Talk:Stanbury Village/Archive

Revive Points Are NOT Functioning

The revive points aren't functioning. I've passed them numerous times at different times of day every day for the last few weeks and they've been down for a while. There are over 41 zombies at Yeoman Park right now and no revivifying bodies. And 21 zombies at Maxwell Walk with, again, no revivifying bodies. This is how it has been for the last few days, nothing in this area is safe, the NTs are zombie held, the revive points aren't functioning enough to make them in any way more revive points than any other place in the whole suburb, and in this case they are actually less efficient than sitting in a random block waiting 24 hours for a friend. Mah Evidence. If they aren't functioning they shouldn't be listed as revive points because they aren't they are just another block of the suburb, and in this case very zombie populated blocks.--karek 08:35, 12 July 2007 (BST)

My survivor was killed in Stanbury, thanks...thanks to karek. I've been waiting for a revive for...4-5 days now I would guess. Both the NTS are under constant attack, if not ransacked, the Mall is barely survivor. There is no way the RP's are working. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 16:24, 12 July 2007 (BST)

The revive points listed on the wiki page are still the established revive points. If they're not functioning, they should be listed as such in their status on the List of Revivification Points page, NOT deleted off the main page. Rest assured, when survivors take back the suburb - and we will -, those revive points will become active again.--Benigno ^{SSZ RCC} 17:00, 12 July 2007 (BST)

Then update it then, as of right now they aren't revive points because no one is getting revived.--karek 17:02, 12 July 2007 (BST)

They ARE revive points, they're just not functioning at the moment because zeds are holding the suburb. Their STATUS REPORT should be updated to reflect this, but NOT DELETED OFF THE MAIN PAGE. Quit using the suburb page for propaganda. --Benigno ^{SSZ RCC} 17:03, 12 July 2007 (BST)

....Thanks, that's the appropriate action. --Benigno ^{SSZ RCC} 17:08, 12 July 2007 (BST)

Propaganda my ass, it's survivor/reviver propaganda to post them as revive points when no one is getting revived, to be a revive point you need to be actively reviving people, they aren't being revived, and I will continue to remove theme every time you add them until they are really revive points as of right now they aren't and haven't been for something like a damn month.

P.s. the only reason I did that is to shut you up, it's still leaving the page because it isn't true and doesn't belong there.--karek 17:11, 12 July 2007 (BST)

How many times do I have to tell you? They are revive points, they're just not functioning at the moment. A 100 year old broke down tractor is still a freaking tractor, even if it hasn't been used in a long time. Reverted your edit. And I bet the mods get on my side if they notice this. --Benigno ^{SSZ RCC} 17:22, 12 July 2007 (BST)

Ha! I didn't know this had been a problem as far back as July 2007! The revive situation has been better since, but it took about a year. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 23:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Too much groups

Someone please remove some groups. There are way too much listed there for a suburb that is pretty much dead. For DEM groups remove them and put them under the DEM to make it smaller. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 17:18, 2 July 2007 (BST)

Pwotters historical?

Pwotters are not listed as a historical group as per historical groups page. I'll remove them from the sidebar tomorrow unless there's some (reasonable) reason to keep them. --Bonefiver 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They're historical in Stanbury Village. There's a difference between historical in a suburb and historical in the game. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but haven't we been over this before sometime last year? The historical group policy was enacted while there was an argument over Stanbury Renegades and their position in the sidebar and that was the reason the group was left there (as far as I remember). To avoid ambiguity whether Pwotters should be removed from the list or the list title should be changed to something else. --Bonefiver 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw wtf did Talk:Stanbury_Village do to reach historical group status ;)

The Renegades were put in their own section of the sidebar because they were from Stanbury but no longer around. Pwotters are no longer around in Stanbury but they were from there and are historical there and only there. So removing them from the page all together is bad but keeping them in the historical section until the officially disband is the best option. --Sir Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CRF DORIS Hunt!} 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds like less effort which is good.

Since you're watching this anyway ... I saw a version of Category:Historical Groups where there was Talk:Stanbury_Village listed under T. Now it's gone, but there's no history information. Wonder if there's something funky going on with that page. --Bonefiver 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

September 9th

After a short discussion with MRH members, we would like the group name to be removed from the Sep 9 entry as it is misleading due to territorial claims made by a non-MRH. While MRH will talk smack, put up a fight or just be plain nuisances, we are fairly humble with our claims to territories. By weeks end I will look to edit the entry more along the lines of the following: Sep 9^th 2006 The Blackmore Bastard Brigade begins moves to add Stanbury Village to the annexation of suburbs into 'Greater Blackmore', a process that already includes Ridleybank. --Rabbi Bob 10:47, 11 September 2006 (BST)

Splitting the page

Is there any information available on the proper way to split pages? As the history grows lengthy, we may want to divide the Stanbury page into years. I've seen a couple of allusions to doing this about the wiki, however I'm hesitant to break it out. Perhaps it is as simple as moving the 2005 notes to a page such as Stanbury_Village/Events 2005 and cross-linking back for continuity. Thoughts? --Rabbi Bob 12:10, 25 June 2006 (BST)

Would have thought someone would have some input on this. I'm going to give it another week. --Rabbi Bob 15:11, 4 July 2006 (BST)

If you want to put it there and make a link on the suburb page to this then go ahead. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 20:16, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Thanks. I added the barricade information as DEM is attempting to get that off the ground. I'm unsure if it was appropriate to link to the RRF DoHS StVil section, however it is info that is out there and in the spirit of neutrality, I figured it added to the balance of what was there. LMK if there are any issues with that, but overall it isn't a big deal to me either way. --Rabbi Bob 22:38, 5 July 2006 (BST)

