Battlestar Wiki - User contributions [en]

User:Gozzard

2006-09-19T05:37:45Z

Gozzard:

Hi, I'm a big BSG fan, and a big sci fi fan in general. Didn't see the original series. Um... 24, male, from S.California. Isn't it odd that in many big battles in season 2, almost nobody dies? There're nukes going off everywhere, dogfights all over, but a week later you find out only 5 people died? Still though, it's my favorite show of all time.

User talk:Gozzard

2006-09-19T05:37:04Z

Gozzard: /* Welcome to Battlestar Wiki! */

== Welcome to Battlestar Wiki! ==
Welcome to the Wiki, Gozzard. Feel free to tell us about yourself on [[User:Gozzard|your user page]]. Before you get started on other edits, please read the [[Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions|Standards and Conventions]], which details the policies we use in editing pages (this differs from many other wikis in its particular use of verb tense, abbreviations, formatting, and the like). If you need help in learning how to use the MediaWiki tools supported here, you can check out the [[BW:TUT|tutorial]] and the [[BW:MARK|wiki markup code]] pages for assistance.

Please read the articles [[Battlestar Wiki:What is Battlestar Wiki|"What is Battlestar Wiki"]] and [[Battlestar Wiki:What Battlestar Wiki is not|"What Battlestar Wiki is Not."]] This important information details what contributions are acceptable in this encyclopedia.

We encourage you to participate in any [[Battlestar Wiki:Project List|projects]] on Battlestar Wiki, which work to enhance a particular subject or extension of the wiki. These include the [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|Original Series Article Development Project]] and several [[Battlestar Wiki:Translation Project|language translations of Battlestar Wiki]]. If you have a new idea for a new project, visit the [[BW:TANK|Think Tank]], where we hash out large-scale ideas before implementing them.

Also, if you have any questions or suggestions you wish to offer, please feel free to do so either on an article's talk page that's relevant to the subject, the [[Battlestar Wiki:Wikipedian Quorum|Wikipedian Quorum]] or [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|the Administrators' noticeboard]]. Remember to sign your posts on any talk pages using four tildes (~~~~)!

We look forward to your contributions to the community!
--[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 08:17, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

User talk:CalculatinAvatar

2006-09-19T05:33:09Z

Gozzard: /* Happy Birthday */

==Welcome==

Welcome aboard, CalculatinAvatar. I've enjoyed your edits so far. Keep it up. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:54, 28 December 2005 (EST)

: Also welcome. Additionally: [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Launch_tubes&curid=2481&diff=20987&oldid=18340&rcid=18277 good eye]. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:27, 28 December 2005 (EST)

== DeZervAdLy lOw? ==

Don't be so hard on yourself. I think I was struggling to understand Photoshop (back when it didn't have a number behind it) when I was your age... I also had to walk uphill in a snowstorm in my bare feet just to ... --[[User:Watcher|Watcher]] 06:27, 30 December 2005 (EST)
:That was just an attempt at wit. Self-esteem issues are for losers. :-X --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 07:36, 30 December 2005 (EST)

== We Have a New "Peter Farago"! :) ==

With Peter's recent promotion to administrator, I was hoping someone would come along and nail me when my edits get sloppy and inconcise. Welcome to the team, and never apologize for being picky here. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:47, 30 December 2005 (EST)

:Slow down a bit, cowboy! The major modifications that Peter is doing for the revised Cylon pages can get really confusing if we dive in to edit them while he's moving, so steer clear of them until the framework is up. Else, Peter may have to revert your edits in order to get the pages started. Don't want to have you do things twice. Thanks! --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:49, 30 December 2005 (EST)

:: You're implying that, because Peter is an Admin now, that he'll stop re-editing your edits? I don't imagine that the paper work is ''that'' bad. *wink* --[[User:Day|Day]] 20:36, 31 December 2005 (EST)

:::You're right. In fact, it will probably be worse. The Concision Fairy is now a Concision Deity. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 10:59, 1 January 2006 (EST)

:::: Hah! Hahaha! Indeed. Heh. --[[User:Day|Day]] 20:13, 1 January 2006 (EST)

== ROSE BOWL ==

''BWAHAHAHAHAHA!'' I hope you watched the game, man. Oh wow. I'm so jazzed I'll never go to sleep again, ever. Did you catch the statement Matt Leinart made after the game? I thought it was in bad taste, personally. Mack did the right thing, I think, in making appriciating USC's team the first order of business in his trophey speech. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:18, 5 January 2006 (EST)
:I watched the game, but I turned it off after the game itself was over. I'm sure I'll catch Leinart's comment later on tonight in an article or the like, but you might not get to read about the "You're wasting my time!" a USC fan said to that Texas defensive back leaving the field with a broken arm. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:26, 5 January 2006 (EST)

