User talk:Concerned'Citizen

Thank you!

It's wonderful in having someone write and to get to talk a bit. Appreciate and in thanks for the neat superb welcoming as well as offering a bit of information to a complete newbie thrilled and excited to be here. Reason I joined the wiki being to provide accurate data related to danger levels of Suburbs and Buildings - accurate to the ... to the bone! Well,we have no skellies around,so to 'the bone' may still be objective transparent and balanced between any of the two huge factions,survivors and zombies (with their variations,which I've been reading on the past month) --Concerned'Citizen 23:46, 2 June 2013 (BST)

Hey Concerned'Citizen! This is in response to the above and to your message on my talk page.

First, regarding leaving messages on talk pages, it's pretty easy - and you've done pretty well. It's generally customary to leave newest messages for a user at the bottom of their talk page rather than the top, although some users prefer it the other way - you'll get used to it. And don't forget to leave your signature after a message, by either typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) or by clicking the button at the top of the edit window.

Regarding updating building DangerReports, the thing to do is, on the buildings page, click the small button at the top right of the DangerReport that says "(update)". That button will take you to a page looking like this one, which you can then edit by filling in the appropriate information in each section (after each equals sign "="). For more on how to update the statuses, check out this guide, which tells you everything you need to know.

In regards to the suburb DangerReports, that seems totally fine and in order. In the future, don't forget to leave a brief reason why you're changing a suburbs status in the "Summary" bar at the bottom of the edit window. And feel free to get in touch with any more questions you may have! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:02, 3 June 2013 (BST)

Thank you so much, [Bob] for aiding and helping me get this sorted out.

I've noticed you've cleaned the page for the Fabian General Hospital allowing me to have a good edit of the danger level. I was on it and in the process of scratching whatever needed to be cleaned out & thanks in doing that for me as well as all of us using the Wiki.

There is still one building that might need a bit of check and edit restoring it's previous state;it also seems that this one is missing the respective buttons to edit danger levels : Club Brookeman.

Once more,thank you very much and hope I'll have more updated info on buildings and Suburbs,though for now I feel that it suffices.

Got on reading more on the Wiki.It's quite interesting;of course,I'd like in finding out more about coding to improve my user page talk page and even more.

Many thanks for your input and aiding a newbie Wiki nerd!

Concerned'Citizen 02:07, 3 June 2013 (BST)

Sure thing! I'll fix the Club Brookeman article right away. Also, so you know, if you want to link to a page on the Wiki, you don't have to use a link to the page's url; you can just put the page title in double square-brackets, like:

[[Example page]]

will show up as Example page. To make a link say something different than the page title, use a pipe in between:

[[Example page|this]]

will show up as this. Hope you find that useful! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:49, 3 June 2013 (BST)

It's quite useful;thank you so much!

Do hope that any newbie wiki users-such as I,would-at some point,benefit from this kind of help,support & finding useful information aiding them in their use of the wiki too.

if you'd have the pleasure and a bit of time to spare,could you please open up the door to the wonders of creating a brand new page for a group? I've been reading about it but haven't got the half of it and would very much like to set up a page for a decent new group around Urban Dead.

In thanks and appreciation,C.C.

Concerned'Citizen 16:57, 3 June 2013 (BST)

If you'd like a read, there is a very long Guide on the subject. In general, the way to form a group on the wiki is simply to create a page with the group's name and add information to it. You may also want to check out the recruitment advertising instructions. I'm afraid I can't help as much with in-game advice as on the wiki, but there is some in the guide I linked to above. Hope that helps! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:41, 3 June 2013 (BST)

First of all,thank you.

Um ... and I have had read the recruitment advertisement instructions before,twice or three times-can't say I found it very helpful;it was quite unclear and blurry-at least to me it was.

Well,since the so called 'group' does not fit to any of the kinds I've been reading about,rather being a neutral bunch,if you could possibly share and enlighten me,how's that possible in creating a new page and what/how could I possibly add to it?

Do have a general idea of 'how to add to it'-could sure use a good guidance there.

Though,first things are first-creating an entirely new page-how to?

