Category talk:Historical Groups/SucceededArchive

The nomination of any group that succeedes voting of historical status should be moved from Category talk:Historical Groups to here.

Sub-Archives:

• Archive1

Malton College of Medicine

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a moderator.

The only valid voting sections are Yes and No. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

MCM has been inactive since November 2018, making them eligible to voted for historical group now. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes - MCM had a great concept as a learning institution for new players that hasn't been there before, and never been copied after. A very widely respected group across the entire spectrum of play-styles, from survivors to zombies to PKers. Definitively one of the most remarkable groups in UD history, and definitively worthy of historical status. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
2. Yes Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 02:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
3. Yes -- 14:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
4. Yes --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 19:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
5. Yes ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 05:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
6. Yes - Even though they revoked my ZhD degree. Bastards. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
7. Yes --Grimeynick (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
8. Yes --KingJabbaDaButt (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
9. Yip What killed them off? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
10. Of course Hate Crime 🎭 (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
11. yES hajen (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
12. OuiI'm all riggered up (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
13. Yes (Ross, if you want to know, DM me on discord) stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 21:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
14. Yes Richardskull16 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
15. Yes, seeing as the Trotters dunked so hard that MCM died. --【ⅎooɹd ǝʌɐɥ ᴉ sʇɐoƃ sʍoʅʚ ⅎǝᴉɹɔuoɯ uǝɹɐʞ】 ☉ ☉ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
16. Yes, obviously PB&J 05:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
17. Yes--Akbar (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
18. Yes - I consider them a far better version of Quartly Study Group and have fond memories of murdering Violet Begonia. Worthy candidates. --LordMoloch (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No

1. I'm just here for my +1. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 02:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

With 18 votes for and 1 against, Malton College of Medicine is now officially a historical group. Congratulations. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 21:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Pathetic Bill

In Malton, once players go inactive, few people remember their names other than some close friends and their obscure wiki userpages.
...Unless their names were Pathetic Bill.
Pathetic Bill was a group of 7 players (give or take a few) all named Pathetic Bill. They were PKers. But you already knew that (or you're very new).
Though they got their start in Eastonwood, killing the local groups there, they soon began to travel, terrorizing Huntley Heights, Richmond Hills, and promoting PK-Day, on 6/6/6. It was the success of PK Day that inspired D4rkness to create the PKA. At the PKA, their closely coordinated strikes caused them to be considered the best shock troops available by other groups, and the Bills were employed as such during the Rolt Heights War, various events against Fort Creedy and the CDF, and other long-term attacks like the Philosophe Knights' clearing of Richmond Hills.
The Bills were never a big group, or a particularly social group in the Metagame, but they live on in the memories of Malton's people because of their impact on the game population. They inspired successive generations of PKers (including Yours Truly) to take up PKing, at least two tribute groups, and dozens of similarly-named copy-cat killers. There was a time when seeing a Bill nearby would send survivors into a panic, and when having the Bills agree to show up to your PK event practically guaranteed success.
Pathetic Bill has won the MMA Most Notorious PKer Award Twice and the Biggest Pillaging Murderer Award once through the years of 2007, 2008, and 2009. Even now, without Historical status, Pathetic Bill is listed next to the Eastonwood Ferals as part of why Eastonwood is considered a Suburb of note.
So before you write something about how infamy alone does not lead to Historical status, or how they never brought the city to its knees, answer this: How many people will be eagerly emulating you and wearing your name when you've stopped playing this game?
(I wrote this quickly after realizing that the Bills were never nominated for Historical. I may have missed some important events in their timeline.) -DT^PK 00:27, 8 July 2012 (BST)

YES (Pathetic Bill)

1. Nominator Vote --DT^PK 00:33, 8 July 2012 (BST)
2. Definitely qualifies in my mind for PKing innovation even though it does so for many of the same reasons that I thought TX should get it for BHing innovation. I am curious to see how this pans out relative to the other active vote. -- Albert Schwan  _{Sunday, 8 July 2012}
3. Prediction: This passes with flying colors. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:51, 8 July 2012 (BST)
4. Yes, and this isn't just a bandwagon vote. They honestly deserve it for numerous reasons that should be obvious to anyone that's even mildly aware of them. —Aichon— 00:59, 8 July 2012 (BST)
5. Yes. so fun to play with. i miss those guys. --User:Sexualharrison01:08, 8 July 2012
6. Yes - I wasn't around for the original incarnation, but their impact was still felt when I started out. For all of the reasons that have already been listed. But I'll also cite another that was only hinted at; the Pathetic Bills were so iconic that when they quit the game a void was created that was so big that another group formed in tribute to them. Name any other group that faded from Malton that was reborn in the form of a group run and crewed by entirely different players. Any other group that came back was run by and crewed by former members, no other group has ever inspired a tribute group. Especially one that was almost single handedly responsible for the PKer meta-game that we know today. -- Goribus 01:47, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   There was Sons of DARIS but as I understand it they were pitiful (see deleted wiki page). And then there was DORIS which I guess was more satire then tribute. I still see SLP to this day and in fact knew about SLP before I knew about Pathetic Bill (because I was PK'd by SLP not long after I started playing). Don't know if you can judge a group by their tributes, but for what its worth you could say that Pathetic Bill did inspire the longest running tribute group in UD history. ~ _{03:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)}

   The Silly Lilly Pillies never disbanded though. As far as I know it kept going and had a continual influx of new members. I know two or three of them, but only speak to one on a regular basis any more. If those girls ever disbanded I'd consider them a definite historical group as well. -- Goribus 21:18, 8 July 2012 (BST)

7. Textbook historical group. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:49, 8 July 2012 (BST)
8. One of the true classics in the game. Innovative, original and influential. --Papa Moloch 05:12, 8 July 2012 (BST)
9. Legendary. (On a side note, is there an official UD definition of "historical group"?)--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 08:32, 8 July 2012 (BST)

   nice reading comprehension it's only at the top of page.--User:Sexualharrison15:15, 8 July 2012

   Nice punctuation and grammar. It's a pity the definition is hidden away but even more of a pity that it's so broad as to be practically useless ("Groups are added to historical groups if they have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton").--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 19:56, 9 July 2012 (BST)

   Very true about the definition being kind of buried and practically useless when dug up. The second point has been made many, many a time. Why we can't just end the sentence at 'played' I don't know. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:35, 9 July 2012 (BST)

10. As per Papa Moloch. --WanYao 15:41, 8 July 2012 (BST)
11. A classic application of misrepresentation to inspire terror. I thought they were one person for the longest time. I don't care much about the PKing events, but everything else Tom says plays. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:34, 8 July 2012 (BST)
12. Most definitely! --Akbar 19:04, 8 July 2012 (BST)
13. This and SLP would be pretty straight forward votes. Pathetic Bill had RRF level name recognition, and for good reason. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:14, 8 July 2012 (BST)
14. Yes. Asheets 17:08, 9 July 2012 (BST)
15. yes. Though i wasn't even aware that they were gone. I just assumed the aPathetic Bill's (and similar) were part of the same crew. --Honestmistake 00:21, 10 July 2012 (BST)
16. Yes! These guys were the human monsters in the zombie apocalypse. No other group came close to how scary these guys were. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:26, 10 July 2012 (BST)
17. Was never killed by them, but I witnessed many murders (the first time was a joint effort with Goolina, I remember being quite the starstruck noob). As Karloth, as a new survivor, these guys' wiki page and the surrounding reputation they had really had me scared, but also in awe. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:09, 11 July 2012 (BST)
18. yes. these guys terrified me when i was a n00b --Yakman 11:17, 12 July 2012 (BST)
19. Yes. I would have to agree with all these reasons stated above.        22:45, 12 July 2012 (BST)
20. Yes please. - MHSstaff 00:18, 13 July 2012 (BST)
21. As Paddy. --VVV ^RPMBG 20:37, 19 July 2012 (BST)

No (Pathetic Bill)

1. Who? --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:36, 12 July 2012 (BST)

   He's on first. --WanYao 14:42, 17 July 2012 (BST)

   I don't know!--User:Sexualharrison15:04, 17 July 2012

Allahu Akbar!!! - With 21 votes for Yes and just one facetious vote for No, the glorious PKer conspiracy has successfully pushed Pathetic Bill to the everlasting paradise that is Historical Group. May each of the Bills enjoy the virgins given to them by supreme Allah. --Papa Moloch 17:21, 22 July 2012 (BST)

Red Rum

Once the biggest ever group of murderers in this game, I had a lot of fun with these guys when we were shooting people and each other (I genuinely didn't expect to get shot by my own team quite so much, but it always made me laugh). Probably our most impressive stuff was when 10-30 of us would show up at once and kill everyone we could see, but my particularly favourite bits were the stupid things we did, like our Tea Party in the Blackmore Building. We combat revived the RRF holding the place, barricaded it up and then, when people started turning up proclaiming it was back in survivor hands, we shot them too. Hurray!

Here's some of the stuff we did below, but there was also a lot of cool stuff with other groups, whether we helped organise it (like the St. Valentine's Cherubs) or just turned up to have some fun (too many PKA events to list!). Thanks for all the good times! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:18, 6 April 2012 (BST)

Cool Events: Tommy Gun | Creedystock | The Great Military Biscuit War | Battle Royale | Siege of Jerusalem | Dia De Los Muertos | Red Ranch | Hunting Season | Big Red Vasectomy Tour

Spinoff Stuff: Flat Earth Society | ¯\(°_o)/¯ | The Daily Ruminations | PANCAKE | Scour the Earth |
Lord Curton's Gentlemen's Hunting Club

Yes

1. Y'arrr - cheers to Beardo, Strata, DevilAsh, Revenant, Dancing Banana, Suburban Ed, GioV, Cypher, Goribus, Amber, Vis, binlaggin, Vandr, phozil, dipcup, shad, Genie, bluefish, turk and no doubt a whole load more people I've forgotten for all the awesome times! :D --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:24, 6 April 2012 (BST)
2. While their impact on the game as a whole may be perhaps up for discussion, they seemed to be a successful PK group back in the day. Well known by the public at large, while maintaining a style of their own that set them apart from the pack. Decent enough, so a yes. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:47, 6 April 2012 (BST)
3. my first Pker group. ah the wanderers. this makes me sad.--User:Sexualharrison13:53, 6 April 2012
4. Absolutely. I thank all of the guys that contributed (you know who you are) and disagree inherently with Thad, but don't want to poke too much fun out of him in case he bans me again. Much love to everyone, I have really enjoyed rolling with the biggest PKing group in UD for the past seven or eight (good lord, that long?) years. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 14:09, 6 April 2012 (BST)
5. makeitsomakeitsomakeitso 14:11, 6 April 2012 (BST)
6. What the hell? I go inactive for a few months and you guys go dead? Not cool. But your group was cool. And DEFINITELY historical. —Aichon— 14:52, 6 April 2012 (BST)
7. :( Karl forgot me--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:22, 6 April 2012 (BST)
8. Red Rum was for a very long time the very biggest PKer group - and that continuously, while most PKer groups tend to fade away as fast as they rise. If you even consider to vote "no", your perception is seriously weird. -- Spiderzed█ 16:29, 6 April 2012 (BST)

   :D --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:05, 6 April 2012 (BST)

9. $50 says Skynet shows up to vote no on this. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:45, 6 April 2012 (BST)

   It seems you're still as active as ever.. A bit plan hindering on my hunt for a certain imposter masquarading around as me, but you can make it up to me if you leave this Death Cultist here with an infection next time. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 07:25, 7 April 2012 (BST)

