User:Peralta/Archive2

Archive 2

READ THIS FIRST AND THEN THE TEXT BELOW This is an archive of my talk page. Please do not edit. Archive User Talk Page Talk: Project Search Rates Archive: July-October 2012 Archive: Danger Center Archive: October 2012-2013 Static Status Maps Ok so here's the skinny on saving a map statically. Right click on a page with a map and select View Page Source from there just copy the table's code and suddenly you have a static map with little clean up. Ridleybank & Region Looks like it is messed up because a closing font tag is missing. I went ahead and added it above and to the template so Charles's method should work now. -MHSstaff 19:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks, to both of you :) PB&J 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Best to wait Grab your screenies, ride it out, and wait until the end to write it up. God that speech is embarrassing. Everyone knows the home of the RRF is Moggridge surely? --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 23:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC) As I said on the page in question, can you provide me with a list of Groups who have a no random revive policy? I'd actually like to discuss the issue with them. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 15:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Hey. One question. Towards the end several survivors seemed to be using blackmore itself as an indoor RP. Was this an established part of the plan or just some individuals? --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Coincidence mostly. PB&J 16:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Wasn't sure if it was official change of position once barricading become impossible. It was an intersting, if strange tactic. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 17:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Basicly, it makes sense and saves at least 2 AP of transport per person (more if cades are up): revive - if it's an ally leave him - if not, dump. PB&J 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC) As long as your contacts list is sorted. Otherwise you could be shooting/reviving the wrong people. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC) True, but that matters a lot less when shit goes down like this. It's a combo of CR and local reviving which can yield results, but only with (as always) coordination. PB&J 17:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Perhaps, but if 30 of the zombies were friendlies and 6 were hostile, there would be better places to revive than in the building your defending. ;0 --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 17:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC) True, but then again, logic was not our forte the past week... PB&J 17:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Nice. The trick is to learn from our mistakes.--Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 17:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Trust me when I say I learned. Working on my personal solution. PB&J 17:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Yeah, if you want to NPOV this, I'd let it sit for six months, delete the pages, and start from scratch. -MHSstaff 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Speaking of Zombie Alts The spirit of BARHAH needs you! -MHSstaff 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid Baraga is offline and due to IRL reasons, will remain dormant for a while ;) PB&J 23:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC) PKing... I congratulate you on your decision survivors suck. I'm not sure about the choice of PK, but to each there own. Happy killing. -- Org XIII Alts 02:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC) suck it kirsty--User:Sexualharrison14:47, 12 November 2012 Once a poet, always a poet, isn't that right harrison? PB&J 14:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC) One of the nice things about the Knights is that if you aren't familiar with them, you tend not to know who is behind each of the two-letter names. Or when you might be poking at someone who has a say in your application thread. Just sayin'. >_> —Aichon— 14:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC) But luckily in this case a quick trip to the history tab will reveal all. -- Org XIII Alts 15:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Let me know how you get on. I've never explored the more murderous side of the game. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 15:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Aichon, I know all too well who I'm talking to. Part of the reason I dared to make the joke Ross, I'll keep you posted. So far, PKing is the most intellectual activity I have ever done in an online game and it feels great! PB&J 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Ross, you've never PKed? I...Just...What? --DTPK 15:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Maybe 10 people in 5 years. Let's see. Iron guard from the nazi zombies, A couple of members of Game Over in Borehamwood. A couple of randoms when I was levelling a zombie character. Maybe one when I decided on a whim to join the Browncoats? Not a lot. I've done the Manhunts and Red October a few times, but I've never really felt it. I think the issue is that over time I've abandoned survivor tactics, playing either as zombies or ghost town, combat reviving survivors. I think the issue might be that I hate to reload. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 15:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC) KIll one person a day using a two pistol, all clips setup. Lets you go for ages without a restock. --DTPK 17:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC) God I hate restocks. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC) As do I, but the payoff is great. There's nothing quite like seeing the message saying you killed someone for the fourth (or even fifth) time in the span of a few minutes, or being able to make a speech in a mall and then clear that mall with a few of your friends. That sort of thing gets people's attention in a way that zombie strikes simply can't. —Aichon— 18:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC) this is a zombie game? no way!--User:Sexualharrison18:57, 12 November 2012 Hmm. I'm trying to write an analysis of the survivor meta's attitude to combat reviving, its misconceptions and alternative strategies. Once I convince them they're wrong I'll have a look at shooting them. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 21:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Guys, question. Whats the typical PK'er turnout for a major event Like Sanhaim in 2012? Is it organised groups or just posts on places like the PKA?--Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 21:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I'm guessing most of us would rather not advertise our numbers so openly (the Philosophe Knights routinely change group tags, so although we blipped onto the stats page during the strike, we disappeared again shortly thereafter as we changed our tags). That said, we had enough this year to easily clear a populated mall and then move on to secondary targets, so that should give you a ballpark idea. There were several organized and recognized groups committed to it this year, each of which attended with several of its members, as well as a handful of individuals in attendance, I believe. IV PK 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Yeah, it's kind of why I had to ask the question. I always assumed that combined you'd have a comparable number of people to the larger survivor groups. Would that be something it's ok to write, somewhere?--Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 21:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC) That is probably close enough for a generalization. I've never understood the changing/dropping tags thing. -- Org XIII Alts 22:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I experienced this first hand when we were fighting The Dead in Dunell Hills: while the alternating tags won't confuse experienced players who keep track of PKers and have been around long enough to recognize them, it will create a ton of confusion and slow down FAKing, reviving and clog communication channels. Basicly bounty hunting and primary goals (like conquering and rebuilding etc.) won't be slowed down, but your entire support structure is just bogged down to an abominable pace PB&J 22:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks, although its not "my" support network. I get jittery in any group on the stats page. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 22:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC) It was just an example PB&J 23:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC) We do it for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it's simply easier to procure random aid when you don't have to deal with the stigma that your group name carries. There's a reason why this fake character page continues to be the link provided in my in-game profile. Other reasons we change tags include the previously-mentioned sowing of confusion, simply differentiating ourselves within the group (we have several subgroups within the Knights, so we use those tags at times), or else for plain anonymity in the case of several of our secret members. IV PK 23:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I understand the anonymity argument, makes perfect sense. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 23:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I thought PK was about intelligence and shit. But now you're saying you're just trying to confuse survivors, who are stupid? -- Org XIII Alts 23:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC) They never said it was hard Sadly my attention has now been diverted to historical group voting. --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 23:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC) We're about ridding people of ignorance through education. That oftentimes involves turning people's own ignorance back on them in a direct demonstration of how powerful and dangerous it can be to them. It's a surprisingly effective method. IV PK 23:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Well hell, I just noticed who you are. I'm pretty sure that qualifies me as ignorant and we both know what that means. Kirsty doesn't wear a vest, just in case you wanted to know. I'm still trying to figure out how I missed the Sith of November list, too. -- Org XIII Alts 23:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Names of members in participating groups were culled from the list, from what I understood, and since O13 is involved, your name