:: *jawdrop* Wasting his time? Jeez! That's... so classless. Anyway, Leinart said (a close paraphrase, here), "I still think we're the better team." I mean--I'll leave it open to possibility that, if we were to do best of three or five or something that USC might beat us more than we would beat them, but--honestly... How, based on that one meeting, can you say something so conclusive? ''Anyway'', nice edit with the parenthasis removal over on the Galactica running tallies. --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:52, 5 January 2006 (EST)

== Challenge ==

I challenge someone to make a page at [[Template:List_of_templates]] that consists only of a redirect to http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=Special:Allpages&namespace=10 so that [[Help:Template]] can have its section 'List of Current Templates' replaced with an instance of that template. You could also find some other way to include the content of the specified page inline in [[Help:Template]]. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:55, 6 January 2006 (EST)

:Take it up with the mediawiki people. This is an explicitly acknowleged limitation of lists vs. categories. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:06, 6 January 2006 (EST)

::So it's just impossible, then? That makes me feel better at failing to do it, I suppose. I thought the difficulty was in getting it to take the "namespace=10" argument while still being an internal link. I was sort of hoping there was some force-redirect (even to apparently "external" links) or cute way of getting a <nowiki>[[foo]]</nowiki>-style link with an argument delivered. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 02:43, 6 January 2006 (EST)

== TOS Grammar Patrol ==
The grammar/spellchecking of the ENTIRE TOS category is '''awesome'''. Although not explicitly listed as goal of [[Battlestar Wiki:Original Series Article Development Project|OSAD]], it is something I've always hoped might get done. I really appreciate you and [[User:Grafix|Grafix]] checking those over. Now that most of the TOS articles have images and some content, this is the type of fine-tuning that they need. Thanks! --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 15:13, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

== A Category Just For You ==

[[:Category:Articles for Grammar, Spelling, and/or Organizational review]] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 22:05, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

:Thank you. I hate to be picky but [[:Category:Articles for grammar, spelling, and organizational review]] would be better. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 22:12, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

==RFA==
CalculatinAvatar, I have [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/CalculatinAvatar| nominated you for adminship]]. Please indicate whether you accept by following the instructions located [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else:|here]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:29, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
:Thank you; I appreciate the trust. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 01:38, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

== Congrats! ==

Congrats, on behalf of the community, I have promoted you to administrator status! Should you have any questions, feel free to ask any one of your fellow administrators for assistance. -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 08:20, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

:Congrats, CA! You are now the junior admin, so (much to [[User:Day|Day's]] happiness, I'm sure), you are also the new '''Mop Boy'''! (Ah, I love the scent of Pine Sol in the mornin'.) We expect clean floors in the administrator's break room (Peter sometimes spills his tea, and Steelviper leaves cookie crumbs all over). Don't mind Joe when you see him in his bathrobe in the morning--Lords know we all try to ignore it, too. You'll notice a couple of new features on your interface. Don't be like Steelviper and get so zealous that you block yourself out of the wiki! :) The rollback feature does not allow you to leave a comment, so be sure to update the talk of both page and user (my recommendation) should you use it. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 09:56, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

::Congrats! And yeah... should you ever block yourself indefinitely, it is possible to unblock yourself. When you get as many blocks under your belt as I have (I don't know if Spence's duplicate blocks of people that I already infinite banned should count towards his totals), mistakes are bound to happen:
::* 14:48, 10 March 2006 Steelviper blocked "Steelviper (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Blatant search engine spamming - repeat offender)
::* 14:54, 10 March 2006 Steelviper blocked "Dharkbayne (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Blatant search engine spamming - repeat offender)
::* 14:55, 10 March 2006 Steelviper unblocked Steelviper (contribs) (I think he learned his lesson. (Don't block yourself, idiot.))
::(Note that you can still block people while you're blocked. You just can't edit.) Anyway. Keep up the good work, and don't clean up to cookie crumbs too quickly. (Five second rule in '''full''' effect.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 10:31, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

:::I'm completely confident I'm going to block myself (at least once), then come back here after failing to remember that; thanks in advance for the helping hand in a time of need. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 21:29, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

::My last final is tomorrow, so I will get right on that. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 21:29, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

:Thank you for the promotion and the congratulations. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]] 21:29, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