10. YES! Asheets 16:59, 6 April 2012 (BST)
11. Piling in. These guys were before my time, but it's obvious they made a major contribution to the art of PKing. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 20:00, 6 April 2012 (BST)
12. --RadicalWhig 03:18, 7 April 2012 (BST)
13. Assuming that this is not another of their 'pranks', they should be passed into history without question. One of the game's defining groups. --Papa Moloch 04:01, 7 April 2012 (BST)
14. Uhm, yeah. Even if they are still active I think that predating this one then adding it when they're gone is appropriate. There's only about 4 or 5 groups I'd say that for too. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:41, 7 April 2012 (BST)
15. --Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 11:43, 7 April 2012 (BST)
16. This pack of lunatics unleashed a species of tongue-in-cheek madness that endlessly delighted everyone with a sense of humor and an appreciation for fine wine, and endlessly pissed off everyone who took the game too seriously. They are one of the few reasons this category exists. Bravo, Karl and company. Come visit me, or I shall cry. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:20, 7 April 2012 (BST)
17. The single most infamous PKer group in all of Malton. I don't care who you are or how new you are to the meta-game, you have heard of Red Rum. And most of you at some point have either joined us or been shot by us. Oh and Axe, I've been false flagging for awhile. I'm in Ed's Peasant Militia, I just didn't want to spoil the surprise for you lot. I've also been tagging up as 'Wanderer' for revives. I told the Militia I wasn't going to tag up until Red Rum it was put up for Historical. Go ahead and check my profile again. -- Goribus 19:19, 7 April 2012 (BST)
18. Helped set the gold standard of murderous malefactors. -- Albert Schwan  _{Saturday, 7 April 2012}
19. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:32, 8 April 2012 (BST)
20. Really goes without saying. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 04:49, 9 April 2012 (BST)
21. Aww, it's a shame Red Rum is disbanding. Thanks Karl and the gang for all the laughs. -- --Kooks 10:56, 9 April 2012 (BST)
22. They'll be back. Maybe not as Red Rum but still. No one quits UD for good. Everyone returns :P        16:31, 9 April 2012 (BST)
23. Yes, yes and yes again. Red Rum was always fun to hunt and it was always a pleasure to be killed by them. Sorry to see you disband. --Raven Corvus 19:56, 9 April 2012 (BST)
24. Most notable PK group i've run into.--~ Zach016 ^D.H.H.S. 17:45, 10 April 2012 (BST)
25. We're going to miss you guys. As everyone above. --Private Mark 04:15, 11 April 2012 (BST)
26. Allah's work is done, thank you for the faithful jihad, Yes allahahalalala --Binlaggin 09:13, 13 April 2012 (BST)
27. Of course - Without a doubt, this group should be inducted into historical groups. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:57, 13 April 2012 (BST)

    Nay - Criteria states: "1. Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game." I assume you guys are still together in game? Do you still want to edit the Red Rum page? If so, then you'll have to wait to get included as a Historical Group. Recall that The Dead had to make a new page, rather than reopen the old one. Now, if Red Rum basically says: "Yeah, we're done." Then I will be willing to change my vote. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:03, 6 April 2012 (BST)

    Nah, we're done. We had a vote on it on the forums and everything. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:14, 7 April 2012 (BST)

    How long ago was it? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:10, 7 April 2012 (BST)

    The thread to wind up Red Rum started in December 2011 - it's definitely not a snap decision! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:35, 7 April 2012 (BST)

    Yep, Red Rum has been planning this since December. The official announcement was on April 1st actually. Which everyone seems to have taken as a prank. Justasplanned.png -- Goribus 19:08, 7 April 2012 (BST)

    Sorry to hear that. You guys were great. It'll be sad to see you go. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:57, 13 April 2012 (BST)

28. Who? Never heard of… all, right, yes, the jig is up. Red Rum brought a whole new side of the game to life for me, probably the side that'll live with me the longest. We had some wacky antics, never took things too seriously, and had policies that had me in stitches (like the friendly fire policy which drove Grim s to distraction with our mathematical proof.) I'm particularly proud of killing my way through most of the leadership, including managing to stalk our illustrious founder Zaruthustra over the course of a week, and of keeping the group going for a while there when I accidentally fell into a leadership position, a fact that I am also proud of concealing for as long as possible, to the point where after I'd handed over the reigns there were still people who didn't know I was in the group. While we're here, let's give it up for Blue Bourbon, Green Gin, Amber Ale, Alliterative Alcoholics, Ryker & Emil Demolition: Removing Unsafe Masonry, Red Elves Delivering Roses Under Moonlight, Friends of the Featherstone Library and all the other wonderful cover groups that had us shooting anyone wearing "Red Rum" tags as "clear impostors".
    
    I'll miss this group, but really, after infiltrating every other group in the game, what other goals did we have left?
    
    I suppose we could do a big reveal of all our lifetime members, just to see who's shocked?… no mention of the group is complete without Sirens Discord, a very polarising figure for anyone who knew him/her, and who kept the forums going for the group for years after leaving active play. Also, IneptOne, our stealth reviver (who may or may not have pioneered the concept)… Dux Ducis, a fun guy who got eaten by RL and I'm sure is a successful executive somewhere now… Jennifer Thrush for being one scary and wonderful lady, our Muse in all things… Gunner92 for IRC hilarity… OK, now I think I'm just rambling. I'll miss you, Red Rum.
    
    Of course, I can think of no more fitting epitaph than "that strange couplet from the book of Al'hazred, the Mad Arab: “That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons, even death may die.”"
    
    Now, Karl, where'd you put the damn Biscuit Tin? I could use a Jaffa cake!
    His Imperial & Royal Highness, the Archduke d’Œuvre 

    Uh-huh... http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/199/896/2jfg08h.gif --Papa Moloch 10:41, 16 April 2012 (BST)

29. YES, YES, and YES again. This group has been amazingly memorable, for so long, and the perfect day to close its doors. Absolutely gets my vote for Historical, and apparently everyone else's (despite my continued refusal to acknowledge that the group no longer exists). Karloooooooth! *shakes his fist vehemently* --Visible One 14:16, 16 April 2012 (BST)
30. YES. Red Rum was always a fun group to deal with for the Dulston Alliance, and an absolutely hilarious bunch of folks who left their mark on Malton. They deserve this status. -- Ottari ^{DA PDA NW} Read the Dispatch! 07:48, 17 April 2012 (BST)
31. The PKer group. Infamous, effective, irreverent, creative, mischievous, and personally, inspirational. Well and truly deserving of this status. --BOSCH 10:28, 17 April 2012 (BST)
32. They already seemed at least semi-historical back when I joined. -- †  talk ? f.u. 16:14, 20 April 2012 (BST)

No

1. look one no better than none ---Moosebomb

   where to begin? 1st. voting has closed, second learn proper formatting, and finally learn to sign properly.--User:Sexualharrison23:00, 23 April 2012

With voting closed, it's readily apparent that the community views Red Rum as a historical group (and with good reason!). This bid is a success. —Aichon— 23:28, 23 April 2012 (BST)

Channel 4 News Team

I'm still a little confused as to why I'm the one to do this, having Mr. Burgundy or another iconic member come back to do it would have been a fitting end for the group. But anyway, reports from one of its older members confirm that the group has been without activity for quite some time. According to forum and wiki activity the group has been inactive for many months, well past the 4 month waiting period for historical group nominations.

Again, I really don't know what to say about C4NT because I assume that if you're anyone who's anyone you already know what there is to know. They were led by the hilarious Ron Burgundy till 2008, probably one of the only real legendary survivors of UD, and have had a huge influence and impact in UD's earlier history, most famously the Battle of Blackmore, and also the first, second and third sieges of Caiger Mall. As a new ~2007 user, my bedtime lullabies were stories of Ron Burgundy and his quests for Glorious Battle, something I'm sure many of today's users can relate to. I only joined C4NT for a short period of time but in that small amount I had a ball, they were great players and funny roleplayers.

So here is the nomination I guess. Again, not really sure if I should add anything, since I'm assuming anyone who's been here for more than a few months will recognise them as historical in a splitsecond, but if you have more to add just add it below here I guess, or in your vote. I really liked C4NT and it's sad to see it go but It'll also be really fitting to finally see them go into Historical Groups (hopefully).

Note: I'm also aware that C4NT are still on the stats page too, with about 10 members. I think these may be stragglers similar to those who still had the group tag despite inactivity from the core group members, like when say The Dead's voting went forth. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:34, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Yes

1. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:30, 24 June 2011 (BST)
2. I HAVE PERFECT FUCKING HAIR AND CLASSY FUCKING SUITS!--User:Sexualharrison03:51, 24 June 2011 (bst)
3. BY ODIN'S RAVEN! – Textbook historical group. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:00, 24 June 2011 (BST)
4. 1 lemon 2 lemon 3 melon. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:27, 24 June 2011 (BST)
5. As Revenant.--Penguinpyro 05:28, 24 June 2011 (BST)
6. I once met Ron Burgundy. My god, his hair... I still weep to remember it. Mordred 07:25, 24 June 2011 (BST)
7. Essential --Papa Moloch 09:39, 24 June 2011 (BST)
8. Mmm, I just burnt my tongue. --Rosslessness 10:11, 24 June 2011 (BST)
9. Pretty much the essential survivor experience. I do miss eating them though. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:25, 24 June 2011 (BST)
10. Speedy Delete Crit 1. -- Spiderzed█ 12:20, 24 June 2011 (BST)
11. Duh, I really can't believe we're having to ask whether or not this group deserves historical status or not. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:35, 24 June 2011 (BST)
12. Who? --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:17, 24 June 2011 (BST)
13. Vouch Promote the CUNTs. ~ _{16:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)}
14. I will miss the fashion news. --QBee 16:47, 24 June 2011 (BST)

    Only historical because of their gross abuse of copyright violations.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 17:22, 24 June 2011 (BST)

