy poster, I have to say that thicker skins all around on this wiki would be a valuable asset to this community. Perhaps you should all spend a little bit more time on the boards -- I think your bar as what rises to an 'insult' might be raised a little.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 16:37, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

User talk:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha

2006-04-07T20:26:10Z

Dogger: A rather detailed set of front page priorities

Mind if I play around with this Main Page setup on my own Steelviper?--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 18:43, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

:Steelviper, I also think it a better idea to do what MemoryAlpha did and just call categories what they are "Articles of Interest", etc. as making up our own fun names for sections would just confuse newcomers. --19:42, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

== Did you know... ==

I love this section of the MA front page and I think we'll be able to amass enough random trivia to do well with a counter-part. I bet there's a way to have it randomly pick, say, 5 from a list every midnight or 3am or something (server time). I'd prefer this to the way the Quote of the day works, so that we don't have the same 5 appearing together every time they appear and we don't have to worry if we don't have 1800 trivia ideas. I'd also love to implement the QotD like that (pick randomly at midnight a new one from a list, rather than have one assigned to each calendar day). This would allow for continued growth as RDM continues, rather than having to have a database limited to 365 (well, for 33 out of 4 years, anyway). --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]]) 23:33, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
:Alternatively, and preferably, I could just update the trivia every day myself. I trust that more than randomizers, which don't have good judgement, otherwise we might get stuck with 5 things saying what the colors of the walls are. We don't have enough info yet to update them daily. Memory Alpha can because they've got 10 movies and over 700 episodes to choose from. We've got 33 episodes (plus a Miniseries). Even if we tacked on the one season of TOS, we don't have enough to sustain that kind of thing. One every week or so, done manually for optimum quailty, is the better path for the near future. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:47, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
:: This is all possiable, but there is a problem though. Right now the quotes aren't in a database. We could easily do that, but that's not the problem. The problem is that I have to set up some scripts to first input quotes, then have a script "running" on the server that would have to run at midnight. From there that "outputed" data would have to go in the correct form. (This is where bot's come in.) It's the same concept for "Did you know..." random pick. That even gets more complicated. Most of the Wikipedia stuff (FA, POTD, NEWS) is run by tons of people and they have 1 million articles, so they have a large selection. MemoryAlpha has a little more stuff. I persoanlly don't see the effort for such little content. We would need to set up the boards that selects FA or what quotes go in. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 00:22, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::I have a better idea:
::::A) We do not have enough trivia to warrant a bot randomly picking trivia on a daily basis from a large pool, therefore we should not do that B) I will pick the triva myself, on a roughly weekly basis, and if someone disagrees with it, they can leave a note in Talk to change it--->similar to how our Quote of the Day system works now. C)If others are unwilling to make the effort, I will be willing to sacrifice my time to the endeavor.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 00:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::A)not enought content towarrent the effort. B) Knock yourself out C)Other people can contribuate to the "Did you know..." Group effort. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 01:04, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::::: Would this section work similar to the quote of the day, or would it just be random from a database? Can MediaWiki do this as default or will it need a new extension. Wouldnt be too hard to write up in php. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 03:14, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

::::::: Merv, I don't want to, no offense to you, rely on a single user to update this thing. I think we either do it in an automated way (and if it's picking five every day from a database of 15, that's fine with me) or leave it simply open for all to update as they see fit (like the rest of the Wiki). However, I don't think that a lack of volume means we shouldn't automate the thing. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|talk]])

(Unindenting, but still related to the MA thing). Over at MA, they've already [[Memoryalpha:Template talk:DidYouKnow|run into this issue]]. Currently the English MA site is still manual, I believe. The German language site, though, has a template for each week, and kind of like the "Quote of the Day". So the code on the main page would access the current week's DYK's, and users can go as far ahead as they want to lay down future DYK's that will automatically be highlighted when that week comes around. Sort of a compromise on the automation vs. human quality. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 07:56, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