GPS

I don't think we need the GPS coordinates for suburbs, and if we're listing key buildings in the infobox, we don't need them in the text unless there's a particular reason (e.g. "Suburbville contains Superhuge Mall, the site of an ongoing war between the Suburbvillians and the Suburbians"). --Stankow 13:01, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

I only added them as it would give players with a GPS a better idea where the suburb is in relation to themselves. That, and moving all the things to the map-box made it look rather empty. Why get rid of the total count of the buildings, though? --Raelin 21:41, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

I think anyone who's knowledgable enough to be using the wiki and has a GPS unit is aware of the many places where an overall map of the city is available. The total count of buildings isn't useful in any way I can think of, unless you want to point out that it's the most/least built-up suburb in the area and is therefore more/less useful for Free Runners or barricading or the like. --Stankow 23:02, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

So, what you're saying then is that since the information is available elsewhere, we shouldn't have it here? I thought the point of this wiki was to gather the information in one place. The number of buildings could also be useful when deciding where someone should travel, and what route to take. It would be safer to stay in and travel through a suburb with more buildings. As it stands these suburb pages seem pretty sparse, and I think even the smallest amount of information, however insignificant, is more helpful than none at all. --Raelin 23:34, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

I've gotta agree with Raelin. � ceejayoz ^{★ .com} 23:52, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

I think having a count of buildings is a great idea. Coordinates is unnecessary, since there's a link to the suburb on the map right on the wiki page. I think that counts as gathering the info in one place. --otherlleft 00:36, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

If you're researching routes, a building count isn't particularly helpful. Imagine trying to drive from the airport to your hotel after the rental car place tells you "There's six office buildings, two hospitals and a fire department between here and there." If you're planning a route, you're going to look at a map, not a building count. --Stankow 06:00, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

Then, imagine that you aren't driving to the airport at all. You are, in fact, fighting for your life in a post-zombie apocolypse, and you don't have a car. We're not talking real-life here. In fact, roads in this game rarely even connect. If you have to travel, the best way to do so is indoors. Why are you so opposed to this? It's not like adding more information is going to destroy the page, there's barely anything there as it is. Why do you get to decide what other people should find useful? -Raelin 06:20, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

I haven't set myself up as the Ultimate Arbiter Of What's Useful, Raelin. If I'd done that, I wouldn't have bothered starting this discussion in the first place. I just would have made the edit and left it at that. Here's my question again -- how exactly does "25 buildings" help you travel indoors? Does it tell you where those buildings are? No, the map does that. And the map is linked to from the grid. --Stankow 06:30, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

If I had to travel indoors, how would knowing how many buildings where in a suburb not help me? By knowing how many buildings are in a suburb, you get a fair idea of how much you will be able to stay indoors as you travel through it, all without having to open up the map. If you see that one potential route has 20 buildings more than the other, then you could be relatively sure that the one with the additional 20 buildings would allow you to stay indoors more than the other. --Raelin 06:41, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

If I had to travel indoors and was looking at a wiki page that contained a link to an actual map of the suburb, I'd rather check the map than guess that a suburb with 40 buildings has a more easily navigable route than a suburb with 20. --Stankow 13:00, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

If all you're concerned with is that we provide a link to a page that has the information in better form, then why should we bother with the mapbox? The suburb map can currently tell you everything contained on the page, save for the known groups in the area, but we can link to where we found that information, too. In fact, why bother actually having any of the information here, lets just delete the page. We can just erase it all, and put up links. That would be helpful, wouldn't it? --Raelin 20:03, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

Things that are useful for someone at a quick glance:

"Will I be able to find ammo in this suburb?" The infobox says there's a mall and a police department.

"Will I be able to find first aid kits in this suburb?" The infobox says there's two hospitals.

"Will I be able to find a syringe in this suburb?" The infobox says there are two NecroTech buildings.

"Will I be able to Free Run through this suburb?" The text says there are 62 buildings. Unfortunately, that doesn't answer the question, so I'll have to look at the map.

The number of buildings in a suburb is better than nothing, but it's not nearly as good as the map, which is so much more useful and so easily accessible from the wiki page as to render useless a building count in the text. --Stankow 20:15, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yes, I agree, those are all useful at a quick glance which is why they're in the mapbox. It's there to provide the most useful information to the reader at a quick glance. Then, there's this left hand side of the page that has NO INFORMATION. None. I don't understand why putting information there is such a terrible thing. Some people may find it useful. I'm not trying to shove it in to the mapbox and claim it's extremely imprtant for them to see it. I'm putting it off to the side, where, if they read it, they can find something out that isn't clearly represented in the suburb map (unless they want to go through and count all the buildings, as I did). --Raelin 20:37, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

Neutral POV

I removed Doggie's history change (posing as Sk8tr boi - bad form not to sign an article using your Wiki name, if you sign at all), as it was propaganda. Now, some people seem to be confused as to what a neutral point of view really is. Let's take an entry like this one:

December 8th - "Though the Renegades have not been in Stanbury since October, they have returned. There are about 15 of them in the suburb, all without the group's name in their bio. After inspecting the suburb for two days, they claim that the suburb is safe and that no one needs to leave for the night. The Renegades do not make their missions public until well after it is over. Both of these reasons would explain why no one knew where they were during the attacks by zombie hordes. The Renegades lost 10 men at Bunney Street Police Department and an additional 10 at Nichols Mall when they left. Saromu, the leader of the Renegades, apologizes for his absence and promises to help fight in Stanbury."