15. I shot at Ron Burgundy once, but he was protected by bears --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 18:41, 24 June 2011 (BST)
16. Big fat yes -DonTickles 18:57, 24 June 2011 (BST)
17. Voting from a glass cage of emotion. 19:27, 24 June 2011 (BST)
18. Hell yes Asheets 20:30, 24 June 2011 (BST)
19. Yes--Mrite 22:28, 24 June 2011 (BST)
20. Vouch as yonnua :D --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:14, 24 June 2011 (BST)
21. Yes - They aren't already? Well get them in there! —Aichon— 23:18, 24 June 2011 (BST)
22. Aye-- Skoll ^Die 01:18, 25 June 2011 (BST)
23. Yes - Hibernaculum 02:11, 25 June 2011 (BST)
24. Yes - in memory of Baxt... wait, he still alive ? That's a miracle !!! --hagnat 03:39, 25 June 2011 (BST)
25. YES - Many great memories with this group. Stay classy, C4NT. --Zod Rhombus 06:02, 25 June 2011 (BST)
26. Yes Classy chaps. Smyg 14:40, 25 June 2011 (BST)
27. Like they even need my vote. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 14:50, 25 June 2011 (BST)
28. Guess what, yes. I know that one day C4NT and I are gonna to get married on top of a mountain, and there's going to be flutes playing and trombones and flowers and garlands of fresh herbs. And we will dance till the sun rises. And then our children will form a family band. And we will tour the countryside and you won't be invited. --Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 17:12, 25 June 2011 (BST)
29. Too bad they were active before my time here, but looking at their page it looks these guys were legends. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 17:16, 25 June 2011 (BST)
30. Yeah. -MHSstaff 20:40, 25 June 2011 (BST)
31. Obviously yes.--FT 22:05, 25 June 2011 (BST)
32. Duh. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 23:52, 27 June 2011 (BST)
33. YAR Sad to see them gone, only because the new groups will never get a chance to have the C4NT do a report on them or their exploits. --Josh Clark 06:48, 28 June 2011 (BST)
34. I remember when my alt DJSpinbad joined. It was during the Battle of Blackmore and I ran into Ron. I personally asked him to join the team, although I'm pretty sure my eyes were awestruck by his awesome hair that the words asking to join were just blurted out. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:09, 28 June 2011 (BST)
35. Yup Malton seems so much emptier without them. Barbecue Barbecue 08:59, 29 June 2011 (BST)
36. Yessuh Better to go to law school than fade away --Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 18:43, 29 June 2011 (BST)
37. Yes This old Malton Ranger misses his allies in C4NT. Alas, all things must pass. Marcel Swann 00:27, 30 June 2011 (BST)
38. Damn Skippy. As a Ranger there was little better then charging a horde with C4NT cameras beside you. Well, maybe Burchell Arms bathtub whiskey. Or warm apple pie. Hmm, now that I think about it, there was that RRF streetwalker in Ridleybank back in '09...*cough, but, what I'm tryin to say is besides cheap whiskey and zombah hookers, ya can't beat C4NT! Det Briscoe 03:36, 30 June 2011 (BST)
39. I was thinkin about her, thinkin about me. Thinking about us, what we gonna be? Open my eyes, yeah; it was only just a dream. So I travel back, down that road. Who she come back? No one knows. I realize, yeah, it was only just a dream. I was at the top and I was like I’m at the basement. Number one spot and now she found her a replacement. I swear now I can't take it, knowing somebody's got my baby. And now you ain't around, baby I can't think. Shoulda put it down. Shoulda got that ring. Cuz I can still feel it in the air. See her pretty face run my fingers through her hair. My lover, my life. My shorty, my wife. She left me, I'm tied. Cuz I knew that it just ain't right. I was thinkin about her, thinkin about me. Thinking about us, what we gonna be? Open my eyes, yeah; it was only just a dream. So I travel back, down that road. Who she come back? No one knows. I realize, yeah, it was only just a dream. When I be ridin man I swear I see her face at every turn. Tryin to get my usher over, I can let it burn. And I just hope she notice she the only one I yearn for. Oh I miss her when will I learn? Didn't give her all my love, I guess now I got my payback. Now I'm in the club thinkin all about my baby. Hey, she was so easy to love. But wait, I guess that love wasn't enough. I'm goin through it every time that I'm alone. And now i'm missin, wishin she'd pick up the phone. But she made a decision that she wanted to move one. Cuz I was wrong. And I was thinkin about her, thinkin about me. Thinking about us, what we gonna be? Open my eyes, yeah; it was only just a dream. So I travel back, down that road. Who she come back? No one knows. I realize, yeah, it was only just a dream. If you ever loved somebody put your hands up. If you ever loved somebody put your hands up. And now they're gone and you wish you could give them everything. I said, if you ever loved somebody put your hands up. If you ever loved somebody put your hands up. And now they're gone and you wish you could give them everything. I was thinkin about her, thinkin about me. Thinking about us, what we gonna be? Open my eyes, yeah; it was only just a dream. So I travel back, down that road. Who she come back? No one knows. I realize, yeah, it was only just a dream. And I was thinkin about her, thinkin about me. Thinking about us, what we gonna be? Open my eyes, yeah; it was only just a dream. So I travel back, down that road. Who she come back? No one knows. I realize, yeah, it was only just a dream. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:46, 30 June 2011 (BST)
40. Duh. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:26, 1 July 2011 (BST)
41. Yes. Ah-.. To see one of best groups go inactive is heart-breaking. --Suff-TMS- <-- Killin' zombies! 22:25, 4 July 2011 (BST)
42. By the irritable bowels of Zeus! Today, while studying for the Texas bar exam, I received an email saying that the Channel 4 News Team is up for a historical vote. It's been a few years and a lifetime since I wandered off, but I still think about the News Team and laugh. Hopefully you all had as much fun reading about it as I had writing it. If any of you wash ashore in Galveston, Texas over the summer, come find me and I'll buy you all a scotch. --Ron Burgundy 23:58, 4 July 2011 (BST)

    basically. Fuck Off San Diego!--User:Sexualharrison09:06, 5 July 2011 (bst)

43. ẁ҉͢ò͝͡͡͡r̕͡t̸̸̢͜h̷̨̧̡y͟͡.̸̧̕͘--jorm 05:13, 5 July 2011 (BST)

No

1. NO but only because they deserve to be in a category of their own..."LEGENDARY" --Honestmistake 08:06, 24 June 2011 (BST)
2. No - I feel like a jerk going against such a clear bandwagon, but I've only heard mentions of them, and it doesn't seem like they held significant military weight. --VVV ^RPMBG 07:48, 25 June 2011 (BST)

   Probably because they weren't military.. they were reporters.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 07:57, 25 June 2011 (BST)

   They were heavily involved in almost every historical event in the game's history before they vanished. You should take a jaunt through Category:Historical Events--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:06, 25 June 2011 (BST)

   Or indeed the current featured article on the main page. --Rosslessness 10:51, 25 June 2011 (BST)

   and Military Might has nothing to do with being historical. See QSG on Tour--User:Sexualharrison11:26, 25 June 2011 (bst)

   'Military weight'? Are you serious?! It's nothing to do with military power or bandwagons. They were involved in all the big events, often as key members/ringleaders and were led by one of the most famous players ever to hit Malton. The only group in the game who are more deserving of historical status than C4NT are the Ridleybank Resistance Front.--Papa Moloch 14:30, 25 June 2011 (BST)

3. Who? - --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:05, 28 June 2011 (BST)
4. As Akule--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:45, 4 July 2011 (BST)

I didn't even bother to checkuser and calculate, because it is crystal-clear that the community wants C4NT to be historical. And so they were massively successful. -- Spiderzed█ 12:07, 9 July 2011 (BST)

(To The) Four Winds

The group has officially disbanded after losing its fight against dwindling numbers and the shock and void left by the death of the well-loved and highly active player behind Brother Angst. (To The) Four Winds was created in September 2006 as an entirely, totally, 100% mobile revive group, with no home suburb whatsoever. As far as I am aware, it was an entirely new concept at the time and we believe we were the first pro-survivor group to run from suburb to suburb managing revive points and helping local groups rebuild their homes. We somewhat set a model, with groups following suit later, such as the Dribbling Beavers detaching the mobile Bouncing Beavers during the Second Big Bash. We started by following the Big Bash step by step. At our best in late 2006, we were able to attend requests in 2 hours maximum time, despite being only 29. During the Second Big Bash, even with numbers no higher than 12 (and usually much less than that), we were quick, good and respected enough to feature, with others, in Uncle Zeddie’s “Radio Survivor” episode 31 (http://radiosurvivor.blogspot.com, “Darth Zeddie” episode, around min 2:10; March 31st 2008). We have now gone, but we think we set a premiere in a way of playing the game and we also changed the survivor’s mentality from deeply suburb rooted to more mobile minded; thus, for what I believe to be these main contributions to the game, I nominate the group for Historical status.

1. Yes - Nominator's vote. Besides, I think being the first truly mobile reviver group is historical. --Aureus 14:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
2. For - The group's name still pops up in conversations now despite being a force so long ago. I'm for it. 14:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Yea ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes - Definitely. I considered putting a survivor character in with you guys, but never had the organisation. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Yea - I've heard of you, you've been around a long time, and you have a legitimate claim to being historically significant. Good luck!--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 16:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Yea --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}16:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
7. No-Axel27 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

   glad to see you're not bitter that your zergling infestation has been rejected. :D --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

8. Yes - Explanation done by those before me.-- Adward  17:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Yes - I love these guys. Getting behind the lines and dishing out needles while everyone else is pulling triggers and waving cocks? How dare you! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Yea - Nice to have some legitimate claims come through occasionally. —Aichon— 19:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Yea - Historical for the new ideas it supplied. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Aye - For the above, as well as an impressive track record of going beyond the game. --Private Mark 20:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
13. For - It's been a while since I heard the name, but as I remember it anyway means something. Good luck with the historical status, though I'm pretty sure you won't need it :P RinKou 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Yea - As Karloth --Haliman - Talk 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Yes - Obviously. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Yes - They deserve it. --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Yes - This group definitely meets Historical Group criteria. --ZiP^MH+LUE 23:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Yea - -- The Rune Carver/ Hejsa 23:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Yes - Original, highly-skilled and contributors in major events. Good enough for my endorsement. --Papa Moloch 23:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Yes --Paul Power 00:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Yea --
     
     
     
     
    01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Yea --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:51, 12 December 2009 (BST)
23. No - Sorry, not taking the claim that you created the mobile survivor group model seriously at all. Were you around these events? Yes, I vaguely remember you. Did you do anything in and of yourself to contribute, style or mould the game in a previously unknown way? Not that I can see. An old and well liked group you are, historical you are not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
24. Yea I remember them. My non PKer alts have been revived by them numerous times. --Kelly_U ^{RR talk} 09:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Yes Former member myself, I found there was no other group which implemented the reviving of the worst suburbs (in the fullest meaning of reviving, not only de-zombifying) better. We were known by many groups in many of the suburbs, we were there when it mattered. --Moran 12:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Yes Another former member who joined after being helped a lot by this group. --Enniskillen 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Yes these guys were the real deal. fun to play with and fun to kill.----Sexualharrison 21:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
28. YES I have seen your work. Cheers!--Roland 00:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
29. No -Hibernaculum 04:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
30. No never heard of them --Athur birling 23:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
31. No - I've never seen you in-game, and only heard of your group from the wiki. --ZsL 01:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Yes - worked alongside you guys a couple of times years back. Great group Sanpedro 02:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
33. yes/whatever - --Truezombieboy 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
34. YES _ One of the most effective mobile revive groups. Loved working with you guys!--Jim Bim 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Yes Any group that even tries to suggest that survivors do more than polish guns behind EHB cades is game changing in my book. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
36. Yes Worked with them as a Dribbling Beaver then joined up with them. --Primo Beer
37. Yes My character enjoyed the necessary slaughter of these healers from time to time--C Whitty 15:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
38. No - They existed, sure. But they didn't do shit. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
39. Yes --Hawke2019 03:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
40. Yup --WanYao 07:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting Over. With 40 votes, of which 34 indicate approval and 6 indicate disapproval, (To The) Four Winds has achieved a percentage of 85% and has passed the vote to become a historical group. —Aichon— 21:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN ARCHIVED! --Thadeous Oakley 08:32, 3 June 2010 (BST)

Flowers of Disease

Flowers of Disease have disbanded and they have been a strong PKer presence in Malton for years. I have had the pleasure in battling them in the streets myself as a Bounty Hunter. Their Campaigns were often well organized against any who they deemed a target. You could always expect them to be part of any PKA organized attacks or get together. From Samhain Slaughter and Samhain Slaughter 2. The Malton Uprising, and Silent Night Slaughter at Fort Creedy. That is why I am nominating them for Historical Status.

1. Yes - Nominator vote --Josh Clark 02:03, 22 October 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - Flowers=Win _♥AU10♥Pantomime _{Mistress of Pain}┌∩┐(◕‿◕)┌∩┐03:41, 22 October 2009 (BST)
3. Yes - For Democracy!-- SA 15:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:09, 22 October 2009 (BST)
5. Yes --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 06:44, 22 October 2009 (BST)
6. Yes Flotsam. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:23, 22 October 2009 (BST)
7. Yes --Jimaine Dunwich 09:56, 22 October 2009 (BST)
8. Yes Of bloody course! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:09, 22 October 2009 (BST)
9. Yes - I used to be in agroup that fought them, and I am proud to say that I have done that. Obvious yes! (Funny, the Blackhawk died before the Flowers did. T proves that God is a racist/hawkist son of a bitch.)--Dedling 02:01, 23 October 2009 (BST)
10. Yes I LOVE PK GROUPS! Criminally Insane 10:22, 22 October 2009 (BST)\\
11. Yes Yes but only cause they get me high ----Sexualharrison 11:08, 22 October 2009 (BST)
    
12. Yes for obvious reasons Conndraka^{TAZM CFT} 11:09, 22 October 2009 (BST)
13. Yes While a small group, they brought a lot of fun to the PKer community and had a lot of presence in game. --Papa Johnny 13:14, 22 October 2009 (BST)
14. Yes Without a doubt, one of the most inventive, and brilliantly done groups out there. Original and always coming up with amazing events. Not to mention every member I have met in game is a stand up person. Matt Aries 14:30, 22 October 2009 (BST)
15. Yes - Our allies, our friends. Massive driving force in the PKA, and great guys. They'll be missed. --Blanemcc 16:37, 22 October 2009 (BST)
16. Yes --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:36, 22 October 2009 (BST)
17. Yes - Johnny said it best, they did a lot for Pkers in game. -- 
    •   Timmah!  
    •   Talk  
    18:08, 22 October 2009 (BST)
18. Yes - They meet the criteria to me. But if this is some kind of trick to get historical status and they aren't really disbanded I'll be upset.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:26, 22 October 2009 (BST)

    We are disbanded, but for a celebration for the two years of Pking we will be attending the Samhain Slaughter 3 [not confirmed].--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:08, 23 October 2009 (BST)

