User talk:The Merovingian

Regarding "Spoilers"

Welcome to the Wiki! Just wanted to drop a note by and state that this site doesn't censor spoilers. Therefore, I've reverted your changes. See the Spoiler Policy. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin 11:06, 17 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Well yes, but I think we should just keep stuff that's current, or chronological i.e. put the first entry under "Pegasus" saying that Tyrol served there, THEN mentioned the rest...I don't know. P.S. What's with that IP address that keeps sending junk links on this wiki? Is it a person or a bot?

I think its a bot of some type. I'll probably end up blocking the IP ranges. -- Joe Beaudoin 12:52, 17 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Cylon Wars

Just wanted to compliment you for your recent adjustments to the Cylon War articles. Nice job. --Peter Farago 05:43, 18 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Ditto. I like the Battle pages you've created. It has a great functionality to show in a nutshell any changes in equipment and manpower. If that isn't already there, can we have a count of lost Colonial ships, pilots, or other humans? Spencerian 10:09, 18 Aug 2005 (EDT)

As I understand it, there is a "list of pilots" page, and I believe that it and the article for Galactica cover Viper numbers (though Raptor numbers are anyone's guesss so far; the official site+on screen dialog has only said the number of Vipers). I also appreciate it that RDM, unlike the morons on Star Trek: Voyager (HOW MANY shuttles did they lose?) will devote an ENTIRE EPISODE's "A" plot ("Flight of the Phoenix") to saying that the Galactica has reached the point where they have to start building more Vipers from scratch. --->Actually, all I did was copy/paste the wiki battlebox from Wikipedia's Battle of Pelennor Fields page....of course, I WROTE most of the entry for Pelennor Fields including the battlebox, as well as the box for Helm's Deep, Black Gate, Bywater, Dale, etc. If you check "history" on Wikipedia I (Ricimer) actually have written most of the LOTR material, and I regulary update the Battlestar Galactica pages. Weird thing is, on Wikipedia if you type in "Cylon" you get this 6th century B.C. Athenian statesman named "Cylon" with a link to "the fictional robots". I think maybe 5 people would be looking for the ancient Athenian: anyone known how to bump Galactica's Cylons ahead of them? Anyway, the hard part was actually figuring out how to get a color that was visible on a black backround; it was originally pink and looked horrible (I don't know how to change colors) and had to toy around a dozen or so times before I got a nice bluish color. ---Ricimer 8:00, 18 Aug, 2005 EDT

12 Colonies

Thanks on the Colony stuff, I'm still new at this.

Nuggets

You said:

According to the SciFi.com official website, after the events of "The Hand of God", there are 5 surviving nuggets.

Can you tell me where to find this? --Peter Farago 11:45, 27 August 2005 (EDT)

Go to Scifi.com's Battlestar Galactica page. Click on "Ships Gallery" go to the Viper page. Click on "CAG roster". It gives a list of ships. During the first season it was updated every episode that Vipers were lost or damaged, up until episode #10 "The Hand of God" (I actually don't think any Vipers were lost since then). Anyway, it says that there are "5 trainee pilots" right there. So I went to the "nugget" page and updated it to say that there are 5 now (Hot Dog, Kat, and three others apparently). ---Ricimer, 27 Aug, 2005 4:00 pm EDT

Your fight with Philwelch

Gentlemen: rather than reverting each other's edits on Cylons and submitting ban requests, please attempt a civilized discussion on the article's talk page. --Peter Farago 15:03, 31 August 2005 (EDT)

Agreed. I will revert the Cylon page to whatever it was in the last edit before this started, then continue on the discussion page. ---Ricimer, 1 Sept, 2005

Redirects

Use #REDIRECT [[Gideon]], for example. --Peter Farago 01:08, 10 September 2005 (EDT)

