User talk:The Merovingian

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

Regarding your RfA[edit]

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)

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

Plan R = Plan Recruitment --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:56, 26 March 2006 (CST)

Battle Template[edit]

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)

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

I have been checking through the TOS battle pages and found that the category listings vary. Sometimes it is listed as Battle of X, other times X, Battle of. When they are listed alphabetically they are under B in the first instance and X (or whatver) in the second. Which way round would you prefer? --Grafix 01:30, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I don't even touch Original Series stuff. If there's anything there, it was someone trying to copy the template onto a different article. --The Merovingian 03:21, 14 March 2006 (CST)

User name change[edit]

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

Also on this topic: You should probably update the first sentence of your User page to reflect the name change. If you want, I could probably get a decent screen-grab of the identically named character from the Matrix. Unfortunately, I don't have a DVD from which to grab pictures that stars any of the folks who founded Paris. --Day 01:24, 8 February 2006 (EST)

Yes, actually, that would help immensly. I need one of The Merovingian when he's in Club Hel, standing at the balcony looking imperiously down at Neo. A shot that shows his whole body instead of a closeup would be preferred. --The Merovingian 02:13, 8 February 2006 (EST)

You should watch "Revolutions" again. Merv isn't peering down at Neo but at Morpheus, Trinity, and Seraph (Neo never visits Club Hel in the movie series, although the Path of Neo video game takes him there while the Club is closed). I'll also try to get a screencap for you if time allows. My Matrix knowledge may be better than my BSG knowledge (note witty, illustrated user page; I've been almost tempted to change my user name to something more appropriate... ;) By the way, I like your revised user page. Merv is one of those characters whose deserved more exploration on the same level as the Oracle and the Architect. --Spencerian 10:45, 8 February 2006 (EST)

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

I actually took a philosphy class and my choice for a paper was on The Matrix. Basically, I've made several of the more...insightful speculations about The Merovingian on his Wikipdia article. You see, Morpheus and Neo represent Socrates: wanting to get out of "The Cave" to the real world beyond, etc. However, I believe (and I'm the only person I know of who's thought of this; I didn't read it anywhere, but thought it up after reading Leviathan) that The Merovingian is the embodiment of Thomas Hobbes in The Matrix. He spouts off Hobbesian thought all of the time. Hobbes said that "choice is an illusion" that the only constant is "cause and effect", and that the best thing we can do with our lives is kind of movie along with the flow of causality in such a way that we enjoy all of the *physical, transient* pleasures that we can, while we can. Live a life of comfornt and luxury, etc. The Merovingian *lives out* this ideal: He's living in complete luxury, like at Le Vrai, the Chateau, Club Hel (and he has affairds with women all the time, etc), he wields a great deal of physical power...yet recognizes that it's all just "a game" devoid of purpose; it's transient, etc. He's stopped seeing any higher meaning in anything. --->Hobbes was a big critic of Socrates, and his philosophy was the polar opposte of Socrates' thought. In the same way, The Merovingian opposes Neo and Morpheus' philoshpy of getting out of the Matrix.

I hold with the theory that he's a former One, that got his brain pattern scanned into a computer to outlive the death of his body. But he got so disillusioned with all of the lies and how the quest for freedom was just a reset button, that he turned against all of this and became the master of the Exiles, living the complete opposite of all of this (note; he really hates the Oracle, and views everything Neo says about her with extreme sarcasm). Plus, the initials "LV" on the walls of "Le Vrai" are Roman numerals for "LV" = 55. Now, we've already seen 303= Trinity, 101= Neo. So there's something about The Merovingian and the number "5". On top of this, when we first meet him there are 5 glasses set out in front of him (and Persephone, his Trinity-analog, has 3 chocolates on her plate). --->There have been 5 "Ones" before Neo. I think the Merovingian is the first "One". --The Merovingian 17:01, 8 February 2006 (EST)

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

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

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

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

There, I must disagree with you. The Merovingian is not "the oldest of us" but "one of the oldest of us", which would still fit my interpretation. Further, in Leviathan Hobbes goes on a tangent where he says that because everything in life is "cause and effect", logically, we should in theory be able to predict the future, because life has no external factors (god, random choice, etc. Fate/causality rules all). But he adds that in practice, this is impossible, simply because there are so many variants that the human mind cannot grasp at once--->it reminds me of discussions of psychohistory in "Prelude to Foundation"; hen Hari Seldon originally presented his first paper theorizing that psychohistory was possible, he explained that he did not yet have a working model because his paper essentially just proved that you could actually analyze all of the "antecedants" of life in a computer model. I.e. if the universe is so compex that the only functional "model" of it is something as big and complicated as the universe itself, such a model is useless. However, he said that you could actually make a model smaller than the universe itself..

