User talk:Funt Solo/Archive01

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


General Wiki Editing


The reason the page isn't working is because of a new security feature. It counts the # of templates on a page and doesn't call them if there are too many. This prevents massive template calls. You will have to archive most of the page or get rid of the templates if you want to fix it.--Gage 01:24, 29 October 2006 (BST)


Mods can use the revert button once you pull up a history, but since you arn't a Mod you have to do it the long way. 1. Pull up the Page history
2. Select compare teh two edits prior to the Vandalism
3. Select Edit
4. "Cut" the entire page...
5. Exit the edit function (dont save)and View the page as it is with the Vandalism.
6. Select edit again, and Paste (this time save.)

Conndrakamod T CFT 00:02, 6 October 2006 (BST)

What to do about a typo

Hey, I've found a typo in one of the barricading messages. I don't think "Hey, Kevan, you made a typo here" is enough to qualify as a suggestion, so what should I do? --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wiki News

You keep forgetting that news-plugs on the template should be switching colour yello-white-yello-white etc. just a note. --~~~~ [talk] 12:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know why I'd never noticed that. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Just noting that;

  1. they were my additions (which Nubis apparently failed to notice when de-striking), and
  2. they were there because of this (compare to the previous revision and you'll notice the difference). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:13, 4 June 2008 (BST)
Honestly, I don't get it, at all. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:23, 5 June 2008 (BST)
Text struck with {{s}} that contains templates or some tags (like <span> with a style attribute) are not displayed properly without "1=". It's basically telling to the wiki software explicitly that "this is the first argument". I have no idea why it's required for those, though. It's just something I noticed. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:39, 5 June 2008 (BST)
Aha! I've always wondered why some struck text just disappears and leaves the {{1}} thing lying around. Ta much. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:47, 5 June 2008 (BST)


just wanted to link you to the page i've been working on lately, as you might be interested. --~~~~ [talk] 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


I know this is something really old but, I've been wondering. Is there a reason you redirected pages like this to Peer Reviewed/Rejected etc. instead of the New Skills pages. It seems to have screwed up a few links(although I don't know how the pages were set up in december of '06 so it may be that someone changed the page but didn't update those). I thought I'd ask before going through and changing them incase there's a reason I should leave them as is that I don't know.--Karekmaps?! 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That was a long time ago, so I'm having trouble remembering. Is it to do with this? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what broke the redirects from the looks of it.--Karekmaps?! 14:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused - from memory, I'd cleared out those pages when creating the (then) new system, but rather than delete them, I redirected to the newer ones. Did I get some of them wrong? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Try the redirect, the one I linked was Skill Addition: Zombie#Ransack. By redirecing it to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page instead of the PR_Skill_New:_Zombie:_Memories_Of_Life_Tree page it breaks the header link(the #Ransack portion). --Karekmaps?! 14:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Will have time to check later & learn where I went wrong. I assume you're correct, so my bad. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That's all I needed, thanks. I'll start fixing them later when I have some free time to use on it.--Karekmaps?! 14:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well I've finally remembered why I did it the way I did it: the old pages don't directly map to the new pages. Like, the old Stats page had no direct equivalent in the new system, so just redirects to the general PR suggestions page. Is there some way of seeing what other pages link to a particular page, so that broken links can be fixed manually? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
On the left hand side of the screen in the box titled toolbox, the first link What links here will show everything that links to that page. Special:Whatlinkshere/Funt Solo/Archive01. --Karekmaps?! 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Aha! So obvious and yet so unseen. Thanks. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Encumbrance Calculator?

The page seems not to be working...any ideas when it will be back up or where I can access it from a different site? --BrainsTasty 06:30, 10 June 2008 (BST)

I'll have it back up on a new addy - I had to move all my 'net gear recently. Watch this space. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 08:38, 10 June 2008 (BST)
Ding! UD enc calc

Building Pics.

Like the new building pics. My favourites the duke of albany.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that the pub? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Its the location for shaun of the dead.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the pics are great.... Plus, it saves me some bother when I get round to creating the individual pages for em.--SeventythreeTalk 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mod Conspiracy

Mod Conspiracy

Hah, nice article, I had a good laugh. It's good to see someone still has a sense of humour while all of this drama's going on. Well done. - Jedaz [03:01, 18 January 2008 (BST)]

Grim makes all the best stories. I even skipped a couple in December because I didn't want it to turn into the Grim Show - but I guess I can only work with what I'm given. My next article should be on witch-finding - I could interview Nali, who seems to be our latest witch-that-needs-burning. I suppose I could interview you as well, as a former-witch. Weren't you? Memory failing... --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh, well Grim is the most controversial sysop these days. Yeah, I was a former witch, I try to keep it on the low down these days. I don't know how interesting an interview type of article would be though. However I'm sure you could come up with something. - Jedaz [03:24, 21 January 2008 (BST)]
I dont object to the page, but id like you to keep in mind thats its supposed to be humourous. The most recent one had a tone not unlike that of a rant. Besides, everyone knows i have a better helmet than that. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Fuck - now you're trying to manipulate the media! (Joke. Sort of.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 08:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Methinks there's enough drama now for an update, don't you? :p Can I be in it this time? -- Cheese 20:57, 8 June 2008 (BST)
Drama? What drama? [This comment approved and edited by the SA:UD Takeover Committee. All is well. Trust your leaders. Go back to bed.] --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 2146, 10 June 2008 (BST)
This enough drama for you? =P -- Cheese 19:04, 8 October 2008 (BST)
I was going to do an Et tu, Nubis? skit a couple of days ago when this flared up, but if you read the entire Misconduct case (wtf? are you mad?), some other wags have reached similar conclusions. Thing is, they stabbed Caesar because he was a tyrant. Oh, the similarities... *hronch* *hronch* ... enjoying the popcorn. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:08, 8 October 2008 (BST)
Haha. It was when Nubis went for the Misconduct ruling I was like O_o wtf? Et tu Nubis would be the best opener ever...if it hadn't been pinched already. Spoilsports. -- Cheese 19:13, 8 October 2008 (BST)
Et tu, Nubis? is mine: it's just the stabbing of Caesar comparisons that are rife. Dammit, it's tempting, even though I've got another project on the go... --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:16, 8 October 2008 (BST)
Ooooooo. Do tell. :P -- Cheese 19:18, 8 October 2008 (BST)
Eep! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:42, 8 October 2008 (BST)
I think we need a new update after the most recent turn of events. :P -- Cheese 19:29, 9 October 2008 (BST)
Eep 2.0! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:47, 9 October 2008 (BST)

had long campaigned to rid the government hierarchy of the bloated politicos inhabiting the Psyop Citadel - i guess that bloated politicos meant me, right ? --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 22:11, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Oh, not specifically you, no. It just sounded good, in the context of the article (and the over-arching metaphor of, I suppose, the Russian revolution, or one of them, anyway), to refer to every other sysop as being a bloated politico. Nothing personal, I assure you. It's written from the POV of, you know, whoever's writing it is worried that if they say the wrong thing, then they're up for execution. I was going to write a bit about you becoming a non-sysop, but I wasn't on the wiki at the time so I don't know how that went down. Did you demote yourself? (I read somewhere on here, but I don't recall where exactly, a bit where Grim was taking credit for your demotion, and saying that it was something he'd been working towards for some time. Man, where was that...) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:19, 10 October 2008 (BST)
Yes, i requested my own demotion... mainly because i finally grew tired of having to deal with grim and all drama he was ever creating. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 23:18, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Regarding Mod Conspiracy News Template

As part of Project CP and the Community Portal's usage of the Mod Conspiracy News Template, I'll be changing the coding to that of Template:NBox instead of Template:NewsBox. Long story short, you'll be insering new reports in a similar way to Template:Wiki News from now on, which should be a lot easier and less time consuming.

If I am wrong, you would like to discuss this or you would just like me to leave that Mod Conspiracy template out of the change queue, just let me know. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tank U v. much. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 00:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Good luck updating in the future ^.^ DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


It would appear that someone dropped a line about a conspiracy between the sysops. Update time? --Akule School's in session. 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am amused... by this... "conspiracy." --  AHLGTG 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. When do I get to join the "conspiracy"? :( I haven't got my key to the secret Sysop room yet. -- Cheese 19:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that a couple of guys dressed in black suits turn up at your front door with a saftey-deposit key, leading to a set of instructions whereby you place a specific wanted ad in a paper on a given day and are sent your key. they probably haven't found your house yet.--SeventythreeTalk 21:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can (obviously) feel free to add their own reportage to that page. It's starting to look far too much like The Grim Show, anyway - and now he's semi-retired. I'm not inspired by anything these days - and I was far too close to the last thing I thought was even vaguely worthy. Who is this DCC punk? Doesn't he realise that his news of a conspiracy is olde news? When I wert lad, we had proper conspiracies: none of this "they're trying to ban me for abusing a fellow wikizen" nonsense. We had good old fashioned purges and secret cabals. Come to think of it, Gnome is being kind of, he the new power behind the throne? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gnome was always the power behind the throne........--SeventythreeTalk 21:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, Gnome is being kind of, he the new power behind the throne? - and look who is the new crat ? Prophecies commin true ? --People's Commissar Hagnat talk 19:40, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Well, let's see how well this prophecy stuff works. J3D is being kinda he the real power on the wiki? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:54, 8 October 2008 (BST)

You're back!

