UDWiki talk:Administration/Deletions

Formatting Trivia

Half the deletion requests are in

bullet
formatting

and the other half are in

numbery
goodness.

It a.is marginally confusing and b.looks sloppy. Should one or the other be adopted? Does it matter? Am I just being nit-picky and wasting everyone's time?? You be the judge. (I'm all for picking one or the other, BWT) --Blackboard 16:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be in number format, but the newer users seem to be smacking down bullets instead. After that, everyone just goes with the flow.:/ -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While we are at it, why not sort the votes by yes/no. It makes it a lot easier to count. Linkthewindow Talk 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we pop something in the guidelines then? --Blackboard 01:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already there:

The Guidelines said:

Voting should take place underneath the request, and each vote should be started with a # with no empty lines inbetween votes.

Sadly, that's frequently forgotten, and we will need moar consensus before we can agree to segregate the votes. Linkthewindow Talk 02:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote separation seems to be more hassle than its worth in the long run, as many frequent newbie users would probably mess it up. Not to mention the fact that it's rather easy already. Take the total and minus the keeps/kills. There's your answer for the opposite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suicidalangel (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Thats weird. Twice now, I've signed my comment, only to find it has disappeared. :/ -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella Zerg Discussion

Moved from main page

This is why you HAVE to get the damned arby case going. This page is perfectly legal, but you could get it removed via an arby case!--SirArgo ^Talk 20:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Malicious text? You can see that there is nothing but fact, Thadeous. --Haliman - Talk 20:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You want me to put "Haliman is a fraud" back up on the wiki? Nothing but fact, Haliman.--Thadeous Oakley 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing but fact? That file was all circumstantial evidence! I have hard, based truth in the file I made. Screenshots, proof on the profile finder. This isn't a personal attack to Umbrella. This is my proof that Umbrella is breaking the rules of UD. --Haliman - Talk 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As most of us have been saying, please take this to arbies. The situation is getting more and more out of hand and will get worse the more you push each other. -- C h e e s e 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen examples, where excessive slander is not allowed. Why is this not enforced here? In what possible way does this contribute to the wiki?--Thadeous Oakley 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

disregard that, you casted your vote.--Thadeous Oakley 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheese's vote discussion

Moved from main page

Delete - Little more than a barely concealed attempt to provoke the other side to edit the page and get taken to A/VB -- C h e e s e 21:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Re: I want to let the public know about Umbrella treacherous ways. They don't like what's on it, they can take it here. --Haliman - Talk 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  - I stand by my opinion. A page like this is only going to make things worse and you should know that. -- C h e e s e 21:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    - Re: Are you saying the public doesn't have a right to know of Umbrella's cheating? --Haliman - Talk 21:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
      - The entire page is bullshit. That's no solid proof. If I say I did a timed attack with Nemmy, you can't disprove it.--Thadeous Oakley 21:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
      - No. I'm saying the public doesn't give a shit. All this does is make Umbrella more pissed at you. -- C h e e s e 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        Re: Well then I'm showing the reason we are at war with Umbrella. So Umbrella can't say "ooo dey started it. dey killd us den we fawt bak." --Haliman - Talk 21:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        I made a response to Thad, but it's gone now.... --Haliman - Talk 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead Links

When a page is deleted, can we remove the link in the header on the deletions page? We've got several thousand dead links because of this. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

