Talk:Battle of Blackmore/Historical Event Voting

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< Talk:Battle of Blackmore
Revision as of 12:59, 16 May 2010 by Yonnua Koponen (talk | contribs) (→‎Comments on Bluetigers vote)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Comments on users votes

Comments on Lachryma vote

  1. Write a zombie version of the page, complete with excellent pics and general mockery of survivors, and we can have both of them as historical, complete with links to each other at the top. There's no way in hell we could have a NPOV version of this, unless Kevan wrote it. It's a fething siege, with 2 sides. Therefore, the story of each side should be told, and two pages would facilitate reading.--Lachryma☭ 22:45, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    That's a crap argument. There are definate examples of NPOV articles of this nature. Two wrongs will not make a right here.--Jorm 22:50, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    But three rights make a left! And it'd be fun to read a POV article made with the love and care only a zombie can provide.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:51, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Why have only RRF peeps and their friends voted on this, plus two random people? It says up there that there should be announcement on Wiki News about this. Getting senile, Jorm?--Lachryma☭ 23:11, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Because everything is a zombie conspiracy.--Jorm 23:21, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Oh, you're not going senile? That's reassuring. Anyway, my new argument is MSTK's.--Lachryma☭ 23:29, 9 August 2007 (BST)


Comments on MSTK vote

  1. This article truly preserves the spirit of UD. Come on, guys. Lighten up. We're giving depth and history into an otherwise black-and-white game. This is the reason Urban Dead was created -- for people to live in it, to create stories, to make legends, to make history. This article really represents the spirit of the game. Not a bunch of numbers, cgi pages, and an RNG generator...but a living, breathing history. --MSTK 23:14, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Sure, if that "spirit" is "insulting everyone involved on one side, distorting facts, and pointless chest beating." If that's the case, then you're right on the money about that.--Jorm 23:34, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Relax a bit, will you? It's a game. Nobody's insulting anyone. It's all tongue-in-cheek humor. RRF didn't read this article and get terribly offended. It's just a story, it's just putting life to a mostly text-based internet browser game. If you're truly offended by this article, then I am sure that the writers are genuinely sorry. --MSTK 01:13, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    They can tell tales on their own page. (This is just an analogy) Nazis can say how the jews were taking over the government, and there theories, but it doesnt make it right. Same here. This article needs to be merged with another group's page, so they can brag how they one. But if someone wants to look up the history of malton, they should get non-biased, truth.-Downinflames 23:14, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on Someguy5031 vote

  1. Survivors need their moments too... also the battle ended on my birthday....--Someguy5031 23:18, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Another crap argument. That's all that 90% of this wiki is.--Jorm 23:21, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Then again, most records in history are horribly biased. I don't see anyone complaining when their kids only learn about the U.S. part of the Battle of Midway, so why does this matter. As it was said, if it's such a big issue, make a Zombie themed one, and for the Historical tag, put it on a page redirecting to both sides of the battle.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:37, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Thanks for the save Engel, winners (or whoever considers to be victorious in any case) get to decide how history is written, thats the basic rule for real life anywho--Someguy5031 23:49, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    I think you're forgetting that the survivors lost at Blackmore, since they were eaten and the building ransacked. By your argument, the definitive article on Blackmore should be written by the RRF, since they have won all engagements over it. Srekto 18:31, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Right but we won in the sense that we survived for so long. During wwII there was a battle that was remembered just because Britain managed to evacuate such a large group. Sure Germany took over the village, but it was greatly noted due to the evacuation.--Someguy5031 21:06, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    There's a difference between an operation designed to evactuate troops and one to hold territory. Blackmore is not really analagous to Dunkirk. And besides, it could be argued that the Germans won the Battle of Dunkirk because they succeeded in driving the British and French ground forces out of France, even if they did not manage to destory the army. Srekto 21:30, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Hey guys, shut up about World War 2, this is a game and the RRF is not the damn Nazi empire, stop comparing them it is highly insulting and makes you all look like idiots for continuing it on. Godwins Law.--Karekmaps?! 23:41, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    err no i wasn't accusing you of being nazis I was just displaying one time where the good guys don't win but they make an achievement so its recorded as a plus for them. and yes Germans did win (like the zombies-not that zombies are nazis-not that all Germans are nazis...gah how can i not offend anyone here) but still it was noted historical for the achievement Britain did.--Someguy5031 07:12, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    *Whoosh, doors fly open* I'll save this situation. Think of it as the Battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans got the piss kicked out of them, but they managed to hold off such a large force. There, happy? We have a good reference, that doesn't blantly get confused with Nazism.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 07:19, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    right now they'll assume that we like yelling "THIS IS SPARTA!" and they're Persians (former day iraqis!) who get kicked into giant pits, and wear masks and whatnot. if anything you just made the situation worse, by saying we're kickass wearing leather speedos and they're well...not.Good effort though --Someguy5031 07:37, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    No, that'd probably be the The_stickling_300. Who have mostly shown that they'd rather vandalize other groups pages, just because they don't like that group. Like DARIS.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:57, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    See, you say shit like this, and wonder why we don't start off assuming hostility. Read back over EVERYTHING said. Pretty much the worst you'll see is me saying "that's a crap argument"; all the personal attacks and insults are coming from your side (with the exception of that WanYao dude, who I have no idea who he is, and I don't think he even knows what side he's fighting on). So, awesome. This is to say nothing of the personal attacks that have been thrown at me over on yon NMC forum; you talk about being "classy" but seriously, jack, ya'll ain't measuring up.
    I've yet to see a solid argument for keeping the tag on the page that isn't based entirely on "well, Ron wrote it" or "you zombies are whiners." I'm a reasonable guy - even my enemies will say that. But this shit - calling us vandals, etc. - that's, you know, classless.--Jorm 00:09, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    I'm guessing that was in response to Someguy saying "now they'll assume this and that, blah, blah,blah", and not my comments right?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:25, 12 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on MatthewFahrenheit vote

