|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| : ''For discussions prior to September 2, 2005, [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe.Beaudoin&oldid=12218 click here].'' | | : ''For discussions prior to September 2, 2005, [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe.Beaudoin&oldid=12218 click here].'' |
| | : ''For discussions prior to October 17, 2005, [http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Joe.Beaudoin&oldid=16737 click here].'' |
|
| |
|
| == Character Pages... ==
| |
|
| |
| I wasn't sure where to drop this, so I put it here... I thought about putting it in the update talk, but that didn't seem right, either. I wonder if we shouldn't standardize how the Character pages are laid out (aside from the [[Template:Character Data]], I mean). For instance, [[Lee Adama]]'s looks really sharp. Notice it's got the contents at the top, then his Bio (the title of which might be haggled over later Biography vs. Biographical Notes or whatever), which ties in nicely to the Character Data box. On the other hand, if a page is too short to have or organized such that it doesn't have contents, that might look a little odd (Cf. [[User:Day|Day]]).
| |
|
| |
| On the other hand, we could do something like [[Aaron Doral]]'s page with the intro paragraph to kind of act as that spacer in lieu of the contents listing. However, in cases where you ''do'' have a contents listing this looks, to my eye, not as sharp (Cf. [[Agathon, Karl C.]] which will soon be moved by me to [[Karl C. Agathon]] assuming I can figure out how to do it).
| |
|
| |
| So, Joe and anyone else reading this... Whatcha think? Should we do without the intro and go straight into the Bio with a level 2 heading so that our longer write-ups look sharper? Should we have that intro so that our longer write-ups look less sharp, but our shorter ones look more sharp? Or should we change this based on length, so that there's an intro paragraph if it's too short for contents, but no intro paragraph when it gets long enough for one?
| |
|
| |
| '''OR''' is my aesthetic sense telling me wrong and you guys like things I think are "less sharp" and so we should go with some otehr scheme entirely? --[[User:Day|Day]] 01:51, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :We had the same idea, day. I've started a project page at [[Battlestar Wiki:Characters]]. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 04:00, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
| ::Wonderous! I'm going to move my character-based project notes from my User page to that project page. Collaboration and communication please me. --[[User:Day|Day]] 04:16, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::: Would you mind, Joe, changing the [[Template:Character Data]] talk page to reflect the new fields-that-can-be-invisible? This way we can go through and remove a bunch of people marked "Unknown." --[[User:Day|Day]] 15:14, 9 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Deletions==
| |
|
| |
| Joe, could you either examine the move requests at [[Battlestar Wiki:Characters]] and assist us with moves to article titles already occupied with redirects, or enable me to delete the relevant redirects myself? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 04:53, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
| : I'll aid you as needed. Good project BTW. :-) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:05, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :: Specifically, Joe, we need [[Karl Agathon]] and [[Gaius Baltar]] deleted so that we can move [[Agathon, Karl C.]] and [[Baltar, Gaius]] to them respectively. Thanks. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:18, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| ::: Deleted and moved. Please make sure other pages use the [[Gaius Baltar]] and [[Karl Agathon]] links instead of the redirects! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:43, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :::: We'll keep our eyes out. Do redirects cause more strain on the server or is it more of a cleanliness issue? --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:17, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| ::::: Cleanliness more than anything else. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 19:23, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| I wonder if you could delete this [[:Image:Bastille_Day-Mason.jpg|picture]] of [[Mason]]. For some reason, it won't upload right or something. I've tried (as you can see) a couple of times and I'd like to see if a fresh upload would work. Thanks. --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:20, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :Can we just have a VFD page, actually? I think it might be time to have elections for additional admins, if you're willing. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:49, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :: I'll be looking to get some additional admins in here anyway. I'll just have to set up the process -- probably people can self-nominate themselves, then the community can take a vote on two or three admins -- so that I can leave the "day to day" operations, per se, to the admins. (I'll still do the major stuff, but I'd rather delegate these "day to day" tasks -- such as page deletions and so forth -- to others.)