I don't really mind the MA design, but it doesn't really address what I think is the number one problem navigating this site, and that is the distance (in terms of clicks, page scrolling, etc.) between the front-page visitor and as quick an understanding as possible of the categories and types of articles there are available. For an example of a page that I think works fairly well in this regard (not a wiki) [http://www.glyphweb.com/ARDA/ go here]. Notice that in the sidebar I have easy and immediate access to both an alphabetical listing, 'latest entries', 'maps', as well as divisions naturally suggested by the subject matter like 'Races' and 'Places'. Also notice the way the list is designed as a tight compromise between comprehensiveness and my ability to take in all of it in a single glance. They don't give me a full alphabetical list to page through, nor do they give me a link that says 'alphabetical index'. Instead, they give me 26 links for 26 letters. This two-tiered approach to categorisation is superior, because it's a manageable list that leads to a manageable list. It's a good lay of the land. I want to be able to look at the front page and get as good a 'lay of the land' as possible in a single glance. For example, I don't want to see a link that says 'Characters'. I want to see a section called 'Characters' followed by a set of subcategories (Pilots, Soldiers, Command Staff, Government, Civilians), all on the top of the front page among the other second-tier indices. I would even say that it would be an improvement to turn the Memory Alpha organisation on its head. Put the index stuff at the top (but organised more along the lines of the Encyclopedia of Arda, perhaps in two columns to allow even more categories than Races and Places). And put these bells and whistles which are really just icing, at bottom 'below the fold', so that as people scroll, pure hard information starts to fade more into entertainment. That would be my ideal set of priorities for the front page, so take it for what it's worth to you, I will support whatever design the group settles upon.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 15:26, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Alignment ==
Lawful good. Er. If anybody more knowledgable about html/wikitables reads this, I'd appreciate any help at getting the "Pages of Interest" to align at the top of the box that it's in rather than centering like it currently is. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 09:00, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:Looks like I got it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

== Control Panel ==
All the sections on the page lack "edit" buttons, just like MemoryAlpha. As an aid to you, the editor, I figured I'd publish a quick little control panel that exposes edit buttons for all the content sections.
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/DidYouKnow&action=edit Did You Know] - a trivia section (see discussion above)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/ArticleOfTheWeek&action=edit Article of the Week] - a featured article section (would need some procedure/policy), and maybe automation
* [[Template:Article/Spoiler-free]] - this is the "news" template from the current main page (anything you do to this will show on main page as well)
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/PagesofInterest&action=edit Pages of Interest] - highlights popular pages and pages that need work
* [http://www.battlestarwiki.org/en/index.php?title=User:Steelviper/MemoryAlpha/Encyclopedia&action=edit Encyclopedia] - exposes the categories currently. Uses actual category names instead of going to hub pages like the memoryalpha version.
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box4]] - used in "community", "The Community" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box5]] - used in "community", "The Fan Stuff" on main page
* [[Template:Content/Menu/Box6]] - used in "community", "The Wiki" on main page

That's it. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:36, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

==Motion to use this template instead of the Portl project's new front page==

Excellent work Steelviper; I couldn't have done this. Needs some minor tweaking here or there, adding Cylon categories etc (I'll get to that today), otherwise I'm in love with this format. Who else thinks that this would be good as our new front page? I think it is easy to use and quiet informative, as well as intuitive. Plus it's "battle-tested" as it were. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 12:48, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

:This is a (nearly complete) implementation of a replica of the MA design. I hoped that it could be used as a springboard for figuring out ideas for a main page redesign. Maybe we should discuss the positives and negatives of this design, in hopes of identifying the features we're trying to achieve. For example... I'm not a huge fan of the "Encyclopedia" as it stands. I just exposed categories, but category navigation isn't always the most intuitive, and in the case of the episode guide categories can be pretty ugly (yeah, they're all there, but there's no order to them). Any main page design would probably incorporate finished portals. Also, MA has some categories for Main characters, recurring characters, etc., which I think we might benefit from. The problem of major character navigation remains. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 13:58, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
::Just saying that, perhaps through my constant association with MA over the years, I just kind of like this one more.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:15, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Talk:Fan fiction/Golden Toaster Awards/Archive 1