== Hiatus ==

I have been absent of late due to an ethernet line at my house becoming faulty, likely in a splice somewhere in the middle of a 300' underground run. I'm currently in Pasadena for work; oddly enough, being ~1800 miles from home has enhanced my internet connection. I intend to return to my normal frequency of edits after a little while catching up on current events here. I apologize for the neglect. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 19:47, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
: No problem CA. Thanks for communicating this info! Hope you get the problems sorted out soon! :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 22:00, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

== Copy/Paste ==

Just a copy and paste. Didn't even realize it was still set to Ships. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 12:18, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
: Yeah, I gathered that; it's not a big deal. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 14:55, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

== *Knock* *knock* ==

Hey, man. In case you hadn't seen it, we're seeking Admin consensus on a solution to [[Battlestar Wiki:Requests for comment/Shane|this RFC]]. There's no rush, as voting doesn't end until July 3rd and we don't seem exactly split on the idea, but I thought I'd point it out anyway, just, as I've said above, in case. Cheers! --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 23:24, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

:I saw it, and, to be perfectly honest, I was sort of camping on the issue. (I had missed Shane's mention of a period without a computer for other reasons, which would have prompted more haste on my part.) To be honest, regarding the RFC and both of the recent RFA's, I felt some deliberation would assist in reaching an objective decision. I could vote neutral, but it isn't quite accurate for "undecided" and would need to be changed later, anyway. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 00:35, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

:: I didn't mean to rush. Sorry if it seemed that way. I initially had posted a "This is not a vote" vote because I wanted to mull it over. Anyway... uh. There's that. --[[User:Day|Day]] ([[User talk:Day|Talk]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard|Admin]]) 02:48, 28 June 2006 (CDT)

== Hangerbay ==

The hangerbay has images on it now. Gives it more of a feel on what it would look like. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 21:52, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

== Mathematics ==

Sorry, for some inexplicable reason I have never visited your talk page before. I earned a B.S. in Applied Mathematics many moons ago. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 18:40, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

:Excellent, it's always nice to find a common interest. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 18:49, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

== You back full time? ==

: ;-) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 21:53, 3 September 2006 (CDT)

::Yep, our semester has started already. The dorm connection is generally stable and I'm on at all kinds of fun times, sometimes even during hours people are "supposed" to be awake. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 02:17, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

== BsgMonoBook ==

The new CSS is uploaded. Check it out make sure it's ok, since I know you use it. You mentioned the Infobox lines. That should now be fixed. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 20:02, 7 September 2006 (CDT)
:It's fixed, thanks. I don't normally use it, though; I switched to it for a while after the update but have since gone back. {{unsigned|CalculatinAvatar}}

== Happy Birthday ==

You may now have a Cylon Shot legally. ;-) --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 08:15, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
:Have a drink on me. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 08:23, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
::By your command. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 08:28, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
:Thanks, I was considering that, but it's kind of complicated; I don't think I could get one in a bar or even acquire the ingredients easily. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 08:28, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
::Actually, it makes me nauseous just looking at the recipe. Looks like a bad hangover in a glass ;), so you are probably lucky to avoid it. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 08:40, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
:::Horray ^_^ ''*lays out a line of cylon shooters for everyone*'' yay --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 09:16, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
:Indeed, happy birthday! (And stay away from the shooters.) :-) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] [[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]] 11:21, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
::Thank you. By your command. --[[User:CalculatinAvatar|CalculatinAvatar]]([[Special:Contributions/CalculatinAvatar|C]]-[[User talk:CalculatinAvatar|T]]) 16:23, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
::Happy birthday. Drink all you want. If you hurl in the break room, Mercifull [[Mop Boy|has an extra supply of Pine Sol on hand]]. Not sure if any of us will be able to hold your head as you Yawn, though; we'll be too busy editing and you can't type well with one hand. :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 18:01, 14 September 2006 (CDT)
::Hi. Thanks for your comment on the Cylon Raider page. Although I can't say I completely agree with you, but that is the most coherent, supportive, informative, and intelligent response I have ever received online! Thanks! And happy birthday too! [[User:Gozzard|Gozzard]] 00:33, 19 September 2006 (CDT)

User talk:CalculatinAvatar

2006-09-19T05:32:02Z

Gozzard: /* Happy Birthday */

User talk:Gozzard

2006-09-09T08:43:41Z

Gozzard:

User talk:Gozzard

2006-09-09T08:42:28Z

Gozzard:

Talk:Raider (RDM)/Archive 1

2006-09-09T08:36:39Z

Gozzard: /* Image Discussion */

==New Article Structure==

I have edited this page only to include the information about the raider in the new series, moved all data from TOS raider to its own article and moved the video game raider to its own article under the video game ships category. I have put the main raider as the article and moved the "piloted" raider to the bottom as note, as it is not canon information.--[[User:Lgamser|Lgamser]] 20:22, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

And can we get a new image of the raider, with it being in space, for the ship portal, and we can then put that picture as the main picture of the article, and move the one that is currently the main one now, in the article somewhere.--[[User:Lgamser|Lgamser]] 20:25, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

==Concept drawings==
I have a question about the use of some of the concept drawings for the new raider. First of all, there are many concept drawings available here[http://www.galacticastation.com/Gallery/Artwork/gallery.htm] at Galactica Station. I know that many of them are not related to the current raider. However, There are some really interesting pics of the brain and how it is connected to the ship, as well as a depiction of a Colonial pilot inside after the brain has been removed (much Like Kara Thrace had done). My question is, are we able to use these images in this article? I would like to see some imagery around the design of the raider and it's internal structure. What do people think of this? I'm not even sure if we can use these pics, but if they are original drawings for the series...wouldn't that fall under fair use?--[[User:Gallion|Gallion]] 08:03, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

:While I agree the pics are very cool and give a great insight we have to remember that concept art is just that... Concept. Concept art does not always relate to the final product so isnt really [[canon]] in the RDM universe. Perhaps they could be added to the gallery provided a notice on the canonicity is provided alongside it on the image page? --[[User:Mercifull|Mercifull]] ([[User talk:Mercifull|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mercifull|Contribs]]) 08:46, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

:: I truly agree with the fact that they are not canon per-se, but under the special notice you had mentioned, I think it might be a nice minor addition. I'll wait a while before I do anything of course, just to see what people are thinking, and if people are in favour of adding them to the gallery with the afore mentioned canonicity note, then I'll go about getting it started.--[[User:Gallion|Gallion]] 10:37, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

:::Some of those concept art drawings don't even look like the final Raider design. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]])

:::: Oh, This is very true, I would propose only to include the ones that reference the brain and the Colonial Pilot in said brain cavity. Specifically this one I guess: [http://www.galacticastation.com/Gallery/Artwork/raiderintart40dv.htm]--[[User:Gallion|Gallion]] 12:51, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

:::::Yeah, we could use the ones that are the concepts for the actual raiders used, including that one.--[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 14:42, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

::::::Ok, well I'll go for it and get it up and running, we'll try it out for a while at least.--[[User:Gallion|Gallion]] 07:11, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
:::::::So, I did it...if its horrible, I'll totally change it (or anyone should change it if they want)..but what do you guys think? I'll add some more drawings that relate closely to the brain and internal workings of the final raider design if this is a good format.--[[User:Gallion|Gallion]] 08:37, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
::::::::AAAARRRRRRRRGGGG! I'm not even sure if these are Chu's...I'm pretty sure..but there is no signature!! uh oh... ok...UPDATE: ok they are [[Ken Rabehl]]'s concept drawings..these ones are anyway.--[[User:Gallion|Gallion]] 08:48, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

==Piloted Raiders==
Is there anything at all from the re-imagined series about a early piloted raider, or is this just speculation? --Glenmcbeth

:Well, in the Mini-series before they engage the NEW Cylon Raiders for the first time, the pilots are chattering over their radios and say that no one has seen the Cylons in 40 years, so they don't know how their ships will look different now--->one guy points out (accurately) that the basic design should be that of a 'flying wing'; so it's implied they were thinking of the old ones. That, and I think a model of one of the old ones was seen in the Galactica-musuem; anyway, when they see the NEW Raiders for the first time, a pilot reacts in shock that "no one's flying it!"; the "head" part was too small to have a Cylon Centurion sitting inside of it flying it; this would seem to imply that the OLD Raiders were exactly like TOS ones: with a Cylon flying them. ---Ricimer, 22, Sept, 2005

:: I don't know that that's enough to warrant mentioning that they were piloted by three Centurians and all the details that we have. I think it would be best to make "Cylong Raider (RDM)" nearly entirely about the autonomous Raiders we see so frequently in the series with perhaps a note in the Notes section mentioning that pilots expressed surprise that no one was piloting them and what their comments were, exactly, about the flying wing deal. Let the reader decide. I don't like displaying a picture at all. The museum was a nod to TOS, and I don't think it counts as precisely canon. Obviously, in the early stages of the first Cylon War, the Cylons were the same as built by the Colonials and were flying Colonial craft, but by the time it got to where they were working out of Basestars, I imagine they were manufacturing their own craft, too, so there's no reason to think that the craft the pilots were thinking of was Colonial in origin at all. I also dislike the mention of common tactics... That's never been mentioned on-screen in RDM at all, I don't think. --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:20, 19 January 2006 (EST)

==Split?==
This needs to be split into three articles - one for TOS, and one each for the piloted and autonomous RDM models. Anybody have ideas for article titles?