was likely removed. And yeah, I switch sigs, depending on the situation. Particularly when it comes to representing the Knights, I switch sigs if I feel that my post has me acting as a representative of the group or if I feel compelled to speak more in-character for some reason, both of which were at play here. —Aichon— 04:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC) I prefer to sign with the same signature everywhere, although I change it around quite a bit once in a while. My previous sig had a link to both characters I ran, but since Baraga is not active at the moment, I chose for a sober Userpage, Talk Page and PK sig. PB&J 11:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Quick aside: the indentation you corrected was actually very intentional, since I was replying directly to Kirsty. Many of us do that on a routine basis if we want to create a branch on a thread or be sure it's clear who we're responding to, though not everyone understands the idea. :P —Aichon— 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see :) Try and leave a < br > next time? ;) PB&J 16:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Considered this? IV PK 23:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I have, not sure why I didn't use it (but I've made a habit of changing my Userpage everytime I get bored, maybe next time) PB&J 11:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC) ZALP thanks Thank you for your support Dear Peralta/Archive2: We at Z.A.L.P. have noticed your interest in preserving the fragile Harman species as evidenced by the images you contributed to the main scent map. We would like to thank you for your support and offer you the opportunity to make a bigger difference in Malton through further contributions or by becoming a ZALP Partner in Conservation. ZALP’s Partners in Conservation are among the most loyal and dedicated supporters of ZALP’s work to protect the future of our food supply. Partners in Conservation contribute critical donations of time, scent maps, and brain or brain substitute products necessary to support and expand ZALP’s conservation efforts throughout Malton. Our community of philanthropic leaders understand that achieving success depends on long term partnerships – relationships that set examples for others to invest in our city’s future. Contributions that come from our Partners in Conservation are dynamic, flowing wherever they are most needed to address the most pressing threat to our hunger city at any time. These resources have an extraordinary impact on our work to protect harmans, preserve habitats and conserve natural resources. Our science-based approach – buoyed by our record of success – is uniquely positioned to ensure our mission to maintain a living city. As a Partner in Conservation, you can join our community of leaders who believe in global conservation. You can be assured that your contributions will be consumed responsibly as we operate in a mission-sensitive manner. Won’t you consider joining our community today? And if not, please keep those contributions coming in whatever form you can. It is concerned Zambahz like you who prove that there may be hope for this city after all. -- Albert Schwan  Bounty Hunter Groups Hello Peralta and thanks for the welcome! I see you're involved in a major PK association, for an aspiring bounty hunter, what group and forum would you say are the most capable (and joinable even for a low level player)? Thanks for being a sportsman and recommending an enemy ;) --Johnny do gooer 22:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Well, this still is an entirely new career to me, and you may want to know that Philosophe Knights isn't actually based on the premise of killing other survivors. We use PKing as a tool to educate others: a dead survivor with a clear written message is an extremely effective warning for those who feel the inclination to light up buildings that aren't TRP's, or sleep inside a lit Mall, etc. Furthermore, we will never kill at random, we avoid killing in Centers of Learning (unless provoked), and Knights recieve points for handing out FAKs, repairing Centers of Learning, reviving on a designated RP, etc. All to encourage the survivors to play smarter. From our perspective, we're a pro-survivor group Anyway, welcome to the wiki, good luck and try and if you have any questions, feel free to drop in anytime! PB&J 22:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think there are any decent dedicated BHer groups left, unless you want to zerg hunt and that probably isn't a good idea at low level. You might consider one of the larger survivor groups, many of them have BHers within their ranks. Most of them are probably going to put some additional restrictions on who/where/when you can kill PKers, but if you want the group experience, that is probably going to be your best bet. -- Org XIII Alts 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Way more fun on the other side anyhow. PB&J 23:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Being a PKer means you'll find unsuspecting targets wherever you wish, while searching for targets might be boring and time craving, I find it more satisfying and interesting to claim the scalp of one who is used to killing instead of being killed. But yes, I know of the temptations and satisfactions from being a PKer. --Johnny do gooer 23:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC) As I said: we're no random killers, we have a certain je ne sais quoi. It may be painful je ne sais quoi, and it may kill you, but I guarantee you we're not blind trenchcoaters. PB&J 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC) User:DangerReport/R91 (New Arkham) ...appears to be missing Ashfield Alley Railway Station and Pritchard Grove Railway Station in the SW corner. They must have been pinched off with border cornering. It's very enclosed in that area of Malton. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Fixed those up. Looks like it was just a simple oversight, probably. —Aichon— 17:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Okay. Thanks. It was clearly a conspiracy against the corner 'burbs, though. The border schemes. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Our plot was foiled once again! If it wasn't for those pesky gnomes! ^^ But seriously: it's cool to see people noticing that kind of stuff, means it's really being used. Thanks! PB&J 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC) In light of recent conspiracy claims I must admit this was my first map and apparently didn't have it down to a system yet. I'd also like to counter any further anti-corner 'burb speak by saying the first three suburbs completed while creating the map were as follows: Dulston, Dakerstown, and New Arkham. I went ahead and updated Q91 and S91 as well. All maps should be correct now. Thanks for the feedback! -Charles Whipplebotum 03:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC) goddamn it just actually look right at the edit before they call you out for not picking up on it. Or if you've seen it at least mention it to them. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure if he didn't see it or simply doesn't know about why it might be an issue. Either way, what I was ready to dismiss as a joke question has suddenly become very interesting. —Aichon— 00:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Oops? ~ 00:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC) ^^Yup aichon. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I did look at the edit before I even answered the question... If anything's wrong, next time just point it out. PB&J 19:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC) If you look at the edit history, you'll see that Gordon actually made two edits: 1) His comment on your bid and 2)He edited another user's comment (corrected a misspelling). It's easy to miss. So what Gordon is really asking you is 1)Is it ok to edit others' contributions/comments like that? 2)Are there different shades of impersonation? 3)As a sysop, how would you have handled the situation? -MHSstaff 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC) 1) No, it's not ok on pages like these (where opinions are given) or talk pages. 2) If it's an indentation, a lay-out thing, a small esthetical change, I don't care. If it's changing what's actually being said, kill with fire. 3)Undo the damage and warn the user. In this case; yes, a warning was in order and yes, I overlooked him editing another user's opinion. Not that it's actually relevant anymore. As I said when I aborted the bid: next time, just freaking say what's going on if someone makes a mistake. Seeing as my bid was well-intended, I already got tired of keeping an eye on the bid itself and this part of "are you suuuure nothing's wrong?" just got annoying by the end. PB&J 21:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC) To be fair, it was a sneaky question and you did give to correct answer, even if you didn't support it with the correct information. The edit in no way changed the context of Spiderzed's original comment so it could hardly be considered impersonation. Its not a good idea to go around changing people's comments, though (even minor mispellings) because it is very easy to fall into an impersonation ruling. Also, no user is ever warned without an edit being put through a/v for review by sysops so your answer was also correct. No, Gordon should not have been warned. Ifnhe'd been taken to a/v over it, he'd most likely have received a not vandalism ruling or the equivalent "soft warning" (which comes with no official warning). Rev's comment wasn't an official warning, it was just a comment made to look like the warning template. Even if you had spent weeks studying wiki policy (which I don't believe you did), the likelyhood that you would have come to these conclusions on your own is very slim. If you're wondering, yes sysops are sometimes put under tests like this. People love trying to trap them into doing something that will lad them in Misconduct cases. Its rare these days but it happens. So while I thought it was a bit of an unfair line of questioning, it at least exposed you to the dark underbelly of the wiki in a slightly lighthearted way. ~ 22:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I understand the why and who and what, but honestly: in a time when both the wiki and the game are stagnating, what happened there was a complete fuckup. I probably wasn't ready to be a sysop, but the problem in my eyes was that the people who were being the most judgemental were also the ones who were the least helpful. I may be unqualified to be a part of the wiki mod team, but I'm pretty good in marketing, consumer behaviour and online communication (probably because those are the things I've been thaught the past 3 years), and I