Humano-Cylons

I was looking into your reason for removing my "Starbuck's a Cylon" bit and wanted to point out that the line that Boomer says concerning Starbuck having a child does not say that she would breed with a Cylon. Boomer states, "No, if you agreed to bear children, it’d be voluntary, maybe even set you up with someone you like." Now, if Starbuck were to be set up with a Cylon to create a hybrid and the "twelve models" bit meant twelve different Humano-Cylon models, that would be extremely limiting (after all, we've already seen the chemistry between her and Leoben. Heh.). If the Cylons were trying to set her up with Simon, for example, it seems odd how he kept pushing her buttons (the child abuse thing, the "do you see any Vipers around here" bit, etc.). If one wanted to look at Boomer's comment as a general one relating to humans, then it still seems like Starbuck would not really work in that situation, either. I think that Boomer's comment could mean that the Cylons would set her up with Anders or Lee Adama, both of whom she has feelings for (note that Boomer says "someone you like," not "someone you would like."). While a case could be made that Anders is a Cylon, his presige and career in professional Pyramid makes it likely that he would have been in the public eye for more than two years prior to the Cylon holocaust, which, as I stated, seems to be the point of origin of Cylon infiltration. However, the information on Anders is quite weak and would make such a case on either side very difficult. D'anna Biers may have been in the public eye as a reporter, though the case has been made by others that she was probably a low profile reporter prior to the attack, and therefore would not have had the exposure that Anders enjoyed. Also, if one were to make the case that Baltar was a Cylon and that he could be used, the brainscan performed on him in Home, Part II, seems like it would have shown silica pathways in his brain, as that appears to still be part of Cylon technology (according to the mini-series), so it seems unlikely that he's a Cylon, too. Well, that turned into quite the long and roundabout case. Anyhow, as Boomer, nor anyone else in the episode, seems to have stated directly that Starbuck would be made to breed with a Cylon, there is enough wiggle-room to justify that this may not have been the case. -- Linaf

Final Cut

Thanks for the clean-up on my addendum... was kinda klunky.... Lone Odessan 18:17, 11 September 2005 (EDT)

The Great Cylon Turkey Shoot

You, sir, are a genius with the new battle page title. I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read your title change. The content of this page should be equally amusing. Spencerian 01:46, 17 September 2005 (EDT)

• No sir, I was actually quite serious. RDM was in the NROTC, and he says he has stacks of Word War II naval history books which much of the new "realistic" Battlestar Galactica is based on. My new title is a referrence to an infamous World War II battle: The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, properly referred to as the Battle of the Philippine Sea. It was the battle that struck a death knell to the Japanese Imperial Navy: the Japanese Naval Carrier threat was elminated in this battle and they never challenged US air dominance again. While suffering relatively light losses, for every one American plane shot down, *four* Japanese plains were shot down, and their carriers were annihilated. The battle was incredbily lopsided. Because of this lopsidedness, I felt it appropriate to use it here, because BSG is based on a lot of WWII carrier stuff. I'll leave a note there saying it's a name we made up. By the way, we need to link these battles into the episode articles so people know to look at them (casual fans coming onto the site). Problem I have though, is that we don't know if there were Turkeys on the 12 Colonies! (see Life Forms section of "Twelve Colonies"). ---Ricimer, 17 Sept, 2005

Still a genius move in both humor as well as military history research. I'm faintly familiar with that WWII battle: I think your name is quite appropriate. At least we know the Colonies have blackbirds. Spencerian 02:00, 17 September 2005 (EDT)

Don't Bite the Newbies

While User:Destinymaker familiarizes himself with Battlestar Wiki:Welcome, newcomers, please give Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers a read. --Peter Farago 22:15, 18 September 2005 (EDT)

I appoligie, though I am a strong believer in the survival of the fittest. --Ricimer, 18 Sept, 2005

Hey, Ricimer. You may also want to cut Sprocketeer a little slack, although in principle I agreed with some of what you said. See my edits on the Phoenix page as well. I struck your last edits only because they were too argumentative (as in fistfight) to reedit and add in the time I had. Please add them again as appropriate to the existing page information, which also has my last edits, too. (we were on the page at the same time). Spencerian 19:12, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

No, they were actually quite civil. I made a point by point rebuttal. I'll go back and see if I can iron them out a little though. Still, he should realize that that should have been put in talk. ---Ricimer, 19 Sept, 2005

Definite Articles

There's a place to throw your two cents in. --Peter Farago 20:49, 19 September 2005 (EDT)

Kudos

Ricimer, I just wanted to say that although I know we don't always see eye to eye on everything, I think the work you've done on the battle pages is fantastic, and I've greatly appreciated your contributions here. Thank you, and keep it up. --Peter Farago 17:40, 24 September 2005 (EDT)

Moving Pages

Each page should have a "move" tab right after history. If you use this instead of pasting the content into a new article, it will preserve the edit history. --Peter Farago 23:12, 30 September 2005 (EDT)

Jzanjani

Ricimer, please. He's allowed to do whatever he wants with his talk page. At the very worst blanking it is in bad taste. See Wikipedia:Talk page, specifically the section "Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?" --Peter Farago 00:24, 6 October 2005 (EDT)