2006-04-07T19:25:34Z

Dogger: /* An answer to a concern */

I don't remember what "lifetime achievement awards" like the TOSer, Solium, and GINO stood for. I have to ask the guy in charge: the actual website (GalacticaActual) where the event was held has been destroyed, apparently, so I also no longer know exactly who the nominees were, but I can check for the meaning of these awards. I do, however, have an accurate list of the winners.--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:13, 29 January 2006 (EST)

:I like this. =) --[[User:Drumstick|Drumstick]] 17:23, 29 January 2006 (EST)

==Silly Pages==
If these are real, then this page doesn't actually belong in the Silly Pages category. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:48, 29 January 2006 (EST)

:Well....then what category would apply?--[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] 17:52, 29 January 2006 (EST)
::I'm not sure if we have one for fandom topics. Do we have other pages that would be included in such a category? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:54, 29 January 2006 (EST)

== A concern ==

I'm just a bit concerned about this article, given that it isn't an actual award ceremony. Perhaps this article would be better left in the user space (i.e. [[User:Username/Golden Toaster Awards]]) rather than in the article namespace. Thoughts? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] 14:21, 24 March 2006 (CST)

No. Ron Moore & Co. ''know'' about this thing and we're starting up the Second Awards; we just started this week, and our placeholder [http://goldentoasterawards.hangardeck5.com/ website for the 2nd awards is up here]. More news to follow. Please leave it as it is for now. Plus, quite possibly the entire online community is involved and it really ''is'' an "awards show", just one held online.--[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:28, 24 March 2006 (CST)

:I don't mind having fandom topics discussed here, as long as there's no ambiguity between what's canonical and what's fan-related - and this article is pretty clear. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:30, 24 March 2006 (CST)
::Even if they know it, it doesn't mean everyone excepted it. I think it should not be in the article database. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 17:26, 24 March 2006 (CST)
::: Perhaps some kind of template for the header, much like the current neutrality one, but specifically for fan related articles. --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] 11:06, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
::::Not a bad idea there: casual users don't always notice the categories on the ''bottom'' of an article; having a tag in "nice big shiny letters" (haha) having another tag that says something's related to the fanbase would be okay. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 14:01, 7 April 2006 (CDT)
:::There is no reason for anyone on the show not to accept fan awards, and every cast member who has been told about it has been gracious and grateful, naturally. I don't see any reason to exclude this. It is a fact that these ceremonies take place with a lot of fan participation and it is a fact that these awards are given, and it is a fact that the cast and crew are notified where possible, and respond. At Galactica Actual they posted few responses from the recipients and I'm sure that this will happen again. If there is some reason why this one of the most formal interactions between the fans and the cast/crew should be treated as if it is a matter of opinion or it never happened, I can't imagine what that reason might be.--[[User:Dogger|Dogger]] 14:25, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

User talk:Dogger

Timeline (RDM)

2006-02-06T08:07:08Z

Dogger: /* Scar */

''Dates use the day of the [[Cylon Holocaust]] as a baseline. See also [[Survivor Count]], [[History of the Twelve Colonies]].''

==Ancient History==
*'''-3600 Years:''' [[Pythia]] records her prophecies.
*'''-2000 Years:''' The thirteen tribes leave [[Kobol]]: twelve for the [[Cyrannus System]], the other for [[Earth]].

