User talk:Spencerian

For discussions prior to January 1, 2006, click here.

For discussions prior to June 1, 2006, click here.

For discussions prior to September 1, 2006, click here.

For discussions prior to December 18, 2006, click here.

Updated User Page

I stole my revised article design from Mercifull, and is living proof that I can't wiki code worth a damn. --Spencerian 21:04, 19 December 2006 (CST)

He stole the design from me. Joe stole it from him. lol. Been going around. heh. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 21:14, 19 December 2006 (CST)

It continues the rounds; I've "borrowed" now. =) JubalHarshaw 23:04, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Response to EoJ Reversion

Hi, just wanted to drop a quick line regarding the rollback to the article summary. I posted a comment regarding it on the Talk page, but wanted to say that as it was written, it seems too narrative. Granted, my changes may have confused readers, but I feel it needs to be consolidated. What do you think? --Sgtpayne 12:26, 20 December 2006 (CST) ^{(T - C - E)}

Shane had a good idea. We could break it up into acts (commercial breaks) but we should keep the relative order. I'll give that a try if someone hasn't done so; I have the episode downloaded. --Spencerian 18:03, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Response from Meteor

Hi you added something to my talk page recently. I just rewatched the scene in Kobol's Last Gleaming part 1 where Elosha, Billy and Roslin discuss Kobol. Billy says the ruins on the planet are 2,000 years old. Elosha responds that this corresponds with when the 13 (not 12) colonies left Kobol.

While I agree you're probably right about the 13th colony leaving for earth 3,600 years ago and the other 12 colonies only a mere 2,000 years I do think the article should reflect the fact that Elosha's comment is not entirely accurate. Meteor

Response from MatthewFenton regarding clean up

Hey. Responded at the talk page showing some concerns as to why I believe it needs a clean up - if you don't think it needs a clean up then feel free to remove the tag, I've shown my concerns at least, hopefully it can make the article better. MatthewFenton 17:39, 1 January 2007 (CST)

Red Pill

Follow the "Yellow" Link Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 12:46, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Strange... it's not yellow for me. (Monobook has either blue or pinkish). --Steelviper 12:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Aww...this is very cool, one way or another. I'll fill it in a little later today. --Spencerian 13:15, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Welcome, Young Padawan!

Congrats! Here's a Squeegee, and some pertinent reading material from Wikipedia. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:04, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Have we seen a Squeegee Boy in BSG yet? :-) Congrats Spenc! Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 20:07, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Congrats man, you've earned it. --Talos 21:54, 13 January 2007 (CST)

Congratulations ;-) MatthewFenton 06:08, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Congratulations! --Peter Farago 08:06, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Much obliged, everyone. Thanks. --Spencerian 09:58, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for the advice you left on my talk page, next time I'll try not to jump the gun without better researching.--The One True Fred 08:00, 26 January 2007 (CST)

We've all done it before, but its not much of a learning curve. Once you know what's probably rumor and what's good, it only makes contributing and reading things here that much more intriguing. Don't let it sway your enthusiasm! --Spencerian 08:05, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Howdy

Are you a fan of the flying bikes of doom? MatthewFenton 04:44, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Um, I have no idea what that is. --Spencerian 08:10, 27 January 2007 (CST)

"Flying motorcycle" I presume --Serenity 08:12, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Galactica 1980 :-P MatthewFenton 08:22, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Oh, lords, no. It's only ten episodes, but because of its horror I blame it for my social inadequacies in high school, my acne, the heartbreak of psoriasis and global warming. Who can I sue? Is that Oprah calling...? --Spencerian 08:33, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Also, FYI, Dr. Phil on line 5. --Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 08:59, 27 January 2007 (CST)

The origin of mankind

I noticed a comment in my talk about why you removed notes about the real Earth as homeworld for Humanity some months ago, feeling they were fanwanking. At the same time you pointed to pages about the sacred scrolls and various fan theories about the Exodus or Exodi in the show. In order to learn, I wanted to understand the difference. Is it just where I put it? My goal was to add only factual information. While I realize that the Earth in the show is going to be somewhat fictionalized (if we ever see it) there is an important difference between an Earth that had a different history than ours, and one where the science is so different that you might as well say Mars had canals (a common SF trope from before the 60s) or that rocks fall up.

However, where is the proper place to speculate what theories of Earth are consistent with what the writers are trying to show us in the program? The question of whether, in the re-imagined series, Earth is a colony of Kobol, or instead Kobol is a colony of Earth (and why that was covered up) is an important one to the show, and there are a number of clues in the show pointing to the latter case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bradtem (talk • contribs).