Dear friend Ricimer,

Since I have joined the community of Wikipedians here on battlestarwiki, it has been my misfortune to have alienated so prolific and knowledgeable a contributor as yourself. Spencerian, Farago, and Watcher have all played third parties to our heated disputes, which have occasionally - it shames me to admit it - come close to blows. Our disputes have rendered vulgar the level of discourse on this website and have proven a distraction to the practical minds which everyday toil to clarify the mysteries of Battlestar Galactica. Because we have been unable to resolve our differences, our bickering has consumed a significant portion of the efforts of our peers, and thus may delay key contributions in the future.

Therefore, this situation can not continue. Whatever form our differences take, it is unacceptable that we continue to divert the efforts of our eloquent colleagues. Let us put the past behind us, and let us go forward hand-in-hand as we unravel the complexities of this, the greatest television series in the history of the Twelve Colonies. Ricimer, please accept my most sincere, genuine, and heartfelt apology.

Respectfully,

Jzanjani

You come here under the banner of peace, and yet you post me an "apology" link at the end connecting to a pic of a kid giving me The Finger? For this the only Verdict is Vengeance.

Further posting into this is not worth my or anyone else's time. I am going to resume my normal 'rounds about the wiki without futher commentary or complaint regarding this. But you have just made an enemy for life. ---Ricimer, October 7, 2005

I, for one, appreciate you standing down from this, Ricimer. The Wiki would diminish without your contributions, though I'm not taking sides. Just remember Peter's words and don't bite the newbies too hard, OK? :) I've already put my 2 cents on Jzanjani's page on his behavior, and we'll let that alone unless Joe has any further wisdom to part to either of you. I'm glad you, like many of us here, are now officially a recovering member :) . Take my advice on not flaming, leave the vengeance thing to the writers of other fiction (life's too short to be angry) and keep up the good contribs. Spencerian 18:31, 7 October 2005 (EDT)

I think the above link is a tad off-color, otherwise fine---Ricimer

Regarding Jzanjani

Ricimer,

If you haven't been made aware of it already, I have banned Jzanjani for one week starting today.

I'm letting you know that I don't blame you for any actions you took against Jzanjani -- which consisted of, mainly, following good manners in reverting Jzanjani's wipes of his own talk page while an issue was still being discussed. Were I in your position, I would've done the same myself.

While I don't say this often -- perhaps because I feel I don't have to, but maybe I should just to make it clear -- I appreciate your contributions to this Wiki. You are a valued contributor here and I appreciate your restraint in this situation. You backed down and I'm sorry that Jzanjani didn't have the same sense to follow your example. Now both of you don't have to like each other, again I don't have the right to dictate how people should behave. Not my place. However, if it invovles this Wiki, then behavior becomes my concern and I'll make sure it stops at the front door, as it were. (Or the windows, or whatever entry point one chooses to use to enter this website.)

Believe me when I say that this could have spiraled so far out of control that it might have damaged this community we've built here.

If Jzanjani turns out to be a troll -- I hope to hell he isn't, but I've been disappointed before by human nature -- then I'll ban him permanently. I've made this clear to him on his talk page, so none of this should be constitued as "talking behind Jzanjani's back".

Anyway, again, I appreciate your contributions and, if you feel you need to take a break from the Wiki yourself, feel free. Take a breather. You've earned it the honest way, as it were.

Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin 21:37, 8 October 2005 (EDT)

Language/Aerelon/Grace Park

Hello Ricimer,

I hope I'm communicating with you the right away. I'm about as nugget as nugget gets on any Wiki system, including this one!

There were a couple of changes to the entry on Grace Park and Aerelon language that I wanted to explain. First, it is true that Grace Park is a fluent speaker of Korean, but her English--either as Sharon Valerii or as herself in interviews--doesn't have any trace of a Korean accent whatsoever. I'm married to a native Korean speaker, have friends and colleagues who speak Korean either as their first or second language, and have been studying the language for a few years myself, so I'm absolutely certain that Korean has no bearing on what might or might not be considered an Aerelon accent.

On a somewhat smaller matter, there's no accepted version of English called "General English," with a capital G. I am willing to accept a lower case g, "general English," to indicate "common sense" notions about that accent/group of accents.