  1. It's a really fun page to read, and zombie gropups are known for their POV issues too. I don't see how that page could be "improved", NPOV wise. Probably any change made would make it really shitty to read. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:33, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Again, a crap argument. Zombie groups make POV edits, sure, but they don't do it on pages that have an "official" wiki stamp.--Jorm 23:35, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    And that comes from a crap user that doesn't even contribute unless it's drama on a danger report. Great. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 23:47, 9 August 2007 (BST)
    Woo, attack the person, not the point. What a brilliant strategy. Wish i had thought of it. Oh well, i have time now: You're a Poo Poo head! --Grim s-U! 00:00, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    You started by insulting everyone's arguments here as "crap". As reticient as I am to "take this seriously", the point I first made still stands. It's a great article, really fun to read... Probably one of the best example's of Ron's great sense of humor and still, it manages to be quite (but not totally) impartial, and tell the story. It can't be "improved" by turning its content totally safe NPOV, even less by a bunch of forum/IRC summoned zombie players turned into wiki users. Also, this voting as it stands hasn't any kind of "official stamp" on this wiki, so it's pointless. Shows little respect on the users that first voted it historical by making this kind of sneak attacks and not even announcing it on wiki news yourself before summoning your friends. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 00:31, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Who the fuck are you talking to, here?--Jorm 00:34, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Jorm has a point. It was him, not Grim that was saying their vote was crap. Which he is completely entitled to do.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:37, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    I'm truly sorry, I assumed the reply here was done by Jorm as well, and I was so confident that instintively didn't even check the sign. My mistake. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 01:07, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    If the author is the most important part a historical article then there is a problem with the article. Ron's writen an entertaining account of the battle from the human perspective and he should put it in his user Journal (with a link to it from the actual article). However calling someones personal opinion of an event an Historical account is absurd. -Barroom Hero 01:06, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Not the author (whom nontheless I respect a lot) but the content. Read again. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 01:09, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    This is a much better done historical page. I enjoy reading the C4NT's account of Blackmore but that article is ridiculously slanted. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the C4NT hosting that page themselves, but if we want an actual historical account of that battle, it needs to be opened for editing so that chest thumping propaganda is put where it belongs and so that a complete account of the battle can be made. -- Murray Jay Suskind 01:20, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Ah I see now, (I'm not used to reading whole sentences, IRC user you understand.) you think that impartiality in history should take a backseat to entertaining content. Historic articles can be written in an interesting way but at a point it fails to be historic. This account crosses that line and thus it should be listed as personal opinion instead of fact. -Barroom Hero 01:24, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    ZOMG, survivor wiki conspiracy! There are two links to this page on the Wiki News thingy, and one takes you directly to the Against vote!--Lachryma☭ 01:35, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Bullshit, this article was written at the time as a recruiting tool, not as an account of the battle. It's purpose was to raise survivors interest and to do that it makes a lot of slanderous statements about the RRF(which, from my experience with Ron, he didn't believe). It's not meant to be historical and that is the problem, want a recruiting tool fine, want propoganda fine, but when it's used as a historical account of a battle it needs to be made as balanced as possible. It's not a historical account at current it's a recruitment tool.--Karekmaps?! 01:41, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    To quote some random person: "well, yeah, a wiki about a text based game should be taken very seriously and should be as historically accurate as possible, because, years from now when they make a movie out of the battle of blackmore, we're going to need people going on the wiki to point out all the historical inaccuracies about the movie."--Lachryma☭ 01:50, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    So if I were to go around and change the Caiger 1 and 2 pages so that they constantly insulted everyone in Caiger 1 and 2 and tried to make them seem largely incompetent and stupid you'd be fine with that? That's what this article does, but to the RRF.--Karekmaps?! 01:54, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Honestly? I would love it. It was fun PKing in them, thats about it. How about three different articles. This one, a zombie themed one, and a true NPOV one, with the other two at the top of the NPOV?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:56, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Go for it, Karek. Those aren't historical, right? So by editing them, you'll keep 'em from being deleted! Anyway, since most people here think that a NPOV version of this would be boring, how about one of y'all write your version of what to replace this with on a subpage of yours, so we can decide what's best?--Lachryma☭ 02:00, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    They are historical, they were added due to a rule change/clarification. 10 votes gets you in if there are less than 5 against votes.--Karekmaps?! 02:03, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Change it anyway. :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:06, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    adding a blurb about personal accounts of the battle with links to articles and stories that mention it sounds like the best option to me. maybe put it on the other Historic articles so the people who do have UD journals can better share their content with the community. -Barroom Hero 02:11, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Oh, those two are historical? Fascinating. So what happens if the rewrite is fethed? Who is gonna do it? Will it be short and boring? Will there be pics? Saying, "This is fethed, fix it." is just talk, ya know...--Lachryma☭ 02:15, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Yes. No one would ever call for people to vote on a forum. And I seriously forgot to put it in the "wiki news", but call it a conspiracy and evil on my part if you want. I don't care.--Jorm 02:41, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    I'll call it senility and/or being human. As for that thread, well, I couldn't let that pic of Hello Kitty Darth Vader get deleted, right?--Lachryma☭ 02:46, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on 1337p5yc0 vote