Additionally, should this be "Cylon Raider" or just "Raider"? We don't call them Colonial Vipers, after all. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:49, 2 January 2006 (EST)

:I agree that "Raider" should suffice. "Cylon Raider" might be necessary if we needed to distinguish it from a Colonial model. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 14:06, 2 January 2006 (EST)

:: Definately split into (TOS) and (RDM) name spaces. I think we could stick with the name Cylon Raider. I think they've called them that several times in the series and I take it to be the more "official" name (from the Colonial POV. Maybe the Cylons call them Daggits. Who knows?) --[[User:Day|Day]] 06:20, 19 January 2006 (EST)

i ahve deleted the tos cylon raider information off page and directed users to the main tos raider article. we should continue with this, and do the same with the video game raider.--[[User:Lgamser|Lgamser]] 19:27, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
:Is [[Cylon Raider]] to become a disambation page? --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 19:36, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

No i have just moved it to a new name space to rdm, so we are still retaining it, but just moved it to a new name space--[[User:Lgamser|Lgamser]] 19:43, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
:k. Tons of edits on pages that link to [[Cylon Raider]]. That's why I ask before I start going through the pages that have them. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] ([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]]) 19:46, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

I think we need to fix this split: now there's no piloted Raider info at all. Yes, we know from the Miniseries that old Piloted Raiders look like TOS Raiders, and Ripper in the Miniseries seemed surprised that they ''were not'' piloted, positing that the old ones were. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:42, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

==Virus==
Kahran wrote:
:''The new Raider is also succeptable to the same type of system-crashing virus which it has been known to transmit itself. ("[[Flight of the Pheonix]]")''
Not correct. First of all, we've never actually seen a raider transmit a virus. In the miniseries, they exploited a back door in the CNP to shut down the fleet directly; in "Valley of Darkness" we saw a virus but for logical reasons, it could not possibly have originated from outside the ship; and in "Flight of the Phoenix" we again saw a backdoor being exploited, this time in the other direction. Secondly, it is completely unsurprising that a Cylon agent such as Caprica-Valerii would have knowledge of how to access such a backdoor in her own people's technology. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 05:37, 4 January 2006 (EST)

:I'm questioning a part of the reasoning here. In the miniseries, the raiders exploit the CNP backdoors and command shutdown of Colonial systems. Yes; no "virus" is transmitted there. But in "Scattered" we hear Gaeta specifically discussing an infiltration attempt--

::Gaeta: "Here they come. Cylons are hacking our network. Attempting to access our gateway." 

:Later, ''Galactica'' contracts a virus. Since ''Galactica's'' systems were never networked prior and never have used the CNP (which, combined with Gaeta's information, confirms CNP is still not installed), a virus is most likely to have come from the outside, that some ship in the Cylon attack body was at work in cracking ''Galactica's'' computer network and infecting it a'la the tactics used in Cylon War I. This does NOT necessarily mean that the fighters did it (although screen shots show Gaeta's firewall ''fail'' moments before he disconnects it). The Centurions that board could have installed it, but we have no information to confirm this, nor does this make sense. Such an infection would only affect maybe one subsystem since the Centurions could not gain access to all primary, now-again isolated subsystems. They likely could infect only one, and that infection could not spread. Same would be true if a Cylon agent were to install a virus; the isolated subsystems would make it too impossible to infect all at once without attracting attention (Gaeta's and the rest of CIC, that is). The Cylon attack body is the likely cause of the virus, since it affects many subsystems that are normally isolated and they had the means to infect through their hacking. A virus isn't "transmitted," but installed once infiltration is successful. Kahran's wording is incorrect. The sentence should say: The new Raider is subceptible to system-crashing viruses if the fighter's subsystems themselves are infiltrated (Flight of the Phoenix)"--[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:07, 4 January 2006 (EST)

::I'll reply backwards, since your last point was the most relevant one - "The new Raider is subceptible to system-crashing viruses if the fighter's subsystems themselves are infiltrated" is true, but it's also ''obvious'', and therefore not worth stating. In fact, there is no computer system for which that statement is ''not'' true.