Uuuuuupdate! We need our conspiracies. ;) --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

oh please do... mod conspiracy was the best thing on this wiki! -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 01:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I remember that, that conspiracy thing. Conspiring conspirators, those, those. --  AHLGTG 02:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Are the mods conspiring again? C'mon, tho' - unless Zambah Grim has arisen from the grave once again to foist his boiling ego upon an unsuspecting troupe of reclining zompocalypse fans, what have we to worry about? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 00:23, 29 March 2011 (BST)
No but I'm around again, that has to be at least half as good. Right? Right?! Who loves. --Judge Karke00:34, 29 March 2011 (BST)
Weell, ah'll ask heem, bud ah doan theenk he'll be verrah keen. He's already got wahn. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 22:28, 29 March 2011 (BST)
You should read some of the entertaining things that pop up on A/VB. Or just follow Karek around on the wiki. He seems to find the amusing things. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 02:42, 8 April 2011 (BST)
You have no idea how much stuff you ended up missing and are missing that could be Mod Conspiracy gold. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:53, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Another piece joins the ring --hagnat 17:09, 24 May 2011 (BST)


Welcome back. I guess? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:21, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Thanks! (I guess?) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:24, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Nice to see you around. I have been missing the conspiracy updates. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 21:35, 17 August 2009 (BST)

Hasn't it all been peace and prosperity around here since Grim committed webicide? And now you're finally getting a policy in that watches the watchmen. C'blimey ... you're like a dog with a bone. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:39, 17 August 2009 (BST)
Heh. People asked for it, but as you can see, they didn't like Wan's policy, so I offered to make an alternative. As for the state of the wiki post-Grim, I think it's been pretty quiet save for some minor flares, such as the recent trend of overreacting when attempting to save the children due to the removal of the scheduled porn deletion. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:00, 17 August 2009 (BST)

boobs--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 21:39, 17 August 2009 (BST)

willies! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:39, 17 August 2009 (BST)
Boobs. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:18, 17 August 2009 (BST)
Yeah, good point. Boobs it is. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:20, 17 August 2009 (BST)

woah Cyberbob  Talk  22:56, 17 August 2009 (BST)

yes!!!!!!! I LOVE YOU FUNT!!!! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:06, 17 August 2009 (BST)
Jebuth, it's cyberbob! Have you come full circle and become a sysop again? How long have I been out? What year is this? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:32, 17 August 2009 (BST)
Its spooky. Bobs actually turned (back) into a reasonable and decent member of the community... well mostly ;) --Honestmistake 00:01, 18 August 2009 (BST)

Drama Llama

My age

I fail to see what relevance bringing up my age has, apart from being a troll. The fact that you brought it up smacks of my having won the argument - you, in your desperate search for anything to use against me, grasped my age in a last ditch attempt to flame me into submission. Better trolls than you have failed. Cyberbob  Talk  17:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, touchy! I think he was suggesting you were acting like a petulant child... not that you actually are one, still an easy mistake to make i suppose ;-)--Honestmistake 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you have anything constructive to say, or did you just feel an urge to unload some flames? Cyberbob  Talk  17:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey I hope FUNT doesn't mind us using his page but I try to save my constructive comments for the pages people usually read! I was attempting a little gentle humour too lighten the mood rather than trying to burn you so don't worry about it. I mean half the contributors on the wiki are probably under 16 and its not like its a crime to be young... YET! (still joking)--Honestmistake 17:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to talk to Funt, actually. You came barging in with your trolling. If anyone's hijacked Funt's page, it's you. Cyberbob  Talk  17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
???TROLLING??? gentle ribbing surely, lets try to keep things friendly hey! Oh and FUNT is free to remove anything from this page and i for one wouldn't blame him. I only came 'barging in' because I agree with him that you are acting childishly. Rather than bring that up on the main page i noticed this in the recent changes and followed to keep it off the main boards...--Honestmistake 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For God's sake, INDENT. You narrowly avoided a vandalism case for impersonation there. Cyberbob  Talk  18:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what age you are, "Bob". You are acting like a spoilt brat, though. The fact that you think that either one of us is winning in this situation points to a certain immaturity. I'd guess mid-teens, by your hot-headed reaction. Look, I know I can be an argumentative dick at times - but look at what you did today - everyone else was quite happy with voting on the policy (including Xoid and Gage) - so why did you remove it? Was it to uphold the honour of the wiki? Or was it just to be a pain in the backside? I think you can guess which one I think it was. You were acting in bad faith - whether you care to admit it is another question. Now - was I acting in bad faith? Do I vandalise the wiki? Can you really compare me to Gold Blade? Look at my edit history - sure, I get involved in drama from time to time (don't we all, and look at us now), but the vast, vast majority of my edits are trying to improve the content of this wiki. So, please, don't enter into a pointless grudge-game with me. It's not worth it. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Gage was the one who pointed it out to me. Xoid laughed when I told him about it. Cyberbob  Talk  18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so Gage got you to do his dirty work for him. Interesting. You like being used? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Gage had to go, so he didn't have time to do it himself. You like making assumptions? Cyberbob  Talk  18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Defending your fuckup with a sharply delivered return question. Very well. I'll bite. What of that conversation? Cyberbob  Talk  18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's where the discussion prior to the policy took place. The core of it was here. That discussion was completed on the 18/11/06 and started on the 07/11/06, meaning that the policy was under discussion for a total of 11 days, well beyond the 24-hour requirement. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha. Nice try. It needs to be submitted properly - not just the general gist of the idea - for it to count. Cyberbob  Talk  18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't say that here, does it? And the discussion took place in the aptly named Policy Discussion section of the page. Even if your judgement, and that of the other mods, is that I'm wrong, I'm sure you can see why I might have thought I was right? One thing that strikes me about this conversation, is that I'm willing to provide a little give and take on my position. Are you? (And I'm not even bothered now about waiting 24 hours - I just thought the way you went about it was really bloody ignorant.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can see why you thought you were right, but I can't see how you thought you were justified in resorting to flames when you didn't get your way. Where did I say that my stance on that policy is non-negotiable? I'd be all for that 6-hours amendment. Isn't it nice what a little talk can achieve, Funt? If I hadn't moved the policy into the discussion section, Gage wouldn't have made that concession and we would still be at Square 1. Cyberbob  Talk  18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, what you call flames, I call righteous indignation. And what you call Square 1, I call a potential policy. However, we can agree that the outcome (me writing the policy in the first place, you removing it, us having a heated banter et al) seems favourable. Hurrah. Peace at last. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
well its going to go to the vote in about 20 hours, We assume it won't be removed as SPAM can't we?--Honestmistake 18:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Who the hell are you talking to there? Which comment? When I said "indent", I meant "indent properly", not "any old amount of indentation will do". Cyberbob  Talk  18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Bob, the names not just a joke I really am this incompetant and was not attempting vandalism! As for the the comment; it was a cheap dig at everyone really. I mean it just seems a bit strange that we have been arguing about SPAMMING a discusion about SPAM! Hopefully the new compromise will help sort all this out and we can get back to making usefull suggestions and comments and not get our knickers in a twist over this issue again for a while... --Honestmistake 18:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Oh we should probably all thank FUNT for inadvertantly hosting this little party! THANK YOU uncle FUNT;-)


You said:
Kill/Spam - just no. And DS, you can fuck off as well. --Funt Solo 09:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

...? --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 09:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think what I'm trying to intimate is that I don't feel the need to elucidate further on the reasons for my vote, and I sincerely hope that a certain moderator doesn't come along and gleefully delete my vote until such time as I provide something he or she feels more comfortable with. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was getting at the part of the vote aimed at DS. Do you think the suggester == him? --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I never thought that. Read it with emphasis on the word you. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
So, you're making a pre-emptive strike or something on the offchance he reads it (I'm not having a go at you here - I'm just a little confused)? --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. I've removed the aggressive part of my vote. Thanks for flagging it to me. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No... you can leave it there if you want. I was just wondering what you meant by it, is all. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 09:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave it deleted. There are enough fights around here without me starting more. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Funt for mod

