User talk:Celmare

--Thadeous Oakley 18:32, 13 August 2010 (BST)

Pathetic Bill

A little while ago you made several edits to Pathetic Bill. Do you have a reason for these? -- Cheese 15:57, 15 August 2010 (BST)

Yes, was following up info received in game that the group was gone, and shown screenshot that the players havent logged for awhile. Also part of their site is propoganda and not berifiable proof, so decided to edit it for accuracy (both on the group's status and on the veracity of their claims). There are only screenshots of a sparse amount of the people they claimed to kill, so the * needed to be added.

If people are going to read about this group, then they need to know what's proveable vs. what isn't in this case.

Please avoid editing the names of said victims that were killed. By doing such actions it is considered vandalism and you can find yourself temporarily banned for editing the wiki. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

16:32, 15 August 2010 (BST)

Because Pathetic Bill is a group page, what is on the page is up to the members of that group and those outside it are not generally allowed to edit that page. It is considered vandalism on this wiki as a result. Just a head's up. -- Cheese 16:36, 15 August 2010 (BST)

I know you're trying to be helpful, but don't edit the page again or you'll wind up on A/VB -- Cheese 16:42, 15 August 2010 (BST)

The alts are dead but the legend lives on.--EmPathetic Bill 05:39, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Please do not post false information

I noticed your edits to our page. I just verified in-game that neither of those buildings are EHB, nor were they non-ruined when I scouted them just a couple of hours ago and updated that page. While we do implicitly welcome scouting information from non-MOB members if they wish to provide it, we do require that it be accurate, and yours was not. Additionally, yours had some wiki-code errors that broke the page slightly.

Anyway, long story short, if you're interested in posting scouting info to our page, we generally won't turn it down, but if we find out that you're posting any more inaccurate information, we likely will be pursuing measures to protect our page from your edits. I don't mean to sound scary or intimidating, but it's my job to look after that page, and a lot of zombies depend on it for information, so keeping it accurate is important to me. —Aichon— 23:47, 15 August 2010 (BST)

Additionally, please be careful about impersonating other users, as I believe you have inadvertently done twice today with the User:DangerReport/Dunstan General Hospital page (and which is why your edits were reverted). You need to switch out the name of the "user" variable when you're editing the page, not just the "comment" variable. Impersonation is considered vandalism on this wiki, but I've chosen not to pursue it as such, since it seems obvious to me that you didn't mean anything by it and were simply making a newbie mistake, which we all made when we first started here. Also, make sure you can back up any claims of zerging or "zed spies", otherwise such claims are better taken to group pages. —Aichon— 01:51, 16 August 2010 (BST)

While you're correct, I forgot to change the name. The characters linked as spies were present in previous posts. Thandar and Austing for two. Now since I didn;t keep the threds to their profiles any longer I won;t post that but you don;t have proof that the MOB took over the hosp either. In fact. I do have an exteded list of the zoms taken within the past month or so in Raines Hills and Chancelton. Most of the ones during the seing are not listed as MOB.

That being said, posting an unproveable (until a link is provided) comment such as you have will have to be amended as well. I can understand the desire to implement imaginative ideas (like destryoing a burgh), but to post in in general info needs visual proof. Propoganda is all well and good, but needs to be kept on your group page. Just the facts here. You can claim that the MOB took Dunstan, but you need to have a link. Otherwise it was just Zeds, and will keep being reverted back to a generic report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celmare (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

MOB doesn't really siege locations unless they present significant difficulty due to a large survivor presence (such as Haslock having around 80 survivors at the start of the week). The MOB never actually sieged Dunstan to my knowledge, so it's not surprising you don't have us listed as being outside of it before it was ruined. In fact, since we used strike teams to break in, Dunstan's cades were down within just a few seconds (literally) of when we started, and was ruined shortly thereafter since it only had 23 survivors inside. Regardless, I don't care enough about it to create a fuss, but I do care about my name not being changed since that's personally a serious matter, as well as claims that we made up a small % of those present inside, since it is untrue (we may not have been around it beforehand, but we were once we broke in). As for destroying suburbs being an "imaginative idea"...you have heard of us before, right? We're one of the largest zombie hordes in the game. We typically ruin a suburb once every 3-5 days (we've been a bit slower recently, probably since BB3 drew away some of our folks). It's factual that we ruined it, as many there can confirm, and we have no reason to lie about it, since we ruin dozens of buildings a week, of which this is just one more. We don't mention our name there for ego reasons, but rather as a courtesy to those who might have been unaware there was a horde in town. Pretty much everyone takes us at our word, since we've always been good for it.