Actually, I am not the one that keeps putting the Korean references on that page, and I thought it was irrelevant but people kept putting them back. The thing I had was that I don't think that Grace Park (on or off camera) really speaks with a "Canadian accent" at all; you came here after this, but I had this whole edit that said that it was just an accent that we the audience could not possibly detect but a Colonial could, but this was removed. --Ricimer 17:44, 19 October 2005 (EDT)

Picture Updates to Battle Pages

Very nice work there, Ricimer. Adds greatly to the pages majesty and atmosphere. Trying to work these pages up to quality articles, perhaps? :) Spencerian 10:32, 20 October 2005 (EDT)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce "Ricimer"? Is it RIH.kih.mer, or RIH.sih.mer? Or is the stress elsehwere? I'm just curious. --Day 18:13, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

• Ricimer was the "shadow ruler" of the Roman Empire in it's twilight years. He ruled through a series of puppet emperors, and while himself not 'officially' controlling the state, he was the puppeteer pulling all the strings from off stage. It was not only possible for me to take this name, it was essential. It's pronounced "Rih-sih-mer" (mer as in drummer). --Ricimer 19:53, 22 October 2005 (EDT)

Hrm. If that's Latin, then I doubt it had a soft C at the time. However, neither did Caesar, so I assume you're giving the modernized/bastardized pronunciation. Interesting name story. Huh. :) --Day 06:02, 23 October 2005 (EDT)

Well, Ricimer belong to a german tribe, so his name probably wasn't Latin, I would assume. --Ricimer 22:39, 24 December 2005 (EST)

Image Use from GalacticaStation.com-A No-No

Ricimer, I strongly believe that using images from Galacticastation is some violation of derivative or extended use of another person's web site without permission, since the site appears private. The web site does not have a Creative Commons License, which is the only fair-use sharealike license we're supposed to acknowledge or derive content from. (Technically, we can't share items from Wikipedia for this reason--Peter had to chastise me on this when I was updating the Basestar (TOS) page. Yes, the images and likenesses that GS gets are Universal's, but it's where you get them that matters here.

For images, you can get many excellent caps from TVIV, a TV episode Wiki that does have a CCL, so we can copy items from there (with appropriate credit) without issue. They have a number of BSG ep pages that are really atrocious in textual content but generally great caps... --Spencerian 09:25, 7 November 2005 (EST)

I don't think it matters. Screengrabs we use on this site are copyright Universal Studios anyway, and used under the aegis of fair use, not the CCL. Galacticastation has no copyright over the screen grabs they post, and certainly can't relicense them to us under the CCL (or any license, for that matter). If we're infringing anyone's copyright by using the images, it's Universal's, not Galacticastation's. --Peter Farago 18:17, 7 November 2005 (EST)

I've got one "yea" and one "nay" on this: can Joe please give me final word on whether or not we can use GalacticaStation screencaps? Because TVIV doesn't really have many useable ones. I've tried making one or two for Seelix and Jammer, which were removed. I'm a total spaz at this; how are screencaps originally made, anyway (what do you need to do it)? --Ricimer 22:39, 24 December 2005 (EST)

I've made a few image contributions, myself, and all of them are screens I grabbed by my lonesome. As I've gone, I've kind of hammered out a system: For DVDs (I own the British version of Season 1 and the first half of Season 2 on DVD, a friend of mine will be giving me the Mini, eventually), I view them in VLC, which has a "snapshot" feature which doesn't seem to care about copy protection (or whatever it is that makes the "Print Screen" button not work). This saves them as .png. I then fire up good ol' the GIMP and do any cropping or resizing I feel like and save 'em as a .jpg. So... That's how I do it, anyway. --Day 02:07, 27 December 2005 (EST)

Sacrifice

Dude. Re: Your edit to the Season 2 episode listing. If you put the source in there, it would carry a lot more weight. Also... You have sacrifice as 2.14... Is that a mistake, or is there some weird numbering thing I'm missing or was there a typo in the note, or... What's up with that? Lastly, you should seriously consider trimming/archiving your talk page. --Day 01:08, 21 November 2005 (EST)

Don't Bite the Newbies (or the Vets), Part Deux

Hey,Ricimer. You're an excellent contributor, but lately you've had the cordial conversational replies of Doc Cottle on crystal meth--your replies are becoming flamebait. When you're replying and correcting an edit, particularly done by a new contributor (and we've had lots of them lately), PLEASE try to respond politely, or at least in a neutral voice (Peter Farago does this well, even though I can almost hear the wafts of flame from his comments to me after he concises or edits away some of my fanciful stuff). We need more contributors, and scaring them off with a bad tone is Not Good, even if you're right. Also, keep in mind that not everyone has the gift of good English writing style (or even a good grasp of English, period), so look around the bad grammar and spelling and try to see their point or meaning in their contributions, concising and editing to help perfect their addition. Don't take all of this too seriously. --Spencerian 11:05, 9 December 2005 (EST)

