User talk:The Merovingian

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)

"Six Months" Business[edit]

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[edit]

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[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)

Simon, Ovaries, and Executions[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

A)On a tangential note, I consider voice chat to be anathema to what I believe about the internet. I never give out my real name, location, image, or allow my actual voice to be heard. Oh, if I were in a Video Blog interview I would, but that day is far off.

B) I will not stop defending myself. However, our work here must proceed. I'll shall continue with what I always do. 'Nuff said. --Ricimer 20:37, 27 January 2006 (EST)

Ricimer said, "I never give out my real name, location, image, or allow my actual voice to be heard." Good. *wink* Then no one will be able to tell by visual or audio dientification that I am not you when I steal your idtentity. *wink* I jest, of course. --Day 07:00, 28 January 2006 (EST)

How does everyone else know that I have not already stolen Day's identity, and am just "arguing" with him now as a sock puppet, as an elaborate ruse to cover up my assumption of his identity? Makes you think.--Ricimer 13:08, 28 January 2006 (EST)