  1. I was on the edge of insanity. This article saved my life. It curred my brother's yellow fever and it caused the downfall of the Empire allowing the Rebels to free the galaxy. --Ice_Jedi5★ 01:15, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    It also allowed me to be cured of my kitten huffing infection! How could we get rid of such a miraculous article?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:18, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    I'll give kudos to psycho for thinking up such a creative reason for saving the BoB page.--Private Mark 17:11, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    You guys are idiots -Downinflames 23:14, 19 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on Bluetigers vote

  1. Victors write history. Loosers ask for deletion. Bluetigers 02:42, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Well, shouldn't the history of any Blackmore battle be an RRF account of it? :) -- Murray Jay Suskind 05:22, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Fact A: The battle account is Ron's account, and has been so since the battle took place. Fact B: RRFers are the spearhead of the delete brigade. Conclusion: Something not very flattering for the RRF. Bluetigers 05:31, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Fact: You're an idiot for using the word Fact on something that is completely fictional. Ron made it as a humor page. Place it under humorous category if you want but it does not belong under Historical. You don't see people teaching Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I in history classes cause it is humorous, not historical. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 05:53, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    RRFers can't write, they can only whine about somebody else's writing.Bluetigers 15:51, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Interesting that because many RRF members have provided very useful and good articles liked and respected by players from both sides, why not take a look at the Battle of Santlerville page which was largely written by members of the RRF. If RRF are the spearhead for the delete brigade and are the people who weren't on the side of the guy who made the page and happen to be the group who is the target of most of the PoV claims then it probably deserves some type of fixing, obviously it insults them.--Karekmaps?! 19:44, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Are you done whining? Now RRF is persecuted by the grand survivor conspiracy?! Most POV drama on this Wiki is started by RRFers, in particular Jorm and Sonny, either having a fit when their beloved danger report goes green, or when various pieces of Wiki aren't as mechanical as possible. Guys, next time ask Kevan to replace the Wiki with the server logs. Or even better, learn to write and produce your own contributions. Bluetigers 16:45, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    Jorm's in the RRF? News to me, mabey you should learn to sit quietly in the background, considering you're just making an ass of yourself. First you say the RRF can't write, then you say they whine about everything and start drama, and then you show how completely you miss the point of this whole thing.--Karekmaps?! 23:27, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    Thanks for the insults. Second RRFer that feels the need to throw insults instead of bringing some fresh (and credible) arguments in the debate. To answer your attempt to deviate the discussion, Jorm runs barhah.com, also known as RRF forums/home. Bluetigers 00:08, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    Good job. Goes to show how that you read it. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 05:24, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    That should tell you something, the RRF part. They were a rather large portion of the battle, some could say there wouldn't have been a Battle of Blackmore without them.--Karekmaps?! 06:16, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    I wonder why there is no mention whatsoever about the Battle of Blackmore appearing on either on the The Ridleybank Resistance Frontpage, or on the Ridleybank_Resistance_Front_Notable_Events page, or on the Ridleybank_Resistance_Front_Department_of_Homeland_Security page. It seems that RRF does not consider itself as being a part of the events, or does not consider the events important enough to pay them attention. Then why are you all of the sudden paying so much attention?. Bluetigers 04:33, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    Seeing as we won the battle, there really is no reason to list it. It's listed "Amid many a bloodly victory".Don't talk shit if you haven't a damn clue what we did there. Besides, how many "Battle of Blackmores" do you think we've attended, now that trenchcoaters think they can beat us everytime they set foot in Blackmore? --User:Axe27/Sig 05:35, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    Congrats. Shacknews bailed you out. But you fail to get the point. From RRF perspective, BoB does not exists. It's listed "Amid many a bloodly victory". It is historical only from the perspective of survivors. I find it fitting to have the account written (exuisitively) by a survivor. I also encourage to actually forget that Jorm claims it is 'insanely biased' and actually read it. It looks long, but it's fairly good reading. You might be surprised by the actual content. Bluetigers 