Spence, this itself is kind of flamey. Ricimer has been reasonably good lately. --Peter Farago 15:10, 9 December 2005 (EST)

Helps to have conservative ballast around--Ricimer 15:26, 9 December 2005 (EST)

I stand properly chastized if my language seems gruff--but hopefully you understand my meaning. Ricimer's recent summary comments on the Recent Changes and edit histories are the things I've reacted adversely to. We're not here in person, and whether people come or go is determined by the words and phrasing they see here. If they're misinterpreted, then there's a problem. --Spencerian 16:22, 9 December 2005 (EST)

Quote 09/30

Wish you'd posted into the talk page, rather than re-reverting, man. --Day 03:56, 13 December 2005 (EST)

Regarding "Coffea"

I have referred to a source on the talk page which disagrees with your assertion regarding "coffea." It could also be noted it doesn't pass Aspell's en_US dictionary by default. I just wanted to ensure you saw it, as I didn't want to change it back without discussing it. --CalculatinAvatar 02:04, 29 December 2005 (EST)

Actually, as you can see on the talk page for that article, Peter Farago and others are the ones promoting that line of thinking. I myself am ambivalent. --Ricimer 02:06, 29 December 2005 (EST)

Unwanted Template Lines

How'd ya do it? By switching Templates? --Watcher 17:32, 29 December 2005 (EST)

Stared at it until I saw meaning; you have to include "|Children=" and "|Cylon=", but you don't write "yes" or "no" after it; leave it blank. --Ricimer 17:43, 29 December 2005 (EST)

Check that out. It was hiding in plain site. Danke! --Watcher 18:20, 29 December 2005 (EST)

Isn't that all outlined on the tamplate's talk page? --Day 19:21, 29 December 2005 (EST)

(shrug) I dunno. I cheated. I was being lazy and stole it from somewhere. --Watcher 19:32, 29 December 2005 (EST)

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! -- Joe Beaudoin 12:31, 30 December 2005 (EST)

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

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

"Six Months" Business

The episode hasn't aired in my time zone yet, but thanks for jumping on that. --Peter Farago 00:14, 7 January 2006 (EST)

troll

Ok, I gotta ask: what does "troll" mean? -- Centuri 21:58, 9 January 2006 (EST) talk

Pleae refer to Wikipedia:Internet troll. --Peter Farago 23:00, 9 January 2006 (EST)

I'm sorry if I jumped the gun on this one Centuri, but there is an INFAMOUS "troll" who abuses messageboads, and lately he's been going full blast with anti-Cain stuff. That is not to say that someone cannot RESPECTFULLY dislike her, as you have done. But at the time I just really thought it was another attack waiting to happen. Sorry about that. --Ricimer 00:13, 10 January 2006 (EST)

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. --Day 17:00, 18 January 2006 (EST)

Simon, Ovaries, and Executions

IIRC Simon was talking with Six and mentioned the subject (Starbuck) being "disposed" or something to that effect. I was under the impression they were going to remove her ovaries and then kill her. --mq59 21:00, 22 January 2006 (EST)

Absolutely not. As you can see on the "Simon" page itself, the quote is "If lab tests are positive, then subject will be moved to processing facility for final disposition". Think about it; why would they kill her? As we saw in the episode, they've been keeping human women alive to be impregnanted. "Final disposition and processing" just meant hooking her up to those Farm machines and stuff. --Ricimer 22:10, 22 January 2006 (EST)

Pix Fix

Hey. Wanted to give you your propers on this edit as well as the similar one on the Zarek page. I was going to do the same thing, but I was headed out the door. The replaced ones were, I admit, a bit on the badly lit side of things, but, especially in the case of Gaeta, I think focus on the character's face is paramount. GLad to see you agree. Anyway, props. --Day 00:51, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Name Change

I was reading that on Wikipedia bureaucrats have the power to change user names. If you wanted to go to "Merovingian" name you might ask Joe (who is the only "bureaucrat" user around here) if he could just change it (without losing all your edit history, etc). Just a random thought. --Steelviper 14:40, 25 January 2006 (EST)

Frak

However 27 January 2006, you removed the following line from Frak:

It is a bowdlerized version of the real-life expletive "fuck".