Now, this entry mentions several groups that are in Stanbury; but it is acceptable. Notice that it does not give a call for new recruits, and is valid news (as the Renegades were a well-known group with a fixed presence in the suburb for some time). Let's see why Doggie (Sk8tr boi) had his comment removed:

March 14th - "A small group called the loners is reportedly gathering troops for a resistance against the gathering zombie presence in the area. The groups leader had this to say," Anyone intrested in joining the assault against the damn zed's should visit the groups page and conact me via e-mail adress shown." - Sk8r boi"

This is not news; many small survivor and zombie groups decide to come to Stanbury, as it is a pretty high profile suburb at the moment. Other survivor groups (Malton Retirement Housing, the Bellhop Boppers, MPGeeks, to name a few) have come to Stanbury, and had the grace not to announce themselves over the Stanbury Wiki page as though everyone cared. Now, if any of these groups proves successful in any campaigns in Stanbury (or fails miserably), then that would be news enough to warrant a history update. Using suburb history to advertised your half-ass group, with a wiki page that isn't even formatted properly, isn't kosher. Any further blatant attempts to advertise through the Stanbury history will be deleted. - The Brian

I removed the Appelflappen comment by Pchem for similar reasons. -DanteSck 05:14, 13 October 2006 (BST)

News Format

I've moved around the entries in the 'History'(i.e. News) section so that the newest entries are at the top, where they can be easily read. Along with a description in the opening section, this should remove the need for a 'Warning' section, which was out of date anyway and redundant. I also added years to the dates, since that makes it easier to see the order of entries.

Stanbury Renegades

I notive their appears to be a disagreement in whether the Stanbury Renegades should remain on the front page. May I suggest that you both state here why you do/do not believe it should stay on the page?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:59, 26 June 2006 (BST)

Historical Groups are not disbanded groups. They remain on a suburb page as historical reference. In an Arbitration Case between Koppie and I it was agreed by Arbitrator Karlsbad that groups staying in a suburb, not invading, and historical groups stay on a suburb page. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 00:02, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Sounds like solid reason for keeping it on the page. I'll dig up the arbitration case.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:04, 27 June 2006 (BST)

While I can see a few valid reasons for keeping it on the page, it ought to be explicitly stated in the group list that a group is historical (much as it is currently), otherwise having them listed makes the page less useful (for example new groups moving into an area trying to contact other groups). Even so, what defines a historical group? If they stay forever, the lists are going to get very crowded, eventually. Crossbow 02:23, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Look at the bottom of the group page in Categories and it says it's a Historical Group. A Historical Group is a group that has made an impact on the game's politics. The Renegades were one of the first organized groups against the RRF, a member of the CoL, one of the defenders of Giddings in Halloween, one of the defender of Mall Tour's attack on Giddings and giving the best fight, also a founding member of the largest organization in game the AoG. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 02:30, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Yes, the group type is listed as historical, but people dont always take the time to read things (theres not exactly a shortage of idiots in UD), and just to clarify, why not have them listed as historical in the suburb group list? It clarifies thier status, and I can't see an actual downside. No one is disputing the fact that the Stanbury renegades were an important group, but if a precedent is established that historical groups stay in a suburb (which, incidently I'm pretty sure wasnt't covered in the arbitration case, since no decision was reached, as you solved the issue without an arbitration ruling), the question then becomes "what is a historical group?" Who decides? Some thought needs to go into that before it is set in stone as precedent. Crossbow 02:39, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Most groups that disband do not have someone to go back and say "That group did some important things". The Historical Groups are an exception. People still around, from both sides of the coin, look at it and agree. An example would be PARA. The first group to ever beat a horde, and the largest at the time, The Many. The Council of Leaders, DARIS, etc. All historical because they did something important. There has never been an issue with disbanded groups because people are smart enough to realize that a group made up of 1 person that disbanded a week later is not important. I have no problem with it being listed as historical. But read the opening paragraphs of the suburb page. It says "once home to the historical group, The Renegades." Redundent if you ask me. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 02:44, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Redundant, maybe, but the same could be argued of having the renegades listed in the opening paragraphs, and in the groups list. The current version avoids any ambiguity, which surely has to be a good thing. Maybe we can actually agree on something for once, and keep this version? :P Crossbow 02:54, 27 June 2006 (BST)

I'm fine with it. I'm just saying with it's redundent and why it belongs on the page. Don't matter with me. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:00, 27 June 2006 (BST)

The reason I deleted the Renegades link in the first place was because - as Sonny so kindly pointed out himself - it was redundant information. They were already mentioned in the text so why also have a link to them in the group section of the page? The other reason for removing said link was becasue it was incorrect information. If a group is in the group section you take for granted that they are active and not long since gone. I have made that mistake myself at least two or three times, on this very page, with the Renegades, the last time just a week or so ago when I was trying to contact groups in the area.

As for historical groups being listed, no problem there, go ahead and mention them all you want. I just don't want them mixed with the active groups! Sonny claims there precedents in this case but I have still too see them/it.