06:15, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    I'm going to respond to the only thing you said that deserves a response on any level, your false assumptions about the RRF and the Battle of Blackmore. That being the assumption that the Battle of Blackmore is as important to the RRF as the establishment of the horde(your belief it belongs on the RRF wiki page) and the statement that it would be at home on the DoHS page. The RRF wiki page doesn't list events, it only describes the horde, it's creation, and it's policies, none of that was involved in the Battle of Blackmore. The DoHS page documents the DoHS' policies, their orders, and violations of the RRF's laws for Ridleybank, it does not document past events, it does not keep records of every time some survivors decide it would be a good time to invade Ridleybank or Barhahville or even Stanbury Village and to assume the Battle of Blackmore is any more special than say the Candyland invasions and thus deserves a spot on a page meant purely for coordinating a portion of the horde is absurd. And lastly, the RRF Notable events page, that page is old, and if you didn't live in a hole you would have noticed there are a large mass of notable RRF events left undocumented and un-updated, there are many far more notable events between what is there and the Battle of Blackmore and many far more notable events than the Battle of Blackmore from after the Battle of Blackmore which also have not been added. None of that helps the point you were trying to make and quite a bit of it probably significantly hurts it. Might I also recommend letting go of whatever event drove you to dislike the RRF so feverently, I'm betting it was a long time ago and it's probably about time you moved on.--Karekmaps?! 10:29, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    I think we agree more than we think. The problem is that the page in question is the sole page about BoB, and that historically RRF has expressed no interest in having their own version, or an NPOV version, for all the reasons you state above. BoB was voted historical, the only source related to that event is the current article, thus the current article IS the current depiction of BoB. You should produce an NPOV version, or an ZPOV version, or both, link to the current SPOV version (enciclpaedic etiquette is to link to original historical sources), and make a motion to replace current BoB depiction with the improved one. But you chose a different course of action, and hencefoth all hell broke loose. Bluetigers 21:22, 12 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on Sir Fred vote

  1. Keep ! You had months to discuss this POV issue, but now you bring it up when everyone who wrote the article has idled out. I miss Ron Burgundy, Morth Babid, and even DHG. Either you put forth a non-biased version of events, or we should delete every biased article. I think the article about the Battle_of_Wagram is far too biased. Or would you like to remove that cute little pic from the Ridleybank page ? Sir FredQSG
    None of those articles have historical status. Furthermore, we aren't trying to delete it, we're trying to unlock the editing of it. Besides, I know a lot of people who are still active who were involved in that battle. In fact, it was the reason I joined the RRF (I wonder how it would go over with survivors if I edited it to glorify that as the moment I started to take over Malton [and yes, I say that in jest]). -- Murray Jay Suskind 05:25, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    For the third time, how are y'all gonna change it? Can we have some examples, or even *gasp!* an entire rewrite elsewhere so that we can see what y'all have in mind and whether it'll be worth reading or boredom incarnate?--Lachryma☭ 06:39, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    I don't care to change the page one iota. Leave it as it is; whatever you want. I just want the "historical" tag removed. That tag implies "official" and it's too POV to be official. I wasn't even at Blackmore; I honestly don't care much who won. I washed my hands of the RRF long before this occurred. But I think that if you really, truly step back and stop looking at it as "something written by someone in my group", you'll see that I'm right: it is far, far too POV to be given an "official" stamp.
    I would also accept that the page be moved to Battle of Blackmore (Survivor Viewpoint), with Battle of Blackmore serving as a disambiguation page that pointed to that and Battle of Blackmore (Zombie Viewpoint) (to yet be created).
    As an aside, I find it ironic that (to me) you appear to be taking this far, far more serious than I.--Jorm 06:49, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Sorry, I sometimes care too much. People keep telling me it's a weakness. Moving along, "That's a crap argument" is what you said to me when I brought up what you just said. I was like, "Make a zombie version of this page!" and you were like, "Two wrongs don't make a right." I brought that up to ask you why you changed your mind, but you really don't have to answer that. It's a lovely compromise, and I will change my vote if you change your main text to reflect this brilliant new idea.  ;)--Lachryma☭ 06:58, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Personally I still believe that if you are going to do that the main article should be as neutral as possible and just link too those two accounts.--Karekmaps?! 19:47, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on Lord Wulfgar vote