19. Yes - As Giles, however. —Aichon— 20:59, 22 October 2009 (BST)
20. Yes - Pretty fun group in the past --Haliman - Talk 22:33, 22 October 2009 (BST)
21. Yes - Excellent PKers and an awesome group. Also: Frighteningly effective. --DT^PK 23:38, 22 October 2009 (BST)
22. Yes - One of the best and will be missed --Gus Thomas^SpartaZHU 01:40, 23 October 2009 (BST)
23. Yes - I'm sad to see this awesome group go. --ZsL 02:09, 23 October 2009 (BST)
24. No - Did nothing to change the game that I ever noticed. --WanYao 03:19, 23 October 2009 (BST)
25. Yes - --Met Fan ^F 03:33, 23 October 2009 (BST)
26. Sure why not - Never heard of them, but I like PKers Cookies and Cream 07:46, 23 October 2009 (BST)

    Wow... --Obi ^{+ Talk!|TZH|MDK} 21:39, 23 October 2009 (BST)

27. No --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:54, 23 October 2009 (BST)

    Essentially, as Moloch. I don't think Flowers fit the greater picture of a historical group. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:51, 24 October 2009 (BST)

28. Yes - Oh fuck yes. 16:38, 23 October 2009 (BST)
29. No - I can't believe this is even being considered. These people had a flimsy gimmick and image. Their impact on the game as a whole was negligible outside of one or two internet forums, and most importantly: they haven't been around that long. --Dhavid Grohl 17:26, 23 October 2009 (BST)

    We love you to.--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:41, 23 October 2009 (BST)

30. No- Historical on what grounds? Srs question... Sorry, I'll have to say no. --Obi ^{+ Talk!|TZH|MDK} 21:39, 23 October 2009 (BST)

    Well it certainly wouldn't be based on our visits to your two groups Obi. --Hib

31. No - I think this vote is a perfect example on how far you can get on the bandwagon. --Thadeous Oakley 21:52, 23 October 2009 (BST)
32. Yes - Cuz if there's all this butthurt over them they must have been doing their jobs right. - M arcusF ilby ^T 23:04, 23 October 2009 (BST)
33. Yes - Without them, some of the biggest and best PKer strikes in Malton may never have happened. As a group they were phenomenal at racking up hundreds of kills in many different campaigns. --Toothdecay 23:34, 23 October 2009 (BST)
34. No - I like the Flowers a lot, both as players and as people, but I don't see in what way they can genuinely be considered significant enough to be an historical group. They were all very good at what they did - probably the best 'griefing' team in the game - but to me that's not enough. Too often nowadays the historical tag is used simply to differentiate between good and bad groups, hence the number of middling groups who now bear the accolade (Ghetto Cow spring immediately to mind). Flowers of Disease were undoubtedly good, but for me an historical group needs to have made a difference to the game itself. Sadly I don't think that they achieved that, so my vote here has to be no. --Papa Moloch 00:21, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    At least you said no in a good way :D --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 00:26, 24 October 2009 (BST)

35. Yes - The Flowers were famous for their group tactics and warfare strategy. I can't help but see anyone saying "no" as being butthurt by the fact that either A) they'll never be in a historical group they made or B) were stomped into the ground by the Flowers. If you need proof of why they deserve historical group status, well look up Samhain Slaughter and Silent Night Slaughter. Goribus 01:18, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    If you can't see 'no' votes in any other way than those that you outline then you have a truly risible understanding of both the voters concerned and of the game itself. --Papa Moloch 01:29, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    Most of the 'no' votes come from TZH and other Pro Survivor groups that the Flowers have come in contact with. I'm also blunt, and don't give a fuck about pretending I know everything about a browser game on the internet. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, but I can't help but see most, if not all, of the 'no' votes as spite. However, do correct me if I'm wrong. That's always more helpful than snide comments. Goribus 01:50, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    That you have the audacity to make, yes, a snide remark about 'snide' remarks, having posted, yes again, a snide remark ('I can't help but see anyone saying "no" as being butthurt by the fact that either A) they'll never be in a historical group they made or B) were stomped into the ground by the Flowers.') only serves to demonstrate that you are not only a poor commentator, but also something of a fool. TZH are twats (no surprise to anyone there), but Wan Yao and DDR have been around a long time and do not vote in enmity. As for me, Hibernaculum and I have been meta-game friends for a couple of years. I voted no because for me they do not fit the tag 'Historical' as they lack lasting influence. But naturally, anyone who disagrees with you must be 'butthurt' and lack any other reason for their decision, right? --Papa Moloch 02:03, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    Most =/= Moloch. I can't stress that enough. I'm sorry you decided to jump up and say "Fuck you! I'm not being spiteful" when it wasn't directed at you. It was directed at TZH, the Umbrella guy, and anyone else being spiteful. All you really had to do is say something along the lines of "I've known them for years, and I don't agree.", but no. You jump up and make a scene. And over what? You thinking some stranger on the internet thinks you're being a dick? *shrugs* Sorry man, but I think you need to calm down. You're taking shit that wasn't aimed at you personally. You know what? If you want to continue arguing let's do it on our talk pages or in PMs, or where ever. This ain't the place for it. Goribus 02:17, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    You don't have a clue about my voting motivation, so don't call me out for something you don't know about. I heard only once or twice from FOD, and I have never met any member of them. If you don't like my personal opinion then just stay away. --Thadeous Oakley 16:30, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    I will say Moloch though I don't agree with you (and I think the disparity is in what we interpret is and isn't considered "historical"), I respect your opinion. At least your decision was made based on what you believe, not because you were crushed by the FOD and are still upset over it like the TZH chumps. Which is what Goribus took issue with. Lets leave it at this then and let the vote play out. My opinion is that we were not as historical as some already considered historical but more historical than others. Certainly as Pkers, I think we did enough during our time to warrant consideration. - HIB

    Everyone's interpretation of "lasting" or "Historical" is quite different from each other.I voted yes because the Flowers and Hib made a big difference to me personally as mentors.The Flowers were one group that affected my game play, and because of this, indirectly effected the game as a whole. One of the reasons LoD is growing strong as a Death Cult/PK group is because of how they played. A long time ago I watched from a distance as best as I could on how they conducted themselves. I read forum banter, watched them in game ect. to help me be a better leader. Now you could say, is this relevant or lasting? Why yes, it is to me. These votes are of a personal opinion and The Flowers of Disease made a lasting impression on me, which indirectly effected the game. In my opinion, this is well deserving of a yes vote. I am only but one voice. Freedom of opinion and an equal right to vote is Democracy. It's not perfect but it will be the ruling factor here._♥AU10♥Pantomime _{Mistress of Pain}┌∩┐(◕‿◕)┌∩┐03:33, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    As far as I can see the formal criteria for being a historical group no longer includes having a lasting influence on the game. Is that right? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:10, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    +1, Mr. Dignam.-- SA 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

36. No I don't feel the Flowers impacted my gameplay or the others around me. Therefore, I do not think they are historical. Now don't get it wrong, they were pretty amazing, but not quite historical. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}09:47, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    Thats because we never had to vist your groups.(Thats a good thing)--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 10:32, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    You know you sound like every other fucking trenchcoater with an over-inflated opinion of himself and his lame-assed group. Just thought I'd mentioned that....

    I never encountered your group. To me, you were nothing but a wiki page a tiny bit of hype (mostly created by your feud with fellow attention-whores, TZH). You never had any impact on the game that I play, you changed nothing and contributed nothing original to UD/Malton. So, no matter how awesome you may think your group was, they aren't historical. --WanYao 14:13, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    Everyone is entiltled to their opnion. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:33, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    Ahhhh, good to see we can still cause a ruckus amongst those who don't like us even when we've closed shop. Anyway, take a pill and settle down Wanny boy. Perhaps the concept of humour has escaped you but he was saying it tongue in cheek. lets get the historical definition straight since there seems to be some confusion. Here is the policy definition that is laid out on this page for obtaining historical status. Groups are added to historical groups if they have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton. So we never had any impact on the game you play? So you actually play then? And not just do your best impersonation of WOOT on Brianstock? Think on this. How many groups have actually made an impact on the way the game is played? If that's the only criteria, you better remove everyone but The DEAD. And maybe there is a place for the DEM when they are done and possibly the RRF. Thats it. The others all fall into the second category and that is otherwise contributed to the history of Malton. Now that contribution is up for debate which is what this vote is about. We earned the respect of our peers (as you can see from the votes), helped plan the 3 biggest Pker strikes in the game in the last two years, and had one of the highest, if not the highest kill count of any Pker group over that span. Basically, you really don't follow the game much if you think all we did was attack TZH. TZH was one campaign which lasted just over a month. And the hype was created by them, not us. We could care less about them but they still carry on as if it happened yesterday. I've seen your posts before at BS WAN. And it's always negative, pontificating...like the rest of us are all a bunch of dummies and your word is gospel. By your own admission, you never encountered us but yet to you we were just a wiki page and hype. Good to see you made your judgment based on the facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course. If you honestly think we aren't worthy of consideration, so be it. Vote NO. But it would be nice if the opinion would be based on some sort of fact or true belief and not just I've never encountered you but Your a lame assed group and you're just a wiki page and hype. I don't like you. Sorry Moloch. Goribus was right. Wanny's vote has as much merit as TZH's. Just another guy with an axe to grind. -- HIB

    '...possibly the RRF'? 0.o --Papa Moloch 16:37, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    I think you need to learn how to sign, before you puke out a wall of text like that.--Thadeous Oakley 16:22, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    {SIGH}...Sorry Thadeous, is this better? But you are correct. That was excessive. Especially here. I'll say no more. --Hibernaculum 17:04, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    Wow. I've voted against a LOT of whiney trenchcoater groups who yelled and screamed at every No voter who wasn't willing to acknowledge their obvious greatness -- but you guys really take the take. Really, really, really sorry if your in-game antics made no difference to my gameplay or impacted the culture of Malton as far as I am concerned. Also really, really, really sorry if the only place you seem to know me from is Brainstock -- a shyte board full of shyte trolls which I never took seriously. Maybe you were big and mighty there, but as I said, I considered Brainstock a joke and treated it as such. Maybe if you'd influenced some stuff over at Barhah.com... maybe if you'd made a difference to groups like COMBAT REVIVE / The Big Prick or 404: Barhah not found... Or to events like the Second Big Bash... Maybe then I'd have voted Yes. But, you didn't... So quit whining like such butthurt morons. Oh... and your idea of focusing on PKing lame and stupid survivor groups was most certainly not original or new. --WanYao 01:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    Wan, someone made a silly joke. You came out of nowhere acting like an absolute asshole. Hib's mistake was responding to your trolling, not being "butthurt" about your vote. Nobody cares about your vote, or was interested in your description about what it would have taken to get it. You were insulting and got an unhappy response. Congratulations. If you feel the need to continue this, please do it in a manner other than a collection of insults designed to cause an internet pissing contest. --Allan Friedman 04:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

    You're obviously reading a completely different thread than me... I am far from alone in thinking that FoD are not worthy of historical status and neither am I alone in my reasons for considering the nomination unjustified. Meanwhile, several of FoD supporters have been saying that those voting "No" were either personally butthurt by the group or just ignorant for not having heard of them. News flash: most of us are neither. And, if I choose to defend myself vigorously in the face of such an comments... well... if that makes me a troll... Brave for me, where's my lumpy wooden club?