::Second, as regarding the events of "Valley of Darkness": Having two computers networked is not sufficient to make them vulnerable to attack. In order to receive a "virus" or any other sort of malware from off-ship, one of the components must have had a connection to the outside world via some sort of RF ("wireless") frequency. Thus, of the four computers Gaeta networked, at least one must already have been vulnerable.

::However, Galactica's entire design ethos was explicitly meant to separate vulnerable functions. There is no conceivable reason that any of the four systems Gaeta connected (FTL, Navigation, Fire control, Damage control) would need access to a wireless tranceiver. Therefore, the only plausible source for the virus was from ''within'' the ship itself. This does not present much of a contradiction - the simple fact of networking those four systems together would be a great moment of opportunity for an infiltrator to plant a virus for maximum effect. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 14:58, 4 January 2006 (EST)

:::That's a good point, and one I purposefully addressed indirectly in the [[Computers]] article. We have to strike it up to one of three issues: (1) A retcon issue; (2) the mainframe computer (which may handle communications) is the most resistant to infiltration since it must ALWAYS have wireless up and running for fighter chat (DRADIS is managed through the Nav computer), or (3) the comm system is NOT computer-based or operated, but a hardwire system that transmits its data in a manner which cannot infect the mainframe in some manner. When other computers are connected to it via Gaeta's gateway (which also exposes the computers to the hardwired comm system network), the Cylons infiltrate by hacking the exposed ''gateway'' Gaeta created, not the computers. Yes, normally the other computers DON'T need or have access to the each other. But the ''gateway'' created was vulnerable because it's the comm system that's likely used to create one for the networking of the computers. Once the gateway was up, all but the comm system was vulnerable for reasons below.

:::In fact, a part of "Flight of the Phoenix" bears this speculation out: Gaeta has wiped the hard drives of ALL computers while Valerii is working on her unique virus in her head for the Cylon fleet. She transmits it out, but on what? All computers are down. This suggests that the comm systems (connected through her arm from the mainframe, which suggests it and the comm system also have a connection), while monitored through the mainframe, are not entirely computer-based since no computer was up to aid Valerii in hacking the enemy network AND transmitting the virus directly. Gaeta notes the transmission, indicating that comm was still up although the computers are still under restoration. In short, Cylons have never been able to hack ''Galactica's'' mainframe or comm systems, but once that ad hoc gateway was up, the other computers were exposed and the enemy had what they needed to hack in and infect. This doesn't explain the logic bomb, which I think is bad writing: how would it spread over a non-networked series of computers? It would mean that each computer had a copy of the bomb. But then, how would it activate? The comm/mainframe cannot be hacked and so cannot send the "execute" command to the logic bombs on the other computers, right? I smell contrivance, but its the best sense I can make of it. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 15:23, 4 January 2006 (EST)

::::I like the "Gateway attack" scenario (limited window created by Gaeta's jury-rigging), but it seems like all of these scenarios are running under the assumption that the virus/logic bomb infected the system from the outside. That may be the case (and Flight of the Phoenix seemed to prove that it could be transmitted that way, at least to the Raiders), but isn't it possible for ''Galactica'''s systems to have been infected from the ''inside''? With several potential humano-cylons on the loose inside the fleet, it may turn out that some of the computer problems have been done as part of an "inside job". I have NOTHING to support that, but I just wanted to raise the possibility (if it hadn't already been mentioned). --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 16:06, 4 January 2006 (EST)

:::::This is what I've been saying all along. Am I not speaking english? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 16:29, 4 January 2006 (EST)

::::::Didn't see that little bit right there at the end... "would be a great moment of opportunity for an infiltrator to plant a virus for maximum effect" or perhaps I read it as an external attacker. I'm guessing that possibility is generally being overlooked in favor of the more straightforward external network attack. I hope that this angle is explored more and not left to speculation, as I don't think that it can be definitely proven how the system was compromised. (Which is what you've been saying this whole time. At least the message has spread one person further.) --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 16:46, 4 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::I noted the possibility of Cylon agent infiltration, but again this requires the agent to individually infect ALL computers, or place an infection that won't replicate / install itself until/unless computers were networked. That's a whole lot of "if's". It's not that an agent infected the computers isn't possible, but based on what we've seen, it's not probable. We don't know if Biers is off Galactica, but she likely is. We don't know what the remaining agents look like. We do know that that Valerii said what would happen with the infection that did occur. It's even possible that her Galactica counterpart infected systems before she shot Adama. But that conflicts with what Gaeta watched during the jump calcs in Scattered. I just want some source that gives credibility to the internal hypothesis. (See, SV--we sysops are all having a nice, friendly discussion... :) --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 17:33, 4 January 2006 (EST)

::::::::A virus could have been planted (through a hardline, onboard the ship) into one of the four networked systems during Scattered, and then spread to the other three in short order. I think it's actually fairly likely that there's an unknown cylon agent on Galactica - probably somebody of the lower ranks who we haven't seen, or else C-Valerii would have identified him.