"In an Arbitration Case between Koppie and I it was agreed by Arbitrator Karlsbad that groups staying in a suburb, not invading, and historical groups stay on a suburb page." This is just a blatant lie. Not that it matters, but I find it fun to point out that Saromu seldom speaks truthfully and most of the time twists peoples words to suit his own needs. I also find it fun to irritate him so that is an added bonus in this discussion.--Astram Loccasin 03:04, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Pardon me, but do I know you? Should I? Have you been important in any way and I just haven't noticed? Don't tell anyone what MY arbitration case says without first at least having the thoughtfulness to have become someone I could trust with having a decent opinion. Saromu is quoting if not directly the arbitration agreement as understood by me. You, however, admit to needling Saromu for "pleasure" of it, which I find is interesting. I will remember if in the future you are accused of having bad-faith edits and/or vandalism.
As always, tyfyc. --Karlsbad 06:13, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Should I point out that your attitude works both ways. Does it make any difference who is talking especially when 1. equality is in the wiki rules (and wiki ethics for that matter) and 2. this is the internet where 90% of the hot chicks you meet are actually middle aged and hairy men. Bonefiver 14:35, 27 June 2006 (BST)

As this is the internet, and you are a stated expert of internet protocol, I find it ironic that you state something on this wiki without backing it up, or even presenting your basic arguement, making it therefore impossible for others to learn of what and to whom you are speaking, especially when we are on the internet. It is a mistake on this wiki and makes it look like you either A: have no actual belief or proof of your position or B: do not trust yourself to be intelligent enough to defend your arguement.
This is a wiki, and so therefore of course it matters who is talking; you are asked to take in the character of the person speaking as well as the facts they are presenting. Astram simply has chosen to interpret the actions of someone of whom he has never made the aquantince of, so therefore it is going to be noted by the person of whom he is speaking when he is full of hot air. Furthermore you remember an editor who in a final side-comment expresses honestly his complete lack of character, tact, or credability.
Equality only means that we allow anyone who signs up to edit, therefore ensuring that the edits made to the wiki are gar-un-teed to be of that single person's opinion and/or interpretation. This is also why on this wiki we have very strict rules about the signage of responses and immitation of others. These rules also show that we understand that some people have nothing but bad-faith edits to contribute, and when we tire of it the wiki community bans them from contributing. Equality is nice to consider, but a wiki is about E-quality; you have to be the best the internet has to offer, or else someone as equal as you, if not more, will make it so.
So in closing and summation for you Bone-Fiver:
*Learn how to present an arguement on the wiki
*Learn about what you are arguing before speaking
*Don't defend Astram- his name is worth less than dirt and you can only lose respect through association.
--Karlsbad 19:36, 27 June 2006 (BST)

This is so off topic, but ... In case you didn't notice I wasn't arguing. I just pointed out the fact that you said Pardon me, but do I know you? Should I? Have you been important in any way and I just haven't noticed? and that it works both ways. We (me Bonefiver and you Karlsbad) haven't been properly introduced so do I know you? Should I? Have you been important in any way and I just haven't noticed?
As for backing my claims up the only one I could find (as in is possible to find and isn't common knowledge as the wiki rules should be) is the 90% of the hot chicks in the internet are in fact male. Do I really, really, need to back that up with a link? ;)
So perhaps you jumped to conclusion that I was criticizing your work as an arbitrator. I was not. I haven't read the case in question and I have no interest to, but I'm sure you did a fine job there as the case is solved. In this case I take it you looked at the history page of Stanbury Village and made an assumption of Astram and now you rate him as a second class wiki user with no credibility. Similarly I, as an unknown whoever (which works both ways too), made an assumption of Sonny, but now, weeks later, I can see his value as a writer for all the meta gaming that is going on. I still can't agree with some of his news items on specific page, but meh.
So as in summary ... who are you and why did you attack me? Bonefiver 20:42, 27 June 2006 (BST)

He attacked you because Karlsbad works hard to keep the wiki running smoothly. I like to call this part of the job cleaning out the sand in the gears. Cyberbob  Talk  20:47, 27 June 2006 (BST)

Who am I? Huh. I can't actually blame you for not doing research, nor would it be fair for me to consider you too lazy to check My Contributions. I however know of you: Less than 100 edits and a warning to your name, plus an arbitration case brought about by your editing practices. And, pardon me for being facetious, but didn't I personally correct your unsigned comment? Shouldn't you have figured that someone who is willing to clean up your messes would be someone who works to make this wiki better? And if that person happens to be a moderator wouldn't you be best served to remember that name? I'm not going to consider this a flaw of your character, only that you haven't yet learned the lay of the land- but please do so because it provides you with wisdom when deciding how to proceed.
I do not consider Astram to be a second-class Wiki user. I only observe the fact that Astram himself admits that he is a NO CLASS Wiki User. I don't have to make ANY assumptions when the subject says it about himself.
Don't take ANYTHING from what I do that you don't know. If we happen to not be introduced then I will then not make any statements that speak of your intent. Rather I will continue to present the facts and evidence you provide of yourself, provide an arguement using them, and then allow you to respond in your own words. Astram did not do this, and now you see why he isn't being considered in the running for "Wiki Editor of the Month".
Don't play weak- I am not attacking you as a user at all; rather I am showing that you and your assumptions are wrong as I choose to do so. I clean out the gears, like my fellow moderator said, and if you think that this is harsh, I would tell you to grow up; This is not about making friends. I am not being payed to play nice¹ to someone who is incorrect and even more so makes assumptions about how I go about things and instead of attempting to match me in an arguement presents the Why oh why are you talking to me? defense instead of backing up previous criticism. So, now that I've provided reasons not only that you can't critize what I do, but furthermore can not even claim to be an innocent, impartial "voice of reason", do you have anything more to add?
--Karlsbad 21:58, 27 June 2006 (BST)
¹Or at All, for that matter