    Meanwhile, seeing as a significant minority of users -- many of whom know UD very well and have been part of the communtiy for a long time -- are in agreement with me... my opinion isn't as irrelevant as you'd like to make out. Anyhooo... I'll let you go back to being a pot calling a kettle black now. Cheers and thanks for your "valuable input"! --WanYao 12:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    If you think you were defending your views, perhaps we are reading two different threads. Because in the one I'm reading, there had been exactly one negative comment made about the "no" voters when you jumped all over Michaelson. It wasn't made by him, or a member of any of his groups for that matter. So if your intent was to "defend yourself vigorously" I suggest that next time you aim your defense at somebody who has actually attacked you in some way. --Allan Friedman 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    When I used the word "thread" I meant the entire conversation taking place here. If you'd been reading this page instead of making lame attempts to insult me, you'd know exactly what I was talking about, i.e. every No voter getting called "butthurt" or "stupid" because they don't agree that FoD merit historical status. You can pretend you don't know what I'm talking about... you can pretend that I had no justification in calling out yet another egoist trenchcoater whinging and crying over someone's No vote... but the facts will be against you. --WanYao 21:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Christ, I knew what you meant by thread. I'll make this simple for you. On this page, this entire fucking page, there was exactly one negative generalization of the 'no' voters when you decided to attack Michaelson. That comment was not written by Michaelson. It wasn't written by a member of any of his groups. Now you have claimed repeatedly you were insulting him to defend against people lumping all the 'no' voters as butthurt. Do you seriously not see why that makes no sense?--Allan Friedman 23:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Butthurt? Chumps? Ladies, get a fucking grip. You think TZH were butthurt by a bunch of shit mushrooms? FOD were failures. Thats the point. They failed to butthurt us. There was no pwnage, there was no fight. They weren't even fun. They killed a tiny number of our guys compared to those that we took down of theirs. It was fucking hilarious. I could fill pages with screenshots if I gave enough of the shit they gobble to do it. But I don't. Oops. The only one butthurt here are the fools that put time into this lame ass group. Historical? The pwnage I laid on the toilet this morning had more history. And every one of you chumps that jumped on the TZH hate wagon can get bent too, you're just as tired and lame ass as the FOD. Next thing you know you'll be beggin for historical status too, and once again I'll have to be the only one around here with eyes to see who will have to let you know just how insignificant you really are. Now lets hear the hate, DANCE puppets, dance. BALLS TO THE WHALLS! --Dhavid Grohl 04:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

37. Yes - They always seemed a little above the game as far as PKers go. One of the classier groups. Really sad to see them go. Who'll take care of all the flotsam now? RinKou 17:55, 24 October 2009 (BST)
38. Yes Hibernaculum took out a genny for me while my PKer slept, never had the chance to return the favor. I'm a lower working-class American, that's how I vote, yo. --Bobby the Hatchet 18:06, 24 October 2009 (BST)
39. Yes - I respect Moloch's opinion and double-checked the definition of a historical group. "Historical groups if they have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton." (right from the policy discussion of Historical Groups) Now, I have not been playing long so I cannot comment with confidence on what kind of impact FOD has had, but I have read enough about various events to know that they have helped shape things. If we consider events like the Samhain Slaughter, etc to be events worthy of note, then I think FOD qualifies as a historical group. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:04, 24 October 2009 (BST)
40. Yes - simply yes. --Sir WV 19:31, 24 October 2009 (BST)
41. Yes - History should be recorded for anything... to lose the history of a grain of sand is a tragedy, to purposefully delete the history of entire group is an atrocity. -Devorac 22:05, 24 October 2009 (BST)
42. No - Negatory. "Good group" and "classy players" and all that noise is totally irrelevant. This is about whether or not they're historical, and... I just don't see it. - Subotei's Crotch 22:13, 24 October 2009 (BST)

    Wow, this is a great read. It seems most of the no's are from folks who never really knew the FoD or, got there asses handed to them by the FoD.I can tell you that I started this game sometime in 2005 and wandered around doing the survivor thing long enough to get to level 41, and then got bored and subsequently stopped playing for quite a while. Then one day I was logged in and doing some research and found the FoD! Oh, what a glorious day that was. I went through the process of joining the group and it was balls to the walls for around 2 years! Great folks, great PK'ers (some of them, the BEST I have ever seen) and Great fun!

    They made me a far better player and most defiantly changed the game in my eye's.--Roland 00:02, 25 October 2009 (BST)

    Can you and the other punks stop crying every time someone fucking votes against? Fact: Butthurt players ALWAYS vote against in historical nominations. Deal with it. Fact: This nomination is going to pass despite their votes, so who cares? Fact: You idiots are behaving more butthurt by retaliating to EVERY no vote with such ferocity. Just shut the fuck up and let the voting progress, sheesh. You are going to pass, stop doing it so ungraciously. It's disgusting. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:06, 25 October 2009 (BST)

    Punk? I was just posting my opinions dude! That's it you are going on my list. hehe--Roland 01:14, 25 October 2009 (BST)

    And no one cares about them, least of all the people you are aiming them at. Why not focus on having the bid pass rather than engaging in text wars with the minimal opposition? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sheesh dude, I was not really engaging anyone, just speaking my piece till your sorry ass showed up! Heheheh MMOGA's are many, and you are one of them. It must suck to be stuck in the basement at 37... That is all. Sorry for the tasteless crap folks.--Roland 01:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    Bringing up the very notion out of thin air that I am in a basement at 37 years old makes it more likely that you are in such a situation rather than me. And I was aiming my comments at all the morons needlessly bitching to the no voters. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    God damn. I make a simple vote an' come back a couple days later to check on things and am greeted with this? Christ. - Subotei's Crotch 04:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Yes- I was a member back in the day. Simply put I felt we were the best at what we did for a long time. FOD certainly helped create a unique niche in the city by means of "educating" many a group. They were "anti useless survivor" making them pro survivor in a warped kinda way. I thought that was a great angle to work from, and certainly a first. As others have mentioned Hib was vital in the planning and success of many of the cities biggest pk outings ever. I can't say to what was after I left, but as far as I know, they were still takin names and kickin ass. Are they worthy of historical status?....I think so. Bootsy funk Improperly signed. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:06, 25 October 2009 (BST)

    Stop removing the strike, Roland. Improperly signed votes are not counted. Tell your friend to come back and resign it properly. Unjustly remove the strike again and I'll put you up at A/VB. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

43. No - As Moloch above. Seemed like a decent group of people, but not historical. --DonTickles 11:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
44. No -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
45. No - Although one of the better organized "griefer" groups, they weren't around long enough or did anything really noteworthy enough to be properly considered historically significant. Again, a ditto for Papa Moloch's general assessment --Fallout11 01:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
46. No - Never heard of you, and I've been around since 2005. And the best "griefer" groups were ASS and Gankbus in my book, not to mention DARIS. Superior tactics and efficiency always is nice but not enough to be considered historic. --DarthRevan 06:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
47. No. Moloch is a lying faggot about Ghetto Cow though. :'( -- SA 14:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
48. Yes - Absolutely. --LE^t 17:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
49. Yes - I firmly and definitely believe the FOD deserves this status. --ST^PK 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
50. No - Nothing historical and they're rather pompous. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
51. No - Mediocre group, never did anything big, mediocre goals, never really succeeded in these goals (inb4 made TZH quit, whoopedy-fucking-doo), unoriginal idea (flotsam? you copied the pknights but called the ignorant people flotsam... nice)--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
52. No - "Groups are added to historical groups if they have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton." In other words, this is simply a popularity contest. Nothing against the FOD but, as WOOT, they were a little too much like the Philosophe Knights, who really did change the way the game is played. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
53. Yes - I see most of the No voters are non-PKers who have no idea what contributions FoD have made, which tells me their vote is based on popularity instead of substance. FoD has done quite well. --Headless gunner ^W! 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Is it yours and a few others job to try and justify why people voted no? It doesn't matter why. There's also no reason to make comments which you have almost no evidence to back you up. The fact you use the phrase "no idea what contributions FoD have made..." tells me that they are fully entitled to vote no based on that, as, for historical staus, the group must have made an impact. If they didn't feel that impact, they why would they vote yes? --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    I see that most of the Yes voters are PKers who have no idea what contributions FoD have made, which tells me their vote is based on popularity instead of substance. More seriously, please do not accuse those who disagree with you of being ignorant simply because their are on the other side of the lines. It is just as likely that any one of the "No" votes came from an ignorant/"butthurt" survivor as it is that any of the "Yes" votes came from a PKer who just wanted to support their friends without consideration of what it means to be "historic". There's no need for all this bitching and drama going back-and-forth on account of oh who the hell am I kidding it's the Wiki. Why do I keep checking this? - Subotei's Crotch 21:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Well said. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Pro. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    The irony of what you said was ASTOUNDING, headless gunner. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    If you look at the first vote Nominator vote you'll see it's a Bounty Hunter, also a few other yes votes are Bounty Hunters as well. That should tell you not all Yes votes are PKers. I also agree that where the game is now there is no possible way a group can change the way the game is. So You will have to go with otherwise contributed to the history of Malton for Historical consideration. FOD although Loved by Some and Hated by others has contributed to the history of Malton. I tangled with them myself back when I first started playing the game, they contributed to my history by helping me be less trenchy as a Bounty Hunter. --Josh Clark 03:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    He was being sarcastic :|. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

54. No - I hate popularity contests. --Private Mark 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Also - The order the votes are made in don't matter AT ALL. So don't move my ages old comment that I put a new time stamp on because it makes sense that way to conform to some sort of "order". Cocks. >: ( -- SA 15:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    OK, seriously SA? Is there a wiki 'sysop' around here to delete this stupidity? Preferably one who has some neutrality? Really, should I go and vote for myself 10 times? SA? You cast your "No" vote once. What is the problem with letting the vote play out? You keep coming back. We get it. You don't think we deserve your vote. Is it so hard to cast your "NO" and then get lost?...Oh wait! You gave a yes vote up there too! You're an Idiot.--Hibernaculum 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    LOL! I just noticed I asked for a Wiki 'sysop' to bring some order to SA's stupidy and HE IS A WIKI SYSOP! And so is DDR! I guess the deck is stacked against me then isn't it? Are you going to "WARN" me now SA because I called you an idiot? We aren't going to get a fair shake in this kangaroo court... --Hibernaculum 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Trust me. I wish there was something we could warn you for, with all your bantering and anti-sysop bullshit. Just learn that the word "please" is just as effective as spluttering random screams of injustice and treachery. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Please read it again DDR. Ok? Really read it this time instead of just flying off the handle as you like to do. It wasn't anti-sysop 'shit'. It's aimed directly at you and SA. By Kangaroo Court, I am referring to this so called 'discussion' which you two seem to have a vested interest in for whatever reason. I don't recall mentioning or otherwise saying anything about the other sysops other than I'd like one who's neutral to step in and bring some order to the proceedings. Then you desecrate my wiki talk page with not one, not two but three posts full of profane rants? I think you are the one who needs to go my friend. For your own health. Looking at your posts on my page, you take it waaaaay to seriously. Cheers DDR. --Hibernaculum 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    It's my job to take this seriously, you parasite. Deal with it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    Oh my good God shut the fuck up all of you. 01:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

    Happily :/ --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

55. yes - I see yea votes from across the board. BH'ers, Survivors, and Pkers.. Yes, I was a member for a bit in the mid times. The FoD deserve it because they did make a difference in the way a lot of folks played the game. Take the BH nation for example.. I have no space for it , but just look it up.. The FoD did make a difference in the way folks play this game.--Roland 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
56. Yes - Is this really being put to a vote? The FOD has had a huge influence on UD!!! --Chekken 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
57. No - pretty much as Moloch. Good group, and pretty effective at what they did, but not really that historical. They haven't substantially changed the landscape of Malton, or change the way the game is played, hence the against. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
58. Yes - Simple as that. --Thomas Hayne Cutbush 17:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
59. Yes - Effective, good organised group, tis a shame they have disbanded. --Kooks 23:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
60. Yes - One of the best groups i have had the pleasure of been in and part of y UD history :D --HeroSV 10:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
61. Yes --Hibernaculum 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
62. Yes -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 13:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I have been looking through the archives of past Historical Status groups, and I must say that this one has got to be the most talked about group of them all. We have some serious NO'es with commentary , and some serious YES'es with commentary.. This is a definate... ? Sweet, this is what it should all be about.