  1. Uh no. You wait until now to complain about this? Yeah that's pretty low. That is one of the high points in survivor history and it should not be tampered with.--Lord Wulfgar 06:26, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    So because of people not knowing about it it should be excused? Pardon me for fullfilling a law of the internets but...the holocaust was not noticed until after it happened. Should the Nazis have been excused because no one did anything about it until afterwards? No. And yes, I compared it to Nazis. Suck it. --Sonny Corleone RRF CoL DORIS CRF pr0n 06:31, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    ironic, how someone arguing about a faux historical wiki page does not even know their real life history. people knew about the fethin' holocaust before the war ended. it was called the Final Solution and it was WELL ADVERTISED. just certain specificis were not widely known... well, anyway, sonny, you've just lost all credibility on the subject of "history" with your last comment... but i am true to my word and will not oppose the motion to have the article moved (see its talk page) ... but... oh the drama. the egos. drama. more ego. bigger drama. man, this game community is frigged up... --WanYao 07:43, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on Akule vote

  1. I think Jorm's whole argument is the fact of it being historical makes it uneditable. Not sure if that's a rule or not, but it should be - if not for this article but for all, lest we end up with a flood of historical article edits forever. --Zod Rhombus 15:38, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    Write up a draft for the zombie side, submit it as a historical page edit and let it get voted on. The page did get voted in as is, so the new additions should be as well. --Akule School's in session. 15:43, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    Yeah, but you shouldn't be voting for the article, you should be voting for the event. The articles always get touched up some and if the original article was the complete basis for voting something in as historical then most things wouldn't deserve a spot there. You don't vote groups historic based on their Wiki article, you vote them based on their ingame relevance, the same standard should apply to Events. The problem here is the article that is being used as historical, not the event.--Karekmaps?! 23:30, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    The biggest thing is: How many months did that article sit without any effort to make it NPOV? It then passed based on what is there now, which means that there is significant backing for it, which meant that the majority of the community felt it was an important event. If the zombies want to be able to add their side to the event, then they should simply make a proposed edit in order to include their side of things for each step of the events. We then vote on the proposed changes and go from there. It's easy to do and doesn't require people stir up more wiki drama over NPOV wars. --Akule School's in session. 18:49, 13 August 2007 (BST)
    Again, you vote for an event, not an article the event passed on it's merits, barely might I add. And a normal article being POV is fine, but a historical article is expected to have some degree of reality/profesionalism to it, which this one lacks. As has been stated before, it's the Fox News version of events.--Karekmaps?! 19:28, 13 August 2007 (BST)
    Eh. The event passed, barely or not. Get some people to come in and de-Foxify it, vote for the inclusion of the proposed changes, and there you go. --Akule School's in session. 19:34, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on Macampos vote

