User talk:Barbecue Barbecue

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Hello from Kinch Heights

Let it be known that the SSCC has friends in the Kinch Heights Restoration Committee of the interim Malton government. We are small and are influence doesn't extend far, but in the coming days we hope to expand and grow!

Bobby Bubonic says:

"Zmazh zah gabbanmahn! Anargh! az BARHAH!"

Roughly translated, I think he's saying, "That's very kind of you, but our clashing belief systems would most likely result in excessive and unavoidable interpersonal discord."  ;P

--WanYao 07:05, 3 August 2007 (BST)

Just thought you outta know

That akule is probably going to throw a temper tantrum, then spam you with a bunch of wiki-lawyering bullshit. Good luck to you.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:06, 11 July 2007 (BST)

Appreciate the heads-up and good wishes. I like to think I'm helping him grow as a person :) --Barbecue Barbecue 03:10, 11 July 2007 (BST)
Well, seeing as this has happened before, I don't think he's capable of learning anything. Oh well, someday our actions might have an effect on him. Like when he's in court for copyright infringement. That would be the funniest twist to a story ever, tell you that much. Later.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:13, 11 July 2007 (BST)

River Tactics

Simple, they won't work. If you try to persuade a large amount of survivors to move, a part of them will do it and another won't. That'll make them weak and easy meals for zombies, and a good one for large groups like the EF. My idea is: A) Run to Yagoton (Because it's one of the most safe areas in Malton). B) Grab ammo, FAKs and syringes and then try to retake Shuttlebank. What do you think?--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 22:14, 24 October 2006 (BST)

You make a very fair point as concerns the practical, Thari--I don't disagree there at all. Unfortunately, the alternative still means spending APs in travel back and forth that zombies, in place, can spend on taking down cades and survivors. The net has to be a loss, if only in raw AP terms, for survivors. On the other hand, even if via River Tactics some lingering survivors are lost (who might have been anyway) in the process, making the by definition predatory zombies go looking for work, split up, and spend AP seeking brainz is likelier to reverse that imbalance in favor of survivors, at least as I see it. That said, I'm certainly willing to run with your program--whatever it takes to bring South Shuttlebank back (I hope to run for mayor eventually). Barbecue Barbecue 06:54, 25 October 2006 (BST)

Yagoton/Survivor News

Ugh. Kill me now. That thing is going to turn into a monstrosity.--Gage 03:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Gage, you want to tell me something, in wiki rules-terms, why instituting survivor and zombie news pages for a given suburb is against the rules? Or why it's not superior to a bunch of separate group/journal pages, when there are typically multiple interested parties that don't share a given group/journal page, but do share a location? --Barbecue Barbecue 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the page that I have is that it is a subpage of Yagoton page. When you say, "You can place POV news on this page, what you are saying is that there is such a thing as POV news. I am going to tell you that there isn't. You never turn on the television or read in the paper news that is biased heavily to one side or the other. That stuff is NPOV. You do hear biased commentary from commentators on the news though, and you do see biased articles from editorials. That is because those are certain pages that were created to contain biased material. You have placed an editorial on the front page of the paper IMO, or put a commentator at the news desk. We already have pages that are POV. Those are group, journal, or user pages. Keep it there where it should be please, and I would appreciate you putting up that stuff for deletion on M/SD--Gage 05:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Gage, there is such a thing as POV news... really, all news is POV news, but we won't get into academic stuff here. In any case, I'm not sure what televisions you turn on, but both in the States, and in the UK (the latter is limited experience for me), every paper represents a POV, heavily or not--people choose their papers and stations based upon the slant they expect to get; the last hotel I stayed at in the UK asked me which paper I wanted, and when I wasn't sure, tried to direct me based on my politics. That said, even if I were to agree with you, what would you propose as a solution to location-based POV pages, which cannot be solved by group, journal, or user pages directly? All I tried to do was create, at worst, a pointer to the editorial pages on the front page, not an editorial itself, to use your framework... how is that a problem? --Barbecue Barbecue 06:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
We all know that POV news isn't really news. It is commentary on the news. That is what the talk page is for. Suburb pages are NPOV according to the SSG. This is a suburb subpage. Therefore, by extension, it is part of the suburb page. I have a problem with you implying that the survivor/zombie cheer leading that is going to occur on those pages is actually news. News is "There are 3 zombies outside X building" and that is it. You see what I am saying?--Gage 06:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, to take up your point--even if everything you say is true, what's really wrong with having separate "talk" pages for POV news? And I have a problem with you implying that there's no value to reports that focus on a particular group's interests... it doesn't even have to mean it's not neutral, i.e. fair and balanced : ) but that the news is of interest to a particular group, i.e. Bob Smith is calling for a return of survivors to Yag, etc. and encouraging the locals? To put the last problem first and front, where does one put a post that says, Yagoton survivors, whatever group/user you may be, take heart? Give me the practical answer to that one, and this may be solved. --Barbecue Barbecue 06:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Would it ease things if the links/pages referred to survivor/zombie commentary, as you prefer? I just don't see the value in constantly pushing all this out to a single talk page (which is what various users keep doing on this particular page, making for a rather unreadable talk page in the end, and a lot of pointless argument)... regardless of which side I'm on, I'd like a nice, readable, consistent set of reports reflecting how a given side sees events, and I don't think I'm alone in this. --Barbecue Barbecue 06:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Last example, to clarify what we need here: in the States, conservatives pick up the National Review for their "news" about the US; liberals pick up the Nation. I don't see why we cannot accomodate a location-based equivalent set of links+pages, substituting zombies and humans for conservatives and liberals... both get what they're looking for and can communicate with a group that shares their POV and their location. --Barbecue Barbecue 06:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this is that I am a flagrant PK/GK/RK er in game. Should I get my own page too? Surely the survivor page wouldn't carry what I want, nor would the zombie page. We would just have conflicts on the different pages over what is news. In fact, we would have three conflicts. Don't open this can of worms, I beg you.--Gage 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's also say that the SSG Gage cites as the authoritative rule on NPOV/POV in the suburbs is explicitly NOT policy, but suggested guidelines for those involved in maintaining suburb pages. The people who have actual stakes in the suburb should be able to work out their own ways of running the burb in lines with or regardless of the SSG style guide. A mod should only start bandying protection lock and edit warnings if there's a stink coming from the suburb. It's not entirely clear if that's what's going on here, or whether Gage just doesn't like the way thing look here.--The Envoy 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