And in the edit summary, you commented:

Didn't we have a long drawn out discussion already about this, in which we decided not to use Frak's real world equivalent on here? Even linking to it's Wikipedia page was considered testy.

In fact, we did have exactly such a conversation on Talk:Frak. It was concluded on 1 January 2006, when Spencerian, who had disagreed with the usage of "Fuck" in the first place, wrote the following.

Spencerian wrote: I'll count two votes to one as being outvoted, but I hold my objection to direct use of the term on a public page (Wikipedia notwithstanding). Added reference back to the page. --Spencerian 11:26, 1 January 2006 (EST)

Thus, it is not lightly that I say this to you: Would it kill you to read the talk page of an article before you knee-jerk revert an edit? My (considerable) patience with you is beginning to wear thin. --Peter Farago 21:36, 26 January 2006 (EST)

Quite simply, I am sorry. I thought the issue was resolve that it would not be present. Obviously, I made a mistake. Farago, although warnings are nice, you seem to have become increasingly focused on behavior of mine, which although you may fine unpleasant I suppose, has at no time violated any of the major rules of this wiki. Case in point, I remember that recent occasion when a poster accused me of senselessly editing their work, and I aggressively defended myself. You chastized me and told me I was trying your patience...only for me to check the edit history and realize it was you, not I, who edited it in the offending manner. I can site a couple of these. You see, I have never really be flaming by editing articles aggresively in my favor; I have moved discussion to Talk when I must. However, you seem to feel that *simply having to move something to talk is offensive; that the very fact that I have PURSED a debate, in talk, is aprehensible.* -->But this is the entire idea behind a talk page (I am not referring to this incident, but the many others over the past few weeks in which you appear to have had an axe to grind with me).

"Let's Cut Through It Shall We?: I haven't been doing anything wrong by simply disagreeing with you on talk pages. Any other minor mistakes or goofs on my part (as in the one above) you jump on me for. You appear to be trying to mount some sort of case against me, but in all honesty A) It's nothing more than other minor mistakes other users make, B) Once you correct me/reminded me of rules/etiquette I have not followed on something, you treat it as an unforgivable crime: **The fact that I agreed with your corrections shows that I am indeed behaving when this happens. What more you want, I know not.

Although, yes, I have been outspoken in my views...besides the very fact that I've disagreed with you on certain topics, I've never broken any rules. In short,

It is not becoming of an Administrator to threaten or imply banning, or "patience wearing thin" with a user, when I haven't repeatedly violated any major rules. Seriously: If I have done something wrong in the past few months, please try to ban me IMMEDIATELY with Joe, otherwise, stop using your newfound status to pursue and personal vendetta with me. You are browbeating me for imagined reasons on this. Either try to ban me for something, or stop making half-veiled ornery threats at action. One or the other Farago, I shall not live in fear. You don't seem to understand, from what I've observed in all this, that *I can and will disagree with much that goes on here* and this is *entirely healthy for the wiki because we are all still behaving responsbily*. No one currently here wants to behave irresponsibly. "With malice towards none, with charity for all". I'm sorry, but (if anyone else kept track, I dont' know) Farago has increasingly been on my case. Joe, or any other moderators, please, if in the past months I have done anything for which I should be outright punished, please do so now. Give me a warning. Otherwise, declare that I have a clean slate. It can no longer continue halfway like this.--Ricimer 22:57, 26 January 2006 (EST)

I am not upset with you for disagreeing with me on talk pages, which is entirely your right. Neither does "patience wearing thin" imply that I desire to ban you, which I do not have the moral authority to do singlehandedly, even if I wished such a thing. However, I am within my rights to be angry with you for expressing a consistant pattern of hostility to new users, executing rash edits, reverting other users contributions without bothering to fully read or understand them, and doggedly pursuing a need to be at odds with me, even when we explicitly agree on certain topics.

Here is a brief list of some of the things which have soured my attitude toward you since the beginning of this month.

• Extremely hostile reply to Sgtpayne on Talk:Resurrection Ship, Part I#Analysis not Review.
• Completley unfounded accusations that Centuri was a sockpuppet on Talk:Helena Cain#Why?
• Your comments to Troyian on Talk:Colonials, which Spencerian admonished you for.
• Your determination to disagree with me on Talk:Nacho, after I conclusively demonstrated the point you were trying to make in the first place.
• Reverting Viper 289 without reading the talk page.
• Hasty revision of Blackbird without bothering to determine that the context of the events mentioned.