Was the FoD that damn good? or did they just do the average Pk'er thing? Hmm..--Roland 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Result

Voting Over. At the conclusion of the vote I see 62 votes. 44 yay versus 18 nay. With a percentage of 70.1% FOD have passed the vote to become a historical group. You may all now dispute this by saying some votes were not of the allowable Yes/No format or that they are incorrectly signed or that sock puppetry was used. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I dispute this on the grounds that Harrison is a faggot.-- SA 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he is a faggot isn't disputed by either side, and we allow all users to vote, regardless of their anti-god, anti-family and anti-Ameri-fuck-yeah-ca lifestyle choices. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said he shouldn't be allowed to vote. Him being a faggot just means his side automatically loses. :P -- SA 02:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Surprised us Nays even got that far against the raging hordes of fyayil. This is a great moment for them too. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I say all Yay votes should be thrown out as PKers are inherently incapable of casting votes which conform to the Wiki's Expected Purposes. PKers are merely popularity-meters, and only voted because every PKer loved the Flowers of Disease. Hibernaculum, Rob Collick, and the other FoD core members were so charming to everyone they met, so outgoing with the general community, and made so many friends that their minimal impact on the game, the suburbs, and groups and people they met is ignored. All this voting is merely a measure of how many best-buds they made in their time as PKers.

This is a Sham. A mockery of the good Wiki Voting Tradition. This is a Vote Which Shall Live In Infamy!

Before someone takes this seriously, it should be noted that the FoD rarely made friends outside of necessity, made lots of people - including many PKers - very upset, gained a lot of contempt from certain PKer groups because they didn't conform to the general expectation that PKers be friendly, and forced the groups they attacked to change the way they operated on a daily basis (including one group which turned to zerging in order to defend itself) permanently. Yet those same people they upset voted Yes. --DT^PK 04:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a PKer and I didn't vote yay. So I guess that make my vote worth double or something? :S -- SA 13:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you tried that enough already? :S --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DON'T YOU SEE THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSEDDDDD-- SA 14:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole fucking process is a sham. I called that weeks ago. Get bent. BALLS TO THE WHALLS! --Dhavid Grohl 04:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Aegis Tyra loves to nibble my chode, but I won't let him. Suck it Spartans, you'll get your "No" from me when you eventually pussy out just like the Shit mushrooms did. --Dhavid Grohl 04:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Whalberg is a terrible actor. --Haliman - Talk 04:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Awful person in general, really. Also the smell of butthurt hangs heavy in the air. Oh hai Grohl. 04:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what butthurt smells like Misanthropy, seeing as how I don't make a habit of sticking things up my anus. Why don't you enlighten us. I am sure all the ass-poundings you take from your emo friends back at brainstock leaves you thick with the stench. Here's a novel idea, how about both of you get bent.--Dhavid Grohl 12:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, have you seen Invincible??!? Amazing! He's no Clint Eastwood... but... Invincible! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Dead

The_Dead. Let's do this and move on before the rules change. For those of you that don't know us.

• Largest Zombie horde ever topping 1,500 at one point.
• Created the most red suburbs on the Danger map.
• Brought the survivor population down to around 32%
• Took down 3 malls in one night.
• Irritated the hell out of the wiki.

The last two are the ones we are the proudest of.-- #99 ^DCC 23:18, 13 June 2009 (BST)

My "the Dead" is disbanded. The Dead responsible for all of this is no more. I seriously doubt that any members of The Dead (2.0 or The Next Generation) will have any wiki presence. All of the "known" members - Katthew and well, anyone on V/B - have long since retired. The Dead will never have this kind of impact again. And if for some odd reason it does, then I will make sure the goons come up with a new name and not be assholes.-- #99 ^DCC 19:17, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Yes

1. For/Vouch/Pro etc What can I say about the dead that hasn't been said before? Creating an apocalypse in a game that is apocalyptic itself. Good times it were. Some intentions like "breaking the game" were perhaps not so noble but in the end, you provided unseen excitement in the sometimes dull city of Malton. --Thadeous Oakley 23:33, 13 June 2009 (BST)

   On a side note, wouldn't it be better to nominate the March of the Dead as a historical event? This because this group is still active and such.--Thadeous Oakley 23:35, 13 June 2009 (BST)

2. For --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:45, 13 June 2009 (BST)
3. HELL YES - The only group that ever brought challenge to the "game". DO IT AGAIN.--Zombie Lord 00:45, 14 June 2009 (BST)
4. \o/--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:54, 14 June 2009 (BST)
5. Yes - User:Whitehouse 01:33, 14 June 2009 (BST)
6. Yes - duh. Also - why not nominate the March while you're at it, DCC? Linkthewindow  Talk  02:26, 14 June 2009 (BST)
7. Yes - Whether or not their 'leaders' officially announce that The Dead are no longer active, I will always vote them for this in a heartbeat. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:11, 14 June 2009 (BST)
8. Yes - As DDR. --Haliman - Talk 03:37, 14 June 2009 (BST)
9. Yes - they were annoying nutcases that i would love to personally ban one-by-one and have their faces set on fire. So, when is the group becoming active again ? :) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   right back at you hagnut. :) -- #99 ^DCC 19:17, 15 June 2009 (BST)

10. Yes - There are people who play UD and don't know about you? Holy crap. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:19, 14 June 2009 (BST)
11. Yes as one of the principle targets , both personally and as a member of a group, The Dead I cannot in any fashion be opposed to this nomination. It was outstanding. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:31, 14 June 2009 (BST)

    I'm still pissed about that DoDH workaround, you magnificent bastard!-- #99 ^DCC 19:17, 15 June 2009 (BST)

    awwwww I feel the love...wait....thats not love, THATS NOT LOVE AT ALL!!!! Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:11, 16 June 2009 (BST)

12. Yes --Cyberbob 06:11, 14 June 2009 (BST)
13. Yes - Nuff' said.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:35, 14 June 2009 (BST)
14. Yes - It had over 2000 members at one point, didn't it? Any group with over 2000 members is historical, in my opinion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:32, 14 June 2009 (BST)
15. Yes --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:40, 14 June 2009 (BST)
16. Yes - Bad times, man. Bad times. You have my vote. But is The Dead no longer active...? o_O --Met Fan ^F 18:56, 15 June 2009 (BST)
17. Yes.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 00:28, 16 June 2009 (BST)
18. Yes --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 14:47, 16 June 2009 (BST)
19. Yes -- J.I 13:23, 17 June 2009 (BST)
20. Yes -- One of the most well known groups ever. Almost as historical as Caiger itself. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}18:32, 17 June 2009 (BST)
21. Strong Yes --Pyrranha 22:16, 18 June 2009 (BST)
22. Yes - come back Sanpedro 07:53, 19 June 2009 (BST)
23. Yes - I Love you Cisisero 08:58, 19 June 2009 (BST)
24. Yes - I don't know why this has taken so long. --Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 17:30, 21 June 2009 (BST)
25. Yep - Cheese 00:38, 24 June 2009 (BST)

No

1. No - Fails crit 1 "Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game." Perhaps you can vote yes on historical event status for the March of The Dead.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:38, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   Both you and HonestMistake are retarded. the dead leadership cannot get all of their 1500 members to remove their tags. The group is dead but the characters are still used by players. Criteria 1 does not mean active characters but active groups. The group is not active. Kill yourself. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   So, a group's official, or "defacto" leader decides whether or not that group exists, without regard to the remaining 249 members? I didn't get that memo. Prior to killing myself I think that point should be clearly defined, since the only real question on The Dead's historical status is whether or not they are "active". --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 04:25, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   I bet there are still members that have The Dead of Dunell Hills tags (less than 10). But basically, I was the leader during the March. I say the group is dissolved as far as the wiki is concerned.-- #99 ^DCC 18:04, 14 June 2009 (BST)

2. yes and no Certainly one of the biggest things ever to happen to the game and certainly worthy of inclusion... On the other hand Historical Groups are supposed to be defunct so technically the Dead are unlikely to become historical in that sense.--Honestmistake 01:43, 14 June 2009 (BST)
3. Vouch, but needs Crit 1 - As Giles. They deserve historical status, but currently have too many members still acting, or at least with "The Dead" in their group tags. --Private Mark 01:55, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   To all three of you, it has been kind of decided that if the leader of the group officially disbands a group, it's considered defunct. That's what DCC is doing, as he's the defacto leader of The Dead. The group is done, it's just that people aren't going to idle out or stop wearing a name tag just because a group is done. Hell, Ghetto Cow had something like 15 or so people on the stats page still when we went up for historical because our members were too lazy or too stubborn to remove the tag. But because Lach nominated it, it was considered defunct.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   The Angel has spoken. Any large group is going to leave splinter groups and remnants behind once it collapses, and one as large as The Dead was makes an even bigger imprint. That The Dead's remnants still consistently rank as the top 1 or 2 placed groups on the Stats Page is testament to their worthiness for Historical Status. The only single group that ever brought down the Wrath of Kevan. 90% Syringe search rates for God's sake. I was expecting crucifixes to suddenly gain powers and witness Survivors REPELLING zombies with cries of "The Power of Kevan Compels You!". All this from a single group. If these guys don't deserve Historical Status, no one does.--Zombie Lord 02:25, 14 June 2009 (BST)

4. Making a group that is still the largest in the game, historical? Hysterical. Active? Always will be -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:24 14 June 2009 (BST)

   You're just pissed because we got you voted out and Grim voted in as Crat. It's ok. Maybe you should ask Iscariot what to think? -- #99 ^DCC 18:07, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   It's not exactly the same group. When they had 1,500 members, it was something totally different that Malton had never seen before. I don't know, maybe we can have some kind of protected historical event page dedicated to their flood or something. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:26, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   I'd vote for it if a page was created to document what the Dead was pre-2009. As it is now, the page is of almost no historical interest though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:33 14 June 2009 (BST)

   Well, thing is, that page has no relevance to the current Dead - it mostly shows stats from the first major Dead uprising. Even then, it's through links and not directly on the page. Hence, why I'm for making that page historical (maybe moving it as well) and possibly asking a Dead authorized Wiki denizen to make a more relevant page about the current active group. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:23, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   No current active Dead member will touch this shithole wiki. The mark we left on the wiki (our talk pages, our various VB cases, our policy that KEVAN himself had to veto to kill, etc.) those are more meaningful than an article forced to be neutral and still reflect our group.-- #99 ^DCC 18:04, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   Giles is right, the whole idea of having the de facto leader say "GROUP DISBANDED" when they are still remenants shows to me that The Dead isn't, well, dead. That being said, if you just wait for a few more months, and that wiki page doesn't get updated, then I can be assured that The Dead will remain Dead, and I'll change it to vouch.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 06:22, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   The page has been locked for over a year, numbnuts. We didn't even create it in the first place. Ask old Connie about that mess. But clearly, this wait and see idea is stellar.-- #99 ^DCC 18:04, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   Alright fine. But don't insult the voter.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 00:27, 16 June 2009 (BST)

   Why not? You've already voted against him, he has no obligation to impress you. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:18, 16 June 2009 (BST)

5. fuck no----Sexualharrison 08:17, 14 June 2009 (BST)
6. tevs. mehvs.--xoxo 10:01, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   What's the phrase? Thank you for your input Fuck off.-- #99 ^DCC 14:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

7. no Still having double the numbers of others groups doesn't make them inactive. Besides, I thought the dead were against a big wiki prescence. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)

   We aren't on the wiki anymore. Just me. You all suck. But this is a test to see if the wiki is really about UD or about you asshole users (not you ross so much) that just want to use it to stroke your lame ass RP fantasies. There is no fucking denying that the Dead changed the whole game, but if they don't get historical status because of some shitstain policy that should kill any last thought that this wiki is really about UD. If the ONLY group that has ever had an impact in EVERY SUBURB gets denied then seriously stop pretending this wiki is about UD. Go back to posting your lame ass *sips beer, loads shotgun*-- #99 ^DCC 18:04, 14 June 2009 (BST)

8. Get the ef out! Ain't no way I'm having a group which 'caused me a good promotion bid go historical! NEVER!!! NOT IN A MILLION EFFIN' YEARS!!! This is revenge for pissing me off and forcing me to drop out of the promotion run!!! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (BST)

   You couldn't handle a little drama and yet you still think you would have made a good sysop? I'm pretty sure we weren't the cause of your crash and burn.-- #99 ^DCC 14:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

   Hm...Let's see. Who was it that started all this nonsense before I got pissed? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (BST)

   is babby hungry? --Cyberbob 01:07, 24 June 2009 (BST)

9. no I have read all the arguments above and im not convinced, in the eyes of the "originals" the group may be inactive yet there are still many tagged as this group who are not idle. Whether they have any cohesive strategy is debatable and I think requires further discussion.--C Whitty 09:11, 16 June 2009 (BST)

   My The Dead practically ruined the game in 2 months. This The Dead hasn't even taken down a mall in over a year. I think those two "groups" are quite different. Hell, this The Dead can't even keep DHPD out of DH. We did it with a skeleton crew. These aren't the same groups. -- #99 ^DCC 14:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

   I recognise your points but what do the current "The Dead" think of your above statements - if they agree then this sways me, has anyone been in contact with them to ask their opinion/ does anyone have their details so that I may?--C Whitty 16:43, 17 June 2009 (BST)

10. no I gotta go with boxy on this one. Asheets 23:17, 16 June 2009 (BST)
11. no --Doctor Oberman ^MBEK 20:00, 18 June 2009 (BST)
12. No -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 00:32, 21 June 2009 (BST)
13. Conditional No - Not truly inactive yet, although the leadership clearly is.--Violet Begonia _{Dean MCM MOB} 17:16, 3 July 2009 (BST) the 2 weeks of voting were already up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:28 12 August 2009 (BST)

Voting closed with 25 for and 12 against, 68% for. Nomination successful -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:28 12 August 2009 (BST)

(This vote was archvied by Nubis at 14:17, July 5, 2009)

Zom/historical

Pro-Survivor group Zom was started by no real leader, but by a board called /zom/ on a certain website. Starting in late 2006, /zom/ has grown over the years and hit a peak of 160 active members, becoming part of the top 3 groups of Urban Dead. Looking at the /zom/ wiki, you can see that /zom/ has embarked on many endeavors to save Malton from the zombie rapscallions.