==Recent Colonial History==
*'''-52 Years:''' Cylon revolt begins the [[Cylon War]]. [[Articles of Colonization]] signed ([[Colonial Day]], [http://blog.scifi.com/battlestar/archives/2005/04/index.html#a000025 RDM, April 11, 2005]).
*'''-51 Years''' Colonials suffer a major defeat when the Colonial ship ''[[Brenik]]'' is lost after a boarding action by Cylon Centurions, which resulted in some of the bloodiest, hand-to-hand fighting of the war. A young Petty Officer [[Saul Tigh]] is one of a handful of survivors.
*'''-50 Years:'''
** [[Battlestar]] ''[[Galactica]]'' enters service under Commander [[Peter Dash]].
*'''c. -41 years:''' [[William Adama]] beings his service in the Colonial Fleet as a Viper pilot, near the end of the Cylon War.
*'''-40 Years:''' Armistice between the Colonials and the Cylons ends the [[Cylon War]].
*'''-20 Years:'''
**Last significant [[FTL|Jump]] recorded on battlestar ''[[Galactica]]'s'' logs.
**[[Tom Zarek]] imprisoned for blowing up a government building on [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Sagittaron|Sagittaron]].
**[[William Adama]] and [[Saul Tigh]] first meet.
**[[Laura Roslin]] begins her career in politics.
*'''-7 Years:''' [[Saul Tigh|Saul]] and [[Ellen Tigh]] marry. ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]], [http://www.scifi.com/battlestar/episodes/season01/112/deleted1.html deleted scene])
*'''-5 Years:''' [[Galen Tyrol]] assigned to ''Galactica''.
*'''-3 Years:''' [[Felix Gaeta]] assigned to ''Galactica''.
*'''-2 Years:'''
**[[Number Six]] (in the guise of Natasi) first encounters Dr. [[Gaius Baltar]].
**[[Sharon Valerii (Galactica copy)|A copy of Sharon Valerii]] begins serving aboard ''Galactica''.
**[[Zak Adama]] dies in a flight school accident. His funeral is Lee and William Adama's last meeting until the miniseries.
**Lt. [[Kara Thrace]] is re-assigned from Flight School to Battlestar ''Galactica''.
*'''-1 Year:''' Last time [[William Adama]] and [[Caroline Adama]] speak.
*'''-Several months''' [[Caroline Adama]] gets engaged.
*'''-3 Weeks:''' [[Anastasia Dualla]] last visits her home.
*'''Zero Hour:''' Cylons [[Fall of the Twelve Colonies|destroy]] the [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)|Twelve Colonies]]. The (so-far-known) only known survivors are a rag-tag fugitive fleet escorted by ''Galactica''; ''Pegasus'', another [[Pegasus (RDM)|isolated battlestar]]; a fleet of 15 civilian FTL capable ships; and the [[Resistance (movement)|resistance]] on [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]]. Events of the [[Mini-Series]].

==Season 1==
*'''1 Day:''' [[Battle of Ragnar Anchorage]]. ''Galactica's'' fleet leaves [[Cyrannus]] System.
*'''6 Days:''' ''Galactica'' finally loses the Cylon pursuers. Events of episode "[[33]]".
*'''7 Days:''' ''Pegasus'' encounters a fleet of 15 civilian ships, including ''[[Scylla]]''.
*'''10 Days:''' Events of episode "[[Water]]"
*'''12 Days:''' Tom Zarek engineers the capture of the ''[[Astral Queen]]'' by its prisoner crew. Events of episode "[[Bastille Day]]".
*'''14 Days:''' Events of episode "[[Act of Contrition]]". [[Skirmish over the Red Moon|Starbuck is missing after a Cylon fight]].
*'''15 Days:''' Events of episode "[[You Can't Go Home Again]]"
*'''17 Days:''' Events of episode "[[Litmus]]"
*'''21 Days:''' First recollection by any of the ''[[Rising Star (RDM)|Rising Star]]'' crewmembers of giving [[Ellen Tigh]] medical assistance ("about a week" before "[[Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down]]").
*'''24 Days:''' [[Sharon Valerii (Caprica copy)|Caprica Valerii]] and [[Karl Agathon|Helo]] first make love. Events of episode "[[Six Degrees of Separation]]"
*'''25 Days:''' Events of episode "[[Flesh and Bone]]"
*'''26 Days:''' Ellen Tigh resumes consciousness ("a couple of days" before [[Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down]]).
*'''28 Days:''' Events of episode "[[Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down]]".
*'''36 Days:''' [[Battle for the Tylium Asteroid]]. Caprica Valerii is pregnant and suffering morning sickness. Events of episode "[[The Hand of God]]".