Yes I do. Chill out, this is not an argument you think it is. The only thing I adressed my friendly (or so I thought) critique to was your attitude on that Pardon me, but do I know you? Should I? Have you been important in any way and I just haven't noticed? line. You said it right up there. Do I need to back that up with some evidence? How can I do that? The 90% of chicks thing was a way to lighten up. I'm sure I could find a study to back up some persentage, but is that the point? The post was not directed to anything else and I appreciate your work on the wiki, honestly I do.
I could debunk your above post with hard evidence right from this wiki (and in the first unsubmitted version I did), but it wouldn't be fruitful as you've already decided the winner. If you want to continue the argument you had feel free to post in my talk page. Bonefiver 23:51, 27 June 2006 (BST)

As a moderator stated earlier "Pardon me, but do I know you? Should I? Have you been important in any way and I just haven't noticed? Don't tell anyone what MY arbitration case says without first at least having the thoughtfulness to have become someone I could trust with having a decent opinion." Lets face, it any edit that conficts with one of the 'old guard' here gets shouted down regardless of its validity. It's happened here, and elsewhere. The supposed equality of wiki users is (not very) thinly veiled hypocrisy. Multiple times the issue of the result of an arbitration case has been used to attempt to determine the validity of historical groups staying on suburb page, yet unless the wiki arbitration was decided off the wiki, there was no decision. It certainly isn't listed in the quoted arbitration (or even mentioned there ffs, it was me that brought it up, and it was moved by the arbitrator because "it had no place in the arbitration case being discussed") If we do not judge the content of an arbitration case by the information it contains, how the hell are we to judge it? telepathy? Some other ESP? Hacking the PMs it was apparently decided in? Or just wait to be abused?. We as new users are not allowed to remove news that is irrelevant, Sonny claims stanbury, but hasn't sent forces to take it. Why the claim? what relevence does it have? None, it is not news, it is merely speculation and supposition, but it's still there. Hell, on that basis the cannonball crew could have claimed ridleybank (the only difference I can see is the assumed ability to take a suburb, but if thats the case, the RRF could claim all the suburbs, why don't you? I'm sure your claim will be supported). Yet one set of 'news' is defended as valid, and their mere claim of a presence in ridley was decried (and deleted) as "survivor faggotry". You (Sonny) lay claim to two current and real groups currently in Stanbury (even if I think one of them is as real as my patience, you insist that it is) is that (meta)zerging, or just being an asshat? The central charateristic of this wiki is hypocrisy, and you and your defenders are it's champions. Crossbow 01:41, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Okay, congrats on finding that you can claim that you were actually making an arguement rather than attempting to defend your group's idiocy. CC is not and most likely will not be on the list you are whining about, yet these darn historical groups get to stay, because you've never proven anything to anyone. You complain about people who've been here not respecting you? Tough. RRF is a horde that is one of the classyist and least-complained about hordes in the game, because they are the face of Urban Dead. You however are a plug-and-play Dick-and-Jane Survivor group that has done Jack Diddily and you figure that we're going to give you congrats for your claims in Stanbury which have no basis.
It works the same on the wiki; those that are willing to contribute admirably and usually are up on the happenings on the wiki get respected; meanwhile your associating yourself with dingbats like Astram who add NOTHING to the conversation. You have an issue? Start working. Mint some social capital around here and see what happens instead of wandering in and spouting shit like this was some after-elementary daycare. You don't "share" respect- we earn it.
I cleared your shit because you admited that you weren't going to continue the arguement. You accepted it as precident yourself- so why the hell are you arguing? Oh, is it because we know that CC will be forgotten in two weeks otherwise? Okay. If you want to do something, how about pick up your britches and start working. That's how you gain respect, instead of assuming it. RRF has respect. You don't. Deal. This hypocricy you claim is something I proved about three responses ago; this is about E-Quality, not Equality.
I've never defended Saromu for his news deletion, and I've never heard of the term Meta-Zerging; its zerging or it ain't; you just have started to make up words because you've lost it- both your attitude and your arguement. I'm not here to make you feel better; I don't pat the heads of dogs that shit on the carpet. You admit yourself that RRF gets to claim what it wants; this is because they don't claim what they can't get and/or defend; you however have proven to bite off more than you can chew- its called valuing your political capital and spending it wisely. Maybe if you take a break for a week and then realize exactly what your group is doing and to whom then you'll be able to look upon this with fresh eyes. --Karlsbad 07:24, 28 June 2006 (BST)

I (and my group) don't lay claim to anything we don't have. We don't make any claim to own a suburb, we just claim to be present in one. Not only are we in stanbury, we have been for some months. At times the presence has been very tenuous, to the point of a couple of members lurking on the outskirts, but so what? We don't consider that we own it, there is no news item that says "Following the defeat of {insert random group name) Stanbury Villiage is now the property of MRH". Frankly, we were all happier when Stanbury was lower in survivors, and higher in (mainly feral) zeds, and more entertaining (mall sieges are so dull, and pointless). No-one felt a need to make a claim to own it, or even have secured it. Personally, my beef is with the double standards exhibited, and supported, hence my argueing, and user page. I've only made one change to the Stanbury page (an entirely justified deletion, that has thus far attracted no critisism or even comment, although I wouldnt be surprised it it does now). But I see no value in even attempting any edits now, its clearly going to considered a bad faith edit, merely because I won't shut up, and learn to like a playing field thats about as level as the alps. Consider the Ridleybank Reclamation Forces, I assumed it was satire (and was amused), however, if it is a real group, shouldn't there be at least some pretense to facts? If it's a real intel group thats part of the RRF, surely a warning in the allegedly NPOV section that explicitly states otherwise is inappropriate? No one rushing in to moderate that, I see. As regards historical groups, I stated that I was unable to find any policy, or precedent for historical groups remaining on a suburb page (just that I personally didn't have an issue with it). In fact, according to the groups page Historical is not a group type, it is a subcategory (one of three in fact, one links to a group page, and one to a group composed of 2 sub groups). Just because you have assumed that they belong on suburb lists, yet not ever bothered to make it policy, precedent, or even a group type, does not mean that people will instantly treat them as something magical and special. If thats the way you want it, make it so, until then, a removal of a historical group is entirely valid. Crossbow 15:55, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Who are you to say that a group cannot do that? Last I checked I have every right to make it seem like a joke. No one is complaining about your edits, Crossbow. They're complaining about your shitty attitude and ability to complain about the same thing over and over despite it being beaten like a dead horse. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 16:06, 28 June 2006 (BST)