| |
|
| |
| As for a "VFD" process... I'm not a fan of Wikipedia's VFD, because it causes unnecessary problems between contributors and the process needs work. (I know that there are many competing groups who want the VFD changed out in lieu of something better.) So, while there should be a way to nominate possible articles and images for deletion, I don't believe a VFD is a great way to do so and I don't plan on implementing the VFD process used by Wikipedia on this wiki. Signing off, your benevolent Imperious Leader... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 10:16, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :In the meantime, I've created [[Battlestar Wiki:Stuff for deletion]] to list cruft that clearly ought to be removed. Maybe you can give it a look over from time to time. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:37, 3 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| This thread has kinda moved on from this, but this felt like the best place to mention it. I reloaded the [[Mason]] pic and it's still having a fit. I'm not sure what's up. Would it help if I maybe re-created it and reloaded it? I've got the original, uncropped screen shot still and it wouldn't be hard to recrop. Is it worth trying? --[[User:Day|Day]] 16:39, 4 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Spoiler Policy==
| |
|
| |
| I'm concerned that the discussion and vote on [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Spoiler Policy]] have wide participation, so as to provide a legitimate result. Would you consider advertising it in the site notice for a week or so? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 04:53, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
| : Will do. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:07, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Ban request==
| |
| Joe, I humbly request that you ban user "Philwelch", if you see fit to do so. On Wikipedia.org, he keeps flaming the Cylon and Battlestar Galactica pages, adamant in the belief that "12 Cylon Models" includes Centurions leaving only 11 humanoid ones (nonesensical). He's counterproductive and often makes unsubstantiated jumps of logic. Please, instill the fear of God in him.--Ricimer 31 Aug, 2005
| |
|
| |
| :Oh, let him be. It's not like the issue is cut and dried. Can't we just make a note of the controversy and leave it? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:58, 31 August 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :: Right now, my decision echos Peter's -- make a note of the issue regarding the ambiguity of the statement (because there is ambiguity present in that "12 Models of Cylon" statement) and ensure that all POVs and speculations are treated accordingly and with respect. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:39, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| Joe, I retract any desire to have Philwelch banned: although I have heartily disagreed with him in the past on issues, he is nonetheless an excellent poster contributing much valuable information, as well as policing the wikipedia entries almost as fast as I do against malicious edits (this one guy persistently wanted the Cylon page to say that you can do the "Cylon voice" by speaking into a fan; that doesn't sound like a Cylon, you need a voice synthesizer, etc).
| |
|
| |
| However, I realize I cannot request that someone be immediately banned, but I would like to suggest that you give ''warnings'' leading up to a banning if people make complaints. I would like to point out now that new user "Jzanjani" has proven fairly malicious and he isn't really contributing any valuable material in his edits; after which he has been joking in fits of arrogance that he will start "flame wars" here if they are changed. He's also been deleting my ''entire'' usertalk page (thanks to Peter Fargo for restoring it; I originally restored Jzanjani's talk page after he deleted it because I honestly thought he wasn't allowed to do that; I was unfamiliar with the wiki convention regarding this). He deserves a stern warning that this behavior could lead to banning. ---[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] October 7, 2005
| |
|
| |
| : I must say. <sarcasm>I find the comment he left with his edit rather witty and cutting.</sarcasm> If you've not looked at it, it ''is'' amusing, especially considering that the damage has already been (so easily) undone. --[[User:Day|Day]] 13:05, 7 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| : See my comments about this whole mess on the Cylons [[Talk:Cylons|Talk]] page. Both sides on this are going to an extreme, and need to cool down. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 14:06, 7 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :: I agree. Your mutually hostile behavior towards each other is not constructive or amusing, and as far as I can tell you both bear quite equal responsibility for provoking each other. Rather than resorting to rude pranks and ill-conceived attempts at intimidation, you must at least ''attempt'' civil conversation on the relevant talk pages. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 17:24, 7 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Image Thumbs== | | ==Image Thumbs== |
| Line 67: |
Line 12: |
| :''[[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 16:42, 7 October 2005 (EDT)'' | | :''[[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 16:42, 7 October 2005 (EDT)'' |
|
| |
|
| == Contents? ==
| |
|
| |