my random 2 bits

i just wanna pipe in in support of your general position, BB.
[rant mode on]
there is no such thing as unbiased news. frankly, the only people who think the news is NPOV or unbiased are people who have so thoroughly (and often unconsciously) bought into a specific bias, that they aren't even aware of its bias anymore... they just assume it's "objective" and "factual".... when it is anything but... anyone wanna try to tell me that Fox News is unbiased? anyone want to try to tell me that the NYT don't have an agenda? all media, no matter how objective they pretend to be, slant the "facts". thus, the whole premise the wiki lawyers are arguing from is inherently flawed from the start.
NPOV dictators?? ... do you know the news actually works, in the real world? ever heard of something called a "Press Release"? what about an interview? or an eyewitness account? all of these things are the building blocks of a news article, and they are TOTALLY point-of-view. the task of the writer/editor is to sift through the raw information, the opinions, interviews, transcripts, press releases... and try to write an article that gets across the important points and is also balanced towards all sides involved. this is a critical distinction that seems to go over the heads of wiki commandantes: there is a difference between NPOV and "balanced" ..............
and frankly, i don't give a damn about "x zombies outside the NT building, y survivors inside". sure, this is factual... it's also intensely topical, almost immediately out of date, and thus totally useless to me as a gamer. i hate those kind of news reports, personally. it's just not USEFUL or INFORMATIVE. capiche?
and finally... i have said this over and over and over in the last few days. this is a GAME. the wiki is a GAME TOOL, not a real world encyclopedia. Malton is a collectively created FICTIONAL GAME WORLD. strict wikipedia-type NPOV standards just are not appropriate here. what is appropriate is to create something that is both useable and informative bas GAME TOOL and enjoyable by the GAMERS who play the GAME which is called Urban Dead.
so... standards? yeah, that'd be nice. good informational writing in a game context and no mere group self-advertising? yup. etc. etc.
wiki lawyers telling everyone to conform to some standard that just isn't appropriate to a GAMING TOOL?? wiki commandantes trying to have their way with the official pages, with their censorship and their personal bias masquerading as NPOV? just say NO!
maybe UD needs a Malton Indy Media?...
[rant mode off.... ]
--WanYao 17:55, 25 July 2007 (BST)
2+2 bits = some kibbles
You're welcome...
The whole NPOV thing is a bit out of hand, in some ways. Now that I have been around a bit longer, I can see how there are some people who totally abuse the News and Info in the wiki 'burb pages. And of course I want to see wikis and news that are fair and not just mere ego-stroking. But in some cases, the wiki lawyers just go too far. We should be allowed to create wikis that have some character, and the News should reflect the actual NEWS. Not random statistics, and not mere propaganda, either. There's just too little reasonable thinking in this game... I guess that's to be expected, though, given the fact that 14 year olds and lonely real-life trenchcoat mafia types are typically drawn to this kind of game... Luckily, there are also a lot of people who are not like that, too.
Let's just have fun. And be reasonable about it, while we're at it, that's what I say. Cool? ;) --WanYao 15:08, 1 August 2007 (BST)

CatEar_Alucard

Keep out of this, it really dosen't concern you. Besides, I've had about enough of this and am probably sending it to arbitration as soon as I get back from classes. Besides, out of all my edits, Zoko is the only one who's ever made a fuss over my edits.