Once more,thank you so much and looking forward to any insightful positive feedback.

Concerned'Citizen 18:08, 3 June 2013 (BST)

Hmmm... maybe it would be easier to explain if you let me know what the name of the group is? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:20, 4 June 2013 (BST)

Welcome & Suburb Danger Levels

Hi Concerned'Citizen!

First, I wanted to welcome you to UDWiki on behalf of Project Welcome! If you have any questions or need any help, don't hesitate to contact anyone on that page, or message me directly at my talk page.

I also was wondering why you changed a bunch of the suburbs listed as "safe" to "moderately dangerous"? In general, it's customary to put a brief justification in the "Summary" spot at the bottom of the edit window when changing a suburb's danger level. Thanks, and have a great day! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:33, 2 June 2013 (BST)

I'd like to echo Bob's question and ask why you changed so many to Moderately Dangerous as well. I've been through quite a few of those suburbs in the last few days, and just did some additional scouting through Eastonwood, Millen Hills, Brooke Hills, and Yagoton, to make sure I wasn't totally incorrect, and all of them are Safe right now, not Moderately Dangerous. I didn't see a single ruined or open building in them, very few zombies outside, mostly lit structures, etc.. Since all of those were Safe, and I know from firsthand experience that a few of those others are Safe as well, I've gone ahead and reverted all of your Moderately Dangerous changes to Safe until we can sort it out, since I suspect it's a simple misunderstanding (e.g. Safe suburbs can still have break-ins, just so long as they're isolated and infrequent). Sorry for the inconvenience. —Aichon— 04:46, 5 June 2013 (BST)

Hey, I just saw your edit to your userpage and wanted to comment. If you're seeing 20 zombies roaming around a suburb, that does not make the suburb Moderately Dangerous. If you check the DangerMap instructions, you'll see that a safe suburb can have up to 50 zombies in it roaming around. When it says "no zombie groups above 10", it means that you can't have an organized group of 10+ zombies working together, but if they're just roaming around, then they aren't considered a group. A Moderately Dangerous suburb will typically have regular break-ins occurring around the suburb, as well as large numbers of zombies gathering outside of buildings, but will still have the majority of the buildings intact. All of the suburbs I checked that you labeled as Moderately Dangerous were still safe, since they had very few zombies in them, the zombies were not organized, and the suburbs were entirely intact and oftentimes were lit up as well.

Also, to tell who edited a page, click the "History" link at the top of the page. In this case, I was the one who edited those pages, as I explained above. ;)

As for accuracy, it's actually much more accurate now, since those suburbs really are Safe. And zombies rarely have an interest in updating the map, other than to mark the places they ruined as red, since they herd survivors by using ruins, rather than by changing the map. For the most part, they leave updating the map to survivors, and occasionally there are survivors who try to mark places as Moderately Dangerous or Dangerous in order to discourage a horde from trying to eat their suburb. —Aichon— 05:24, 5 June 2013 (BST)

Woah! That was quite a raed.

And thank you-much appreciated-a wonderful read indeed.

Will do my best to provide more accurate data and will take to updating building statuses by which ever trusty scout may send me a report - which I encourage it.

Shall also provide a reply on your profile regarding this subject since this topic is starting to get a bit too lengthy,thus a bit hard to watch.

Hope you will keep my reply as a Suburb's Danger Reporting topic on your talk page and again,much appreciated.

Concerned'Citizen 05:42, 5 June 2013 (BST)

One...Two Words of Wisdom

1. Asparagus

2. Potato

Heed these words wisely,

Sincerely, the Gnome. 22:02, 3 June 2013 (BST)

haha

will do my best possible

Concerned'Citizen 22:54, 3 June 2013 (BST)

ow...I see!well,you could have simply said 1/2 WoWs and it would have made perfect sense! Wisdom is one's most precious 'possession' Concerned'Citizen 04:18, 4 June 2013 (BST)

Groups

Thank you,Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W!!