I am not in a position to dictate the structure and content of a group page, however, to quote instructions from the group main page "The opening statement should be written from a neutral point of view, as if written from an outsider's viewpoint. This is to convey the basic information about the group to the reader, and so should be as easy to read and understand as possible." Is a total, blatent provision of false information NPOV? No, it is extremely biased. This wouldn't apply if the group was in fact dedicated entirely to satire (although that would possibly require it not being a group page), but if it is a real, existing group it's page requires a NPOV header. Except, of course that we have E-quality, not equality, so you can do pretty much as you please. And I don't know why I'm bothering either. I shouldn't care about the level of hypocrisy on the wiki, and it's clearly so well institutionalised thats it has become normal, and accepted. What I should do is give up and go away, and leave the whole pile of crap for you to play with. Crossbow 16:53, 28 June 2006 (BST)

You don't think you are in the position? What? Of course you are- you are a member of a group, aren't you? How about instead of bitching about shit you get to work; hell, I'll even help you out. Thing is, instead of getting into a wall-of-text bitch and moan, how about you work to have a discussion. Put a note where the NPOV and the POV begin and end if you are confused by something, and if someone calls you on it, they will either A- have to change the page or B- have to look like a fool for arguing with you. How about instead of playing the poor sap you get to work and see what E-Quality actually means rather than try and make it your new symbol of ZOMG OPRESHUN! Or if you don't want to work you can leave like you are threatening to, and we'll thank you for it because you've obviously not tried and put on an attitude or ethic that will help this wiki. --Karlsbad 20:25, 28 June 2006 (BST)

I said I wasn't in a position to dictate. I'm not, no single individual is (even moderators). But, I currently still have more friends (in r/l, at least) than enemies, so OK. But not today. Drunken editing is almost guarenteed to be bad editing. I'm pretty sure you won't like my edits or opinions anyway, but hell, being banned from here would almost be a reprieve (I'm still several warnings short of that but getting one does seem to start a snowball effect). Crossbow 00:54, 29 June 2006 (BST)

If you are truly unhappy here, then why don't you just fuck off, and stop making life hard for those of us that are actually positively contributing to the wiki? Z0MG IM 4N 0PPR3SSER!1eleventy!!12 Cyberbob  Talk  10:04, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Good idea, i'll do that. Thanks for the encouragement. Crossbow 14:18, 29 June 2006 (BST)

If you actually are leaving, I thank you for all of your contributions. They are well represent what you brought to the wiki. --Karlsbad 00:25, 30 June 2006 (BST)

Yes, im leaving, (pause for round of applause) but before I do, I ought to congratulate Karlsbad on 3 things. Firstly, being less hypocritical than most. Secondly, actually encourageing useful contribution, rather than just telling people to fuck off. Thirdly, (and most outstandingly) the best ability i've ever seen to communicate sarcasm in text :) Crossbow 01:37, 30 June 2006 (BST)

The opening statement is NPOV. The paragraph after it is a joke warning. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 17:39, 28 June 2006 (BST)

Paragraphs are tab seperated, or at maybe heading seperated, or hell, i'd even go with seperated (a line break is not a seperation). That isn't. And even if it were, the satire conflicts with the reality. You (as far as I can see from my limited viewpoint) would have been better off attempting to preserve that group as satire than claiming it as a real group. Crossbow 00:54, 29 June 2006 (BST)

But it is real. On the RRF forum there are two topics dedicated to collecting intel for it. It's written as satire because the idea of invading Ridleybank "FTW" is stupid. This is something you're going to have to deal with. Quit complaining about a group existing. It's getting you no where. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 02:56, 29 June 2006 (BST)

I may well be missing something, but the most directly relevent thread I can find is this one [1] I don't feel it helps your arguement much. Crossbow 03:13, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Try this one. [2] The other was when it was first adopted. Afterwards it was used for the page I just gave you. I'm so happy that you know more about a group that is mine than I do. Next time I need help with knowledge about my own group I'll come to you. Thanks. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:50, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Errr..... It may just be me (and the phpbb search function), but I don't actually see any mention of the group in that thread. In fact, only two threads on the forum (or at least ones visible to me) contain the text "Ridleybank Reclamation" or "Ridleybank Reclamation Forces". This one [3] and this one [4]. Were you trying to prove my point, or yours? :P Or do you read the wiki on behalf of the Ridleybank Reclamation Forces, and not the Ridleybank Resistance Front? Or does the past history of the group as a survivor one mean that you get sent information which you pass on to the RRF? Nothing you have said or linked actually provides any indication that the group is any more real than it's group page. Crossbow 04:50, 29 June 2006 (BST)

I want to slap my forehead right now. The wiki page, the Ridleybank Reclamation Forces is everything on that thread. I'm having a hard time understanding why you cannot grasp this. I cannot say it any simpler. If you still do not understand do not reply at all because I fear that my IQ may lower. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 06:39, 29 June 2006 (BST)