You should run for mod. You do shitload more on the wiki tham Gage has, you have a good sense of humor, and a long record on the wiki. Come on, if some pathetic, lame-brained, under-evolved ape can be mod, then you sure as hell can. You cycle the suggestions by yourself, because no one else will help. That alone makes you deserving of sysop status. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is... that when Gage was promoted he was a model user. He made all sorts of promises, and I let myself be talked into believing them. If you were prepared to work the Suggestions page, I'd vote for you even if you didn't have any credentials whatsoever (well, not really, but I like exaggeration). --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 13:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm strictly not mod material, Cap'n Silly. Far too ... temperamental. I may disagree with Gage on a lot of things, but he does a good job in vandal banning, reverting vandalism and is usually brutally frank with complete idiots (which I respect). Most of his judgements are sound - but I think he's just sick of the suggestions process to the point where his judgement there is skewed all over the place, especially when it comes to dealing with Jon Pyre. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Everyone's judgement is skewed when dealing with Jon. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 13:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just post suggestions on the page. Not my fault if other people take ideas meant for the game or wiki as a personal insult. --Jon Pyre 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on, Funt. If other people say you would make a good mod without any incentives from you, chances are you'll be a damn fine mod. You deserve the respect that comes with sysop status. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 13:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. Well, thanks and all, but here's a reality check: only one person has said it (you), and I don't want the job anyway. End of story, I think. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Goddamn reality. Anyway, I'm not the only one, Cyberbob supports you too. All I was saying is you should give it a shot. And also having a go at Gage while doing it. :P --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Funt, if you enjoy your sanity, mod status is probably not best for you.--Gage 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Cap, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the position grants you respect. Well, it doesn't. All it grants you is the ire of the community and about a thousands idiots questioning everything you do. --Gage 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Gage speaks the truth. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll just shut up now. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, looks like I'm not the only one who has this opinion. From the moment I joined this place I figured you should be a mod. Sure, you're a bit argumentative, but you're still a lot better than most of the people here. But more importantly, you're at least reasonable. Even when you disagree with people, you at least give decent reasons why and keep things civilized. You're a lot more mature than quite a few of the mods here. Heck, you put forth a spam-vote-related policy despite the fact that you didn't mind the current system simply because so many in the community wanted a change. I think that alone proves that you are mod-material. I don't think there's a single person on this wiki who would think that you would abuse mod powers, and your having them would only make this wiki a better place. If you ever did become interested in becoming a mod, I guarantee that the rest of us would be clamoring to be the one to nominate you. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Scottish subtlety?

"Vouch - because I'm insane and I want another cunt in charge. --Funt Solo QT 12:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)"

Lets just hope sanity prevails and people vote for... actually is none of the above a valid candidate/vote?--Honestmistake 13:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be a "bring back Vista" option. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why's everybody always picking on me? ;)

I came across that thread with boxy snooping recent changes. I wont comment on all that. But is it just me, or does the wiki seem to have become very toxic the last little while... And not just all the admin squabbles, either, it's everywhere... I guess I haven't been around long enough know if this is pretty normal... Maybe it is because I have been paying attention to stuff like the suburb pages, doing News edits and such, and getting into drama therein? Dunno... just wondering your take on it... Also thinking that the "peasant rebellion" that has been simmering for a while, but blown up with DUPEGATE might connected in some weird gestalt zeitgeist way, as sympotmatic of something, rather than causing it... Gin', ah dunno... --WanYao 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not wrong mate. The atmosphere's got a lot more hostile. I've been around a little longer than you but things where a lot nicer untill about 2-3 months ago. --SeventythreeTalk 12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi WanYao. It's not my intention to cause strife. I'm just getting more and more frustrated with the fact that boxy seems to want to absolutely squash any dissent. That is, if someone protests against the way something is done here, any attempt at change is ridiculed, the person is accused of bad faith actions. Even when I went to all the trouble of putting my heart on my sleeve and just being totally honest, boxy threw it back in my face and is now watching my every move like a hawk. If he had even attempted to meet me half way, at any point during this long-running (now) debate, I'd have a ton more respect for him. But he's just dismissed all my history of good faith editing and decided that I'm out to cause trouble. Or that change itself is trouble. I don't know. And Grim, well, fuck, he's just a bulldog. He seems to take absolute pleasure in winding people up - just look how he talks to Jon Pyre. If either of them were in any way consistent, or willing to actually debate without getting up in arms about a little satirical editing, you might see me act more rationally in kind. As it is, the more they dig their heels in and assume bad faith, the more irritated I get with their holier than thou attitudes. That's how I feel right now. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of the "good atmosphere" wiki went down the shitter a while after you left, Funt. Things are different now.--SeventythreeTalk 12:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't accusing you of ANYTHING, Herr Funt. :) In fact, while maybe not as adamant as you, I see some of the same problems... Any and all attempts at change here seem to be blocked VERY vociferously, and not always justifiably, IMO. And, yeah, I have noticed that once someone has it out for you for whatever reason... there is a tendency to, well, pick on you... but not applying the same rigourous standards to others doing the exact same thing... I wish I were wrong, I wish I were hallucinating... You know? Too. Much. Drama. Over. A. Fucking. Game. But... see... actually, agree or not, like the idea or otherwise, this wiki is a kind of community, and needs to be dealt with as such... And that what I think some people here dont get, or don't want to get... In other words, I am agreeing with you, in my way. :) --WanYao 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a game - life's a bit of a game. Any road, it's not very pleasant around here just now, and when someone as cool as Vista goes because of someone as arrogant as ... well, it's just sad, really. As for the enormous ego that is now boxy - I don't understand what happened there. He went from being level-headed and helpful to this "I will decide when it is enough - I am the judge of all things" wanker that won't even consent to a proper discussion, just all this "my way or the highway" bullshit. No room for compromise. You'll note that in all the discussion over the justification rule, all it boils down to with him is that he'll decide when justification is required, when it's too much or too little. He is the only one he trusts. It's very Stalinist, actually, that level of paranoia and control. Probably he should give it up soon, before it gets too strong a grip on him. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


If you seriously think i should be taken to misconduct, dont just talk about it. Do it. Just dont act suprised when its not ruled in your favour. Talking tough when you dont have a leg to stand on doesnt work with people like me. So. You got a bite to back up that there bark? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in joining your Giant Drama Parade, Grim. You and cyberbob are being shitheads on this one, and if you took the time to look objectively at your behaviour, you'd recognise that. Don't try and make out you're not biased and out to get Nali, because I know different: "You have burnt all my remaining mercy. None shall be shown in future". Seriously, trying to get someone banned for a year for silly little mistakes is just entirely shitty of both of you. Please drop it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Do your conspiracy theories keep you warm at night? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said there was any conspiracy, bob - so please, don't start making shit up. Again - please - drop it and move on. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Grim Doom

I figured you might find this amusing. --Akule School's in session. 09:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The worrying thing is how accurate it is, to be honest. He's one of the worst (as in most expert) wiki-lawyers I've ever witnessed, and what genuinely worries me is that he doesn't seem to realise it. He may have perfected the art of doublethink. You know, he "[doesn't] think like other people". Clear the area, people - the ego has landed! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Take this however you wish, but I'm in complete agreement with you as far as his egotism goes. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
However I wish, you say? Well, I wish to take your comment with a payment of one million dollars, please. My lawyers will be in touch. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC) much of a percentage are you paying your lawyers? Out of curiosity's sake, of course. ;) --Akule School's in session. 09:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ten percent - it's always been that way. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I did want it to be accurate, but funny at the same time. I do enjoy arguing with him, but my only beef was how he was treating some people, especially newer players. Like him or not, he is a major influence on the wiki, so I figured he deserved some sort of template. --Akule School's in session. 09:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ive already had several, but thanks. i get to update my events page of amusing happenings with this, and i even added a testimonials section to my userpage (A bitch to do without breaking it, by the way) for testimonials just like that. Akule, whats actually goin on is you are confusing my lack of tact and blunt forthright honesty in presenting my opinion and arguments as some sort of raging power trip. Like many people, i happen to be passionate about some things. While i will admit i have a bit of an ego (understatement, i know), that doesnt make me a tyrant, in fact my insistence on sticking to the law, regardless of how i might feel about a matter makes me quite the opposite. A tyrant grim would have deleted nali's shit immediately, instead of taking the proper channels. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
See? Amazing, isn't it. He really believes that he has no bias. Now, let's move on to the next patient, shall we...lots to see today. Come along, come along... --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont recall mentioning bias... --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you can't remember where your feet are, either? ("my insistence on sticking to the law, regardless of how i might feel about a matter") Just as well I've got a tape recorder. Dementia, in one so young. What a cruel, cruel world! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, i always have a case. It may not always be the best case, but still... fact that i dont actually follow through and do it mysellf is proof that i dont let it interfere in my position as a sysop, i only let such biases wander through my actions as a user. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, yeah, however you want to justify it to yourself. Knock yourself out. No, really, do. Repeatedly. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Spring-cleaning policy now in effect on this thread. It was fun whilst it lasted but my user page can only take so much in one day.