===[[Colonial Day]]===

*'''Day 46:''' Delegates selected for the [[Quorum of Twelve]]. [[Tom Zarek]] selected to represent [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Sagittaron|Sagittaron]]. Roslin implores Adama to permit his participation. [[Valance]] prepares to smuggle a ceramic stealth gun into the ''[[Cloud Nine]]''. Zarek addresses the fleet from the prison ship [[Astral Queen]]. Gaius Baltar selected to represent [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]]. Apollo and Starbuck inspect the [[Cloud Nine]].

*'''Day 47 - Morning:''' Colonial Day. Delegates arrive on Cloud Nine. Roslin addresses the Quorum. Baltar eyes [[Playa Palacios]]. Zarek moves to elect a vice president and is nominated by [[Marshall Bagott]]. Motion passes, chair to remain open 72 hours for nominations.

*'''Day 47 - Afternoon:''' Roslin asks [[Wallace Gray]] to run for the vice presidency. Zarek expounds on his reform agenda. Valence scuffles with Apollo and Starbuck and is jailed. Helo and Caprica Valerii arrive at a spaceport in the vicinity of [[Delphi]].

*'''Day 47 - Evening:''' Starbuck and Apollo interrogate Valence to no effect.

*'''Day 48 - Morning:''' Grey addresses the Quorum. [[Safiya Sanne]] changes [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Picon|Picon]]'s vote to Zarek, bringing his total to 5 of 12.

*'''Day 48 - Afternoon:''' Zarek serves [[Ellen Tigh]] a drink and inquires after the whereabouts of Valence. Baltar interviewed by [[James McManus]]. Valence found dead. Tigh, Apollo and Starbuck consult with Roslin on security.

*'''Day 48 - Evening:''' Roslin travels to ''Cloud Nine'' and asks Grey to drop out of the race and recruits Baltar to replace him, interrupting his "exclusive" with Palacios. Apollo and Starbuck flirt in the bunk on ''[[Galactica]]''.

*'''Day 49 - Morning:''' Baltar elected Vice President, with Roslin casting the tie-breaking vote.

*'''Day 49 - Evening:''' Victory party for Baltar. Roslin dances with Adama, Ellen with Saul Tigh, Billy with Dualla, Starbuck with Apollo and Baltar.

*'''Day 49 - Night:''' Helo and Caprica Valerii infiltrate the spaceport. Helo discovers Valerii is a Cylon and flees.

''Note: Roslin states that the chair will remain open for nominations for 72 hours on the morning of Day 47, but the [[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II|next episode]] clearly takes place the day after the victory party, and is stated to take place on Day 50. Perhaps the Quorum moved to close the nomination period early after the nomination of a strong candidate.''

===[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]===
*'''Day 50 - Early Morning:''' Apollo and Adama spar. Baltar and Starbuck have sex. Caprica Valerii catches up with Helo at [[Delphi]], and he shoots her. ''Galactica'' Boomer contemplates suicide. [[Cottle]] examines Roslin and gives her "six months, at the outside".

*'''Day 50 - Morning:''' Starbuck and an (already) drunken Baltar exchange innuendos over the officer's card game.

*'''Day 50 - Afternoon:''' Roslin briefs Baltar on her economic agenda. [[Number Six|Six]] warns him that "it's not safe to remain on ''Galactica''". ''Galactica'' Boomer and Crashdown stumble upon [[Kobol]]. Helo holds Caprica Valerii at gunpoint. Apollo and Starbuck exchange blows.

*'''Day 50 - Evening:''' Roslin examines an orbital photograph of Kobol and has a vision of the [[City of the Gods]]. Adama decides to send an expedition, which Baltar demands to accompany. ''Galactica'' Boomer shoots herself on Baltar's advice. In private, Roslin unsuccessfully petitions Commander Adama to send the Cylon Raider after the [[Arrow of Apollo]] on [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)#Caprica|Caprica]].