::::::::For my sake, could you please try and restate the points in your second post, the one immediately after my reply? I have the feeling you're trying to say something interesting, but your wording is too confusing for me to untangle. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:56, 4 January 2006 (EST)

:::::::::Sure.
::::::::::* Since ''something'' has to be able to send out or match up command recognition codes, the mainframe and comm system work together, although comm (likely not a computer per se) can work independently of any computer system (note Valerii transmitting the virus code to the Cylon fleet in "Phoenix" although ''Galactica's'' computers are down).
::::::::::* I suspect the mainframe is inherently resistant to infection, or isolated from infection despite its role with the comm system. However, the mainframe's ''gateway'', which forms a network if other computers are connected, is not resistant. This is what the Cylons will hack into since the comm system is always up and routes data from it to the mainframe and the gateway. From the gateway a virus enters the most vulnerable computer and copies itself into others. Once situated, it begins its work.
::::::::::* The mainframe (which, as Doral said, may barely deserve the name of "computer") is highly resistant to infection or infiltration. It can also create firewalls to protect itself (Gaeta did this). It's analogous to the Mac OS X computers versus Windows computers today--both do the same, but one is designed well enough not to have infiltration issues as severely as the other. But even the mainframe can be rooted if given time; the Cylon virus adapts and learns.
::::::::::* An internal attack by a Cylon agent is possible but not probable. For what we know, all computers are centrally located in CIC. An agent would have to sit and hack or insert code into each system manually. This would require physical access that only a few have (this adds fire to the Gaeta-is-a-Cylon argument).
::::::::::* Barring plot complication we haven't seen, we are led (and only have evidence aired so far) that the virus attack was external. Otherwise, despite the point that humano-Cylons like to play with their prey, we'd think that the Cylons would have hacked ''Galactica's'' computers and killed the ship by now. Centurions never visited the CIC, so they're out as infectors, unless there was a fiber optic conduit for one of the closed computers they could've used to do so as they marauded the ship.
::::::::::* The "logic bomb" concept was specious; it couldn't travel through to the other computers (no network), and the system failures throughout the ship suggest that the computers fully control ''Galactica's'' subsystems like life support. Of course, the computers probably never fully cleaned, which makes more sense for system failures. Isn't that a network? Doesn't work. By the same token, for Cylons to activate the bomb from their fighter armada implies that Gaeta's ad-hoc network is up again and allowing hack commands to enter ''Galactica.'' BIG, freight-train sized science gaffe for the sake of plot. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 23:01, 4 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::::::: For the sake of speculation, I'm going to state it as a given that the systems are not networked in any traditional sense and that the FTL, Navigation, Fire control, and Damage control computers are infected, and the Nav computer actually does manage DRADIS. Isn't it possible for the Cylons to have taken into account the fact that the ad-hoc network would be disabled before the virus could complete it's run, and build in contingencies for such an event? The DRADIS by nature would require a transceiver of some form. Even if that receiver is not designed to process such information, it would theoretically be possible send some sort of recognizable signal through it to the Nav computer to act as a trigger. Beyond that, the damage control computer would, by necessity, be connected to every system on the ship to monitor for failure conditions. In addition, the other three computers should be able to detect and/or set error condition markers for the systems they monitor and control. While nowhere near an efficient or traditional mode of communication, it could serve in a limited sense. The Cylons would be aware of, if not intimately acquainted with the designs for all battlestars thanks to Number Six's infiltration of the Defense Mainframe. Am I the only one who sees this as plausible? [[User:Durandal|Durandal]] 15:15, 8 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::::::::Triggering a virus through DRADIS is plausible if it's ''already there'', but planting one that way is not. It must have come in through a comm channel (as Spencerian argues) or from inside the ship (as I do). None of the system failures in Flight of the Phoenix require a network to be in place anyway - once the logic bomb had infected the four sub-systems, it would procede to sabotage them independantly. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 15:22, 8 January 2006 (EST)
:::::::::::::: As I said, I was making the fact that the systems were already infected a given. I was simply trying to explain the aparent coordination of the systems going down and how the Cylons kicked it into high gear, so to speak. However, the thought now comes to mind that, aside from the modifications ot CNP, the DRADIS control software could have also been modified pre-infection to enable it's use as a backdoor. (I know, reaching, but it floated to the top of my brain, so I go there...) [[User:Durandal|Durandal]] 15:35, 8 January 2006 (EST)