Funt Akulo

Apparently we have a celebrity baby. Sounds like I will have to make a new template. --Akule School's in session. 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now that is funneh. Well, actually it's funny. He can dish it out, but he can't take it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I imagine that is the tamest variation on our screen names. --Akule School's in session. 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's so cute... it has your eyes Funt. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I was sure we'd been more careful! Bringing up a baby in a zombie-infested city will be a real challenge for both of us. Especially a baby lawyer. It might sue us. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to steer it in the right direction, raise it properly, and make it sign some sort of prenatal agreement in order to cover our assets. --Akule School's in session. 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I be godfather?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to da family. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Karek's page

much like you I don't like to let others throw shit on my argument without replying... I have given up here as I made my point and before I could reply to his comeback you pretty much stole my evidence ;) Its not that I felt you needed defending, indeed i didn't really set out to do so! Its just that I don't think Karek realised that his comment could have made a pretty good case for you to take him to misconduct if you felt like doing so. I knew he would not listen to you and thought an outside warning might help... obviously it didn't as he responded as he normally does to those that disagree with him! Oh well some people will not see the wider picture even if you do pry their eyes open with matchsticks! --Honestmistake 00:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not such a big deal, I suppose. I try to come at these things from an attitude of compromise, or gaining a joint understanding. It usually makes more sense than a "might is right", or "I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong" approach, to me. It is always frustrating when I attempt to come to terms with someone else's viewpoint and then they either ignore me or dismiss me as a lunatic. It's probably something to do with maturity, although I dislike myself for saying so. I suppose, also, I could do myself some favours by refraining from being personally insulting. Sometimes, though, you know how it is, you just want to tell someone who's being intransigent that they're a fucker for being that way. And then, there's the sneaking suspicion that some people are genuinely just being controlling, and don't like it when I point that out. Ah, the tangled webs we weave... --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I replied for your benefit, including why I deleted your previous comment. If you want to continue this there feel free but follow the pages rules.--Karekmaps?! 02:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to belief of motives, for the most part. I wouldn't mind that so much, on it's own, but your tendency to mix opinion with false statements continues to irritate my sense of justice. It may seem petty to you, but the quotes you supplied (the first four) are not in chronological order. That's a fact. When you won't even accept facts at face value, how am I supposed to be able to have a reasonable discussion with you? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, the first one happened a little below the fourth one. And you're right, it is petty to argue over something so inconsequential as that. Please, if you can prove me factually incorrect on anything else back it up instead of shooting your mouth off.--Karekmaps?! 11:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the context, it's not inconsequential. The order of quotes you gave suggested that I started off being unreasonable and antagonistic, whereas the actual order of the discussion shows that the frustration level of all those involved deteriorated fairly evenly over time. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll discuss this a little more later, I have something to attend to on Talk:Main Page first. I don't know about you though but, I'd hardly call the Moderators quip starting off reasonable.--Karekmaps?! 11:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the opening part is perfectly reasonable. Grim tried to dismiss the policy segment on the grounds that it used the word "moderator" instead of "sysop" (when we all know that sysops were called moderators for the entire early history of this wiki). Do you think that's reasonable? If the rest of my comment was rather antagonistic, I had just been called "mindless" for no good reason. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. I was correcting you. I dismissed your interpretation of the policy with the othe 269 words of the post. You just fixated on those 6 you didnt like and ignored everything else, then when asked to provide a rebuttal or shut up, you chose to instead hurl personal attacks. I can and have admitted i am wrong, but for that to happen you must prove that i am wrong by shooting down my arguments. Your failure to do so after numerous attempts to get such a response from you indicates that you simply cannot do it, but dont want to admit it because you dislike me that much. Instead you resort to stall tactics and simple ipse dixits, asserting you are right without showing even the slightest bit of decency and proving me wrong. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
My two mistakes were resorting to insults (in reaction to you calling me "mindless") and attempting to argue even one of your points. The key point, which I did eventually mention, was that your judgement was not relevant (to me). You had brought the case. It was the collective judgement of those sysops who were judging the case that were relevant. They may have been interested in the points you brought up, but it wasn't for me to either agree or disagree with the majority of what you said. If I'm right, the general summation of your point was that precedent was on your side. That may be, but each case is judged on its own merits, isn't it? So precedent is not the be all and end all of a misconduct case, is it? Well, our opinions may differ there - but that's all it is: a difference of opinion. It's not set in stone either way. And it's up to the judgement of others, in that case, and neither you or I. Gnome has since questioned his judgement of the case (in fact, he did so before it was closed), which means that when it was judged as misconduct, it was potentially a 2:2 split of the vote. The end result, from my point of view, is that at least two of the sysop team are aware of a key policy segment which they were previously unaware of, and therefore I feel justified in having brought it up in the first place. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jokes on Summaries

it's ok to make jokes, but please try to avoid making 'em in the summary of admin pages, specially when reporting someone as a vandal or reporting inactive mods for demotion. In the first case you encourage vandals to continue being vandals and provides material for trolls to feed on, while in the second you are simply lacking respect for those who worked for the good of the community. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the demotion request: I respect them enough to assume that they will have the intelligence to take light-hearted humour or random surreality as it was meant. You clearly can't manage that, and seem to have developed a worship-complex for wiki-janitors. Regarding the A/VB comment about the "trolling bullshit", perhaps your time as a sysop could be better spent soft-warning any idiots who are trolling A/VB than chasing me up over reacting to it (slightly). I had written here that I would stop using idiosynchratic summary notices, but you know, I think I'd rather follow your example and use my own judgement. And don't come on my talk page with such a patronising attitude next time. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to remember what i have written before i ran out of power in feb 14th...
First, i dont know what i did to you to deserve such a reply. The tone in it makes it looks like i have been running around harassing you for whatever trivial edit you have done. What's the matter ? Don't u liek mudkipz nmore ??!!one
Second, sysops do understand humour, but it's fun to laugh with them, not at them... specially when you are requesting the demotion of two sysops who have done a lot for this community and that prolly wouldn't read what you had written.
Third, i have no sysops worship complex. I have a respect complex for those who have showed care for the wiki, who worked hard in several (sometimes thankful) areas of the wiki. As sysops only get them promoted after showing care for the community, it's hard not to respect the entire staff, from Morlock, to Grim and Vista. This is the same respect i have for users such as yourself, nalikill, 73, and several other users who never got themselves promoted to sysops, but that work hard to make this place a better one.
Fourth, this patronising attitude is something i do with all uses from time to time. You being a long term and respected user doesnt change the fact that i saw you doing something i didnt like and decided to talk to, in order to avoid such behaviour again in the future, This is something i do as the user who care for this place, not because it's my duty as a sysop... because it aint my duty to do so.
And finally, yay, i be reference \õ/ Wants sum moar mudkipz ? :D Only remember that sometimes Ignore All Rules should also be ignored ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings. I still think you overreacted, and I still found it patronising - but I'm not going to hold a grudge about it. I know you weren't vehemently attacking me, and I know I wasn't being disrespectful in the first place. It's nice that you have some respect for me, but I'd rather not be described as someone "who never got themselves promoted". Firstly, I think describing the sysop position as a promotion is rather odd. Secondly, I have never shown any interest (as yet) in the position, so linking me with it in any way is misleading. My mudkipz are in your brain, eating your philosophy! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

trust vote change

if your intent was to help me, you failed. if your intent was to piss the goons, you failed. if your intent was to discredit grim's speech on how sysops are not the trusted users group i was defending they were, you failed. That open discussion is just that, a discussion. It doesn't weight shit for administration reasons (no one is going to be demoted for poor feedback on it). The goons dont give a shit about your opinion, and only care on how they can flame you and everyone else. And grim will still be able to manipulate any discussions as he has Grima's manipullating skillz (quite a coincidence on the name choice, huh?). Other people aside... I give more credit for what you have said against me than that empty vote you just cast in my favor. if you really don't trust my judgment, support that feeling and ask me to get your trust back, not change your "opinion" about me for political reasons. I despise this more than any flaming the goons might have been directing against me. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:08, 21 May 2008 (BST)

My real reasons for changing are there now. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:22, 22 May 2008 (BST)

Genuine Question

Do you post "In Character" as some pro-survivor jihadist, or are you actually just stupid?--KOOKY 22:10, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Hurr! See: me respond to Troll-monster also. Grarrr! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:50, 10 June 2008 (BST)

Striking Votes

Do you seriously want to rehash this drama? --Karekmaps?! 00:11, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Feel free to reinstate the stricken vote, if you feel strongly about it. I will not contest any such edit. I was following the guidelines given on the page which (as you're aware, I'm sure) say "Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped [and those] that do not conform ... may be struck by any user." No drama required. Good night and good luck. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 05:59, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Why did he delete my post? He's no mod!

On September 14th, User:The_Hierophant deleted my post because he felt it was a biased POV. When making the post I was trying to express what my character had witnessed and what is factually accurate. Please investigate this. I have placed a very boring and plain comment on the wiki, something non-POV and bland. If this is really the flavour that is preferred on the wiki, I will understand, but just deleting my comments smacks of vandalism. Thank you for your time. Sir Fred of Etruria 05:57, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Hi. I suggest if you have issue with his edit that you discuss it with him. If the result of any such discussion is not to your liking, then there is always the option of seeking Arbitration. I don't care enough about the matter to spend any more time considering it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 06:03, 15 September 2008 (BST)
Oh my! The reason I mentioned this to you, is the person who had my post deleted has informed me that he considers my characters KOS in-game. I had not anticipated that he would also be stalking me on the wiki. - Sir Fred of Etruria 14:43, 15 September 2008 (BST)
Oh fuck you, Fred, you obnoxious little fucking martyr. You want a reason why the entry was deleted? One word: 'Our'. You used it three times in the entry: 'There are still some undead in the region, but there numbers are not strong enough to ruin our homes, our supermercado, or our necrotech'. That makes it POV. And why did I take an interest in it? Well, in a shocking turn of events it's got nothing to do with you. Roftwood and Hildebrand Mall's danger level are two of the relatively few pages that I have on my Watch list and in this instance I noticed something amiss. As to your character (note the lack of an 'S' there) being KOS (he's not, by the way, as there is no GC KOS list, but let's pretend that he is, just for old time's sake), that has nothing to do with it and you know it, you sad little bitch. He's KOS because he's an ex-member of a death cult: It comes with the territory. --Papa Moloch 22:37, 15 September 2008 (BST)
ETA: How the fuck did I miss the fact that I can actually quote something from his entry here on this page? Sir Fred of Etruria: 'When making the post I was trying to express what my character had witnessed'. POV. End. --Papa Moloch 23:09, 15 September 2008 (BST)
Any further drama llama shiznit on my talk page will be summarily deleted. Take it to your own talk pages. Cheers! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:54, 16 September 2008 (BST)



I think your Underworld is a great idea; can tell it is great by how it stimulates further ideas.