| Joe... You may be messing with the contents boxes as I type this, but, for what it's worth, I liked them better on the left and not wrapped. If they stay right, we may have to reasses some of our aesthetic choices for character pages (or, actually, probably just edit the Character Data template to be left-aligned. It also bugs me that if there's not intro paragraph, the re line under the first topic and the red line un "Contents" don't line up in my browser. This is a small thing, I know. --[[User:Day|Day]] 17:27, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| : How about if the TOC is organized horizontally instead of vertically...? The only reason I aligned it to the right was because of all that wasted whitespace, which annoyed me personally. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 18:36, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :: Horizontally? I guess I'd have to see it. I can't imagine what that means. I don't know if I'll be checking back in before Monday, but you might just change in and see how people react. I kind of liked the white space, but--that's me. When you're looking at how the TOC looks, you might look at [[Lee Adama]] as well as non-character articles to see how it looks when put into play. --[[User:Day|Day]] 19:26, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::: I '''strongly''' think you should revert them to the wikipedia monobook style. There was nothing wrong with them before. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 19:55, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :::: Good points. I've reversed the change. Still, I believe that there's a lot of wasted space done with the TOC. Don't know if anyone else agrees, but I'd be willing to consider any suggestions. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 21:02, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::::: Honestly, my opinion is that the guys at Wikipedia spend far more hours and energy agonizing over these things than we could ever put in. Short of a tasteful color scheme, my feeling is that we should put our energy into creating high-quality content here, not a signature web design. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:34, 2 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :::::: Speaking of web design, I don't know if you folks are in love with the red/black default color scheme, but I had to switch to the Monobook (wiki.org default) style. The red and black hurt my eyes, and if I couldn't switch it, I wouldn't have an account here at all. It almost turned me off in the first place, and I think it might keep people from contributing, especially anonymous contributors. Just my two cents. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 17:41, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::::::: I know that some people aren't going to like the design, but it is unique to the Wiki. Perhaps, though, it should be indicated somewhere that users can change the skin at their discretion. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:57, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::: Maybe a button that says "switch to black on white screen", or something. I'm not sure if that's possible when the user isn't logged in, though. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 23:03, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| What do you think about giving the TOCs black backgrounds again? I thought that looked less imposing. The red does look good for the image thumbnails, though. (And I like the Red&Black, FWIW.) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 01:38, 14 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| : I, too, would like a return to the black box with red border. Also, were I in charge, I'd lose the red line under the word Contents, but that's me. Then, if it were to float left, rather than not float, it might look much better... if people are into the whole floating thing. The Red and Black thing doesn't bother me. I really dislike looking at a lot of white, so I would rather not look at a black on white theme. Whenever I design some HTML, I tend to make the BG a lighter grey so I'm not bombarding my eyes with ''quite'' so many photons. ;) --[[User:Day|Day]] 02:31, 14 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :: I floated the TOC in [[The Twelve Colonies]], to good effect, I think (although I'm not certain it shouldn't be on the right). However, this is only really appropriate for articles with tall and narrow TOCs. Wikipedia uses templates <nowiki>{{TOCright}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{TOCleft}}</nowiki> for floating on a per-article basis. It might be interesting to bring those over, but in the meantime it's also possible to use the construct <nowiki><div style="float:left">__TOC__</div></nowiki>. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 03:06, 14 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Battlestar Wiki:Standards and Conventions ==
| |
|
| |
| Joe. I went ahead and made the above-linked page. Over at the [[Battlestar Wiki:Characters|Characters]] project page, we got into a debate about verb tense. This would also be applicable for other articles, especially episode guides. There've got to be plenty of other things that would go on a [[:Category:Project Page|Project Page]] except that they apply to several projects (or all). If there's already something like this, then I apologize and just point me (and Peter and Colonial One) at it and we'll get to debating standards, etc. I felt I should point this page-creation out to you so that it might get mention in the little announce box thing when something is under discussion that's important and needs a significant consensus. Also, because you might be interested and you might like to weigh in on things. In fact, I think there might be a couple of topics on this very talk page that could be moved to the talk page of Standards and Conventions at your descretion. --[[User:Day|Day]] 05:14, 10 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == "New Message" problem ==
| |
| Hi Joe. [[User:Day|Day]] suggested I contact you about the problem I'm having with the "new message" message--It won't go away, even after I've checked my messages. He said that you've run into this problem before. Can you help me? Thanks. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 17:33, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :It's recurred for me as well, after you fixed it earlier. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 20:52, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :: Ack. Did some research with the MediaWiki bugzilla, and I came up [http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3447 with this]. Try: http://www.battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Farago&action=purge. (For Fang Aili, use: http://www.battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Fang_Aili&action=purge.) See if that helps. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:55, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ::: Didn't work. I tried reloading and stuff; no dice. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] 23:07, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| ::: No dice. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 23:08, 13 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| :::: I believe the problem is more to do with the "newtalk" flags being cached, if anything else, probably on server-level. This seems to be why some users have the problem, and why some do not. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be beating that Leoben fellow into a bloody pulp... -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 10:20, 15 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Template issue ==