==Image Discussion==

Okay, I had changed the Raider (new) image to a more accurate image of the raider (of how it really is supposed to look) but Merv changed it back. Instead of changing it back (which would predictably lead him to do the opposite) I leave it as a subject of discussion. I think the other pic, or at least that type of pic, is better than the present one, since it is more representative of the new cylon architecture than the set model, and it is also in its natural habitat. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 22 March 2006
:Actually you did the right think by moving the discussion here. Well, it's not in it's "natural habitat" this is a wireframe picture of a Raider; the skin isn't very detailed and "metallic" but slate gray, and look, the eye isn't even colored in ''red''. --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 21:41, 21 March 2006 (CST)
::What about this one? It's complete, because its the model Zoic used in the end.
[[Image:CyRaider.jpg|thumb|]]
:::Well, I'll just ask again which everyone prefers, if no one answes I'll proceed to putting this pic and seeing how it decelops.... --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 22 March 2006

::No, Sauron, you're still just using a ''model''; it's the default one that Zoic sticks in, but the coloring is all wrong; please don't jump ahead on this one and "if no one answers proceed to use it" (you probably meant this less abrasively than it sounds). --[[User:The Merovingian|The Merovingian]] ([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian|E]]) 23:23, 21 March 2006 (CST)

:::I prefer the screen capture to the render. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 02:25, 22 March 2006 (CST)

::::Well, what I meant with my comment is that if no one answered in a while I would just assume they accepted it., and therefore I would place it. Though I know this is an actual finished model (we see them the same in many times), I shall find a screencap then. I just don't like for the "set" raider to be seen as the New raider, since it doesnt't have exactly the same design, it is noticeably more round and squat than it should be (it is also not as metallic as it should be). --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 22 March 2006

:::It would appear that Sauron18 is advocating for a picture of the ''video game'' Raider. You have to understand, that video game rendering is ''kindergartener crayon-drawing quality'' compared to a professional film-quality rendering. Everything is going to appear drabber, edge-ier (because of the whole thing with facets and polygons), and be distorted at odd viewing angles. Does this denote the "true" look of the object? No. Does this mean there is a different version of the object? No. ''Star Wars'' suffers from this crazed, ignorant fanaticism wherein the video game models are scaled/modelled/depicted in such varying degrees of quality from the original model they are meant to represent (in order to get the game out in a hurry, and/or keep the gameplay efficient), that certain "challenged" individuals get all frothy-mouthed and claim the video game objects as different variants of the object. Soon, you've got fifty different TIE fighters in the SW Universe, all because the rendering of the panels is slightly different from game to game.

:::Big frakkin' deal. A TIE is a TIE is a TIE. Same here... a Raider is a Raider... is a Raider.

:::Now, pardon my rant, but it leads into... I don't consider video game depictions as "official canon". Peripheral, supplemental canon, or canon-taken-with-a-disclaimer, perhaps. With that said, I don't think a rendering from the video game should be used to be the "official representation" of an object like the Raider. The screen capture should be used, or, if you want it to look cleaner, the '''''official''''' for-screen Zoic model rendering should be used. -- [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 09:14, 22 March 2006 (CST)
::::I don't think he means using a video game model but the Zoic CGI one. I'll see if I can find a good shot that shows it's shape well. --[[User:Talos|Talos]] 10:31, 22 March 2006 (CST)

:::::Talos is right, I wasn't talking about the game one (don't know where you got that). I was talking about the Zoic model (the picture of which I posted). I too shall look for an on screen full appeareance. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 22 March 2006

Hello, let me preface by saying that I'm a big fan of BSG (RDM) and I'm very new to wiki, so sorry for any mistakes I make. I have a question about the artwork. While I love the series, I have always been bugged by the striking similarities between the cylon raider and a flying unit in a 1997 video game [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Reign/ Dark Reign] called Cyclone. I found an image online at http://www.csoon.com/issue30/shots/picdr1.jpg. Any suggestion or comments? --[[User:Gozzard|Gozzard]] 03:36, 9 September 2006 (CDT)