Haven't entirely decided on a name for the group yet. Though,am positive and certain about what it should be:

-getting people in game familiar with the wiki & use it correctly updating data with accuracy; -having fresh new people join Urban Dead; -keep the group neutral,meaning to act as a balancing tool in the rising tides out there; -helping all level; Any kind of subjectiveness and expressing one's sided point of view with pros and cons would be entirely according to circumstances and a simple sincere show of ... of honest concern for having a good game to everyone,as possible.

Even so,Haven't completely decided on a name.Could be 'Lorem Ipsum' for the time being and perhaps a name will pop-out;even so,would like to make them people a page and make it look nice-I'm not that of a wiz with the internet,coding and stuff;a simple clean well organized page would do - nothing fancy. Concerned'Citizen 13:37, 4 June 2013 (BST)

Regarding Danger Reports

Hey, been seeing a lot of your work around the wiki these last few days. I just wanted to comment on edits of yours such as this one, in which you edit the comment while leaving the previous commentator's signature intact. I'd strongly encourage you not to do that, because you're liable to land yourself in trouble for impersonating others if you keep doing it, simply because it looks like they're the one who said those things, when it's really you who said it. If the block hasn't been updated in several months, as was the case with that one's status, I'd just mark it unknown and leave a note saying it was marked as unknown on X date, then would delete whatever was previously there and replace the signature with your own. It's how things have mostly worked up until now (though we used to have some bots that would do it all automatically for us), so it's a tried and true method that won't land you in any hot water. ;) —Aichon— 21:40, 4 June 2013 (BST)

Keeping things simple

First of all,please allow me to thank you and let you know that your input is appreciated.

Even if until now people/bots used to edit old reports,mainly danger reports,by scratching all the old data-comment & signature included,I feel it as being unfair both to those who provided the information at that time as well as to people that might check the report.

Reasons are:

-an old report might still correspond to the real thing,thus should be kept,even if oldie (but goodie) / saying a status is unknown exactly because no one has updated it in 'more than a month'-as the bot's message suggested,that's just perfect though since not being an actual report,from the 'crime-scene',keeping the previous one may still provide at least some clues such as when it was last edited with actual data,not just unknown,who was the person providing the info,what was their comment; -someone,even if it has been a while,made their contribution 'investing' their time,knowledge & skills in having made that report,even if older than to our liking;

Have come up with the following as a 'warning sign' for any old reports - " Report outdated. If you have fresh accurate info on it's status,click the (update) button to the right of building's name,then Edit upper right of the new page opening up.02:46, 5 June 2013 (BST) follow old report at own risk: "

It states the report is outdated.

Encourages anyone in providing new fresh accurate data.

It is a short concise walkthrough-some of us might need it(speaking from someone's shoes that actually had to discover all this by trial,error,asking the questions & being more attentive to the obvious);

in turn may benefit us all by having more active people keeping the wiki clean,up to date;

this 'out-of-date' exclamation does include the date and time at which it was provided;

It includes the comment of the previous report containing any data just in case some of it may actually be true as well as a form of respect,consideration for the ones that have previously done the job.

For the same reason,it keeps their username and timestamp intact,providing both data in regards to when the " follow old report at own risk: " has been made as well as showing exactly who was that made the danger-rep,pointing out as well as linking the oldie report to that particular wiki-user.

Does not include own user name for the sole reason of keeping it as neutral & transparent as possible;while the username of the person who updated to 'unknown' but kept all the older data intact can still be traced if anyone has that interest,as shown here.

Actually,an revamp of the UD wiki could work!

It may look something like this and would require implementing the necessary files,data,etc.

| current status = / cstat [ previous status = / pstat | most recent report (new) = / nrep [ previous report = / prep | update by = / nuser | previous update by = / puser The "[ ... =lorem ipsum" lines should be kept as specific as possible thus not having to add anything to the 'How to Update' section,just a tiny edit there. Or synthesize the lines & add specific to the walkthrough of 'How to Update' :

Though,this particular wiki user does an impressive job,unfortunatelly scratching all the older reports which may still have a bit of useul data;well,at least linking to the people that have made that update. Communication is what is all about and being able to link to several different people may very well get those people out of their lurking/inactivity status,coming back to have their useful most wonderful contribution to the community-the wiki & UD themselves.