know both UD and the wiki can be saved from complete desertion. I started one project, and just by enabling people to actually see the results of their work on a greater scale, the Danger Center caused a surge in status report updates. Work on those projects, in stead of archives, dated policies and precedents. Work on a modern skin for UD. Work on making this appealing to the 2013 generation of gamers. And it doesn't have to be big, just go small and you'll see the butterfly effect kick in ;) PB&J 22:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I think they were interested in seeing how you would use the edit history tool in a sysop-related issue. That said, when it became a question on whether or not you had seen it (not as important, sysops actively trawling pages for gray-area impersonation cases, yeah right) rather than how you would respond as a sysop if it were reported to AVB (much more important question, where it is clear that you are looking at a possible impersonation case), they should have just asked it directly. Playing a game of "I know something you don't" comes across as somewhat condescending, with the possible risk that the question they were really interested in is lost in the confusion. IMO. -MHSstaff 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Exactly. PB&J 00:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Perhaps more relevant knowing JT, in my eyes, got it wrong. Of course it's okay to edit someone's comment like that. We allow spelling mistake correction without issue as long as it doesn't change the context of someone's speech, as you said yourself (however the prior sentence seemed to indicate that there were times when this isn't okay?). So yes, it actually was okay that he changed that comment, and again JT is wrong in saying he should have been warned. He should have been taken to vandal banning for further discussion, not just warned. The 'case' wasn't a clear-cut episode of vandalism so a straight warning would not have been in order, as Vapor mentioned. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC) That's more what I took out of it. I was quite confident he had checked the edit. That was never in doubt for me, so if anything I said was taken otherwise, I apologize. What was in doubt was what he saw in the edit. I didn't know, as I said here, if he had simply missed the typo correction (as I had when I first checked it, to be honest) or if he didn't understand its import. That said, I thought it was a bit of a gimme question, since if he was due for a warning, there would have already been a case posted, especially after he drew attention to himself. —Aichon— 01:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Regarding the last point, while you are right JT didn't help himself any more by vaguely indicating that while it should be a warn-able offense the fact that 'it's no longer relevant now' is a reason not to act on it. Vandalism is vandalism regardless of when it was done and whether it still affects people. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC) And while I am being critical here, I'm doing so to at least point out the things that may need to change if you ever wish to stick with it JT. And regarding being vague, I apologise. To be completely honest, I didn't want to make a big point of the issue and tell you what it was because doing so would mean I'm publicly assuming you're not up for the task yourself and I didn't want to do that while your promotion was in the balance. I'm sure this was the reason others like Vapor and Ross did the same thing. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC) (Actually) Warns and bans for vandalism are not a punitive thing. Instead it's to get them to stop doing whatever disruptive thing they were doing. If they stopped doing it on their own, there's no point in stopping them from doing what they've stopped doing, and any intervention can only be punishment or useless. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC) So I go on an vandalism spree and stop before anyone has a chance to warn me or put it up for vandalism, and it's okay? Warning me would be redundant? Surely saying something is no longer an offense because no one brought it up at the time therefore it's not the wrong thing, just demonstrates to the community that doing that sort of thing and managing to get away with it makes it okay. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC) See Section 3.4.1b under Vandalism Clauses for Wikis Identical to the Urban Dead Wiki, in the WikiLaw handbook, 7th edition, sentence one and thereafter. Vandalism isn't (morally or legally) wrong, nor an offence similar to breaking the law, and so it shouldn't be treated either literally or analogously to laws or morals. The effects of vandalism are disruptive and unhelpful, so we make it stop. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC) I'd say even that depends. If we're talking about someone coming to A/VB with years-old vandalistic edits by users who have since been reformed, then clearly that's not okay, since it won't be doing anything helpful. But if it's a vandal who purposefully did what they did, then warning them is obviously fine, since we have every expectation that they have not learned and may do it again, and a full escalation ensures that they cannot continue it. Things start to get a bit less clear when we're dealing with the odd case of ongoing, trolling vandals who try to push the line. Theoretically, they want to avoid escalations, so soft warning them will have the desired deterrent effect, but it will only deter that specific behavior, rather than their continual editing in bad faith, thus suggesting that an escalation is due in order to curb their general behavior, even if it does not make sense for their specific behavior. And before you point out that edits in bad faith are the very definition of vandalism and are thus deserving of an escalation, I'll cite the fact that sysops are to assume good faith, and at least in the last few years, we've been really soft on people who are clearly acting in bad faith if we can't cite something specific that they've knowingly done wrong. That's why those cases can get so messy. —Aichon— 06:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC) I'm pretty sure, in fact very sure that we have brought years old cases (maybe at the least many months old) before and had the user warned, so even compared to policy documents we have a pretty stable culture of treating edits that way.... Sadly I can't find examples because I'm without decent Internet so I may have to concede on this one, guys. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC) I vaguely remember a time or two where we found old edits and dealt with them then. I think we pasted on their talk that it was for a fairly old edit though. I might trawl through the archives tomorrow and find out for sure.--SA 23:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC) If it makes you feel better, I went through that edit like 4 times before I saw what he did. It's easy to miss the lines and shit, even when sober.--SA 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Updating Danger Reports I use 4 months as a cut off for "unknown", not 6 months nor 1 month. 6 months is way too old for a report. 4 months is also too long, but 30 days would, as you say, leave almost no reports at all. --SearchDerelict 21:56, 28 May 2013 (BST) Regarding danger reports Hi thank you for your encouraging template. It definitely made me feel better than feeling silly updating something that people might not use. I've to request though that you don't put the statuses of buildings in Roftwood, Tapton and Pitneybank area that are older than 1 month old to "unknown" yet as there are buildings that I never updated because their statuses are still applicable and the lag on wiki makes it hard and seemingly pointless for me to update them when they're still relevant. I might go back to work on them when I've more time. --Crystal Roselle 09:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC) At this time, I generally only update statuses that are from 2012 or older (several buildings in Lockettside haven't even been updated once since their implementation in 2009!). If a status is still applicable, best update the date, since people don't trust a "safe" report that's several months old anyway ;) PB&J 10:34, 29 May 2013 (BST) Ah I'm well aware of those statuses that are years old, seems to be a condition suffered by non-TRP buildings in suburbs at the edge of the map. Unfortunately, lately the wiki lags horribly for me to the point of frustrating, Aichon was mentioning something about the lag is related to updating the Danger Center map. I'll update them when I'm less busy next month, currently real life is interfering my status report work although BB4 will probably change all the building statuses once it starts next month. --Crystal Roselle 09:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Yeah, the Danger Center was one of our cooler ideas, too bad the page refreshes all 5.000 template calls very time you update a Danger Report (which makes updating 10-20 of them at a time laggy). PB&J 10:58, 29 May 2013 (BST) It would be nice if you could "disconnect" the template calling, and only have the map call the danger reports manually. Then it would be an update-every-once-in-a-while thing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:20, 30 May 2013 (BST) That would be nice, but I have no clue on how to go about that ;) PB&J 08:07, 31 May 2013 (BST) On Humpfries Walk The amusing part of Humpfries walk is that it spells out Hump fries Walk. It is a location where people hump fries, I guess. I am not the only one to find that funny, so I posted it. Perry Kid 13:46, 31 May 2013 (BST) Lerwill Heights The majority of the suburb was ruined by less than a dozen zombies. I hadn't seen a single survivor there in a few weeks until I rediscovered the LHDF had moved south to take back the suburb from behind the general movement lines of Ze Purists. I decided to hold off on a few days of updating so the very small group could gain a little ground, myself helping out of course. Thank you for your suggestions however, I will be sure to implement them in the comming days. Blacjak 20:09, 2 June 2013 (BST) How many Aliases are you using atm like seriously--Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:06, 5 June 2013 (BST) What do you care how many aliases I have? The fact you said it about 10 months ago was a bit hypocritical, MisterGame, the fact that you're repeating it makes me wonder what motivates you? PB&J 14:12, 10 June 2013 (BST) Return from hiding... Hey, just got your message. Haven't been around for some time. Ready to try things from the other side now. Hit me up if you're still around. Charles Whipplebotum 03:50, 1 August 2013 (BST)