This list is by no means exhaustive. Note that none of these have to do with points of disagreement on factual issues, but solely concern your behavior as a member of the wiki. --Peter Farago 23:31, 26 January 2006 (EST)

Here is a brief list of some of the times you have tried to fabricate instances in which you think I've done something since the beginning of this month.

• "Extremely hostile reply to Sgtpayne on Talk:Resurrection Ship, Part I#Analysis not Review."

You have got to be kidding me. SgtPayne was angry that his work was deleted, and thought I did it. I vocally defended myself, because I knew I had done no such thing. Rather than be a good administrator and arbitrate this or try to find the truth by searching through the History archive, you just accused me of being in the wrong. I then checked them myself and found that it indeed was not I, but one "Peter Farago" that had deleted SgtPayne's material without giving a reason. I presented all of this, including edit times, on the Talk Page linked above. Upon seeing them SgtPayne admitted his error in accusing me. In the end, without help from Farago, we came to a civilized reconciliation over the event. It's a dead issue at best, at worst, poor observance of your responsibilities as an Administrator.

• "Completley unfounded accusations that Centuri was a sockpuppet on Talk:Helena Cain#Why?"

This was already explained on that Talk page you just linked. I thought Centuri was indeed a sockpuppet of "Spider987", and infamous troll of all BSG websites, who I am having a protracted flame war with defending BSG. As I already stated on the above Talk page, Centuri's post sounded exactly like recent rhetoric from Spider987. And the "unfounded accusations" you accuss me of making consisted of essentially saying "I suspect that you may be a troll I know. Please be advised that this wiki is moderated and misbehavior is grounds for banning". This is more of a "stern warning of policy" than an "unfounded accusation". On top of this, it was then determined that Centuri was indeed not Spider987 or a troll, and I appologized, noting that his comments made me think he was this infamous troll. Either way, A) these "accusations" you say I made were actually non-malicious warnings about policy B) I acknowledged my error, and retracted my suspicions. This seems to show to me that you are trying to get blood from a stone; trying to find instances when I "broke a rule" in order to punish me, when in fact I just rubbed you the wrong way.

• "Your comments to Troyian on Talk:Colonials, which Spencerian admonished you for."

You consider a stern warning to be misbehavior?" I believe the exact thing I said was "Watch that attitude Troyian. Even I defer to consensus. While I'm on the subject, why haven't you given us any citations for that SkyOne information you gave before? This isn't earning you brownie points, as it were". Since when is saying "this isn't winning brownie points"? grounds of "misbehavior"? Nextly, even Troyian himself admitted that it wasn't the best sourced information; he admitted that the site no longer existed, but wanted to log this (questionable; though that's not a reflection of him) information from SkyOne for the sake of completeness. He answered the question. All's right with the world. And mild warnings such as this, in mild language, suddenly count as highly offensive behavior to you? Yikes.

• "Your determination to disagree with me on Talk:Nacho, after I conclusively demonstrated the point you were trying to make in the first place."

You Conceded this point to me. Exactly 4 minutes after making this list against me, you moved "Nacho" to "Narcho". On January 27th, at 04:32 you made this list, and at 04:36 (check history) you moved the article. And now, you consider "determination to disagree", on a Discussion page, with you to be anathema and intolerable? At BSGwiki, we all often debate over points. But especially on a Discussion page, something as simple as "I think it's spelled one way, you a different way" is not an offensive act; that's why it's called a "Discussion page". You seem more concerned, rather, driven to make this a point where I "misbehaved" because I happened to disagree with you. You are an Administrator and should be more impartial than this when executing your power. On top of this, No, you were not trying to "demonstrateing" the point you (Ricimer) made. You said you thought his name was "Nacho", I said I thought it was "Narcho"....how can opposing views be any more straightfoward than that? And yet now you claim to have all of a sudden been "conclusivly demonstrating the same point" the whole time? I don't know what you're doing now. But it was a normal, every day debate, and you have conceded it. So why is it in a list of things I've done that were supposedly offensive?

• "Reverting Viper 289 without reading the talk page."

I did. I thought we should make a note in the "Notes" section that it **MIGHT** be the same Viper, just a number mistake, instead of burying this SPECULATION on the talk page. Either way, I put it in the Notes section, not the main body text, and I made it tentative.