Just a few of many things we are proud of being a part of is The Fight to Hold Ackland Mall, reclaiming Southall Mansion and calling it our own, and entering the top 3 groups of UD with 160 active members.

I believe /zom/ deserves the historical status on the Urban Dead wiki because every one of the /zom/ members have fought a good fight, possibly changing Malton for the better, and it would be an honor if we got historical status for all our hard work over the years.

Please vote and tell us what you think. --.Ryanon. ^[Talk] _{[HKL] [/zom/] [Red Rum]} 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes (Zom)

1. Yes One of the funnest groups I've ever had the pleasure of working together with, /zom/ knew how to survive with style --Steven Cooper 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes. /zom/ was a truly fun group to be with.--.Ryanon. ^[Talk] _{[HKL] [/zom/] [Red Rum]} 21:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Yes - A very rare yes from me, not only was it big enough that it existing alone had an impact it's one of the few survivor groups I frequently ran into as a zombie. --Karek^maps?! 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes /zom/ has made a very large impact in Urban Dead and deserve to be historical. --Speels 22:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes As per Karek --Agent Sandman 22:42 22 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes Definite yes vote from me. Not only did /zom/ do a lot to aid the survivor cause, but they were a hell of a lot of fun. They're still on the stats page, but their core membership has died, and their IRC channel has died. They definitely deserve recognition. Hardcore Rockabilly, Retired FAE Axes High ^{AH RR RRF} 22:46 22 January 2009 (UTC)
7. Yes ^ Pretty much that. ^ They did a lot for the game, the stats page is more or less irrelevant. If I switch my group tags to "The Caiger Resistance Front" does that mean they aren't historical anymore?--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 23:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
8. Yes - Can't believe I'm voting yes... xD --Haliman - Talk 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
9. Yes - What can I say?... They were fun even if I was not part of them.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
10. Yes - Labine threatened to sap my sentry if I voted no. Oh, and they were a fun group. RisenJihad ^{MEMS DORIS} 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
11. Yes - I knew the /zom/ board before I knew UD. Liberty 00:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
12. Yes - Although not as active recently, there were several historic events. /zom/ helped to maintain Ackland for the more than week it was it was occupied. --S Buick 00:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
13. Yes - I agree with all the remarks and have decided for Yes :) --humanstyle 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
14. Yes - Hilarious group, deserve to be remembered --Urgggggggh 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
15. Yes - I heard about /zom/ before te DEM. They had "XP orgies" and were very organized about organizing them, explaining what they were, and warned people that accidentally walked into them. I'm not sure if I would vote them as historical though; aren't they still active? Pakopako 02:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
16. Yes - I've heard of them, and spoken to some of them, and like what they've done. Let's not let the records disappear. --FT ^MCI 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
17. Yes - Nigga please, if you didn't hear of /zom/ when we was rolling down our hood near our Ackland and all them busta-ass zeds come hating on us ballas then by jove good sir, it would seem that you have missed quite a spot of fun, we've had glorious adventures, training, members, tea, crumpets and style. /zom/ maybe be dead, but we shall always keep our monocle polished. AnonBorgTech001 03:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
18. Yes I renmember them from the early days... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
19. Yes Yes Much fun was had with them. I started UD because of them - Noahsan 22:53, 21 January 2009
20. Yes - A name with impressive reputation - Stephen Krantz 08:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
21. Yes - heard of them many times, seen them during my travels through Malton, and read their group's wiki.
    
22. They worked good, during historical battles too, their efforts met success and their labor deserves reward !
    IMHO : lets make zom an historical group  !
    Lets be grateful toward all those people who participated in Urban Dead community's fun !
    --Lifecultist 13:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

    Yes - They have taken part in many battles against the zombie hoard -- John Rope_{Timestampless vote struck Linkthewindow  Talk  14:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)}

23. Yes - Why not? They qualify, I believe, & they certainly had an effect on Malton, especially in the western regions. They were a big help in many sieges at Ackland Mall, and I liked the way they did things. They always seemed helpful and very practical, to me. --Jsrbrunty 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
24. Yes - They had a marked effect on the security of the western suburbs, but more than that they proved that an organized group without a specific leader could flourish, something that I hadn't witnessed before. LK Oddjob 18:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
25. Yes - I never knew them personally, but I have seen the fruits of their labor. They deserve recognition.--Claude Garrison 02:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
26. Yes - There were many sieges and operations and they were all fun. The fact that some had a big effect is even better. --Sods 20090123 21:55 EST

    Question: Didn't there used to be criteria (changed the way the game was played, etc.) for making it into this category? I don't see it anymore. --Paddy Dignam 04:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

27. Yes - From the start, /zom/ dove into Shearbank headfirst, unable to tell its ass from its head. Though its reputation and first impressions were shaky-the few willing to control the group struggled to keep its collective minds from running amok-they still gave their best effort into coexisting with their fellow survivors. There were many accusing fingers pointed toward their top hats. Conflict and suspicions had arisen by the dozen. However, the majority of the group always had good intentions in mind. After /zom/ finally gave up on living peacefully in Shearbank, they uprooted and made their way to Southall. When The Dead rose, they stood and fought against The Dead's many faces. Their history was littered with mall sieges and general pro-survival help efforts. They put efficiency first, and bragging second. As they had no idea who to boast about their efforts to, their roles in many of the sieges became almost invisible. Their members were faceless, and their numbers too many to count. They made their contributions, even if you didn't see them. They were a group that had fun whenever it had the chance, but it didn't fuck around when someone needed help.--Parkourartist 05:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
28. Yes - They were cool. --dgw 15:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
29. Yes - Never saw them in action, but I've heard stories. By all accounts, truly an epic group. -- RogerCasey 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
30. Yes - Worthy of commemoration, saw several of their members help out in Yagoton (as well as murder people for no apparent reason). You will be sorely missed. --Private Mark 18:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
31. Yes - Wether you saw them in action or not, tophats blazing, they are truly a group worthy of historic status. --Kazaha 04:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
32. Yes - Cool peoples. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
33. Yes - Even if they originated from certain place, they still fought brve battles against The Dead Janjones 14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
34. Yes - Great group that was full of extremely helpful people. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
35. Yes – Epic hilarity. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
36. Yes - /zom/ was one of the most fun groups I've ever had the pleasure seeing in action. Their history is one littered with epic struggles and aid to the survivor cause. I will miss them very much. BurningBright23 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
37. Yes - obvious yes is obvious. -- amagicalhobo
38. Yes - /zom/ was such a classy group. We will miss them terribly.--Megameh 20:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
39. Yes - I'd heard of them quite a many times. Yes vote has been voted. YoHoho 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
40. Yes - A name that should be remembered. --D.E.ATalk 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
41. Yes - Yes. --Ryzak Black 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

    Yes - Fuck yeah, I chilled with the guys back in Shearbank, they're good peeps.--ScouterTX 17:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Voting deadline passed. Sorry. -- Cheese 17:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No (Zom)

1. NO No noticeable impact anywhere nor any major contributions to the game. There was nothing historical about this group. --Johnny Bass 21:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
2. No --Never heard of them anywhere.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
3. No. - Edited vote: Not important or significant beyond being relatively big. I'm removing the part about their activity because apparently the wiki image change is enough to constitute their retirement, but they should really try adding some text to indicate that they actually are shutting down. --Papa Moloch 23:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
4. No - Moloch has it. While i did knew Zom/, i never heard about them doing anything ingame. Being a big group is not enough to warrant historical status. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 23:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
5. No - they didnt impact me, so therefore, not historic--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
6. No - As far as I'm concerned that had /z/ero impact, /z/ero importance, /z/ero historicity. Unlike some, I almost never saw them, except a couple who'd mill around Southall Mansion. Meh. --WanYao 00:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
7. No - Being big doesn't mean being automatically historical. I never saw them, except on the wiki and the stats page. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
8. No - Never even heard of them. --Pyrranha 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
9. No - As above. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 07:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
10. No - Old and big does not equal historical. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
11. NO - as above, more so because Labine50 voted Yes----Sexualharrison 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
12. No seems like I missed out on the fun as I had honestly never heard of them before!--Honestmistake 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
13. No - I've seen them on the wiki and in-game, but I do not think that their contributions merit historical status. --ZsL 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
14. FFFFFUUUUUU- - they came from 7chan... faggots--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 01:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
15. No - Who? --Hibernaculum 21:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
16. No - Like that guy said, who? I sightly recognise the name, from somewher, but historical? No way.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
17. No - A larger group shows up en masse and causes friction through misunderstanding with established groups and players? Uh, PTT did that years before /zom/. They basically gave the same experience point building drills most groups put their members through and called it an "xp orgy." The only thing surprising is they thought they were doing something original. They had ambitious plans to make various "landmarks" their HQ and ultimately failed in short order ... also nothing new. /Zom/ were funny, but they in no way matched the ULC. They thought they were something, but so doesn't every group. If someone can point to a specific event or, even better, tradition or tradition they're responsible for I'll change my vote, but everything here just reads like another outside game group showing up and being basically tourists for a summer. Nice of them to stop by, but no need for a monument. The group that came by a few months later and joined as a few thousand almost game breaking zombies, they were historic.--The Envoy 15:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
18. No - I normally don't vote unless I've seen a group in action in-game, but I'm making an exception based on Zom's own justification above. As Iscariot said, being old and big doesn't merit historical status, nor does taking part in a mall siege (actually, I'd be more impressed if they'd never been involved in one of those). They seem like good eggs, though, and I wish them well. --Paddy Dignam 02:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
19. No - Who--Dr. Sinclair 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Voting Over - 41 For to 19 Against, giving 60 total votes and 68% majority. Nomination accepted. -- Cheese 17:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  With the return of a group by this name, the historical page was moved to Zom/historical -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:38 12 August 2009 (BST)

Eastonwood Ferals

What do you want? An essay? If you don't know who they are or why they deserve historical status then you've only been playing a week or never left your fort.