Well, the point is that according to The Merovingian's own Hobbesian principles, he is in a possition SIMULTANEOUSLY A) He believes the world to be governed by nothing but causality, and therefore, he should be able to predict the future, but B) THE VERY SAME principles that idea is based on also state that predicting the future is Practically impossible. This might get a little annoying to him. --->So then there's The Oracle, who CAN predict the future, while he cannot (though in theory, he should). Therefore, this adds another level of hate for her, and he wants the "eyes of the Oracle" (which he's "Wanted ever since I came here) because he's jealous. And who's to say the Machines would not want to tap the talen of the "grotesque" human mind in designing/running a more human world (beta-2)? I digress. P.S. Don't get me started on MXO's Agent Pace...--The Merovingian 18:13, 8 February 2006 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

A Revelation I've Had[edit]

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

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

But I digress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template Categories[edit]

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

When I write pages about Sharon, Number Six, etc. I write at the bootom "Category:Cylons" (with double brackets around it). I think we need a Category set for "Writers" and "Directors" (in place of "Cylons"). However, one or two episodes split the "Writers" credit between "Teleplay" and "Story by" (see official site episode guide). I just put "Story by" into "Story by" slots in the guide, and Writer for who wrote the Teleplay: Regardless, I think both Teleplay and Story writers should fall under the "Writers" category, and I will make note of which was which on their individual pages.

>Essentially, I realized we had no "At a Glance" method of seeing the past work of a writer or director. Essentially, I see that episode 3.12 is coming up, and I see "hmm, who is this? why, I'll click on his name and get a list of other episodes he's done.....oh no! He wrote the abysmal "Black Market"!...or..."Hmm, she wrote the wonderful "Resistance"...this should be interesting. I'm trying to make A) pages for all of the writers and directors, and B) lists on those individual pages of all the episodes they've worked on, so, logically--->C)We should have a more fully developed category system for "Writers" and "Diretors" (the rudiments of which are present on the main page, but which were never fully developed. I felt that now is a good a time as any.)--The Merovingian 20:33, 10 February 2006 (EST)

There's a directors category already, and a Category:Director: Michael Rymer, which is a subcategory of Michael Rymer. Thus if you tag an episode with Category:Director: Michael Rymer it should fall under the Michael Rymer category. The directors category would then just be a container for all those subcategories. So we just need a Category:Director: X where X is each director (and make sure that each of those has the category of Director, so that they show up as subcategories). We could then make a template, I guess, but since we're talking about just having to add one category tag at the bottom, I'm not sure it merits a template. I'll start up the Category:Writers, if you want, if you could list out which Directors and Writers we need to capture. We may want to consult with Farago on this, as he has a knack for categorization. --Steelviper 20:44, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Ah. There's already a Category:Writers as well. Looks like somebody planned ahead. It looks like we'd just need to make the subcategories then. --Steelviper 20:47, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Just to say[edit]

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

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

Welcoming Committee[edit]

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

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

This is a test to see what time my signature says--The Merovingian 23:11, 17 March 2006 (CST)

That's odd; what are our signatures saying Central Standard Time Intead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), that is, Grenwich Mean Time?--The Merovingian 23:12, 17 March 2006 (CST)

RFA[edit]

Because it looks like you didn't see it, notice that a user has added a question to the stock three. I think it would be safe to say it's because he was wondering what your would be. *wink* --Day 21:22, 18 March 2006 (CST)

Day, I will gladly answer any questions, but I note that you did not have to answer such a question when you were running for Administrator. Irrelevant; I mean I can answer it--The Merovingian 00:44, 19 March 2006 (CST)

I'm sure we all would have been happy to answer if anyone had asked. --Peter Farago 01:28, 19 March 2006 (CST)

http://openpolitics.ca/wiki+etiquette[edit]

As this page puts it...

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 00:55, 26 March 2006 (CST)

"...high standards for debate and civil discourse... I am not someone you want to get on your bad side Merv. Trust me."

You linked to a sub-par definition/explanation of ad hominem. Wikipedia's, e.g., is much more detailed (and better formatted).

A delay of a day is less than the gap between my reads of recent changes (and probably all but 4-5 users') so it hardly counts as a consensus of positive peer reviews. --CalculatinAvatar 02:24, 26 March 2006 (CST)

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

I've already addressed that issue in private. I don't forsee it occuring again.

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

Yes of course; that was actually quite helpful.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 22:47, 26 March 2006 (CST)

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

I have read the post. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in your behavior, Merv. It's quite unbecoming.