Having two user names one after the other could look confusing-though at this point an 'unknown report' could like something like this:

Concerned'Citizen 02:46, 5 June 2013 (BST)status:unknown.Report outdated. If you have fresh accurate info on it's status,click the (update) button to the right of building's name,then Edit upper right of the new page opening up. Follow old report at own risk:[...]

OR

Comment line-unknow report reasons - last known report User line to write-unknown report by:---- last known report by:----

And may still keep previous report as well as user's name& timestamp,since the report itself is of 'unknown' nature and keeping an oldie record might be useful to some extent.

Something in those lines.All this has just come to me while writing meanwhile giving it some thought & consideration how it may be fair to all wiki-users & urban dead folks.

Long live the urban dead? haha.That sounds a bit.a bit strange,but oh well! And us updating it-hip hip hurrah! Hope in seeing some positive good changes out there and looking forward to it. Feel free to come up with any ideas & share it with anyone that could contribute in any constructive ways. Well,what do you think? Either way,it could work —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Concerned'Citizen (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I understand the rationale behind what you did, but that's actually besides the point. What you're trying to do is fine, but the way you're doing it is not. I was trying to point out that, while well-intentioned, what you did is considered a form of impersonation, which can be treated as vandalism on this wiki (i.e. you can get in trouble for it, possibly even banned). As a rule, you should never edit the signed comments of another user, which is what you're doing with edits such as these, since you're effectively putting your words in their mouths.

Instead, the way you should handle this is by replacing their signature with your signature, replacing their comment with your comment, and then quoting their comment in yours and citing them by name. For instance, "The previous comment, 'The building is safe', posted by ExampleUser on 2013-01-01 is outdated. Please provide an update for this building's status by clicking on...". If you do it this way, it's clear to everyone that you're the one who is talking and that you're merely quoting them, whereas with your current method, it makes it look like the original person updated their comment to add all of that stuff that you actually said. —Aichon— 03:49, 5 June 2013 (BST)

Also, I replied to your comment on my talk page, and don't forget to sign your posts by typing in four tildes (~~~~) after it (the wiki will automatically convert them into a signature). Thanks! —Aichon— 03:50, 5 June 2013 (BST)

It's a very good idea;haven't thought of it that way.I'll use that.

Really thought that it was obvious the comment following "old report:" belongs to the user mentioned in the user section,while the editing for it's unknown status does not and represents a simple 'warning'.

Thank you so much for clearing that up and I'll be using a better improved clearer more accurate way of drawing attention to outdated reports,though the search derelict might beat me to it - that guy is really extremely active! Haha

(the only real concern would be that the older reports would be entirely scratched out,while they may still provide some information as well as credit the ones who did it,when they did-as mentioned previously)

Guess that I'll have a full day of wiki work as soon as possible.Hope I'll be able to do a good job there.

Ow,and I did sign the article,just did it somewhere in the middle of it,not at the bottom = will edit and add the proper signature at it's end too,if necessary,though was signed at least one time (at first,until got the hang of the Concerned'Citizen 04:21, 5 June 2013 (BST),simply forgot to input the siggy too)

With gratitude and appreciation Concerned'Citizen 04:21, 5 June 2013 (BST)

20 zombies

Hey, putting this here in the hopes that you see it, since I noticed you just made a lot of edits. Please be sure to look at the section up above for more details, but to quickly summarize, 20 zombies in a suburb is not considered a threat. If all you're seeing are roaming zombies, there need to be 50+ of them before the suburb would be considered Moderately Dangerous. If they are organized into a group, however, then 50+ of them would be enough to consider the suburb Dangerous. Also, I just realized that the reason you couldn't see who undid your edits was because I used my sysop ability to rollback edits, which apparently doesn't leave a history behind (an ability which I'll be using again in just a moment, since it appears that you're working with a misunderstanding of what Moderately Dangerous means). Sorry for the confusion. —Aichon— 05:36, 5 June 2013 (BST)

thank you.

have just finished reading!

ow,so much reading to do and haven't even got the chance to play my character yet! haha

wiki seems like the place to be at.

even 36 zombies pose a serious threat that could be interpreted as 'dangerous'

have seen data of buildings falling in the hands of 5+ zombies,less than 10;which seems to be well than enough of bringing down buildings and killing the survivors there as long as they are working together-and they are.

perhaps danger reports should no longer limit themselves to 'zombies' and should include death cultists as well/'survivors' that can actually turn into zombies at any time.