  • Flashlights could be treated somewhat like firearms but using batteries as ammo. Battery strength could be set randomly at pick-up (20-50AP?) but survivors would not know the battery strength.
  • Portable Lanterns could be an item that is deployed similar to a generator, uses a fixed number(6?) of batteries simultaneously for fuel, and provides light to one location.
  • Zombies need another incentive. Perhaps survivors should require 2AP for movement in most areas.
  • Active subway lines. Could provide the shortcut motivation. Each subway line would require power at either end(or multiple points) to function. The subway would move based on a fixed timetable. Zombies would somehow be prevented from using the subway shortcuts. Searching at waiting platforms and in subway cars would almost always yield a newspaper or a book.--SporeSore 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I Dreaming?

Look here and here. Please tell me I'm not dreaming and/or going insane. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that your first? Well done. Some day, I may get around it to moving to the "implemented" page - unless someone gets there before me, that is. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm in shock right now. I always hoped it would happen someday, but I never seriously entertained the notion of it actually happening... --Reaper with no name TJ! 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam vote not needed?

Talk:Suggestions#Discuss:_Why_Has_the_Spam_Vote_Become_Standard.3F I'm not trying to be an asshat, but not too long ago the two of us had a big discussion/argument/whatever over the spam vote. Now you don't think it's necessary? What happened? I'm certain that you haven't come over to the "spam vote is undemocratic and possibly keeping good suggestions out of PR" side, so what prompted this change in attitude? Like I said, I'm not trying to be an asshat, but I'm curious. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a tendency to resist change, and to go with the flow of the status quo. However, when I first visited this wiki, I initially thought that the Spam system was cruel, undemocratic and generally at odds with the community spirit of a wiki. I felt that the suggestions page was a bit like The Gong Show, where the audience (the voters) are actively encouraged to be brutally frank and to utterly annihilate anyone, almost on a whim. On the other hand, many suggestions just seem so stupid - especially when one has heard them several times over, over many months. So, there's a tendency to become jaded, and revel in the Spam voting system.
I still think that the majority of suggestions aren't worthy of Peer Reviewed. I think that's natural. However, I see no reason for early removal (before the two week voting period). Not anymore. (Exceptions such as obviously humourous suggestions, or obviously repeat suggestions, can be removed under other rulings.)
Part of me thinks that (without the Spam), I could easily tell whining contributers to shut up about their failed suggestion - with only Kill and Keep, they wouldn't have the excuse of "the Spam vote is unfair" to fall back on - and would have to accept that the community just didn't like their suggestion, for whatever reason. So, partly, this is a reduction of drama thing.
Since the 6-hour spam-free zone rule was implemented, spammination has dropped sharply. I believe that (prior to that) there was a tendency for voters to enjoy seeing if they could get a suggestion they disliked spaminated. It was a bit of a game. Now that a suggestion is immune for 6 hours, there's no longer that "rush to spam".
I also believe that some people have replaced that with a "rush to dupe". That's why I think reforms are in order. The status quo is comfortable for seasoned contributers - but a turn-off for new arrivals. In my opinion.
--Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 21:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on, Funt, your votes are things like Spam in the kill section. Just vote spam. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 09:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
One thing hasn't changed. I still hate being told how to vote. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's one mystery solved. Thanks for not blowing up at me. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion discussion

I don't mind that you moved it per se but discussion in the votes in most definitly allowed and not in any way prohibited. And as the whole idea of the suggestion page is to judge upon suggestions I really don't see how it can be agianst the spirit?--Vista 11:26, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Are you kidding? That suggestion had numerous, huge paragraphs of text. You justify the vote on the suggestions page, and go into in-depth discussion of it on the talk page. I was a hairs breath away from taking out your direct reference to my vote, that was tacked onto your vote, long after you had voted. From the suggestions page, "Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment'. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible." -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 11:41, 29 March 2007 (BST)
Also, read the first paragraph. I believe it's an attempt to avoid clutter. Imagine if everyone held a discussion as long-winded as the one you and that other dude were having. It would become difficult to read the votes, difficult to edit the voting lists, more cumbersome to archive and so on. It's also difficult to follow a discussion in that format, rather than the format we're using here, where one person speaks, then another, in sequence. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 11:44, 29 March 2007 (BST)

Revive Revision Vote Discussion

A quote from your vote comments:

#:*Re - I think your math is wrong. I calculate that, with your system, for 5AP (1 to load the gun) you get a 34.39% chance of reviving. With the current system, I've got a 100% chance of reviving for 1AP. Why would I want your system? (I get 34.39 from that fact that your hit rate is 25%. 25% of the 40% to effect the Zed is a quarter of 40, which is 10. The chances of getting a 10 out of 100 with 4 goes is 34.39%.) Maybe I'm missing something obvious but it looks like your system is a bit crap. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:23, 17 April 2007 (BST)

As I explained in the vote comment RE you did miss something Funt- the fact that missed attacks do NOT consume any doses. In effect, the "syringe" is only used if you hit, and thus has a 40% chance of working (per use) and not a 10% chance; what's more, each "syringe" can be used 4 times.

Lets look at a typical (if ideally easy) day in a revive tech's life under both systems. I'll assume Necronet Access, only because its the choice you made above.

  • Current System: 10AP spent on movment, barricading, etc. 40AP spent on revives. 4 syringes used, 4 people revived.
  • Revive Revision v5: 10AP spent on movment, barricading, etc. 38AP spent on revive attempts. 9.5 hits- uses 9.5 doses from Necrotech Serum Vial, requires 2 AP spent reloading but leaves Injector mostly loaded for the next day). 3.8 revives completed, 28.5 damage done to the zombies, 2.375 NT Serum Vials used.

So, the revision results in very nearly as good a revive rate per day of active reviving (it would actually be much BETTER if you had, say, 39 or 46 APs to spend on revives) but it uses MUCH less in the way of resources.

Consider this; best case scenario, it takes about 3AP to find a syringe; this would also hold for NT serum Vials. So, reviving 4 people under the current system really costs 52APs (40 to revive, 12 to find 4 syringes) for a cost of 13AP per revive. Reviving 3.8 people (per the above description) under my proposal costs 40 AP (for actions plus reloads) plus 3x 2.375AP = total of 47.125APs, for an average of 12.4 APs per revive. That's a .6 AP per revive advantage under conditions IDEAL to the current system.

And this advantage just grows bigger (much bigger) as syringes get harder to find- which is EXACTLY what is happening right now in areas where survivors have lost ground. --S.WiersctdpNTmapx:oo 00:00, 18 April 2007 (BST)

Ah, hell. I understand the current system, at least. I'll stick with what I understand, ignorance being bliss and all. If you want to buff the revive system, why not just suggest upping the % chance to find a syringe, or dropping the AP required to stick someone? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:30, 20 April 2007 (BST)
I don't specifically want to buff it; I want to CHANGE it. The current system is boring to play (whoopie, 4 clicks and that's 80% of my days actions!) and doesn't make for any significant variation between levels of NT techs (woot, I have 3 skills, now I'm done with NT stuff and can work on those 7 gun skills). However, I do see that simplicity is (in suggestions at least) a virtue. I think I'm gonna let the suggestion ride; it probably didn;t deserve all those spam votes (seeing as many clearly make mis-statements about the suggestions effects) but as of now its only riding to "peer rejected"; Kevan seems as happy to look there for potential improvements as anywhere else. I am concerned that a clarified re-submission could be called a dupe if I do let it go through voting (it would suck to be duped with my OWN suggestion) but it seems unlikely even a clarified version would be simple enough to draw support. Besides, I have a better idea in the works, that IS simple, IS obviously a slight buff, and still does some of the fun stuff that one did. --Seb WiersctdpImagine 23:45, 20 April 2007 (BST)

We all make mistakes

Well, I'm sorry about that. I've never hit the 6 hour thing before, so I had forgotten about it. We all make mistakes: thankfully this one is on a wiki, and is easily reverted. Oh, and thanks for the personal attack – that really helps matters. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 12:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It was meant in a light-hearted manner, ya big sap! (And so was that before you start crying into your cornflakes.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, was rather tired and grumpy, and I'm sure you know how terrible text is for conveying tone... thanks for the clarification. :) And I'll try to RTFM rather than (partially) remember it next time. ᚱᛖᚢᛖᚾᚨᚾ 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion Edit