1. Yes - I nominated them... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:23, 25 September 2008 (BST)
2. Yes - Unlike most groups who have this honour conveyed upon them, these guys deserve it in a major way. One of the greatest groups in the history of Malton. --Papa Moloch 20:40, 25 September 2008 (BST)
3. Yes - One the deadliest, most effective and most respected zombie groups out there. EF kept Easton' red and completely uninhabitable for breathers for about 2 years. They were active in the entire NW sector, and were an integral part of the Mall Tours and many other events and "happenings". EF are one of the most historical and accomplished UD groups. EVER. And they will be very sorely missed in UD. Rest in pieces, EF. --WanYao 20:41, 25 September 2008 (BST)

   I'd like to add that, as far as I'm concerned, EF mastered and perfected several tactics that are commonplace now -- e.g., using pinatas as a strategy rather than just a random tactic, and organised zombie-squatting (aka Salt the Land). For many months they also kept the only record, in their "almanac", dealing with levels of ruin/decay -- a resource used by everybody. The list could go on. EF are not "Historical," nor even just "pioneering": they are Legendary. --WanYao 20:56, 25 September 2008 (BST)

4. Yes - You're kidding right? Few groups are as deserving, or have had as fearsome a reputation. Just do it, k? Thanks! -- Bisfan 20:51, 25 September 2008 (BST)
5. Yes - Being one of the first major hordes I fought against as a survivor, these guys will always have a soft spot in my heart. May their memory unlive on forever. -- Cheese 20:58, 25 September 2008 (BST)
6. TOTALLY YES -Such a great group and one of the older zombie groups. Their dedication to keeping Eastenwood totally ruined (most of the buildings there scored some insanely high ruins), involvement in both bashes and mall tours, their ability to get along with everyone, and their great projects like the 10K club have given the game much flavor it otherwise wouldn't have. If anyone deserves historical status its them. They will be very much missed. --Zoey Zarg 20:59, 25 September 2008 (BST)
7. Yes - I am back on the wiki for this edit only. Yes, they were such a great group, its very sad they're gone.--KOOKY 21:16, 25 September 2008 (BST)
8. Absolutely - This is terrible news, but at least they can be remembered. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 21:20, 25 September 2008 (BST)
9. Yes -- This is a well duh sort of thing. Pound for pound the most effective zombie horde in UD (and I include LUE and Shacknews on that count). -- Murray Jay Suskind 21:23, 25 September 2008 (BST)
10. Yes -- many A time have they eaten my brains. may they be remembered for it.--'BP^Tmz 21:26, 25 September 2008 (BST)
11. Yes - No doubt about it in my mind. On behalf of my former horde (who had the pleasure of working with them last year), I saLUEte the EF.--DJ Deadbeat 21:28, 25 September 2008 (BST)
12. Yes - Without question one of the most [if not the most] effective horde in UD, heroes to the zombie cause and harbingers of death for the survivors. Well deserved, and the nomation says it all, if you don't think so then you should leave your fort more often. --TouchingVirus 21:44, 25 September 2008 (BST)
13. Yes - They were as good as it gets.--Panthera 22:10, 25 September 2008 (BST)
14. Yep - The most unanimous historical-group-vote evar? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:12, 25 September 2008 (BST)
15. Yes - I've rarely even gone near Eastonwood and word of their accomplishments has still reached my ears. They've earned a reputation as one of the most fearsome and effective zombie groups in the game. --Lejes 22:22, 25 September 2008 (BST)
16. Yes - Fuck yes, one of the most legendary zombie groups ever.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Red Rum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 22:40, 25 September 2008 (BST)
17. Yes - Farewell, Eastonwood Ferals. You were a force to be reckoned with and the hordes (or the harmanz) won't forget you.Petite Fille 23:16, 25 September 2008 (BST)
18. ZOMG YES! - Bobs Aturd 00:04, 26 September 2008 (BST)
19. Yes - Go with Barhah. --Insomniac By Choice 00:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)
20. Aye - no doubt. --Funt Solo ^QT 02:14, 26 September 2008 (BST)
21. Yes - I'd vote no just because Papa hasnt shown me any lovin recently, but that wouldnt do EF justice. --Gus Thomas^SpartaZHU 02:44, 26 September 2008 (BST)
22. Yes --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:52, 26 September 2008 (BST)
23. Yes - A big hell yeah! A plaque should be erected so Papa's can show the youngun's and tell the tale of the Legend that was The Eastonwood Ferals. -- DirtMan^T|FU|StäV 03:21, 26 September 2008 (BST)
24. Yes WHAT????? the EF is gone? Holy shit.... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:32, 26 September 2008 (BST)
25. Yes - The last of our original and best foes finally laid to rest. Everyone here at the Abandoned will miss you. --Private Mark 03:36, 26 September 2008 (BST)
26. Yes - Farwell EF...Like Private Mark said we of Abandoned will definitely miss the fun of always having you at our door step. --Deltherian 03:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)
27. Yes - It's sad to see such an incredible group retire. However, the are more than qualified to be known as a historical group. --ZsL 03:53, 26 September 2008 (BST)
28. Yes – A terrifying and awfully fun horde. They will be missed. !zanbah Barhah! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:55, 26 September 2008 (BST)
29. Yes - I've heard a bit about these guys, though I've never kept up with any groups other than my own. The bit I've heard is great, they'll be missed for sure. Goodbye, Eastonwood Ferals. Your presence will be missed by new and old alike. --Zorinth 06:08, 26 September 2008 (BST)
30. hells yeah ---Bullgod 09:33, 26 September 2008 (BST)
31. Yes - It's sad they've gone--Kristi of the Dead 09:38, 26 September 2008 (BST)
32. Yes D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:22, 26 September 2008 (BST)
33. YES MAXIMUM RESPECT. Quite possibly the only group of people who could put up with my hyperactivity. By the way, I've made an edited version of their template. Feel free to use it, you'll find it on my page. The man 12:17, 26 September 2008 (BST)
34. Yes - Kept life interesting in Yagoton, to boot. --MorthBabid 14:55, 26 September 2008 (BST)
35. Yes - They kept a whole suburb devived, so definitely a yes. --ZuluDeacon 17:35, 26 September 2008 (BST)
36. Yes - Voting is just a formality. --Lardass 18:32, 26 September 2008 (BST)
37. Yes - They will be missed by all groups, survivor and zed. --Survior454 18:37, 26 September 2008 (BST)
38. Yes? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:46, 26 September 2008 (BST)
39. Absolutely - *wipes away tear* !zanbah will never be the same. --DT^PK 19:01, 26 September 2008 (BST)
40. Yes - Is it considered bad form to vote for ones own group. If so sorry about that. I was with EF from the beginning I was active for them in wiki editing until real life called me away and I couldn't give it my all anymore. I'm happy about the responses of the page here and happy for all the good times I had. --Foxfire 19:41, 26 September 2008 (BST)
41. Yes - I definitely nominate them. A bad an awfully wonderful group! hehe --Alias81 20:00, 26 September 2008 (BST)
42. Yes - Sorry to see another zombie group go. And this was one of the best. --Priapus 20:29, 26 September 2008 (BST)
43. Yes. Their overall group actions and activity are historical.--MisterGame 23:27, 26 September 2008 (BST)
44. Yes - I've been active two months, and nowhere near Eastonwood, but even I've heard of these guys. --Target Practice 23:36, 26 September 2008 (BST)
45. Yes - As per the above user. Probably one of the most famous hordes in Malton (on par with the RRF.) Linkthewindow 01:25, 27 September 2008 (BST)
46. Yes Zombie groups never die. They just stand up. Okay, that doesn't really make any sense, but I still say Yes! --Silisquish
47. YES --/\Haliman/\ ^{T | P! | W!} 04:32, 27 September 2008 (BST)
48. Uhm, 'Duh?' - It's obvious. I daresay they're one of the best zombie groups when they were around, and it's sad to see them go. No, really. Glenstone 04:54, 27 September 2008 (BST)
49. Yes, sure --~~~~ [talk] 10:47, 27 September 2008 (BST)
50. Yes --LOLosaurus 15:31, 27 September 2008 (BST)
51. Yes - User:Whitehouse 16:43, 27 September 2008 (BST)
52. Yes - I don't even need to justify this vote. --JaredV 18:00, 27 September 2008 (BST)
53. Yes - NON-CONFORMISM LOL--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 19:12, 27 September 2008 (BST)

    You're an asshole not funny, Labine. --WanYao 19:50, 27 September 2008 (BST)

    Fair enough, changing vote.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 23:43, 27 September 2008 (BST)

54. Yes They were a model group. BARHAH --Camperdave 19:54, 27 September 2008 (BST)
55. Yes, no explanation required. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 23:45, 27 September 2008 (BST)
56. No - because this vote needed one, for margin of error.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:15, 28 September 2008 (BST)
57. Yes Historical. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:32, 28 September 2008 (BST)
58. Yes Just yes, the EFs were a tough group and made Eastonwood into an infamous deathtrap for the entirety of their existence, well-worth noting them. --Garviel Loken^{No Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! Talk}18:46, 28 September 2008 (BST)
59. No - Who? :< --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 19:50, 28 September 2008 (BST)

Passed 57 for 2 against 96.6% Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 00:16, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Drunken Dead

Founded in October 2005, the Drunken Dead were one of the best known zombie groups in northeast Malton. As with the FotFL, they primarily inhabited Pescodside, but were known to spread havoc in the surrounding suburbs. Known for their "drinking binges" (of death) the DD were the deadliest threat the suburb knew and proved a challenge to local survivors. It was only after the zombie group's number dwindled and the group itself faded from UD (as it was never formally disbanded) that survivors managed to regain control of Pescodside.

While my stance has always been pro-survivor, I would be remitant in my duties to the UD Wiki if I did not support showcasing the Drunken Dead and their important role in Pescodside's local history, if not that of northeast Malton.

1. Yes - They were a strong zombie group that terrorized northeast Malton. They deserve to be remembered for their efforts. --Mobius 14:11, 20 August 2008 (BST)
2. No - Never heard of them. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (BST)

   Of course youve never heard of them, they disbanded more than a year before you joined the community. As for the group itself. I formed and led them for a while, but i was skating on the edge of a burnout at the time. Ive never sought historical status for them, and i dont particularly care now (Hence my not voting). I might try and get in touch with Edith, whom i left in charge when i left and tell her about this, but otherwise i dont really care. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 14:39, 20 August 2008 (BST)

3. Yes - I have fleeting memories of them when I first joined Urban Dead, strange because they were apparently inactive by then. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:04, 21 August 2008 (BST)
4. Fuck Yea - --Bullgod 06:49, 21 August 2008 (BST)
5. No, because i find it hard to believe there were ever zombies in Pesky and because democracy shouldn't work.--xoxo 07:50, 21 August 2008 (BST)

   We did venture down into Pescoside to help out the Bela Lugosi Fan Club (A smaller, but no less cool group), but mostly we sat in the northern half of dulston knocking over the PD's and NT's. Our last act in Dulston before leaving was taking down the mall with the Mall Tour. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 19:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)

6. Yes - for one thing, excactly because it's so hard to believe now that zombies once terrorised the NE, their example and their inspiration ought to enshrined and immortalised. and, they did a pub crawl back in 2005. and... just take a look at the page... --WanYao 08:01, 21 August 2008 (BST)
7. Yes - If history doesn't preserve them, what will? --Insomniac By Choice 11:07, 21 August 2008 (BST)
8. Yes - --N00bert ^foxhound 18:45, 21 August 2008 (BST)
9. Yes - old school, classic, classy what more could you ask for? It's a shame they're gone--Kristi of the Dead 14:57, 22 August 2008 (BST)
10. Yes - Which should say something considering I almost never give out Yeses.--Karek^maps?! 18:32, 22 August 2008 (BST)
11. Yes Most certainly... Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 15:29, 24 August 2008 (BST)
12. Yes We must not forget the work of our drunken forefathers in Malton. Ottari ^{DA PDA NW} Read the Dispatch! 16:53, 24 August 2008 (BST)
13. Yes I told you to put this group up for Historical Voting! LemonHead7t7 *̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡|͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|]]| ̡̡̡ ̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡*̡͌l̡* ^{Talk/PDA/Red Rum/MOB} 17:40, 24 August 2008 (BST)
14. Yes --/\Haliman/\ ^{T | P! | W!} 17:43, 24 August 2008 (BST)
15. Yes I like them already. --Secruss^|Yak|Brahnz!|CGR|PKA||EMLN|Templates|RRF|RFTM|Crap|WHOZ||MU|GN|C2008||01:19, 2 September 2008 (BST)
16. Yes - They deserve it, truly unique and a group that broke ground for many others to try and imitate. -- DirtMan^T|FU|StäV 20:51, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Passed 14 For 2 Against 87.5% 13:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)