| |
|
| |
| At your convenience, could you pop over to [[Template talk:Twelve Colonies Series]] and try to help settle a dispute there? A cetrain user has started taking a proprietary attitude to articles he's created, which I think completely overrides the purpose of this site. [[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 22:46, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| :My contribution to the articles aside, my opinion is not worth less than yours. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 22:47, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| **I didn;t say you were worth less than me. However, it's interesting that you made the case that my opinion held less weight than yours because you'd added more to the article in question than I had...[[User:Kuralyov|Kuralyov]] 22:52, 18 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Image Floats== | | ==Image Floats== |
| Line 118: |
Line 17: |
| When using the extended image markup to float an image left or right without a thumbnail, a red background gets left behind in my browser. At the moment I'm using <nowiki><div style="float:right;"></div></nowiki> tags to surround the image, which doesn't give me the problem, but the use of HTML is undesirable for various reasons. Do you know why this is happening, and whether or not it's fixable? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:38, 20 September 2005 (EDT) | | When using the extended image markup to float an image left or right without a thumbnail, a red background gets left behind in my browser. At the moment I'm using <nowiki><div style="float:right;"></div></nowiki> tags to surround the image, which doesn't give me the problem, but the use of HTML is undesirable for various reasons. Do you know why this is happening, and whether or not it's fixable? --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:38, 20 September 2005 (EDT) |
| : I'll check that issue out and get back to you. Thanks! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:15, 20 September 2005 (EDT) | | : I'll check that issue out and get back to you. Thanks! -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:15, 20 September 2005 (EDT) |
|
| |
| ==Hosting==
| |
|
| |
| If the cost of hosting is a hardship for you, have you considered joining [http://www.wikicities.com/ wikicities]? They host Memory Alpha, and don't currently have a BSG wiki. (Or is that not possible due to the Creative Commons / GFDL licensing issues?) --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:32, 22 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
| : It isn't a hardship at all, actually. I just want to make the option available for people to donate financially, should they choose to do so, in the same way Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation asks for donations. Not that we are anywhere near the importance of Wikipedia, but if we can get people to donate to improve the Wiki, that'd be nice. :-) -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 22:09, 22 September 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Quote-o-matic ==
| |
|
| |
| Joe, would you mind weighing in in this discussion: [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Standards and Conventions#The_Freakin'_Quote-o-Matic]]? Just so we better know how it works and can make a convention/standard and then go make things conform to it. Thanks. And feel free to immediately archive this once you've taken a look. No reason to clutter up your talk page for months. --[[User:Day|Day]] 14:52, 4 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ==Jzanjani==
| |
|
| |
| Although I find the idea of banning users or threatening to do so distasteful and heavy-handed, I must now join Ricimer in requesting some disciplinary action on your part against [[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]]. Since the above discussion, he has issued:
| |
| *A sarcastic and offensive "apology" posted to [[User talk:Ricimer]], which targeted Ricimer, Spencerian, Watcher and myself with an offensive gesture.
| |
| *[http://battlestarwiki.org/index.php?title=User:Ricimer&oldid=15845 Vandalism] of Ricimer's user page.
| |
| Despite our best efforts to extend him the benefit of the doubt, and Ricimer's tactful disengagement, it is clear that he has no intention to stop his harassment. Ricimer is one of our oldest and best contributors, and deserves more respect than this. For his part, Jzanjani is clearly both intelligent and well-spoken when he chooses to be, but if we are to collaborate effecitvely he must end his contemptuous behavior toward his fellow wikipedians. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 04:42, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
| : I concur. I know Ricimer's worth, and we all collectively remind him when he's being too hard on newbies, but we need our conservatives around here to keep ourselves in check. And, although Ricimer appeared to start it first, Jzanjani won't let it go, and appears to be continuing. A temporary ban to cool jets would be welcome. [[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 12:08, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| ===In Defense of Myself===
| |
|
| |
| Although Farago has found the idea distasteful '''''and''''' heavy-handed, not simply to ban users but even merely to '''''threaten''''' to do so, he has shown his true colors by requesting to ban one who is perhaps the most well-humored and well-mannered contributor to this site since its establishment. If I may be rendered the honor to do so, I will briefly present a defense of my actions, which the community surely will find to be a reasonable account of the events which have been presented in this unfair and unjust campaign of slander.