Would that be an edit worthy of being moved to Discussion, or simply clarification? -Mark 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

According to what I can see, that edit was made before any votes were cast, and is therefore permissable. (Also, it does seem purely a clarification - it doesn't change the mechanics of the suggestion.) --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. It was largely for future reference, but that was changed just as I was voting. -Mark 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem knowledgeable on this

My suggestion, Sewage Plant, is getting a lot of questions asked, such as searchable items and possible locations in Malton. Should I take it down and revamp it with these details included?--Ducis DuxSlothTalk 08:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think it will fail, yes, a revision is a good idea. A lot of voters have high respect for someone who listens to their concerns and revamps a suggestion in line with the common complaints. Sometimes, though, it makes the Keepers change their minds. Oh well. No guarantees. You can revise once per day. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How did you get the templates to not break all of the time on the suggestions and talk:suggestions pages? --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 08:44, 9 April 2007 (BST)

Reduce the amount of content on the pages by archiving it. However, it may be someones bad edit that causes a cascade of faulty templates. I've never seen the suggestions page effected by the template-limit, only talk:suggestions. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:48, 9 April 2007 (BST)
Just to clarify, the problem is usually caused by there being too many templates on one page. One of the automatic vandal defences is to stop template calls if the page has too many templates on it. Sometimes it's caused by lots of contributers that use template-sigs. Either way, the solution is as above: reduce the amount of templates (ie content) on the effected page by authorised deletion or by archiving. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:24, 9 April 2007 (BST)
Thanks for the little explanation. I am also wondering why you are always voting 'spam' on the suggestions page? I know I went through a phase where every suggestion that ticked me off a little bit was spammed by me, however these days I try to be more tolerant and give constructive criticism, a kill vote, and a link to talk:suggestions. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 08:59, 20 April 2007 (BST)
Count the number of spam votes I've made in the last month. Now count the number of Keep and Kill votes. See? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:06, 20 April 2007 (BST)

They Broke My Funny Bone!

The templates on the humorous suggestions page are breaking. I've vaguely heard about this sort of thing. Supposedly it happens when there are too many templates on the page and the server refuses to show them correctly to prevent a denial-of-service attack (or something like that). I don't really know anything about this stuff (or how to fix it, for that matter), so I don't know if it varies for different browsers, but it's the first time I've ever seen this sort of thing on the wiki, which may be a sign that the page is getting too long. --Reaper with no name TJ! 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - solution is to move content off the page. Either move suggestions to the archives I created, or, I dunno, delete some of the older ones. I don't really care. Some other people might complain if you start deleting large chunks of the page - so probably moving things to archive pages is best. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
All right. Thing is, I've never cycled/moved suggestions before. Then again, I guess humorous suggestions would be the best place to start. So (just to make sure I don't screw it up), all I have to do is cut and paste the older suggestions into their respective archive pages? No other special stuff I need to know? --Reaper with no name TJ! 16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well - I had some time on my hands when I did it, so I sorted them into their order of funniness under various headings. I don't really care if it all gets messed up, though. Essentially, it is just a case of cutting from one page (in edit mode) and pasting into another (in edit mode) and then clicking Save page (after Show preview, just to make sure it all went smoothly). I don't recall making any changes other than that. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
All right, that's all I needed to know. Thanks. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Done for now. Ended up having to spam up the recent changes page with "Cycling Humorous Suggestions" summaries, but I did it. The templates don't seem to be breaking anymore, but the page is still really long. I would do more, but I've got other things I need to do. I'll get around to shortening the page further when I can. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New Humorous Category Needed?

I was cycling some of the humorous suggestions (since the page was a bit too long for my taste, and I don't want the templates to get broken again), when I came upon a problem. The bottom-most suggestion is that "Anti-Spam" suggestion I made. Thing is, because it doesn't have much to do with the game itself (really, it's only about the suggestions page) there aren't any archives where it would really fit. I was thinking of making an archive for Humorous Suggestions dealing with the wiki, but I figured I'd ask you about it first to make sure. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:57, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Dude, as far as I'm concerned, you can do what you want to that page. I just wandered in one day, found it was a mess and tried to tidy it up a bit. Since then, I haven't really been back. Take the mantle of humorous suggestions caretaker and wear it with pride! Do what thou wilt! --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 19:06, 27 March 2007 (BST)
Hmmm...Works for me. I'll get right on it then. --Reaper with no name TJ! 21:22, 27 March 2007 (BST)

Vandal alert

Hey. I just had to trawl through the Talk page history for the old suggestions page because some vandal wiped a bunch of discussion posts in the course of 'archiving' - [[1]] It's not the first time I've seen this user overstepping the bounds in wiping stuff from this wiki - both with my stuff and other people's. Any chance we can get him neutered? It's a shame when one person ends up spoiling things for the rest of us. - Fuster 00:23, 18 May 2007 (BST)

If you think there's some vandalism going on, please talk to the person concerned, or talk to a sysop. Cheers. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:13, 18 May 2007 (BST)

Hydra Defense

I would love to have your feedback and advice as I develop this.--Jon Pyre 05:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Skull Smash

"If the brain is eaten, how does revivication work? How would a zombie get brain rot, if there was no brain to rot?"

Just thought id chime in and point out that if anything, the whole zombie thing seems to be highly regenerative, i mean, zombies can grow back massive amounts by feeding, and regenerate fully while on the ground. Revivification would merely be purging the death from the undead. Oh, and brain rot would work by rotting the parts of the brain that are too deep for a zombie to sink his teeth into. The recovery of memories and thing is just something you have to use suspension of disbelief for. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick Barricade Destruction Text Change

On Boxy's vote, "meh" is a phrase that has come to mean "this just doesn't do it for me", as in Boxy just didn't find the suggestion to be interesting enough to implement. I'm sure I've used "meh" for votes before. However, I'll leave it to you to decide if that counts as a justification. --PdeqTalk* 11:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to unstrike it if you wish. I won't edit-war over it. I took "meh" to mean "I just don't care either way". For such a controversial suggestion, with the vote so close, I feel that a fuller justification is merited on this occasion. As I said, though, I won't contest a de-strike. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Feral Frenzy

I do understand the reluctance to allow more than 50Ap in one day but consider that this is already in game in a different form with survivors manufacturing syringes. Also survivors do something like this in another way (though in reverse so please bear with me ;D) When a survivor searches for ammo he is effectively storing AP for later use, its his main advantage in combat and far more reliable and versatile than what I am suggesting here. As I said to your vote, it is theoretically possible to get to -87AP with this, please remember though that this is not an extra 87 actions its an extra 29 that you take at a higher AP cost and in the real world it will be almost impossible to get more than 5 or 6 and those come at the cost of a very significant chunk of the next days AP!--Honestmistake 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No more than 50AP per day per player. That's all. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


It is a real suggestion, my good sir. If you think it's a joke, that's probably because it would be humorous flavor- but humorous flavor does not a humorous suggestion make! Take a look at ideas for snowballs and stuff like that.

If you think it's spam, vote that way- but don't report it as vandalism just to try to prove a point. That's not the Classy sort of thing I'd expect from a Scotsman! Good God, matey- can't ya see it's the limys tryin' ta pit us against oneanother? Go back to the grinch and tell him- SCOTLAND IS FREE! And so is the suggestions page! --Ron Burgundy 17:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like boxy took it out of my hands (gladly). But, c'mon: bumper stickers? Incidental humour is one thing ("harman brahnz!"), but I don't want to encourage every T,D & H to spam the suggestions page with their latest hilarious opus, is all. It would get tired, fast: you only have to look at the old Humorous Suggestions page to spot the low hit rate. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops...shit...cheers Funt. I completely forgot that the suggestion template timestamped... :S -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 16:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that what happened? No harm done. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. He'd erm...completely muffed the layout to the point where SugHead was sitting on top of his typing and there was no voting section at all. Uber breakage. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 22:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No Suicide for Zombies

PulpFiction.jpg Please justify your vote
...lest I <strike> it down with great vengeance and furious anger!

Your time is much appreciated. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:55, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Does that appreciation stretch to some kind of financial reward? --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 23:14, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Nope. Though there is this one time offer of spiritual enlightenment you might achieve if you just try hard enough. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:13, 15 October 2007 (BST)
PulpFiction.jpg Please justify your existence
...lest a passing deity strike you down with great vengeance and furious anger!

Zombie Reconstruction

Thanks for the vote on helipad. I know you're a keen terraformer and just wanted to answer your questions in a slightly longer form.

I chose wastelands as I felt its an area which is least loved by all. The gaming version of nothing. Editing User talk:Funt Solo (section) - The Urban Dead Wiki Secondly, I know i'm not stepping on anyones fingers, OMG WTF are you doing to mah safehaz! etc.

Im a vinetownian at th momente and having no fire departments or necrotechs and only one hospital theres not a lot of variation on the PD theme. Ive been fooling around with the location blocks and it just seemed to be endless junkyards and wastelands.