Jesus Christ this was answered before. The Ridleybank Resistance Front annexed Stanbury Village. Anyone is allowed to do this. Yuo claim it as yours, we claim it as ours. Seriously, if you don't like it too bad. The RRF did not send the horde. Survivors have a hard time understanding the size of the RRF. They think of just the mobile horde. We've sent strike teams and parts of the DoHS, that's not the RRF horde. Totally seperate. The Ridleybank Reclamation Forces was adopted as a public intel group for the RRF to keep track of those invading Greater Ridleybank. It is written as satire because of the RRF's stance on invaders "Oh noes, harmanz invade FTW". The Renegades were the first group in Stanbury Village so denying them ever existing is bullcrap. The three groups stay there. One is a zombies group, another is the zombie group's intel, and the last is historical. There is no zerging here. You can be part of DoHS and be part of the RRF. It's like being in the Army and serving for the U.S. military. Hopefully you will not say that you can't be part of both the Army and part of the military as a whole. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 05:28, 28 June 2006 (BST)

It was decided in the Arbitration case. Most of the case did take place in PMs on the AoG forum just like this on the Rezzens forum. But the part where we agreed what would be on pages was on the wiki. I don't remember where it was. I get more important things to care about. Now is this thing finished? I got put away some laundry. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 03:09, 27 June 2006 (BST)

I leave the place for a few days and you write novels. I don't wish to keep flogging this stinking carcass of a horse but I still feel the need to make some additions. In summary I must agree with Crossbow because he has a some very good points.

"Astram simply has chosen to interpret the actions of someone of whom he has never made the aquantince of, so therefore it is going to be noted by the person of whom he is speaking when he is full of hot air. Furthermore you remember an editor who in a final side-comment expresses honestly his complete lack of character, tact, or credability." I read the arbitration case. There was no mention of historical groups. How should I interpret that? As for me being an ass towards Saromu it's just a case of what comes around goes around. The first time I noticed him doing anything on this wiki he was being a general ass and from there stems my dislike of him. I could've left out the fact that I enjoyed annoying him but I chose to be honest. However, this does not change the fact that I - at first - edited the page out of a wish to display correct information, especially since that damn group list had me fooled at least two times before. I am content with the way the information is displayed now but for the record I would like to say - as is my right - that I have still to see a precendent that historical groups stay on a suburb page. --Astram Loccasin 00:44, 1 July 2006 (BST)

It is now a policy according to the Historical Groups page. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 00:48, 1 July 2006 (BST)

No One Lives Here

I believe the Mall sign should go back to Jan 18th for two reasons. 1) The intention of the sign when I created it was for the events of that time period. 2) To move it to a neutral position on the page takes it out of context, giving the impression that at any given point, no one lives in Stanbury, which is untrue. I don't think there would be an issue if the sign were captioned for the time period, re-used or better yet, a new sign were created for the Big Bash event. --Rabbi Bob 11:47, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Nix most of that... it's a formatting issue. The sign when placed under current events pushes to the far right under the suburb template, making it appear as orphaned. It still should stay with the Jan 18th time frame, however I see now why I read it as being moved "to a neutral position". Apologies on that. --Rabbi Bob 11:52, 21 July 2006 (BST)

It's all good. Sonny Corleone ^WTF 16:09, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Resources Buildings Grid

I'm sorry, but that grid just blows the flow of the page all to hell. The information could be added to the suburb template rather than duplicating and/or splitting information throughout the page. Moved the grid to the bottom. --Rabbi Bob 23:47, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I would say that the grid just blows. --Bonefiver 08:19, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I've been looking around for some revive info and examples on the wiki. I think by next week the grid will be removed due to redundant info (the city info template has all of that info in it) and a revive info section added in its place considering two groups are posting external forums for revive requests now. Just looking to see if there is a common format. Been slow this summer :) --Rabbi Bob 11:33, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Short of asking for the addition of revive point/info in the Suburb template, I added the Revive Points/Information info and removed the resource buildings grid based on redundancy with the Suburb info area. --Rabbi Bob 12:13, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Thank you! I'd do the same to other suburbs I look at regularly but I know someone would put me up for vandalism. God they're ugly. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 15:57, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Barricading Diagram for Stanbury?

May someone with much more tenacity than I post one of those fancy barricading plans, please? One of those spiffy un-edittable ones I see around?

Thanks ever so much,

-"Zaklal"

Stanbury Village Barricade Plan --~~~~ [talk] 17:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some questions about the Recent News section

1) What counts as NPOV (considering that no consensus has been reached other than "see Wikipedia, for now")? From what I could see around the wiki, I assumed that rather opinionated posts were fine, so long as they weren't yelling for reinforcements for one of their sides, or suggesting strategies for crushing the opposition.