May I request, in the strongest possible terms, that you keep your thoughts on the Wiki in the Wiki? Things like this not only reflect badly on yourself but on every contributor here. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin 12:43, 26 March 2006 (CST)

The Merovingian's Opinions On Things That Should Be Done At BattlestarWiki[edit]

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

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

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

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

What's this all about?[edit]

Care to explain this, because from my end it looks like a personal attack. -- Joe Beaudoin 11:19, 27 March 2006 (CST)

Oh I'm sorry that's just a joke from Blade Runner; Task Bot is a robot AI, so I just thought it cute to ask "him" a question which in Blade Runner was the question that stumped the robotic Replicants during the Voight-Kampf test. It's just a BR joke. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:51, 27 March 2006 (CST)

Asking a man in a mask who he is...[edit]

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

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

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

That's not funny. I'm also I diehard LOTR fanatic. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 11:50, 1 April 2006 (CST)

So am I. That's why I find it so funny. I was talking, some time ago, with some friends about what we'd do if we could make a Hollyqood movie parodying the LotR movies. One would be to say what they messed up (Haldir at Helm's Deep, for instance) and another was to have Elrond in shades and call Strider "Mis-ter Aaaaragorn." Also, hobbits would all have been gay. Of course. But then, we've been making those jokes about the Fellowship since before the movies. --Day ^(talk) 22:54, 1 April 2006 (CST)

.....you seriously have never heard about the gag reel? There's a blooper reel of LOTR which they've made, but just for conventions and reporter interviews and the cast, but never for DVD. Maybe it will be released in the half-mythical 25th Anniversary addition (with an hour of deleted or new footage! haha-->listen to the ROTK commentary). Anyway, Hugo Weaving stated that they had one really good blooper scene which he made up himself: You see, for whatever reason, that scene when Elrond comes in the tent and gives Aragorn his sword Anduril, the shot of Elrond taking his hood off to reveal himself so you can see who he is and saying his first few lines, was not going well. Jackson kept making them do it, over and over again. It got annoying. So what he did was he put on a pair of his Agent Smith shades underneath the cloak, them when they shot it pulled his hood back, and said in Agent Smith voice: "You must join with the Matrix...Mr. Aragorn". Of course it's not just what he said; I mean more than half of this is in the delivery, how he does that almost-robot emotionless voice for Agent Smith. So that's "out there" but has never been released to the general public...yet.--The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 23:09, 1 April 2006 (CST)

Diff for future RFA[edit]

I just wanted a place to keep this diff for future RFA purposes (as an example of newbie interaction). It'd be kinda creepy on my user page, so I'm putting it here. This page is getting a bit long (your talk page sees SIGNIFICANTLY more traffic than mine), so it may get archived, but at least I'll know where to find it. --Steelviper 14:30, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Well okay if you wanted to clean up your own userpage:

"Reaver, please try not to post fanfic stuff like you did on Mercury class battlestar in the future. Also, you added an image of a "Pegasus uniform patch" to the Pegasus (RDM) article: We've actually proven, through multiple screenshots and closeups, that Pegasus is in fact part of BSG-62, and that's what it says on their emblems. In the first episode it was in, "Pegasus", the sets and emblems were all a little blurry, so we weren't entirely sure what it was and there was much debate ("is that a 6? and 8? a 2? a 5? etc. etc.) Anyway, the next episode, "Resurrection Ship, Part I", showed many clearer shots that established that it was Sixty-two. However, many months passed between those times----->I've seen that "BSG-63" patch around a lot: one of the custom-scifi emblem production companies did a rush-job, and they made a patch that incorrectly says "Pegasus BSG-63", but it's sixty two. At the scifi con last month I went to that had Richard Hatch, I actually pointed this out to a vendor or two selling them, and was surprised that they said I was like the 5th or 6th person to point this out to them that day. I really hope that misprinted patch fades away without any more people getting confused by it. I hope this helps. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 13:48, 6 April 2006 (CDT)" -- For future reference. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 14:46, 7 April 2006 (CDT)

Point Out Mistakes[edit]

You don't have to point out the mistakes I made and post them directly into the comments. That is very rude. My name also never has to be in the comments also merv. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:29, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Merv's edit summaries seem to me to have been composed in good faith. --Peter Farago 15:32, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Shane, if I have a comment that is only a sentence long, I put it in the edit summary box, rather than going to all the confusion of putting it on a separate talk page; this doesn't mean I am attempting to "hide" it, how could I? It's in plain sight, and I intend people to see it. And I don't want everyone to be reading a rude remark or personal attack: that's not what I am writing--->the entire concept behind the summary box is that we explain why we're editing something--->if I just edited it without explanation, this would be considered rude. I am making these changes in good faith and explaining what I think is wrong with them. Rather than pouting that I am "attacking" you Shane, you should be focusing on doing a better job in the future. I hope this improves. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:35, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

(Shane...we have no idea how many officers are on a ship. You made that up.) could have been (removed officers; speculation), and I would not have said anything because of course I made it up. It isn't documented any where that I know. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:45, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

Nothing I said was incredibly offensive. And you shouldn't make things up. Shane, you cannot shrug off your own mistakes by accusing everyone that is trying to correct you of "ganging up" on you. The thing you should be doing is learning from your mistakes, listing to criticism in order to edit articles better. --The Merovingian ^{(C - E)} 15:48, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

funny how all the stuff I did was edited by you at least 2 or three times. You proved my Proof, and by the end, all my edits are different because you didn't like the style. There are others in this "Proof" and all the evidence I need to prove it. --Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:54, 8 April 2006 (CDT)