*'''Day 50 - Night:''' [[Battle of Kobol]] begins. Scout party ambushed by a [[Cylon Basestar]] at Kobol. Starbuck devises a plan to deliver a nuke to the [[Basestar (RDM)|basestar]] using the captured [[Cylon Raider|Raider]] and [[Cylon Transponder]]. Roslin convinces her to purloin the Raider and take it to Caprica instead.

===[[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part II]]===
*'''Day 51 - Early Morning:''' Survivors of [[Raptor 1]] escape the wreck. Baltar passes out. Adama terminates Roslin's presidency. Apollo and Tigh plan an assault on ''[[Colonial One]]''. Adama dispatches the wounded Boomer to take out the basestar. Caprica Valerii leads Helo to [[Delphi Museum of the Colonies]].

*'''Day 51 - Morning:''' Starbuck arrives at Caprica, retrieves the [[Arrow of Apollo]], kills a copy of [[Number Six|Six]] and meets up with Helo. ''Galactica's'' [[Marines|marines]] board ''[[Colonial One]]''. Apollo mutinies, Roslin stands down. Baltar has a vision of the shape of things to come. ''Galactica'' Boomer confronts other Valerii copies on the basestar. She returns from her mission and shoots Commander Adama.

==Season 2==
''Note: Season 2 dates are rough guesses, at best. See [[Talk:Re-Imagined Series Timeline|Talk]] for detailed rationalle.''

===[[Scattered]]===
*'''Day 51 - Morning:''' A [[Cylon Basestar]] ambushes the fleet, which jumps to an emergency rendezvous point. ''Galactica'' jumps to wrong coordinates and is forced to backtrack. [[Battle of Kobol#Scattering of the Fleet|''Galactica'' holds off basestar]] and returns to bulk of the Fleet.

===[[Valley of Darkness]]===
*'''Day 51'''
* ''Galactica'' is partially disabled by a Cylon [[Virus|virus]] while a [[Cylon Centurion]] boarding party attempts to [[Battle of Kobol#Cylon Boarding|commandeer the ship]].

===[[Fragged]]===
*'''Day 51'''
* [[Crashdown]] is shot by [[Gaius Baltar]] on Kobol after threatening to shoot [[Cally]].

===[[Resistance]]===
*'''Day 52:''' Tigh interrogates Tyrol and imprisons him with ''Galactica'' Boomer.

*'''Day 54 - Morning:''' [[Cally]] blackmails Baltar into running his Cylon test on Tyrol. Baltar notes to Tigh that he should assume Roslin's duties; he invites Baltar to join her in the brig. ''[[Aturian]]'' stops refining Tylium in protest of Martial law. Apollo briefs pilots in the ready room. Dualla checks out his ass. On Caprica, Starbuck and Helo meet [[Samuel Anders]]'s [[Resistance (movement)|Resistance]].

*'''Day 54 - Afternoon:''' Tigh deploys troops to vessels refusing to supply ''Galactica''. The [[Gideon]] Massacre takes place. Roslin is chagrined. Apollo initiates his escape plan.

*'''Day 54 - Evening:''' Saul and Ellen Tigh argue and have sex. Baltar poisons Tyrol and interrogates Boomer. Starbuck and Helo arrive at the Resistance HQ with Anders.

*'''Day 55 - Morning:''' Apollo delivers briefing, orchestrates Roslin's escape. The deck gang begin construction of a new brig cell for Humano-Cylons.

*'''Day 55 - Afternoon:''' Apollo & co. disembark at the [[Cloud Nine]] and link up with [[Tom Zarek]]. Starbuck and Anders flirt.

*'''Day 55 - Evening:''' Commander Adama wakes up. Cally kills ''Galactica'' Boomer.

===[[The Farm]]===
*'''Day 58:''' - According to a [[List of Deleted Scenes (RDM)|deleted scene]], this episode takes place one week after "Fragged".