I agree that removing your comments while allowing the convoluted theories in Sacred Scrolls stand isn't right. It's either both or neither. And if I ever saw fanwank, that's it. I'm toying with the idea of deleting that eyesore and presenting both theories very briefly, but without going into much detail. In fact that's what I'm going to do now. I've already mentioned that on the talk page there as well. However, I don't think those theories should be expanded much further there, as they go beyond the scope of "Sacred Scrolls" --Serenity 06:18, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I tend to agree with Serenity, Bradtem. Obviously the writers want to play with the viewers and make the more "thoughtful" of us wonder about this chicken-and-egg origin. At the same time, they purposefully don't indicate if BSG occurs in real-world Earth's past, present or future. As a result, we shouldn't speculate in detail, thus the concision or removal of your contribution (my apologies as I can't remember the specific reasons and haven't time right now to delve through the history for review). As Serenity noted, we should touch on the possibilities, but we must not go into elaborate "hypotheses" about it as that is strictly fanwanking. A few short definitive notes based on what has aired, and we must leave the rest of the speculation to the talk pages of the article or the reader's imagination. --Spencerian 08:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I think his confusion stems from the fact that you linked him to a page that contained far more baseless speculation than his relatively short addition you removed. It looked like you removed something that was fine elsewhere. He didn't even really speculate, but presented a scientific fact. Personally I agree with it, and hate those "we don't really have to pay attention to science. They can do what they want" arguments. Of course there is the possibility of BSG taking place in an alternate universe which has also been hinted at in podcasts/interviews.

But as you said, that's a discussion more suitable for forums, and a short outline of each point of view probably suffices here. --Serenity 08:25, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. The whole subject is too confusing, which means we're doing the right thing in concising it in the first place. --Spencerian 08:46, 1 February 2007 (CST)

While the theories and speculation may be fanwanks, tracking down the real clues found within the show that back up or refute speculations is a worthwhile function for a wiki, in my view. However, it does mean you probably need to make references to the theories to understand why a real canonical detail is important to note. For example, Adama calls the Lagoon Nebula by the name M8, which is an 18th century Earth designation. That's either a writing error or pretty hard evidence regarding theories of the origin of Kobol and the colonies in the show. Either way it's worth noting, and the context is important. Sometimes there isn't even a theory. Today you removed an addition to the article of the Temple of 5, where I noted that there are 6 drapes and 5 figures standing on 5 of them, one is vacant. I don't actually know what that means in terms of speculation, but it smells like it's important so I was surprised to see it removed. In addition, my addition of information on Tyrol's reluctance to destroy the temple is also, in my view, important -- Tyrol is demonstrably under some external influence when it comes to the temple, so again I think it's important to understanding the temple, not just to the story of the episode, though I don't yet know why and did not include any speculation as to why. I ask this because it's obviously no fun to contribute items just to have them reverted. I try to stick to facts and information from actual episodes when editing pages that are not meant for speculation. --User:Bradtem

Those are all things that can be added to the episode articles (generally under "Analysis"). The M8 thing is mentioned on Home, Part II example. --Serenity 17:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)

I understand a desire not to repeat all the episode summaries in other places, but everything in an article about a special object or character is from some episode, so does it not make sense to include the key points to understanding the object in question in the article about it? It's a pretty fuzzy line, my view is that you really only want to roll back something that's false or a pointless addition. The line about M8, if it's not a writing error, for example, is arguably the most important clue given in the Temple of Athena scene about the nature of Earth. It would be odd to me to not repeat it both under the episode summary, but also in the pages on Earth and the Tomb. If somebody adds every single thing from an episode, that might be rolled back as redundant. But if they filter what they judge to be the most important things learned about something, that is, if done well, useful information so I would not roll it back.--Bradtem 15:53, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Superbowl

So colts fan, what's your plans for the big game? Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 14:07, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Not sure. A bunch of friends are throwing a party, so I thought I'd go and cheer (or cry) with them, show off my new work MacBook Pro laptop...stuff like that. This frakker rocks... :) Anywho, our city is happy just to be in the Big Show; winning will be OK, but, prior to 1984, we normally sided with the Bears, so it's kinda win-win for everybody. Heard that we're vying to be the host for Super Bowl 45 in 2011... ha. --Spencerian 14:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)

The odds are in the colts favor... 7 to 1. Shane ^{(T - C - E)} 15:29, 1 February 2007 (CST)