| |
|
| |
| :In answer to the first allegation, it is absolutely true that I wrote a concise apology - conformant to good manners - for whatever I might have done to offend Ricimer, and it is equally true that in an attempt to dispell the atmosphere of hostility that I posted a link to an off-site picture (which is still active) which I had assumed would be received in good humor. Since that time I have learned that this was a mistake, since certain contributors to this site have demonstrated to me consistently that they are the most serious and humorless individuals, to the extent that even a photograph of a child may be considered offensive. Furthermore, I would venture to say that Farago is something of an egoist in assuming that a formal apology posted to a specific member's talk page, worded in the second-person, and only mentioning in passing the four members Farago lists as "targets," might possibly be directed to him. My final note on this reprehensible mischaracterization is that Ricimer himself, in a comment posted directly below this scandalous libel directed toward him, writes that he has no problem with my spritely post and found it merely "off-color." In so doing, Ricimer has demonstrated a most healthy sense of humor, and I applaud him for receiving my jest in the appropriate fashion.
| |
|
| |
| :In answer to the second allegation, I must again beg the case of humor which being absent in some individuals of BattlestarWiki, excepting, ironically, Ricimer, and certainly absent in the person of Farago, has produced this most unjust allegation. Farago fails to mention that my second playful attempt at humor came after Ricimer utterly deleted a screenful of my unworthy - though hard-won - posted content in a single edit. The subsequent so-called "vandalism" of Ricimer's user page involved nothing more than the posting of a photograph of a strapping gentleman smiling into the camera. This again was done in the spirit of dousing the fire with water, and my only misstep in so doing was to presume that future readers had a heartbeat. Since the point was quite lost on our poor Farago, let me propose only that the gentleman in the picture might resemble Ricimer in that he "chomps" newbies - an admission which Farago and several others have made, and evidence of which remains extant in the talk pages. However, let us consider as hypothesis that some of our less well-adjusted colleagues may find the photograph offensive, or at least surprising - why then hasn't Ricimer himself posted an objection to my behavior? If my actions were so egregiously offensive to Ricimer, and considering his demonstrated pugnaciousness, he would most certainly have responded. Furthermore, why hasn't Farago raised an objection with an identical photograph which I have posted on '''''my own''''' user page? It is precisely the same photograph with the same dimensions, used in the same way on a user page, yet why hasn't Farago taken the trouble to cite it as another of my crimes? To conclude my arguments, I challenge Farago to prove satisfactorily that either of the two photographs are in any way offensive, since they depict neither nudity, nor any sort of obscenity of any kind, and are undeniably in good taste. In fact, I am so confident that these pictures are totally inoffensive that I provide for the reader [http://webspace.utexas.edu/joz59/funny_pics/fuck_soccer.jpg here] and [[User:Jzanjani|here]] links to these vulgar photographs as testimonial to my good upbringing and well-rounded, healthy character.
| |
|
| |
| Although at this point I fear I may tire any reader who has progressed this far, not only for the wordiness of my arguments but also because they are so unnecessary, I must clear the air with my accuser, Farago himself. He has demonstrated the most anti-social tendencies with myself and with others. In my personal communications with him he has not failed to mirror the humorless and cold individual he depicts here. I may vouch for Spencerian's good humor, because at my suggestion he changed the format of the [[Toaster]] page to its current state. If I may be permitted the rudeness, let me also say that it was I who found the picture of the toaster and suggested its use. I may also vouch for Watcher because he has privately confided that he found my apology - that intolerable and libelous attack on Ricimer! - refreshing and well-written. I daresay that I even consider Ricimer a brother and fellow Christian of God's fair Earth. If I had the chance to meet them in person, I would thank all these men heartily, and clap them on the back soundly for the good fortune that I am in their company, and surely offer them cigars to smoke and whiskey to drink in my parlor. However, I would be most uncomfortable and suspicious if Farago communicated his desire to smoke and drink with my fellows: he has jumped at every opportunity to strike me down and has mischaracterized all of my innocent jabs as transgressions. Furthermore he has demonstrated the most profound and disturbing - perhaps offensive - wiliness in his constant interjections in the friendly exchanges between myself and my friends. If it does not shock and stupefy the community, I venture even to say that Farago is bereft of humanity entirely and that the community should consider the possibility that Farago himself may be a Cylon infiltrator intending to weaken the base of any future human resistence. I ask that the allegations be dismissed as justly they should, and that we immediately '''''eject''''' Farago from the nearest airlock as a Humano-Cylon traitor!