As a more concrete example...I assumed this was OK (as would be its theoretical RRF equivalent):

The raucous one-year anniversary party for The Kilt Store continues in Nichols Mall, with the neighbors starting to complain about the noise. The party crashers from the RRF and other zombie groups continue to try to con their way into the party but are still held at bay by the kilted revelers and their associates. --Kilt Store Owner 3 June 2008

But not this:

Mall still holding but break-ins frequent. Calling any survivors in the area, get to Nichols Mall and help fight back the horde. Keep the barricades up and good luck all. Around 90 zeds outside at all times, very few spies though. --Scottathan 21:17, 1 June 2008 (BST)

(or at least not OK so long as it was left unbalanced by a zombie perspective)

2) Should I post the iwitness reports backing up my tally of survivor numbers? [5] [6] I thought it was only fair to list survivor numbers if I was listing zombie numbers -- but will this get labeled as spying, especially if I post the iwitness reports? Shucks, should I be backing up my reports with iwitness reports at all? I thought it might be a good idea, considering that in at least one other debate about a mall sieges on this wiki, there were LONG arguments about exactly how many people each side had, with accusations of both sides exaggerating numbers. --Jen 02:22, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Removed POV News

If you've removed news you deem POV, please comment on why and sign your post. NB humour is allowed under NPOV.--Mallrat 11:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2008

June 7^th

as the siege at nicholas mall intensifys reinforcements from the kingdom of the dammned arrives to help our fellow zambahs barhah!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rober e killer (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Removed from main page for obvious reasons. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 19:48, 7 June 2008 (BST)

August 13^th

The Starcake Faction has recently arrived in Stanbury Village to help out the inhabitants. Weve set up a forward base in the area and have already begun our re-building efforts. The situation looks rather, to be honest, hopeless. No one group can rebuild the suburb by themselves, therefore if any survivor(s) or group wish to assist you are encouraged to contact us via the SCF PORTAL. --Nickman3131 15:03, 13 August 2008 (BST)

Take it to Recruitment. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 20:10, 13 August 2008 (BST)

2009

February 4^th

Intelligence reports indicate that Mall Tour 09 is headed toward Stanbury Village. Low level survivors are advised to retreat to a safer suburb. High level survivors are requested to report to the Nichols Mall area for support. --Phoenix Dirk 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kilt Store is pleased to announce it has completely restocked its perennially popular traditional tartan kilts in a range of colours in time for the Mall Tour's long-awaited visit to the Village. We urge aficionados of fine tartan and Highland apparel to take advantage of our special offers while our staff are still breathing.

(Please note that the management reserves the right to refuse service to those who show disrespect to our employees by attempting to kill and eat them. Damage to kilts may also result in summary ejection from the Store by Nichols Mall security staff.) --Mallrat 15:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not an NPoV status report. Moved it to the talk page. --Johnny Bass 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

February 6^th

The fine staff of The Kilt Store are a bit embarrassed that our recent 100% discount sale at the store created such an uncontrollable furor for our products. We apologize to those who may have been injured as the over-eager shoppers jostled for their place in line at the entrance to the store. While our inventory was sufficient to serve every single customer with the custom-fitted tartan of their choice, the customer-to-staff ratio was simply so large that the customers at the end of the line down by the Orange Julius in the food court became impatient and that's where trouble began. However, The Kilt Store's commitment to customer service remains the best in Malton and if you will shamble to the Yeoman Park revive point, we will have you up and shopping as soon as we are able. Thank you for your patronage of The Kilt Store. Oh, and as a final note, Alex Row was jumping the gun just a bit with the above post since, as I write this, there are still 3 survivors handing out kilts from The Kilt Store to the 35 rowdy customers at the entrance to the store. So, you may still have another 30 seconds or so to shop before we have to close the doors due to the unruly crowds. Happy Shopping! -- Kilt Store Owner 10:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: The Kilt Store is *still* open for Kilt Sale business at time of writing, but hurry! Stocks of tartan and employees are severely depleted as a result of the Mall Tour's visit. All other sections of the Mall are closed for brainstock-taking until further notice. The previous world record of kilts sold in a day is thought to have been smashed, along with the lights and fittings of the Mall.--Mallrat 11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

February 27^th

(Only POV part moved)

...seeking the finest (and only) tartan in Malton once again. However, the 'Wall of Tartan' (tm) is standing proud and firm at this time, ensuring that The Kilt Store policy of only serving tartan aficionados is upheld. As death precludes appreciation of quality tartan, Kilt Store employees may refuse service to dead customers, with force if necessary... --Mallrat 15:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

April 14^th

- This is Sgt MacDonald leader of Black Delta stationed in Mockridge me and a couple of my squad from the 101st Assualt Squad are going be moving into the area if there is any other group or lone survivor corrdanating the retaking of Stanbury please contact me at the Black Delta talk page I hope we can help in some way. Thank you --Sgt MacDonald 06:47, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Great Suburb Group Massacre 2010

All suburb wiki pages are undergoing a clean up to remove inactive groups from the group listing (see here: this suburb's groups). If you are a group currently listed in this suburb, you will be contacted on your group's talk page within the next few days and asked to reply, indicating that you are active in this suburb. Groups that fail to reply within two weeks of being contacted will automatically be removed from the suburbs where they are listed.

We're posting here in the hopes that more groups will be aware of the clean up and can respond appropriately, since our team does not have the time nor the manpower to seek out every group in-game or track down its group members elsewhere on the wiki. If you know that some groups in your suburb do not check the wiki, please be a good neighbor and let them know that they NEED to check it for this, or else they will be unlisted in the near future.

The wiki members coordinating the cleanup will be using the table below to track their progress in communicating with the various groups. Please do not edit it if you are not involved with The Great Suburb Group Massacre 2010 team.

The Great Suburb Group Massacre 2010
Group Name	Contacted On	Date Due
The Escapists	27 January 2010	Removed
The Kilt Store	27 January 2010	Confirmed
Rotter's Relief	27 January 2010	Confirmed
Team Zombie Hardcore	27 January 2010	Confirmed
Ridleybank Resistance Front	27 January 2010	Confirmed
This suburb has been cleared. --TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check your group's talk pages in the next few weeks, and respond promptly when you receive a communication from the GSGM2010 team. Thanks. ^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation as we cleaned up the group listings for this suburb. Your help in reaching out to groups and replying to our requests has been much appreciated. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)