The game has gone beyond reasonable 'scout the zombies' level and went to 'watch out who is who'. I'm sure you can relate to that and it makes a completely impossible life for all survivors,unless they'd also join/form extremely well organized groups.

Even so,what about the lone clueless survivors out there seeing so many safe suburbs that they'd stroll along as if it'd be their homeland? haha. um,it clearly is not the case,it's quite ruthless - lol.

how may danger reports be improved? including a detailed reason for tagging 'moderately dangerous' / 'dangerous' ... in Suburb's description - Recent Events, etc?

The most recent even being BB4, tagging the suburbs where BB4 is more than likely to hit is slightly sensible for any lone survivors having a chance to ... ow well ... run!!!

Understand that this BB4 event is quite rare and would love to play my zombie hoping to get him good leveling experience.Can also appreciate and be wonderfully amazed at the efforts & organization put into this - still,survivors should have the means of having the slightest warning - such as danger levels in suburbs. Which is if we are to consider on 50+ mobs as being 'moderately dangerous' that honestly does not reflect Urban Dead reality as of our present times,in which ... even a survivor could be a zombie,become a zombie

I've been catching up & learning quite a lot just by keeping an open mind to everything that is going on in game and on the wiki. It is impressive how wonderful a simple game like this can be;still,survivors should get a fair chance too,not simply being meat-bags as per general. :D

sincerely honestly hopping you'd provide more accurate data on those Suburbs such as Yagaton,Eastonwood,Richmond Hills and many more.To be truthful,the entire map should be considered as 'moderately dangerous' for except a few suburbs, probably 20 tops.

If there are around 1.500.000 zombies in urban dead,or how many where there,i zouţd divide that bz 100,how many zombies would you get per suburb? Probably the data base is showing all 'zombie' character's counts since it's beginning.

Referring your remark " nd occasionally there are survivors who try to mark places as Moderately Dangerous or Dangerous in order to discourage a horde " there is clearly the reverse in which case people supporting zombies will tag as safe any and all suburbs until it'd be too late and any reports showing them dangerous + / - will simply say "Hey,there has been a huge slaughter \ massacre of survivors around,we killed ransacked all that we could! Power to the Horde!" - something in those lines;as you also have pointed out.

Then again...if there are about 10 groups or more of 4 zombies each and / or at least 35+ active zombies in a suburb would not that be good reason for having it 'moderately dangerous' at least? Not talking about dangerous,though could neither call it safe.

What about when having clear indication reports and noticing several players either zombies or supporting the dead are killing / attacking / doing sabotage work in a suburb - that would classify it as at least 'moderately dangerous' While if finished trashing a suburb noticing zombies moving advancing that is clear indication that neighbouring suburbs are 'moderately dangerous' being threatened.

I guess that danger levels of suburbs on the wiki is just a rough estimation and one can not rely on the data since it seems it may be too late too little to report/update. Data which benefits both zombies,survivors,regardless of their game play since we're all human,after all :D

looking forward to reading your input and woud greatly appreciate it.

Concerned'Citizen 06:55, 5 June 2013 (BST)

It seems Aichon replied to (a possibly different version of) this message on his talk page. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 07:14, 5 June 2013 (BST)

Yes,I've got that.

Just that,setting many of the suburbs which are being threatened by attack to 'Safe' is completely inaccurate and unfair to survivors that aren't actually aiding the zombies and would like to keep playing as survivors rather than being meat-bags.