===[[Home, Part I]]===
*'''Day ?? - Morning:''' Kara Thrace's captured [[Cylon Heavy Raider|Heavy Raider]] jumps into orbit around Kobol. Tom Zarek atempts to have it shot down because its not the same Raider that Thrace departed in. Thrace lands her Heavy Raider aboard the ''[[Astral Queen]]'' and is reunited with President Rolsin and Lee Adama. Lee learns that in addtion to Karl Agathon, Thrace brought back the Caprican copy of Sharon Valerii and pulls a gun on her. After defusing the situation with words, Roslin orders Valerii thrown out the airlock, but relents and has her thrown into the brig instead after hearing both Thrace and Agathon's protest. Commander Adam promotes Captain George Birch to be the new ''Galactica'' CAG.

*'''Day ?? - Afternoon:''' Commander Adama holds a press conference reguarding the escape of President Roslin from his custody and the ensuing marshall law. Adama ajourns the press conference however when the questions become incresingly pointed.

*'''Day ??+1 - Morning:''' Cpt. Birch on his first mission as CAG is responcible for an accident that nearly kills Lt. Louanne Katraine. Zarek and his trusted lieutenant Mier plot to overthrow Roslin and take command of the fleet.

*'''Day ??+1 - Afternoon:''' Cpt. Birch oversees his second fight mishap as CAG when two ships he's suposed to be guiding colide with one another during a routine refuling operation.

*'''Day ??+2 - Morning:''' Roslin's party, made up of Thrace, Cpt. Adama, Elosha, Zarek, Mier, Agathon, Boomer, two Zarek red-shirts, two Roslin red-shirtsand Rolsin herself land on Kobol. Using Valerii as their guide they set out in search of the [[Tomb of Athena]].

*'''Day ??+2 - Afternoon:''' The party is ambushed by Cylon Centurions after Elosha accidently trips a "bouncing betty" land mine and it blows up in her face, killing her. The surviving party is saved when Valerii uses an RPG launcher to destroy the last remaining Centurion.

*'''Day ??+2 - Evening:''' Adama makes the decision to put the fleet back together after a long and heartfelt talk with Dee.

===[[Home, Part II]]===
*'''Day 66-67:''' - [[Raptor 1]] lands on Kobol with [[William Adama]] and his contingent. [[Tomb of Athena]] found.
*'''Day 68-74:''' - Roslin reestablished as lawful President; martial law ends. Fleet reunification.

===[[Final Cut]]===
*'''Day ~75''' [[D'anna Biers]] produces a documentary aboard the Galactica about the "[[Gideon massacre]]". It is a generally positive documentary broadcast to the fleet. Unknown to the fleet, it is also surveilance by the Cylons into the status of the Colonial fleet.

===[[Flight of the Phoenix]]===
*'''Day 86''' - Cally released from the brig.
*'''Day ??''' - [[Great Cylon Turkey Shoot|''Galactica'' routs hundreds of Cylon fighters]] without a casualty while dispatching a [[Logic bomb]] from their ship computers. The [[Blackbird]] prototype stealth fighter is built by [[Chief Tyrol]] and a team of Galactica crewmembers. Lt. Thrace flies it on it's first test flight, quickly proving it's value as a stealth craft.

===[[Pegasus (episode)|Pegasus]]===
*'''c. Day 175''' - ''Galactica'' encounters battlestar ''[[Pegasus (RDM)|Pegasus]]''. Admiral [[Helena Cain]] assumes fleet command.
*'''c. Day 175'''- [[Galen Tyrol|Tyrol]] accidentally kills ''Pegasus'' Lieutenant [[Alistair Thorne|Thorne]] and is arrested with [[Karl Agathon|Helo]].
*'''c. Day 175''' - A standoff between the two battlestars begins over the treatment of the arrested ''Galactica'' crew.