• "Hasty revision of Blackbird without bothering to determine that the context of the events mentioned."

I have, and the edit I deleted (see "Blackbird" history) were just speculation that Starbuck sending a signal in the Blackbird is what made it visible; RDM's podcast seems to imply it was actually the engines, so I removed the comment. Again, I thought he was referring to the events of Res Ship II, and once I REALIZED my error, I stopped pursuing it, but removed it again because I felt that the scene at the beginning of Res Ship I didn't prove this. Again, you're just looking for excuses to punish me for exaggerated offenses.

This list is by no means exhaustive. There were other times that you've tried to pounce on my for non-existant examples of "bad behavior". Note that few of these have to do with points of disagreement on factual issues (or they are rooted in them), but solely concern your behavior as a Administrator of the wiki. None of these is grounds for being considered "bad behavior"; do you have any that are more sterling instances (specific examples) to cite? Otherwise...--Ricimer 01:31, 27 January 2006 (EST)

I am somewhat loath to wade in, here, but I think someone not so personally invested in this thing might be a good thing. I'd like to note (though I've not been, as Ricimer says, keeping score) that I've not seen Peter mention bad behavior (as far as policy goes) or any kind of official action (a.k.a. punishment). I get the impression that Peter is not speaking as an Admin in this case, but that he is speaking as a human being (which one does not cease to be when one becomes an Admin) who is annoyed. So, Ricimer, please try to calm down and try to see that you're not being threatened with banning, here. He's asking you to take a bit more care in edits, from what I can tell.

Now, I may weaken my point with Ricimer by saying this next bit, but I think it is important to show that Peter is not alone in his impression. Only, really, since the first of the year have I noticed this, but Ricimer's comments on edits seem to be very, well, snippy. One, in particular, that I felt a very heavily implied "moron" after was this one, but its not the only one. This is, I think, another case of editing without taking a moment to think. That's a perfectly okay mistake to make every so often, but this month, I feel like Ricimer has been doing it more than he did before. These rash edits paired with condecending comments just make people feel bad and while that's not against any policy, I still think it should be discouraged. --Day 01:49, 27 January 2006 (EST)

Again I'm a little confused, not mad, just that I am aware that I have made several curt edits in the past (I can't think of any specific ones right now), but the one you cited above is really probably one of the least "sharp" ones. Someone wanted to say that "Racetrack puts personal beliefs above duty", and my edit comment was "When has she ever done that?" I meant that as an actual question: When has she ever done that? Then someone pointed out the events of "Resistance", and I realized it actually did sort of fit. But that wasn't a sharp response or anything, I mean, that was an actual "question". --Ricimer 03:02, 27 January 2006 (EST)

To reiterate Day's post: I certainly don't mean to barge in. That said, I think it's important for everyone on the wiki to remember that, although we may know exactly what we mean when we type a comment, the percieved meaning by the reader is often entirely different. So much of our communication is non-verbal that, when the only tool we have to advance our point of view is our word choice, we need to choose every word very carefully. Ricimer's point about Racetrack is a textbook example of how good intentions can get mangled and misinterpreted when we don't have the visual and aural cues we usually rely upon to understand the speaker. Further, wikis can make things even more complicated, because the reasons behind moving pages and re-instituting edits are often complicated, difficult to explain, and many users do not provide adequate explanations: besides, being right is worth little if no one knows why.

Of course, the ideal solution to a disagreement like this is simple: instead of trading barbs through a text-only medium, I think it might really help if you meet with Peter in a voice chat program to sort things out, if you think that's a good idea. Peter is a very concientious admin, and you're a valuable contributor to this wiki, so it would be a terrible shame if this caused either one of you to stop editing pages. I am new at this whole thing, so don't be too harsh on me if I'm crossing a line by posting this, but I think this just is a good ol' fashioned misunderstanding. Enjoy the show tonight! --Drumstick 20:27, 27 January 2006 (EST)

Re-imagined Series definition: the senior pilot on a battlestar

Re-imagined Series definition: student pilot ^{(TRS: "Act of Contrition", "Scar")}

Re-imagined Series definition: Battlestar Group ^{(TRS: "Water")}. It also doubles as an acronym for the television series itself.

Original Series definition: a breathing mask, or a life support system supplying air ^{(TOS: "Lost Planet of the Gods, Part I")}

Re-imagined Series definition: the process of using the FTL engines to make an near-instantaneous apparent faster-than-light transport of a ship from one point in space to another