Anyway, any feedback is good feedback. Let me know where im wrong!--Rosslessness 15:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Spam Template

Hey Funt. The recent and rampant abuse of the Spam Vote has inspired me to make a template. I'm informing you first because I know you do not like vote abuse. If you approve of my template, please put it on your page and spread the word. --Hhal 01:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote Spam a lot. I use it as a Strong Kill, on suggestions where I'd never in a month of sundays vote Keep. I use Kill as a Change vote. I feel that in both cases, I'm being far more honest with the author of the suggestion, than people who vote Kill as a spam-voter protest, or that vote Keep, when they really mean Change. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, honestly. I'd prefer it if the Kill section was considered the Kill/Change section. --Akule School's in session. 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh hi.

Hello, Since all of the subterranean suggestions I've found a bit dated.. I've been combining and updating the following,

The Underworld (For the most part, this one)

With or without the Padlocks, and No seeing the location above you, as is Subway Tunnels.

Perhaps instead of messing with search rates of the above world, Some unlocked underground locations might have them?

Just a thought

Subway Tunnels

= Subterranean

I just found this.

However, with the advent of darkness, and all the rejected Night vision things, plus the existing mechanics, There's more to be done.

18:50, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Hi. The subway tunnels one isn't mine. Aye, I wrote the Underworld an absolute age ago - when I first found the suggestions system, so it's dated, right enough. Uhm ... I'm busy with other things, so I don't mind at all if you use that stuff as inspiration for your own suggestions, if that's what you were trying to say. (As this is a wiki, it seems somewhat redundant to copy the entire text of any suggestion to your sub-pages, when you could instead just link to the relevant pages.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 21:24, 22 August 2008 (BST)

LSD in the water

The students spiked the local drinking water with LSD and it's just now wearing off.

So it's possible that there never were any zombies?--Labine50 MH|ME|P 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you!

Cookie.jpg A FREE COOKIE
Axe Hack has given Funt Solo a cookie for giving me 2 ideas to add into my Help Book suggestion
--Slice 'N' Dicin' Axe Hack 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

An implimented suggestion

Hi, I was looking through the PR archives, and found this suggestion that has been implemented... Sorry I'm too lazy to move it myself, but I figure you know where and how it should be moved, it'd take me ages to work out the system for just this one... g'arn, be a pal -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 04:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. Cut and paste the suggestion from it's current location to the Implemented Suggestions page (new at the bottom).
  2. Cut the entry on the Peer Reviewed page general listings.
  3. Create a new entry at the bottom of the Peer Reviewed page Implemented Suggestions listing. (This involves the date implemented, if known, the date the suggestion was first posted, and the author of the suggestion, if known.)
--Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 07:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Did it today - I went on an edit mission. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Onya mate :) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Cookie.jpg A FREE COOKIE
Boxy has given Funt a cookie for being an absolute suggestion archiving wizard!

RE:Your Q on talk:suggestions

Thanks Funt! I would give you a cookie, but this rat ate them all.

Rat-ah-tat-tat.jpg Here, have a rat!
Axe Hack has given Funt Solo a rat for answering my question on that suggestion backlot thingy.

Will the rat do? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:31, 26 March 2007 (BST)


Eh, I see you've basicaly retired from cycling the suggestions system. 3 to 4 months of doing it, quite a good job. I'm starting to think that we need a template to say that such and such has worked on the suggestions system. =P I've got one question though, do you know what Zaruthustra's 2nd ‎law is? - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 12:45, 23 April 2007 (GMT)

Not the first clue. Religion isn't my thing, unless it's worship of pizza. But a template would be nice. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:01, 23 April 2007 (BST)
lol, well it's not actualy from a religion, but another wiki user, although I'll forgive you for not knowing him because of how new you were to the wiki at the time he idled out. But the law states "Somebody will always vote keep given enough time" [2]. Just a useless bit of information that I thought I'ld share. Anyway once I make that template I'll let you know about it so you can show it proudly =P - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 13:12, 23 April 2007 (GMT)
Funt's 15th Law of UD Misconceptions: HP do matter to a zombie. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 14:27, 23 April 2007 (BST)
Heh, well here's the template for you. {{SW}} - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 06:47, 24 April 2007 (GMT)
Gold in basket.jpg Suggestions Worker
This user sorted through peoples bile to find the gems.

Can I refer you to this: and this: Looks Like parts of our suggestion got through. -- Andrew McM W! 23:28, 24 April 2007 (BST)

Hi, it's the following four suggestions that have been implemented there:

Congrats to all involved. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:59, 25 April 2007 (BST)

You so smart ^^

Zomburger.jpg U can haz zambahbargar!
WOOT has given Funt Solo a zomburger for being so smart

Couldn't find a cookie, so take this... --/~WOOT~\ 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy Shiznit

ding ding, round one.

The policy ready for us to discuss on?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it is. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No wai

Darn rules. It was going to pass! --  AHLGTG 17:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a strange rule, right enough. I suppose the logic is that there needs to be a significant amount in favour of the change, and not just abstaining, as there is no abstain vote. In some ways that makes sense: for example there's no way that three people could push through a policy nobody else gives a fuck about, during a quiet month. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


About that failed 20 vote min policy thing. Illegal or not to put up an exact duplicate into discussion? --  AHLGTG 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the rules I can see about duplicate policy votes. However - one has to assume that a lot of people abstained from voting - and they may have done so on purpose. That means that a decision was reached by the community, and that the suggestion didn't garner enough support to pass. I would suggest a revision of the policy would be a far better idea than an exact duplicate. We need to find out what was wrong (or not right) about the previous version that caused so many to abstain from the vote. Maybe people weren't aware of the "at least 20 to pass" rule - in which case there would need to be some kind of campaign to get people to vote - although that could backfire - they might vote against it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I will say, though - I didn't like it. It seemed to be a policy made by sysops for sysops, that just shut the doors on new members - or placed the doors at the top of Mount Everest, and that a Khaos Master key (only found within black holes) was required to open it. And there was that bullshit about one question per voter. Too many rules. Maybe people abstained because it was by sysops for sysops. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. Well I think I'll put up a duplicate again for now, and see what suggestions the community has to offer. And that limited sysop thing policy. I'll withdraw that and put up a revision (if you have a good name for it, that'd be great). --  AHLGTG 18:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Been playing around with a Do's and Dont's of POV.

Any good?

User:Rosslessness/Random Rambling/NPOV Examples--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good start. Certainly, if nothing like it exists, it would be a good resource to add to the wiki as an explanation of what's expected in NPOV reporting. I do think the structure of your article could be improved. It opens well, with an explanation of what NPOV means. There are then various examples in various formats: which I think could be improved by sticking to a standard format. Either have a collection of NPOV examples, followed by POV, or link the two together, so each example starts with NPOV and then demonstrates how that could be changed to POV. (Of course, in some cases, an entire NPOV edit is simply useless and should be deleted.) I'm used to report writing so I would iron out the idiosynchratic (i.e. chatty) aspects of your article. It's very conversational in tone with the "people" in "Neutral Point of View, People", and the "So what's that mean?". Rather than ask questions, I would state facts. Instead of "Notice the outlandish claims?", I would explain why the claims are outlandish. I suppose, as an article on NPOV, it should itself by NPOV. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree completely. I just whacked it together rather quickly. I'll go off and revise. Thnaks. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


Thankee--Karekmaps?! 14:15, 14 April 2008 (BST)

Suburb Pages

Eastonwood danger level

before we get into an edit war... i'd just like to ask: have you scouted Easton' at all? because we've been through this so many times before, where someone says based on an ExMil report, "Oh Easton's a Ghost Town"... Then someone (sometimes me) takes an actual look inside the buildings... And, no, it ain't no Ghost Town. Consistently. That's why I reverted it back to V/Danger, because there was only an ExMil to make it G/Town in the first place. That's all, cheers. --WanYao 16:37, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Hi Wan - thanks for coming to discuss this - and no, I don't want to enter an edit war. Clearly, if you have better (i.e. more accurate) information than me, then I will bow to it. To be clear, are you saying that the buildings are occupied by more zombies than can be seen on the streets, and that the total number of zombies is greater than 60? If that is the case, and you have recently scouted, I'd ask that you post a report on that suburb page, so that it remains clear to anyone else why the danger level is Very D, and not Ghost T. Cheers! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:41, 15 September 2008 (BST)
I don't have that information, I haven't been there in ages. But my point is, no one has, apparently. Other than EF. (I may go there soon, though...) Therefore, it makes sense not to change the danger level to Ghost Town, but to leave it as it was, until we know either way. This is based on the history of danger level reports in Eastonwood, where the Ghost Town edits have ALWAYS been disproven. Always... exactly because there were bazillions of zombies inside. However, with only 20 zombies reported, perhaps it's up to the EF or someone else to prove otherwise; if it was reporting say 40 zombies, I'd say, "No chance, leave it V/D"... But it says only 20, soooo... maybe... --WanYao 19:00, 15 September 2008 (BST)
I just investigated with a character - see 'burb report page. I've changed it to Ghost Town, given the evidence. And the danger report specs say that 60 is the upper limit for a Ghost-T, not 20, or 40, or whatever. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:02, 15 September 2008 (BST)
Yes, yes I saw ... :P If you're not already, you should get in on the SimSniff thing. It's one of the best intel tools ever made, but atm we have like 3-5 people tops who update it. Every person who can add a few sniffs even semi-regularly helps immensely. Talk to sweirs about getting an "account", or figure out how to do the anon thing (I dunno, cuz I don't need it). It'd be very cool to get more ppl updating it. Cheers! --WanYao 20:13, 15 September 2008 (BST)
The 20 quoted based on EM or SIM only includes zombies on the streets. Based on my recent experience in Ew most zombies sleep in buildings to avoid having ruins repaired. While in Eastonwood i entered around 10 different buildings and not a single one had no zombies, most had 3-4 suggesting that there is around 60 or more zombies in the suburb.--xoxo 05:12, 17 September 2008 (BST)
Agreed, and done. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:51, 17 September 2008 (BST)


