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)

My Gods...GalacticaActual[edit]

Some news that I felt I must share. First, a brief summary for those who might not know. In the beginning, there was the Scifi.com official site messageboard. It didn't have enough administrators to keep pace with trolls (the admins just shows up like once a week), so there were many battles with trolls from the Miniseries to around when "33" aired. Over time, the administrators there have gotten better, to the point that in Season 2.5 things are great. However, when Season 2.0 premiered, there was another wave of attacks by a troll that knew how to completely disrupt a messageboard by making titles that were 100 characters long (imagine "AAAAAAAAA" hundreds of times; this makes the window ridiculously wide and nearly impossible to carry out meaningful conversation (he'd do it in individual threads he hadn't started either). Anyway, the posters known as "Caravaggio" and "Solium" at the time wanted to conduct a "fan awards" show, the Golden Toaster Awards. They proved immensely popular; Caravaggio, who ran the votes, just put up threads that said "private message me with your ballot" (a thread of people posting their votes would have been too long). Eventually, HUNDREDS of votes were tallied...this was no pedestrian vote, but a treally good sampling of the fanbase online. Problem was the troll attacks were increasing, Scifi.com kept becoming barely legible because of them, and worse; Scifi.com's messageboards had never had the volume of users that BSG had for other shows, so it's boards tended to crash on Friday night after an episode when EVERYONE wanted to talk about it (this happened for like 6-8 weeks in a row). As a result, a decision was made. You see, a small fan messageboard had been made by a group of Ohio BSG fans (called Battlestar Ohio or something). Anyway, they soon proved popular enough to decide to be a "nation" thing, and "GalacticaActual" was born. Caravaggio, Solium, and the others that ran it decided to move the "Awards Show" for the "First Annual Golden Toaster Fan Awards" to GalacticaActual (that is, posters got selected to be the presenter (or "announcer") of an award winner, in an "awards show thread" which filled 60 pages). ***Of course, you could still vote from the official Scifi.com site, and the results were posted there, but the "show" was moved to GalacticaActual, because troll attacks at the official site would have destroyed it. In a classic rags to riches story, GalacticaActual overnight easily doubled it's membership, tripled, and became a fan messageboard on par with GalacticaStation's RagnarAnchorage (I actually think GalacticaStation is of course the better site because it has multimedia such as images and video, and it is the premiere NEWS site for BSG stuff, and GalacticaActual is just a messageboard, but it's a good one.) GalactiaActual, one of the top 5 or so BSG sites, was founded and existed as a save haven from troll attacks, and rampant bashing from rabid TOS fans (who were still quite active at the time).

Now, I have received news which can described simply as "sobering. "Sic Sic Heretic" is another of the "big names" in the fanbase (not so big as Blade Runner, who runs Galactica Station, but one of the second-tier fan organizers and quite prominent). He did a lot of work on GalacticaStation (the site, but also the messageboard), and became one of the fans that practically ran GalacticaActual, easily becoming an Administrator. Furhtermore, Solium actually designed GalacticaOhio (the first incarnation of GalacticaActual), and GalacticaCIC (which is one of the links on our front page) *for* Sic Sic Heretic. He was/is a very prominent fan. Although apparently the lead owner/runner of these sites (though he did not design them, and GalacticaActtual was no longer soley controlled by him) GalacticaActual got big-enough that it was a cooperative effort; with MANY Administrators, etc., but Sic Sic Heretic was the *Head Administrator* for GalacticaActual.

However, on January 28th, 2006, Caravaggio and Solium released SHOCKING news about Sic Sic Heretic:

In this message on the official Scifi.com messageboard, Caravaggio and Solium revealed that upon hearing several complaints about Head Administrator Sic Sic Heretic (real name "Drew"), they discovered the following upon inquiry in the Administrators' private forum:

Sic Sic Heretic had been sexually harassing female staff members
As Solium put it, "was using the board (unknown to us) as a dating service, and making advances towards the female members and female staff. He basically gave all the women the same line and made them think they were special. "
"He internally promoted female members (that responded to his emotional or physical needs) to Moderators and Administrators.
As a result many female staff members were left uneasy, and wanted to quit
He had used money that was given to them as donations for their webpage for his own personal use.
They got "no real response for the first charge" and he "came up with some lame one for the second".
Sic Sic Heretic was asked for the receipts and a full accounting of member donations and how they had been spent by him and he provided neither
The rest of the administrators felt that they should ban him, but before they could, he banned himself
However, that was just the beginning: Sic Sic Heretic hacked into one of the admin accounts and went into their control panel and started to try and lock the rest the administrators. Luckily one of the other admins was in there at the same time, realized what was happening and put an end to it. However, they were reluctant to ban him from the entire Invision server, and didn't report it.
On January 28th, after "Black Market" aired, Sic Sic Heretic somehow gained access back to their site. Either he hacked his way in again or he tricked Invision into giving him access back. He proceeded to make a series of ultimatums, etc.
GalacticaActual was founded on the ideal of being a safe haven from troll attacks, and now their very own Head Administrator, (a poster/roving BSG news reporter that I, Ricimer, have known of for years on these various sites and thought of as a reliable member of the fanbse), Sic Sic Heretic, has performed the ultimate act of trolling and betrayal, and borderline illegal activity, dealing a serious blow to the fanbase as a whole.
Caravaggio is unsure at this point if Invision will give them access back to their board after he seized it, or if it will remain in Sic Sic Heretic's hands.
- Caravaggio has stated three possibilities:
  - They get control back, and try to recover from the massive damage this has caused.
  - Sic Sic Heretic retains it through manipulation of his Head Administrator status. In which case, Caraggio has stated that the other administrators will quit en masse, and either:
    - A) Build an entirely new messageboard, or
    - B) Return to posting on soley the Scifi.com messageboard, because the Administrators there are *INFINITELY* better than they were Six months ago, and hacking attacks and trolls are actually no longer a problem at all there.
As simple Users (I mean just regular posting on a messageboard), Sic Sic Heretic has banned Caravaggio and Solium from both GalacticaActual and GalacticaCIC; these men are Captains among the fanbase; Caravaggio was the leader behind the Golden Toaster Awards, and for Gods' sakes, Solium founded his own Nicki Clyne Cally fansite of which I am a member, he has mailed fanmail the Golden Toaster Awards (printed up with fanart) to the entire cast where it was received at the season two wrap party, he got a ***PERSONAL*** Reply package from Nicki Clyne and he's now on a FRAKKING FIRST NAME BASIS WITH HER. It's just...it's just....these men were our heros, our greatest success stories; I looked up to them and THEY APPRECIATED MY IDEAS. I mean I thought up HALF OF THE NOMINATIONS FOR THE GOLDEN TOASTERS, it was a great fan effort, a happy time! And this man Sic Sic Heretic....he's done...done this to them....

Essentially, all have now confirmed that Sic Sic Heretic has been promoting female posters that respond to his advances to Administrators, and as events spiralled out of control, he's banned most of the veteran users from both sites; for complaining about his behavior and about his banning of the leaders of the site, who actually designed it themselves (it is not "his" site; they built it, they just made him administrator). I think several of these advances atually occured offline, in the real world.

I felt everyone should know.

Secondly, although he hasn't been here in like a year, "Sic Sic Heretic" is still technically a member of BattlestarWiki and I think we should ban him and his IP adress, declaring him persona non grata. This was also a heads-up that we may have to remove GalactiacaActual (and possibly even GalacticaCIC) from our realiable links list in the coming months. Updates as I get them.--Ricimer 15:23, 29 January 2006 (EST)

While this sounds very serious and bad (especially the sexual harrasment bit), I don't know if we can ban Sic Sic Heretic from BSGWiki. He may have broken rules on other sites, and he may have even broken laws. But, and I could be wrong, I don't think we can ban him from here unless he's broken rules here. However, if all that you says is true, I hope we simply never hear from him and never have to deal with him. --Day 18:02, 29 January 2006 (EST)

We can't outright ban him in a proactive manner just because he's broken rules elsewhere... And, as much as I find the above events disparaging, I believe the discussion of banning Sic Sic Heretic is an unnecessary measure, seeing as he has not contributed to this Wiki, AFAIK. -- Joe Beaudoin 23:36, 30 January 2006 (EST)

It is now official: BladeRunner has put out an e-mail confirming that GalacticaActual is offline, permamently. It should therefore be removed from our list of links on the front page. --Ricimer 19:21, 29 January 2006 (EST)

A concern I have to address, on the behalf of the community[edit]

Ricimer,

While I've been lurking behind the scenes, as it were, I feel that I need to talk to you regarding your tone to other members. Other admins have already attempted to discuss the tone you have used against members; seeing as this hasn't worked out all that well, I've decided to talk to you directly. For instance, I am concerned about your hastily arrived at assertion that Centuri was a sock puppet of Languatron/Spider. (I believe this incident should never have occured in the first place, and could have easily been avoided with just civil conversation and the assumption of good faith on Centuri's part.)