===[[Resurrection Ship, Part I]]===
*'''Day ~175''' - The standoff between the two battlestars ends in an uneasy truce, and a tense summmit aboard Colonial One, after Lt. Thrace returns from an unauthorized surveilance mission to the Cylon fleet, where she gains critical evidence on a Cylon ship. Dr. Baltar is able to determine from [[Gina]] that this is the [[Resurrection Ship]] that [[humano-cylons]] need to resurrect so far from the Cylon homeworld.

===[[Resurrection Ship, Part II]]===
*'''Day ~177''' - The Battlestars Galactica and Pegasus together engage the Cylon fleet in the [[Battle of the Resurrection Ship]], where they achieve an overwhelming victory with relatively light casualties, destroying not only the Resurrection Ship, but at least one other Cylon base star. The Blackbird is destroyed in the battle, although Lee Adama manages to eject successfully. At least one Raptor is also lost in the battle. Admiral Cain is killed by Gina, after Baltar helps her escape captivity. He then proceeds to hide her in the fleet.

===[[Epiphanies]]===
*'''Day 189''' - President Roslin near death; orders death of Cylon fetus. A [[Demand Peace|Cylon peace movement]] begins to pose as a threat to [[The Fleet (RDM)|the Fleet]]. The Cylon fetus is eventually spared, when Dr. Baltar determines how to use Cylon fetal stem cells to treat Roslin's cancer. Dr. Baltar smuggles the nuclear weapon that he was provided with for work on his Cylon detector to the Cylon peace movement aboard Cloud Nine.

===[[Black Market]]===
*'''Day ???''' - Commander Fisk is murdered aboard the Battlestar Pegasus. Lee Adama begins an investigation into the matter.
*'''Day ???''' - Lee Adama kills [[Phelan]], leader of the [[Black market (organization)|Black Market]] crime syndicate.
*'''Day ???''' - Lee Adama is debriefed on the entire incident regarding the murder of Fisk and the Black Market.

===[[Scar]]===
*'''Day ~220''' - After 29 days in an asteroid field (putting us at Day 218 or later), the ''[[Majahual|Majahual's]]'' mining operation has produced enough raw materials for the construction of two new Viper squadrons using the fabrication facilities aboard the [[Pegasus (RDM)|Battlestar ''Pegasus'']]. Attacks on the operation continue by the ace Cylon raider known as [[Scar (Raider)|Scar]], making it the source of a heated competition between Lt. Katraine and Cpt. Thrace.

==Future Events==
*'''Day 86 + 1 month (c. Day 116):''' Roslin's maximum life expectancy as of Day 86 ([[Flight of the Phoenix]])
*'''Day 54 + 3 months (c. Day 144):''' [[Samuel Anders]]'s [[Resistance (movement)|Resistance]]'s anti-radiation med supply projected to run out ("[[Resistance]]").
*'''Day 12 + 7 Months (c. Day 222):''' Elections due for President of the [[The Twelve Colonies (RDM)|Twelve Colonies]] ([[Bastille Day]]).
*'''Day 50 + 6 Months (c. Day 230):''' Roslin's maximum life expectancy as of Day 50 ([[Kobol's Last Gleaming, Part I]]).
**Roslin promised to get the fleet to [[Earth]] before her death '''(c. Day 230)''' ("[[Fragged]]").
*'''Day 24 + 9 Months (c. Day 294):''' [[Sharon Valerii (Caprica copy)|"Caprica" Sharon Valerii]]'s daughter born. (see [[#Notes|Notes]] below)
*'''Day 36 + 3 years (c. Day 1131):''' Fleet runs out of [[tylium]] fuel that was resupplied from the Cylon asteroid mine; assuming that no other sources have been found before this date. ([[The Hand of God]])

== Notes ==

*The above day listings use a simplistic calendar system with 30 day months and no leap years. The colonial calendar may be more sophisticated.
*The date of Valerii and Agathon's child is speculated, assuming that the [[Humano-Cylon]]s share the same gestation period that humans do, and that the birth of their hybrid daughter is not [[Wikipedia:premature birth|premature]].

[[Category:A to Z]] [[Category:RDM]] [[Category:Colonial History|*]] [[Category:Behind the Scenes]]