  1. This page should continue to be historical, not only because it's a damn good read, but because the Battle of Blackmore was an event that marked a triumph in the heart of all good freedom-loving survivors, (and a tragedy, of course) as well as proving that despite how over-powered the zombies are today, when the forces of "good" band together, we can accomplish anything for insanely long periods of time.--Private Mark 17:48, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Kid, this is a wiki not some Superman comic where the forces of good always win. The "all good freedom-loving survivors" is complete bullshit and it needs rewritten in the classical fashion.Hell, Blackmore didn't accomplish anything other than make survivors believe that they can "conquer" the homeland. It was originally written by Ron Burgundy who made it as a propganda page for C4NT. Don't kid yourself. It needs to be NPOV. --User:Axe27/Sig 17:58, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Perhaps some of you zombie types could add a link to a NPOV page? or make your own propaganda page (of which the blackmore page is a tongue in cheek version) just from a zombies angle. al duck
    It now has a disclaimer at the top and that should be enough. If the zombies want to make one from the zombie point of view then let them, but that one should stay where it is. Even with it being written in a survivor perspective most of the information about the battles and the events surrounding the entire event are completely true. Regardless of what zombie players choose to believe.--Lord Wulfgar 18:52, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Zombies aren't overpowered, you n00b. The they've been so successul because they're ORGANISED. And on the human side, there are just too many trenchies like you who feel some complelling need to overcompensate for their social impotence by demonising a group players from a SCIENCE-FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME. Lame lame lame... Harmanz do need better organisation and strategy, desperately. But it ain't gonna come from n00bs like you. Go back to playing Runequest.... --WanYao 19:39, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    You know, I'm not getting a lot of positive communication from you, here, WanYao. Calling someone a "n00b" isn't doing anyone any good. I mean, I'm all about frank language and communication, and come off like an asshole because of it, but Wulfgar doesn't deserve that. Can we tone it down, please?--Jorm 19:43, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    The n00b comment was directed at the original voter, not Wulfgar. But, anyway... you're right, enough... --WanYao 19:54, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    I'll say this much: You guys seriously need a fucking sense of humor. It's a video game for Christ's sake. And the "n00b" comment by WanYao only proves my point. Furthermore, as stated above, this is a wiki about a fictional city and about fictional events, so the idea of a wiki page being ENTIRELY in NPOV is BS. Should there be at least a section that's NPOV? Fine. Go make such a section. But for the love of God, getting worked up like that just because a page seems "biased" to the survivor side is ridiculous. It's like saying that the pages devoted to Yahoomas are equally biased towards zombies, and should also be removed (note: No, I'm not for the destruction of the Yahoomas pages, since they were funny.) So anyways, where was I? Oh yea... all of you just... chill.--Private Mark 22:42, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    It's more the fact that it has the historical tag. I think the simplest solution is for those on the zombie side of things to create a proposed addendum to the historical page and have the edit voted on to see if it should be included or not. This way it will give the page a "whole community" feel. --Akule School's in session. 17:18, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    I think we have different definitions of the word "simplest." The simplest solution is to "remove the historical tag" not "create a bunch of additional pages."--Jorm 18:16, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    I'm not talking about creating a bunch of additional pages. I'm saying that you should put up a proposed change for the article and have people vote on that instead of voting to have it removed. Section it off with NPOV at the top and the different biased views at the bottom. Use a sandbox on your user page or make a temporary page that would eventually be deleted when the vote passed or failed. If the proposed change passed, then the previous article would be overwritten or modified to include the changes. Simple. --Akule School's in session. 18:26, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    Now there's a compromise I can agree with.--Private Mark 18:34, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    Just for the record here... my n00b comment may have been unnecessarily flamey... but it was far from unjustified. It was in fact directed exactly against the kinds of players who have NO sense of humour, the trenchcoaters who really take this all too seriously, who demonise and trash talk zombie players and really seem to BELIEVE it all, it's over-the-top, and kind of scary, actually. I effen LOATHE that, I loathe it playing both sides of the breathing fence. Hmph, well, yeah, and I got caught up in the drama of all this myself, and I'm kind of embarassed by that now, but oh well. I apologise... But... maybe that same feeling also has something to do with why the dedicated zombie players are so opposed to this article... Anyway, I'm pretty much done with this, unless I decide to go change my vote, which I very well might. Cheers. --WanYao 20:34, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    It's all good now WanYao, thanks for your apology. Personally I've played as a zombie before (still have an alt) so I know somewhat what it's like to be a zombie in these harsh times. But meh. That will be all.--Private Mark 21:06, 11 August 2007 (BST)