More recently, I am concerned about the discussions you have had between Peter (basically accusing him of using his "newfound power" to attack you, which in itself is a form of personal attack) on your talk page. You and Peter may have had differences in the past, but as of late, you seem to be rashly lashing out at people, and generally assuming bad faith on the part of your fellow contributors. (An example that comes to mind is the discussion you had with BMS and Day rearding the "roll the hard six" saying on Talk:William Adama.)

Unfortunately, there are other examples as well -- minor in themselves, but I am getting complaints from multiple members regarding your behavior and, as the de facto head of this Wiki, I need to address these issues because I am ultimately responsible for ensuring the security and the steady, positive pulse of the Wiki, as it were.

I have to ask if there isn't something else going on that is influencing this behavior, because this seems to be building up for some time now. If there is something else going on, might I suggest that you take a wiki break? I know that you are a fairly private person, but whatever it is (assuming that there is an issue), you may benefit from a break -- and, perhaps, by talking to someone.

Regardless, all I ask is that you seriously consider your tone and actions to others on this Wiki -- you are a valued (and seasoned) contributor here, and because of that people look to you as a role model. This may have never been said directly, but this is true, and as such you also affect the morale and general attitude of the community more than I think you realize.

If you feel the need to talk, please feel free to talk to myself or another contributor of your choice. Thank you, Ricimer. -- Joe Beaudoin 00:17, 31 January 2006 (EST)

I'm fond of bulleted lists (I'd use a flow chart, but wiki's don't support them well):

I find your warnings somewhat redundant in regard to Farago, Joe; as seen in the edit on 20:37, 27 January 2006, I had alreay agreed to let the matter rest some days ago.
The incident regarding Centuri was a simple mistake, and I have retracted it utterly upon realizing my error
That's actually the way I talk normally.
In regard to personal affairs; the history pages speak for themselves; article entries in all 24 hours of the day are seen to have been made by myself; as a college student, I suffer from extreme sleep deprivation and the side effects associated with it and extreme caffeine dependency, resulting in Tyler Durden-esque mentality. Long story short, I tend to just be short with everyone as a result.
In the words of God (H2G2), "I appologize for the inconvenience". --Ricimer 02:44, 31 January 2006 (EST)

Don't Bite the Newbies, pt. III[edit]

Re: your greeting to Timtrout:

I cannot help but feel that we've had this conversation once or twice before. --Peter Farago 02:40, 7 February 2006 (EST)

This is ridiculous in the extreme, Farago. I was obviously *NOT* biting the newbies; reading my comments you can BLATANTLY see that I was being purely informative and trying to help; pointing out that A) we don't use the term "Bio-Cylon" and B) proper citation format. How is ANY SINGLE FRAKKING THING I said in any way inflamatory? No, wait, I shall repost it here:

Hello and welcome. Please familiarize yourself with our Standards and Conventions here on BSGWiki. Firstly, see "Humano-Cylon"; there is no definative name for these Cylon models, (it's actually under debate whether we should keep using Humano-Cylon, as Cylon agent, Humanoid Cylon, etc. are also common). However, as you can see in the notes at the end of thier article, "Bio-Cylon" is considered a pejorative term applied to the Re-Imagined Series by Original Series detractors of it. Next, when you cite information, do not use "(episode: "Scar"). Rather, to set it up do this: At the end of what you've written, write: ("[Scar]"). ( Notice that I just added in one bracket there so you could see it, but normally use double brackets to make a link). Periods go after the Parentheses. An example would be as follows: --> Scar is a Cylon Raider ("Scar"). -->that would do nicely. --Ricimer 01:28, 7 February 2006 (EST)

This was purely informative and neither brusque nor insulting. I demand that you retract your accusations, lest they gradually accumulate into a (actually unfounded) assult on my character. Say "Ricimer is till biting the newbs" FALSLEY, long enough and it will be accepted as truth. Retract your statement. --Ricimer 03:39, 7 February 2006 (EST)

Your comments were informative and I believe you that you did not intend them harshly. However, I still think that it's very important to maintain a welcoming and forgiving tone with new contributors, which in my opinion your message did not accomplish. I apologize if Timtrout also thinks my message was unwarranted, but as a matter of policy I think it's important to keep one another aware that the tone that our messages convey may not always be the one we intended. --Peter Farago 12:00, 7 February 2006 (EST)