That said, claims regarding zerging and spying have long been ruled as not "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV), due to their emotionally-charged nature, making them poor content for those pages, hence why I made a point of saying they should be backed up by evidence. Simple claims generally do not necessitate having evidence since there's nothing special to them, hence why I provided none, but claims such as yours are rather outstanding in nature and very uncommon (side note: if true, I'd be VERY interested in hearing more details, in all honesty, since MOB doesn't like being associated with those types of people), which is why they should be backed up by evidence and why I mentioned it. —Aichon— 04:06, 16 August 2010 (BST)

• But if you prefer, since I'm a newbie here, though hardly so ingame, feel free to take it to the administrators for review of factual accuracy. While we're on the topic, if that's the necessary course of action then please also include all the places you've posted similiar MOB claims in Chancelwood, because (as it's already been explained to me by admins here) the general pages needs factual info, while the group pages are where proof is not needed. Thus claims can be stated on group pages, but not need verification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celmare (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

  I'm actually a sysop (i.e. administrator; proof here if you need it) here on the wiki, though I prefer not to mention it when acting as a representative of a group I'm with since it makes it harder for folks like you to tell whether I'm acting in an official capacity or not. To be clear, I have not been acting in an official capacity so far, nor do I see a reason to do so going forward, and if you'd like to bring in the other sysops to discuss the matter, I'd certainly have no objections, though I think it's unnecessary.
  Regarding that rule (and this is from my perspective as a sysop, not as a group rep), proof is rarely necessary, but the pages are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, and certain types of claims which might be borderline POV get pushed across that line when they lack evidence. Allegations of zerging and spying have long been considered emotionally-charged topics, and so are frequently considered to be POV, hence why I pointed them out, and without evidence backing them up, they seem more POV in nature than they would otherwise. As for the claims I made in the report, admittedly, there has been some recent discussion regarding whether or not they are considered POV, but no final conclusion has been reached, and long-standing precedent seems to indicate that they are NPOV since it's been done this way for years.
  And, to be clear, I meant wiki-newb. I had assumed you were a veteran of the game, but not a regular wiki commenter. I didn't mean any offense by that comment, so I apologize if any was taken. —Aichon— 04:06, 16 August 2010 (BST)

  As another addendum, I have no objections to your current edit of the danger report. It's neutrally worded and can be agreed on by all involved. Thank you for handling this as you did. —Aichon— 04:09, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Sign your post

Thank you for updating suburb news and building statuses. Please remember to sign your post with --~~~~ or the button to every one of them, so we know they are verifiable. -- Kittithaj 12:56, 17 August 2010 (BST)

You do realise

We can check IP addresses?--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 13:03, 18 August 2010 (BST)

Well random IP gens tend to do that. Similiar set and what not I guess. However, add my name to the list of complainers then. And make sure to include all the information I added in tangent with the previous editor. The material is wholly inappropriate for balance and neutrality. Seems like a Zed propoganda page for one specific group (and one that really isn't much of a big deal at that). There isn;t one page in this whole Wiki that has one Survivor group (or another Zed group for that matter) with such user group specific info on a neutral page.

Kevan's already commented via Twitter, so I had to add my $.02 Guess "Arbys" is more of a future job aspiration right. lawlz

You mean apart from the identical editing styles. The fact the each IP used has been used by both accounts, the identical edit summaries and the fact you've been editing over the exact same periods, modifying almost identical pages with both. That and the MO of complaining to the games designer immediately. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:16, 18 August 2010 (BST)

A case against you is currently in place on the Vandal Banning page. Feel free to argue your case.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 13:16, 18 August 2010 (BST)

How about this one? That work for you. It's probably the same program generator I have. My local constabulary (?) provides free security softare, so I can change Ips, and even have an advanced foreign translator softwarde included. Hmm, don;t know why constabulary isn;t in there though. Anwya. I really don;t care what my IP says, as that doesn;t change the fact that the previous poster is correct. It's not a neutral page. Might as well take the whole thing, put it on the RRf's gossip page and be done with it. Isn't that kinda dis-information discouraged on a neutral page? I thought you Americans were more "Land of the Free" and stuff. It's good to know that the rumors are true. Abuses and lies. I'm no glad I live here. What a country.

For record, I didn;t complain to anyone (well Im chatting here but thats discussion). Kevan has a personal twitter account/differ then the one on his page though. He has a personal email that was differ when he first started too with the other game. I'm surpirsed you didn;t know that. Good luck though with all the pant's wetting.