Comments on ShadowScope's Vote

  1. This could lead to endless voting over every little thing. And besides, you can still edit it to your heart's content, I don't think the thing is actually locked. But yeah, maybe it doesn't belong there...Since when is it is the Suriviors' high point when they all get eaten up by a horde of zombies in the end?--ShadowScope 07:46, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    The high point was that we all sat there for over two months and held most of Ridleybank against all odds, and despite what zombies say now a days we did hold most of Ridleybank for a while there. It wasn't just strafing. Not to mention the RRF and Odin knows how many other zombie allies couldn't get rid of us no matter what they did, in fact if it wasn't for the extremely coordinated Shacknews the siege would have lasted far far longer. But that's not the point of this vote, I just thought I'd point out that high point to ya.--Lord Wulfgar 08:40, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    You STILL lost. Caiger Mall is a rallying point for suriviors because a powerful and somewhat invincible safehouse was formed for quite a while. It was tactically useful. Blackmore is not. Besides, all should know that this is a zombie apoc. Suriviors aren't supposed to have heroic victories, and how heroic is the victory when there were far more suriviors than zombies in the area. If you guys won Blackmore, if Ridleybank gave up, then that showed the game was clearly broken, and then I would have heroically defend this page to the death, because it would have been the end of Urban Dead.--ShadowScope 19:57, 10 August 2007 (BST)
    Wait a minute, WTF? Where the hell is the rule that survivors are supposed to huddle in a building not doing much of anything and wait for the OMGTHERSOPHEARSOME zombies to kill them? Why wouldn't survivors have epic victories? This is a game with no script, nothing is inherently "not supposed" to happen. This isn't you're own personal horror flick where everyone dies. You are taking this way too seriously. On the flip side of you, just about everyone I met at Blackmore did it for the story, the glory and the fun. Lieutenant Kingston 05:35, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    You win. I change my vote. Sheesh. If I can't have my own personal opinon without getting attacked, geesh.--ShadowScope 19:38, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    From my perspective, it seems to me you were attacking our opinions on why we wanted the BoB to stay as a historical event. You can have your own opinion if you wish the opposite, but such fights are to be expected.--Private Mark 21:02, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    But I voted Keep. Why in the world would you go and attack someone who was on your side, for different reasons, of course? I was stating that while I agree with some of Jorm's justification, I don't think one should remove it, so that I won't get accused that I was being pro-harman. Instead, I got accused of being pro-zarman just because I don't toe the line. We made our points, that's fine, but the act of just dogpiling on the "other side" made me very disappointed.--ShadowScope 04:38, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    Oh.... I see. From the above posts, I thought you were pro-zambah, and felt attacked due to your position by a survivor. Meh.--Private Mark 17:38, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    And what does any of the above "crap" have to do with me?----Sexualharrison ה •QSG•TStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 23:41, 11 August 2007 (BST)
    Nothing. Hagnat's getting too old for this job. :).-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:04, 12 August 2007 (BST)
    Yeah, looks like he put the wrong name, cause this was all the discussion from under ShadowScope's vote.--Karekmaps?! 00:06, 12 August 2007 (BST)

General Discussion

I have added an Administration Sidenote at the beginning of the article. Hope it makes it clear for the zombie centric player that this a POV article. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:15, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Sexual Harrison voted to keep twice (# 5 and # 17). Would a mod please remove one of the votes. -- Murray Jay Suskind 15:50, 10 August 2007 (BST

Umm no i didn't murray look again. ;) ----Sexualharrison ה •TStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 16:10, 10 August 2007 (BST)

It was an editing error when it was moved from the main historical discussion page which was corrected when I pointed it out. Sorry for assuming you voted twice. -- Murray Jay Suskind 16:57, 10 August 2007 (BST)
oops, my fault. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (BST)
You're lucky I fixed it before the fight picked up about that. :)-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:28, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Ironically, it looks to me that Battle of Blackmore WILL have to be removed, no? Assuming the whole process of kicking pages out is legal (I disagree, but whatever), then it showcases that the will of the community is divided. A majority wants to declare it a Historical Event, however it is less than 2/3rds. I need someone to go and check the rules, but if it is correct, if the will of the community is divided on the point, I think "Battle of Blackmore" should be taken off. Um, hagnat, you're the sysop. Your thoughts?--ShadowScope 20:13, 10 August 2007 (BST)

how come on all the FOR votes none of us criticize or personally attack the voter or their decision, but on the against, RRF and the others verbally abuse us?--Someguy5031 21:10, 10 August 2007 (BST)
Just so you know, I was criticized and personally attacked for disagerring with the Suriviors, even so I voted with them.--ShadowScope 19:35, 11 August 2007 (BST)
This motion is looking for the removal of the battle of blackmore from its historical event status. If this motion doest reach an approval of 2/3, then it keeps whatever statuses it have right now. And my opinion as a sysop weights no more than any other user. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:47, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Jormie-wormie said: "with the exception of that WanYao dude, who I have no idea who he is, and I don't think he even knows w hat side he's fighting on" ... For the record a) I'm just an opinionated and mouthy nobody; and b) I'm not on any particular side... that's kind of my point. Why the hell do I have to be on a "side", anyway? Us vs. them... it's friggin' ridiculous... But I, myself, got carried away in the drama of it all and got flamey and st00pid, and I regret it now... Which is why, other than an apology which I made above somewhere, and this, I'm not bothering with this anymore. Be well, one and all... --WanYao 02:14, 12 August 2007 (BST)

I made a post in Protections asking for the BoB page to be unblocked so that links can be made to make the article more netrual. I do hope it get accepted so that this drama can be put behind us.--ShadowScope 03:00, 13 August 2007 (BST)

What the hell? Why is a battle in the past enough to fire everyone up like this? I'm a nub, and don't see the point to all this drama, besides my obvious observation of the NPOV's crusade to make the wiki sterile and lifeless. If you want to be fair, make a zombie account of the article as well, I like that idea. Italus 17:01, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Because many people participated in the BoB event, and for many, it's an event the likes of which many survivors (and zombies, over their victory) looked up to...--Private Mark 19:40, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Should We Even Be Handling This Situation This Way? Policy vs Specific Target Vote.