I still fail to understand what is considered in being 'moderately dangerous'. As of the current status quo of the UD Wiki's Danger Report system,it seems that 'anything' is safe until too late. Concerned'Citizen 07:44, 5 June 2013 (BST)

It sounds like there are a few different points to consider there. With your example of 5+ zombies breaking in, you're very correct, but 5+ zombies are still no threat to a suburb as a whole, hence why the suburb would still be considered Safe. They may be able to ruin a building, but as soon as they leave it to take another, the survivors would reclaim that first one and the suburb would remain Safe. It's not until they can start breaking into multiple buildings or can break in regularly that we would consider calling it Moderately Dangerous. Keep in mind that this is still a zombie apocalypse, so "safe" just describes a suburb where things are mostly intact and will probably stay that way, rather than promising someone a 0% chance of harm happening.

That also brings up the point that these danger reports are reports, not predictions. We're reporting on the status of events in-game, rather than predicting how likely someone in the suburb is to be safe, so, as you said, there will always be some lag time. The danger reports simply describe the state of the suburb, rather than guessing whether or not someone is safe to sleep there or not. In fact, the danger reports are required to maintain NPOV (neutral point of view), so we actually can't use them to try and give survivors an advantage by making predictions and the like (though if a horde announces its plans, you're welcome to report on their announced plans, and BB4 sometimes announces its next suburb). We can present facts that the survivors can draw their own conclusions from, but offering the survivors a warning would be giving them an unfair advantage and would be hurting the zombies that we're giving them an advantage over, which would be unfair to those zombies. In the case of BB4, the advantages we have are ones we've earned by assembling a large group of zombies and playing fair, rather than trying to use neutral pages to our advantage.

But if you want to present the reasons behind why you're making a chance, one place you can do that is in the "Summary" section that appears just above the "Save page" button when you're editing. That's the section Bob was talking about earlier when he was saying it's customary to provide a comment explaining why you're making the changes you are.

As far as stats go, there are an average of 23 zombies per suburb in the game right now, but zombies tend to group up together since they're more effective that way. Ridleybank is the zombie homeland, so it likely has a higher concentration of zombies, as do the hordes like MOB and RRF, and BB4 currently has over 150 zombies in its mega-horde when you combine the groups that are in the event, so that means that there are less zombies elsewhere in the game since they're all grouped up in a few places. If a suburb merely had an average number of zombies in it, however, I think it makes sense that the situation would be classified as normal and would thus be "safe" as far as a zombie apocalypse goes, wouldn't you agree? Granted, safe would not mean 0% chance of harm, as I said earlier, but it would mean that people were as safe as could be reasonably expected. But if we go with your example of 35 zombies from several groups, honestly, there's a good chance I'd call that Moderately Dangerous, depending on what they were doing and how effective they were at doing it.

Finally, regarding zombie groups changing things to green, I addressed this on my talk page, but the short version is that it actually ends up hurting them more than it helps them, and I've never seen an example of them doing something like that (though I have seen them turn things to red so that it makes it look like they're causing a lot of destruction, but that's an ego issue), whereas I have seen quite a few examples of survivors either changing suburbs to more dangerous levels than they are, or else intentionally not updating them once repairs are done, simply so that the hordes will stay away (this happened a lot back in Winter 2010 when RRF and MOB wrecked half the city, and again with the second March of the Dead). —Aichon— 07:45, 5 June 2013 (BST)

EMRPs

Hi Concerned'Citizen! I'm a bit worried that you are editing pages beginning with "EMRP" based on personal observations. Any page which starts with "EMRP" should only be edited in accordance with a broadcast from the External Military on 25.96 MHz in-game, not based on personal observations. I won't revert what you've edited until you respond, but do be aware of this. Thanks for understanding! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 07:09, 5 June 2013 (BST)

Thank you

really though that the EMR's are supposed to be External Military Reports based on observing the suburbs.

Well,my talk page sure seems like the place to be for newbies to read and .. be amazed;such as I am each time finding out anything new - for which I have to thank you two,Bob,Aichon,as well as anyone kind enough in sharing 'what' & 'how'.

I really started laughing at myself noticing that I haven't the slightest clue of what I am doing and stumbling about.

Well,at least I'm a concerned citizen (lol),doing my very best,showing interest,catching on quick thanks to your support and input.