That's strange...

You know, I don't recall asking for any comments from the peanut gallery. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 16:44, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Even stranger is having a "Criticism" section on your talk page that invites comments from the peanut gallery and then deleting material posted there. --Barbecue Barbecue 16:47, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Warning: Extremely Silly Response Below This Line


That section is there for criticism from two kinds of people. People who are actually involved in disputes I'm in, and people I've never had contact with. You fit into neither category. I hurt your precious feelings by being a big mean bully, and now you're taking potshots because of my perceived vulnerability. That kind of petty gripe gets no attention from me. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 16:59, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Conformity

Learn to read or stay off of my user pages. It clearly says post new comments at the top. In the future however you might want to learn how to edit the wiki and not revert a complete edit entailing multiple things to get one little thing. That and don't be an asshat while doing it, you are lucky I even am responding to you at all after your douchebaggery.--Karekmaps?! 22:22, 19 July 2007 (BST)

{{NPOV}}

I did see that ruling, but as the template was already placed at the top of the page AND there was a sentence of text regarding NPOV news submissions, I thought it simply redundant. Hope the gentleman in question doesn't decide to make a big issue out of it.. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 02:02, 20 July 2007 (BST)

a note

It was pleasant to work with you and other guys of South Shuttlebank Council in Marfell NT. Now that it has fallen my character wandered away, so no chance to say it in-game. Good Luck in your deeds --~~~~T''' 20:32, 14 August 2007 (BST)

anytime!

Please feel free to join in the argument on the 'vandal banning' page as well - its us versus a whole horde of zombie propagandists!--Crabappleslegalteam 20:28, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Deletion Queue Question

In your vote you mentioned ambiguity in the rule. I'm just curious as to what ambiguity you are referring - Vantar 01:54, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Vandal Banning

Crabappleslegalteam was assuming bad faith because he didn't like the edit. Sonny was, or at least from the look of it was, trying to remove groups that he though obviously were unlikely to be in the suburb. Yes, he probably should have removed zombie groups too, but just because he didn't doesn't make it bad faith. The way I see it, and the way it looks like the sysops saw it, was that Sonny was trying to remove unreliable information, to better the page. Crabappleslegalteam assumed it was zombies propaganda and bad faith then accused everyone who didn't agree with him about it being bad faith as being a zombie propagandist. I don't know what Sonny is trying to do, I'm not Sonny. But I was simply pointing out that periodic removing of groups is a way to keep the information up to date when Dylan Mak Tyme and Crabappleslegalteam started accusing me of disreputable behavior, then started doing the same to Boxy and everyone else who didn't agree that Sonny's edits were vandalism. Dylan even went as far as to do this. I have absolutely no idea why I typed or said all of that.

All of that aside, the reason why I said it was necessary was stuff like this where a historical group long since gone from the suburb is still listed. There is no way to check if the group isn't there unless you know the group and so more often then not the group stays on the list. It's the same basic concept as people trying to prove a theory wrong, you can't prove an abscence of something so you have to prove it's existence. And that is why I said it was necessary. There is some dicussion about it on the suburb talk page but it's probably more drama ridden then it's worth. Oh, and as for your comments on Crabappleslegalteam's talk page, we had one argument once, it's settled and done with as far as I'm concerned. I don't hold grudges but if you want to start a tiring argument with me feel free to stop by my talk page, I'm always willing to argue as long as your point has at least some merit.--Karekmaps?! 05:25, 12 September 2007 (BST)


September 8th EMRP

25.96 MHz: "... flying over Shuttlebank, it's looking empty ... a lot of buildings with lights on ... infrastructure looks intact ... the Godden Building is operational ..."

The EMRP implies safe (and I've been going around updating suburb danger reports) -- but I'd prefer to leave any interpretation of the Shuttlebank data (and possible change of danger status) to you, as military helicopters can't see everything. Plus I don't want to abruptly interrupt the flow of your style of reporting. ;) The Shuttlebank page is actually up-to-date...most of the other pages to which I've added change-of-status EMRP reports are months old.  :/ --Jen 23:54, 8 September 2011 (BST)

Why thank you! I'm glad my page could be of some use. :) And I'd say it's very possible one of my alts crossed the path of one of your alts at some point, especially if you ever sent one through Pitneybank or Kempsterbank. --Jen 19:37, 11 September 2011 (BST)

Great Picnic

Hey, it's Weasel Campbell(Roman Wolf). Just wanted to say I had a great time at the picnic and just wanted to leave a bit of a message for ya. --Roman Wolf 21:06, 15 October 2011 (BST)

Personal tools
project wonderful
column-okay