Okay. I know I've been a bit lax on the Wiki for awhile, but hang on here, folks: This page passed our set standards for voting a long, long while back to get its {{HistoricalEvent}} tag. It met ALL of the requirements established here, and has been around for quite some time. Our historical events aren't many: We only have SIX in-game events listed there. Our historical tags read: Please do not edit this page or the corresponding talk page without good reason. Is someones personal opinion of style, something that hasn't been made a seperate policy, a good enough reason to vote to alter this entry at ALL...much less suggest DELETING it?

Maybe what SHOULD be done is our original poster should instead submit a policy outlining a style format that ALL historical event pages should conform to, and then at least we can make sure EVERY page is setup the same way. Otherwise we're going to have chaos and a lot of bitter page-specific kvetching. While the Blackmore page is by the far the most 'colorful' and unformally written, its not the only 'biased' or POV-violated page: Almost all our other events have a strong pro-survivor bias with little to no historical documentation from the undead side. Does that make THEM worth deletion? --MorthBabid 13:41, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Actually if you really want to get technical here the event did not meet requirement two, it was contained to one building in one suburb and didn't change anything about the groups or how it is played for them.--Karekmaps?! 14:06, 15 August 2007 (BST)
*sigh* you people really like to get into details, dont you ? This was a historical event, end of story. Now, what we might need is something like morth suggested, guidelines for how a event page should be formatted so it doesnt use POV to document the event. While the BoB page is funny as hell and i would like it to stay as it is, if we do pass a policy on how ALL pages should be formated, then there wouldnt be a thing that could be done for this page to stay in its current form (which would then be moved to a subpage from the C4NT page). --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:15, 15 August 2007 (BST)
I would consider that whatever format such a policy would impose, linking to original historial sources would be a minimal ettiquete. Bluetigers 15:53, 15 August 2007 (BST)
If you want to get technical, the page didn't pass its vote, because it's vote was illegal. More discussion here-Jorm
Thanks for linking to that, Jorm. Thats a clearer statement of your intent: And you're also dead wrong about it being illegal, though you do have genuine points about a flaw in our dealing with historical entries. Follow that link you posted to the seperate discussion to see why I believe this to be the case. In summary: You can clearly see through the history archiving of the History voting pages that the vote wasn't illegal at all, and that the initial vote over the entry in question existed before the full implimentation of Wiki News into the nice sleek feature that its evolved into today. I really, really encourage you to drop this flawed and untested vote system. You HAVE pointed out a problem, however: We have no policy for how our history entries should look. What you NEED to do instead of encouraging people to vote on it in this format is to suggest a policy for ALL historical entries, have folks vote on that, and then we can all as a community work towards fixing ALL of our current historical pages to conform. That way we'll have something everyone can agree on, as well as something that can prevent future problems with historical pages that pass review. Oh, and Vecusum? If you read the entry, you can REALLY see how the game really DID change, espcially in terms of how all survivors view defense of their suburbs. --MorthBabid 01:06, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Read the entry? I watched as the entry was being written, I was there at the Battle of Blackmore(hell I was one of the first 5 zombies that showed and started the siege), nothing has changed, most certainly not for the RRF and nothing has really changed for the NMC either. It was an NT siege, nothing more, it didn't even defend the suburb, the suburb folded like a house of cards when the RRF actually sent DoHS people back there. Please, don't try to tell me how the Battle of Blackmore triggered a change in gameplay or how people looked at it. Oh and one last thing, You vote for the event not the description of it so you're whole point is moot.--Karekmaps?! 11:24, 16 August 2007 (BST)
I'm guessing that last comment was more for Jorm than myself. Additionally, how are we going to handle the results of THIS vote? We've never HAD a 'Revoke Historical Status' policy, its something thats been made up by Jorm. Whats our minimum vote requirements? Who has to get more votes to make it pass? For how long will we vote? If anything is 'illegal', its our current method of handling this situation. --MorthBabid 14:50, 16 August 2007 (BST)
No, it was too you, Jorm seems to have gotten that as the whole reason he did this was for the article to be changed to actually asses the event. As for how many votes, like everything else it is always a 2/3rds majority and it is always two weeks.--Karekmaps?! 15:23, 16 August 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Blackmore/Historical_Event_Voting&oldid=1709937"