| |
|
| |
| ::''[[User:Jzanjani|Jzanjani]] 12:22, 8 October 2005 (EDT)''
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| A ''concise'', point by point:
| |
| *"''In answer to the first allegation, it is absolutely true that I wrote a concise apology - conformant to good manners - for whatever I might have done to offend Ricimer, and it is equally true that in an attempt to dispell the atmosphere of hostility that I posted a link to an off-site picture (which is still active) which I had assumed would be received in good humor. Since that time I have learned that this was a mistake, since certain contributors to this site have demonstrated to me consistently that they are the most serious and humorless individuals, to the extent that even a photograph of a child may be considered offensive.''"
| |
| **You posted me a link to a picture of a child giving me the Finger. This was obviously meant to be offensive. Further, Joe and others can ''see'' the edit history, and can see exactly what you posted.
| |
| *"'' My final note on this reprehensible mischaracterization is that Ricimer himself, in a comment posted directly below this scandalous libel directed toward him, writes that he has no problem with my spritely post and found it merely "off-color." ''"
| |
| **I wrote "that is off color" to a post by '''Spencerian''; you can tell because '''it was written underneath a paragraph by Specenrian, not you''' (not that I'm mad now at Spencerian or anything).
| |
| *"''The subsequent so-called "vandalism" of Ricimer's user page involved nothing more than the posting of a photograph of a strapping gentleman smiling into the camera. ''"
| |
| **You obviously vandalized my [[User:Ricimer|user talk page]], and anyone can see that in the edit history.
| |
| *"''why then hasn't Ricimer himself posted an objection to my behavior?''"
| |
| **I '''have'''. Also, I have requested that you be banned, on such grounds.
| |
| *"''Furthermore, why hasn't Farago raised an objection with an identical photograph which I have posted on '''''my own''''' user page? ''"
| |
| **Because '''you yourself posted it there''' and you are allowed to link whatever you want to your '''own''' user page. It is '''vandalism''' when you do it to that of another; not my user talk page, but my user page itself.
| |
| *"''has privately confided that he found my apology - that intolerable and libelous attack on Ricimer! - refreshing and well-written. I daresay that I even consider Ricimer a brother and fellow Christian of God's fair Earth.''"
| |
| **You are automatically assuming I am a Christian now? That one must be a Christian in order to live in an egalitarian society? This is extremely offensive, Joe.
| |
| *As I have said before, I thought that the additions made to "Cylon tactics" were redundant: it was pointed out to me that I should have nonetheless waited for others to see it to gain consensus on the matter. '''I undertand this now''', and I did not at the time. Further, another reason I did it is because he was ''bragging and threatening'' that if anyone changed anything he had added he would begin a flame war. Posters should not threaten to start flame wars. But I should not have edited everytying. Simple mistake. Further, I did not know that a user is allowed to delete their own user talk page; so I restored Jzanjani's because I thought he was breaking the rules of etiquette. However, I have been informed that this was incorrect and I agree that had I known I would not have done it. '''I have stated this to all repeatly''', yet my pages are still continually vandalized. This guy is contributing little that is positive.
| |
| ***In short, if this guy doesn't deserve at least a temporary warning ban, I don't know who does.---[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]], October 8, 2005
| |
|
| |
| == Silly Pages ==
| |
|
| |
| One thing that Jzanjani did do right yesterday that was quite funny to me was the interjection of a picture of a toaster on the Toaster talk page. I ran with it and did a little update to the [[Toaster]] page. Even Peter, our Concision Jihad "cleric" dug it and created a new category for future sillyness, although Ricimer is a little anal about accuracy. I added the new [[Numerology]] page as well to the catagory. I think the page really lightens up the place--and it's helped me laugh after all the fistfighting on the Wiki of late. How'd you like it, Joe? To note, not even Wikipedia escapes such levity: Note: [[Wikipedia:Extreme Ironing]] and [[Wikipedia:Chewbacca Defense]]. :) 12:15, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
| : Very funny. Now remove it. Please... {{spoiltext|Just kidding. It's really nice. Made my day.}} -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 21:38, 8 October 2005 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Military Ranks == | | == Military Ranks == |
|
| |
|
| Discussion moved to [[Talk:Military Ranks (RDM)]] by [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] at 21:46, 17 October 2005 (EDT). | | Discussion moved to [[Talk:Military Ranks (RDM)]] by [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] at 21:46, 17 October 2005 (EDT). |