And to think that I was about to mention that one may generally know not what the EMRs stand for;at first I thought there might be something associated with radio antennas,radio communication;until I've joined the wiki,found the EMRP edit button,read there and then I've thought they are simply external military personal reports' based on what is encountered throughout the map.

Sure seems tricky and a harsh life for us survivors / zombies keeping the wiki up to date with good data as well as following through with things we may be clueless about. At least,now I know.

I did notice a particular EMR on Shuttlebank showing z: ~30 i: *-- p: D June 4. It seems that just 30 zombies or less where capable of ravaging a single 10x10 blocks suburb in one quick 'woosh' (new term for blitzkrieg) killing who ever they came across on their way too.

It's a bit confusing and discouraging for entirely new players in urban dead - either a survivor or a zombie,you get bonked on the head lots; know that some of the people I invited to urban dead had a hard time as well as I; at least,until I got to the wiki and started to figure out bits by bits what is going on!

well,I completely love it and like i that the game is so intense and would wish to keep seeing it like this,thanks to both survivors and zombies giving their best (forgot to mention any cross-breeds)

Again,thank you and please,feel free to restore any EMRs that do not correspond to local radio transmissions. I will stick to adding 'current news' in areas I might happen to have reports about. in hopes that maybe someone will also confirm and do the respective EMR / Suburb Danger level updates since ... well,it seems I should stop doing these (a bit discouraged;seems I'm doing an awful job) Concerned'Citizen 07:44, 5 June 2013 (BST)

Yes, it is true that it only takes a relatively small number of zombies to take down a suburb, especially one which is not densely inhabited by survivors. This is because the game now has fewer than 10,000 or so active characters, as opposed to a peak of more than 50,000 several years ago.

Also, I am going to revert all of your EMRP updates, as none of them were based on actual EMR data. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:44, 6 June 2013 (BST)

Building Status impersonation

Hi again Concerned'Citizen. I noticed that you'd updated a number of building statuses in the past day, mostly to "ruined". However, when you updated them, you put in the "user=" slot the following:

--[[User:Thegeneralbot|Marked Unknown:]] (Datestamp)

This is technically signing as a user named Thegeneralbot, not as yourself, and is considered impersonation on UDWiki. I'm requesting that you please either correct or undo the edits so that they are no longer impersonation; you can see all the edits you've made here. Otherwise, you may have to be brought to Vandal Banning and may be officially warned or banned, especially if the impersonation continues.

Please in the future make absolutely sure that you are always signing as yourself, by typing ~~~~ in the appropriate location, and never as another user. Thanks! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:41, 6 June 2013 (BST)

Page Moved

Hi again, I've moved a page you created because you placed it in the wrong namespace. The page is now at Template talk:DangerMapInstructions. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:47, 6 June 2013 (BST)

If you really want to discuss the issue, I would suggest Talk:Suburb instead (ps. remember to sign, plz) -- boxy 10:28, 7 June 2013 (BST)

Good day!

Welcome to my talk page!

-please add any comment on 'talk page' above this;thank you very much-

How's your day

How's your day like? Add here and chat,rant,enjoy if possible.

---

I'm having a 'hell' of a day! Haha - any way you'd look at it. Yeah,just realised that more than half of the things I've tried to help with around the wiki are ... useless ... Except that,it's a most wonderful hell'of'a day. Guess that concludes my updating activity on the wiki.At least,for a while. haha - I really have to get the hang of this;would love to provide the best accurate data for anyone to have access to - be them survivors or zombies,cause we're all 'hamanz' after all (just found out that 'hamanz' is the word for 'humans' used in 'sambah' - the language of the .. dead :D haha ). Had a point when I was talking elfish,now it seems I may brush up on my zombie language skills - which most definitely could use some improvement. Concerned'Citizen 07:54, 5 June 2013 (BST)

Your English is hilarious. You sound like some sort of illegal immigrant. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:40, 5 June 2013 (BST)

Rude, English isn't my first language either. (I assumed that my non-native proficiency at the language was the reason why I found his English rather... unorthodox. My head hurts.) -- [ talk ] [ KT ] [ BB4 ] 14:06, 7 June 2013 (BST)

---