I noticed you updated the news page on Gibsonton today along with more information on the situation. If you are in the neighborhood would you be willing to work with us in the defense of the suburb? Drop me a line at my talk page if you are.--Garviel LokenMaltesecross2.jpgNo Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk21:56, 30 September 2008 (BST)

All that warhammer sci-fi Imperium stuff is fairly poor role-play for a zombie apocalypse set in a contemporary city on Earth. That aside, my roving reporter was just passing through, on a mission to check out the entire city. So, thanks (sort of) but no thanks. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 03:05, 1 October 2008 (BST)

My regrets,

Funt Solo,

I am sorry for the inconvinience I have provided over the lasy days. I am still working out how this wiki works. But I can provide you with the intel about certain suburbs wich I had gotten from people I know. But of well let's forget that. ;)

I'l try and be more well how to say this responsible for the actions I take with the wiki and therefor hope to better it.

Also is it possible to speak in private? As I wish to know a few things but using the wiki is sort of a bit hard for the situation.


-General shkkf 10:45 22 september 2008 (GMT)

Just please don't make POV edits to the suburb pages, and incorrect changes of the suburb danger levels. That's all. Over and out. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:02, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Group and Events Section

Why did you remove the events and groups section? that was cleared by other mods as an appropriate method of information on influencing events and parties... I was just fixing it because the Church of the Resurrection guys removed the DMZ info... Give me a shout back... I'll be online for another hour or so... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 02:19, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I understood that suburb pages are supposed to be NPOV, so having a section stating that a particular group claims ownership would be a POV thing, excepting exceptional historic circumstances, such as the RRF being a big influence in Ridleybank. Also, I'm not sure how listing a group claiming ownership should be under a heading with events in the title. Shouldn't group-specific activities be on the page of the group itself? It's also worth noting that there is already an active groups section on that right-hand bar thingy on every suburb page, so anyone who wants to read up on a particular group, and find out more about them, can already do so. Essentially, it looked like group-specific spam stuck in the middle of the suburb page for no good reason other than self-aggrandizement. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 06:13, 30 September 2008 (BST)
*Marty is taken aback* sorry I asked... I personally feel you overreacted; but in any case, I wish you a good day and thanks for being on of the folks to help keep this wiki clean... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 04:23, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Alleged non-NPOV News Article from Gulsonside

Hi there, just a comment, because I honestly do not expect you to fix it...

September 29th
The situation is critical at this time. Approximately eight hours ago, the Militant Order of Barhah launched an offensive against Blesley Mall. It seems that the Northwest quadrant of the mall will succumb imminently to the zombie invasion. Low level survivors are strongly cautioned to avoid the area, which is drawing in a growing horde of zombies - attracted by the feeding groans that were heard in a 6 block radius. It is uncertain whether the remaining survivors in the other three quadrants will be able to stem the tide, since these dreaded zombies rise immediately after getting headshot. More updates later.--FLZombie 22:28, 29 September 2008 (BST)

You post below is an example of an attempt to provide tactical analysis of MOB activities in the area:

This appears to be an organised MOB assault, removing outlying TRPs prior to an assumed attack on Blesley Mall.

I know how the NPOV rule is a joke, but still, I expect those who espouse it would act with a bit more subtlety. I also find it quite amusing how you take the liberty of posting the above item, and later delete mine. Cheers!--FLZombie 05:22, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Hi. First off, I don't want a drama-fest over this, and it's nothing personal. Now, my report was NPOV - as it was stating some apparent facts. It was apparent that a MOB assault was taking place, because it was stated on the MOB page. It was apparent that outlying TRPs were being taken down, because they were in ruins and in the possession of MOB zombies. The word assumed for the assault on Blesley was used in particular to make note that it was an assumption. However, it is a rather safe assumption, as MOB has used similar tactics prior to this suburb invasion. So, that's my report: AFAIK, completely NPOV and fact based, with specifically chosen language (appears to be and assumed) indicating where educated assumptions are being made.
Now to your report. Much of it is fact-based. The reason I removed it was because of all the POV stuff about what will happen in the future, and what tactics survivors should adopt. I'll take a few points in turn:
  • the Northwest quadrant of the mall will succumb imminently to the zombie invasion - maybe the assault will be repelled? You can't know for sure.
  • Low level survivors are strongly cautioned to avoid the area - why are you discussing survivor tactics when the instructions for placing news reports expressly says not to? Why are you telling survivors to stay clear, when actually survivor reinforcements might be just what are needed (from their particular, wait for it, Point Of View)? Are you with me yet?
  • drawing in a growing horde of zombies - attracted by the feeding groans - supposition, I assume. Unless you're saying you have evidence that feeding groans have been attracting a growing horde. What if I post a report saying that nearby zombies have been ignoring feeding groans because they switched them off in their preferences? Who would be right?
  • since these dreaded zombies rise immediately after getting headshot - Are these zombies tougher than regular zombies, or something? Why is a news report saying that the zombie side is dreaded? Why is there no warning for the zombies, mentioning that the local survivors are well dug in, and refusing to budge?
Really, that was a very pro-zombie report you made. I think you just need to tone down the we're gonna win angle from your report, and it'd be fine. (Honestly, I do think MOB will squish the suburb, if they haven't already, but the news reports are supposed to reflect the situation on the ground at the time of the report, without, I think, indicating any foregone conclusions.)
Lastly, no offense meant, and I hope we can reach a happy compromise regarding the wording of the report. Cheers! --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 06:23, 30 September 2008 (BST)


How long until you can report on the above mentioned suburb? It's always been my favourite, no reason to go there, minor organised horde, curious to see your take. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:12, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Doesn't look like I'll get there for a while (see my pattern of movements on my project page), as I've split my four surveyors up into the four quadrants, and my SE boyo is currently in Danversbank. Unless I divert my NE boyo (himself not so far away in Dunningwood), it'll be 5 days at least till I reach Dentonside.
Can't you send one of your guys? All I do is run around all the TRPs and count zombies - takes about 20AP. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:17, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Noice Work

Standarisation FTW. now to get rid of those pesky group lists on the RHS panel...--xoxo 08:29, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Cheers! Took farking ages. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:21, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, nice work with the suburb pages. --  AHLGTG 21:46, 29 September 2008 (BST)

suburb pages

I'm liking the redesign. How about putting the radio frequency above the map, like on the Caiger Mall page? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 17:44, 13 October 2008 (BST)

I don't know - it seems like non-essential information, and the top of the page is pretty crowded as it is. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 04:25, 14 October 2008 (BST)
True. DO we need a template at all? Can't we just have suburb frequency on the the Template:Suburb?--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:43, 14 October 2008 (BST)
If you look at the Pitneybank page (for example), they have a section on the page, where the template advertises the suburb freq., and then in the text they explain that the mall and fort have a dedicated freq. which is useful in-burb. They then discuss 'cading and mast location tactics for the 'burb's TRPs, as well as info on the local mobile phone mast. I do want to re-jig the template:suburb, though. I was thinking of moving the group listings right down to the bottom. Have all the standard info. at the top, so it's always in the same place, and then have the listings (which are sometimes tiny, sometimes huge). So, that's next on my list. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:47, 14 October 2008 (BST)


So why you upped it to dangerous then? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:03, 19 October 2008 (BST)

I said on the edit - the EMR says 100+ zombies, which is Dangerous by the definitions. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:06, 19 October 2008 (BST)
  • Zombies inside many resource buildings; OR hostile mobs of 50+
Or have i missed some small print? (Which is more than likely). --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:08, 19 October 2008 (BST)
Maybe I'm missing something, but 100 is more than 50, right? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:13, 19 October 2008 (BST)
Aha! So its a disagreement over the word mob, got it. By my reasoning the largest mob is (scans necronet) 34 and 10/11 trp's powered, but hey, you've just updated all the danger reports in a standard way, so i'm not going to rock the boat. :-) --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:21, 19 October 2008 (BST)
If you're on the ground and you think it qualifies as moderate (due to the spread of zombies, or the status of the suburb overall) I won't argue the case with you. I always consider 51-149 zombies to be Dangerous, and 150+ to be Very Dangerous, if I have no other information. I don't bother trying to figure out if they're in a mob, because (for most lightly populated suburbs) 100 zombies roaming around means it's pretty dangerous. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 20:27, 19 October 2008 (BST)
Personal tools