User talk:Celt668

ATF article

Hello, firstly I want to point out that my starting that article was not intended to be the beginnings of a "meta-assault" against your group. If it was, I probably wouldn't have been so open about making the article via the game (you should be able to see from my user page that I play a number of survivors operating in the same northwestern region).

I've just done a major rewrite of the entry, trying to incorporate both the view of ATF members about themselves and the views of those non-ATF members who have encountered them. I'm trying to capture something that's reasonably descriptive, rather than just slanging match between parties (which would only result in revert wars anyway).

I've placed your statement in the talk page of the article, though, because it was a very useful document as a resource and I wanted to retain that clearly for others. I don't want to drown out your voice (i.e. free speech is for everyone), but I do want the views of others to be visible too.

I've returned the categories you removed because I figured the purpose of the categories on this wiki is more to give a rough guide for the types of groups operating and by some interpretations the ATF could be all 3 (zombie, human & PKer) types.

I've included the fact that there is conflict between revived ATF members and other zombies, without trying to make any categoric statements about who "started it". I have, however, mentioned that it may have been a misunderstanding (with regards to the game bug/feature where a zombie attack may be viewed as a survivor attack if the zombie was revived before the victim logged back in).

I am, of course, certain that the group article needs more work, but I hope you'll see that the approach I'm taking is a decent one and discuss it with me (either here, in the article talk page or in my talk page).

--BenM 16:24, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Thanks for helping, but please stop helping.

I'm hoping this works, as I have very little knowledge of WIKIs or how they work.

I appreciate your candor, BenM, and I appreciate you getting the ATF page started. The initial entry was highly biased, in my opinion. We (ATF) haven't had time to sit down and sort out a final entry, but I know we'll get around to it eventually, most likely after the holidays.

In the meanwhile, I would personally appreciate it if you would stop adding us to the PKer and Human groups list. ATF is neither, even though we do have a few revived members at present. There are, to my knowledge, no PKers in our group.

The accusations of PKing are either, as you say, misunderstandings, or, more likely in my opinion, a case of sour grapes from a former member. While I have no knowledge of the situation involving the former member, I've had some experience with him/her and found the accusations leveled to be untrue. The only PKing in that incident was the former member's Survivor PKing my character while I was offline (yes, I have a screen capture of the incident).

Thanks again for getting this started, and thanks in advance for giving me a little time to get with other members of ATF to sort out our entry. And again, in the meanwhile, please stop re-editing.

Best regards, Celt668

I've done one more re-write - basically just incorporating your statement and notes and trying to make it read more like an article on the group rather than announcement from the group. I've also culled some more bits from my previous post that could be construed as biased and added more balanced statements in regards to non-ATF members.

My initial entry probably was biased, but I didn't have too much to work with. I'm endeavouring to rewrite in a more neutral way each time, though.

Obviously I can't comment regarding the former member, but such group politics is probably affecting more than one group

I'm certainly happy to see the ATF clarify their position, but I think it would be better served by retaining an article format which describes the group in a more objective fashion. Although it's probably worth you starting a News from the ATF page for any statements by members/characters to the general public. Discussion regarding article development and editing notes are probably best done on the article talk page.

The one thing I won't do, however, is completely desist. I'm not determined to make the article entirely what I envision, but I am determined to help improve the general quality of both the article and the wiki as a whole. At least while I'm playing it. --BenM 17:44, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

That's fair enough. I'm sure we can all work out something with which we can all live. Best regards, Celt668

Cool. I like the additions to the article, by the way, it's quickly shaping up to be quite a comprehensive one. There are certainly other larger groups that don't have pages as detailed as this one.

On the general wiki front, I'd highly recommend having a look at the Wikipedia editing help. It is an invaluable cheat sheet for editing on this type of wiki.

It's good to be able to discuss all this reasonably, too. I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving.  :) --BenM 22:22, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)