PKer List

It's NOT a pker list... it's some misguided idiot's half-assed attempt at a pker list. There's no documentation, no criteria, nothing. I like being in the Rogues Gallery; however, it's an independent entity and does not have the "authorty" of a peer-edited community page. If there IS to be an official pker list, I'm guessing there's going to be... shit, I don't know... probably like six or seven more people on there. Maybe eight, I'm not quite sure. Though I AM pretty sure your mom should be on there. What? Did I just reference your mom? Yeah, this page is that terrible. Get rid of it. It's ridiculous. --Blackboard 00:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean that it's not some sort of list of people who should not be revived because they are "pkers"? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Gaaaaah... A. "DNR" lists are inherently biased. B. If you want to make one, go ahead. Put me on it. I don't care. But it's not a general community decision. It's a public page, remember. I feel forced to degenerate into childish insults - do you people just not understand the concept of wikis?? Go THIS, READ THIS RIGHT NOW before you say anything else that makes my brain hurt. --Blackboard 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have an idea. Move it to a subpage of his user page. Problem solved. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 01:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are a fucking moron. Get a job hobo!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Comes from the guy who voted for a man that will help those without jobs. :| --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sonny broke the page (just like John McCain would have done to the country had he been elected president), it got fixed though. I love you! --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Owwww, my feelings! Good argument though. I think I'll change my vote to keep. Also, I'm adding your mom to the page. And why not? It's a public page, is it not? Who's to say your mom isn't a pker? --Blackboard 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You are a fucking moron. Get a job hobo! --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, you must be new to Urban Dead... so welcome! Secondly, since you are new to Urban Dead... let me key you in on one of the big phrases used in Urban Dead, one that has been passed around for generations. Screenshot or it didn't happen!. Considering that Your Mom is a Zombie character, I'd prolly say not a pker.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(Gives patient sigh) Ok. First, what about the others, Mr Blinkyscript? Their screenshots are pretty clear right on the page, right? Those screenshots right next to their names? Those ones? Good. Second, as metagaming sources like Branstock demonstrate, there are two sides to every story. Though, maybe not in this case. Maybe every time a person kills someone else it's a plain old pk and should be reported as such. Do you know what someone should do? Someone should make up, like, Bounty Hunters or something... or maybe groups could, you know, be at odds with one another and just kill each other on sight! Do you think stuff like that could ever happen?? Boy, that would sure be swell! Gosh, Urban Dead sure is a super ol' game! --Blackboard 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Die in a fire. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like someone needs to vent with a wiki rant. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 02:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I can do colors^TM too. Or maybe, we can keep the page, and make it community run, require screenshots, and people can do what they want with the information.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Very pretty. Also, that's not a bad idea... and in fact, the good folks over at the Rogues Gallery did something remarkably similar quite some time ago. But, maybe they didn't. I don't know. I'm incredibly new around here. Since I am so new, can you tell me what this "crit 1" is that you speak of? It confuses me so. --Blackboard 02:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand you got a speels on for the Rogues Gallery (even though it is the bastard child of de/resensitized's PK List), but just because something offsite is more popular, doesn't make it the only option. First of all, the criterion listed above,... that is for Speedy Delete, being as this is the regular deletions page, citing criterion is really pointless as there are already keep votes. Crit 1 is "No Content: The page contains no more than a line or two of content that cannot clearly be expanded, consists of random or incoherent content, or is duplicated elsewhere to no purpose. Pages created by Spambots typically fall under this category." Which means, that page in question.. while fairly non-updated, can still be expanded and worked on, People just haven't because they goto Rogues Gallery, or the PK list, or even the laughable Black List. It doesn't contain any random or incoherent content (like what you would hear from a tourettes inflicted racist), nor, to my recollection, is there a non-group orientated pk list anywhere else posted on the wiki. That is of course, assuming Crit 1 applies in this case.. which it doesn't.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 03:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The content is random AND incoherent. Is it about pking or "breaking" the sacred ground "policy"? How could it be expanded? Who would moderate it? How would issues regarding pking vs bounty hunting, revenge killing, etc. be resolved? It's just a big fucking nightmare with no place on the wiki, unless it's in a user space, which is the appropriate place to grind axes. --Blackboard 08:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Expanding and moderation is easy. make a table. Name, Profile Link, Screenshot/iwitness link.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Blackboard, give up. You're a retard. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 04:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's so true. God, you just cut me right down to the bone. I give up. Well said. --Blackboard 08:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Username redirects in community space

There is precedent to remove a deletion criterion. If people can't see how black and white these deletions should be, I highly suggest they propose the relevant change. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 9

DDR
Ron Burgundy
AHLG
Nallan
J3D

--HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:12, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Keep - i like these and think they should be allowed, no harm in having them.--x o x o 06:21, 24 October 2008 (BST)

These are extremely useful redirects. I use DDR and AHLG all the time. This is madness, they should stay. I think Crit 3 needs to be reviewed, because redirects don't only serve to be linked to, they're also useful for when you don't want to type in "User:DanceDanceRevolution" or the like in full in the search bar, and would rather the convenience of "DDR". And crit 9 shouldn't apply to redirects imo.--Nallan (Talk) 06:34, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Keep - Bob you fail to notice that DDR has over 150 links and is therefore a very useful link. Ron Burgundy Also has about 30. I don't think its right to delete redirects that are that popular. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Did you think that people would fail to notice that the 150 pages is because of the link in your signature? - Jedaz - 07:54/24/10/2008

Lookee here, I even found the edit wherein he hid it in his sig most cunningly. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:01, 24 October 2008 (BST)

If you BOTHERED looking properly, you would see it was already in there. hur? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:10, 24 October 2008 (BST)

There, happy? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:12, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry guys, but you have to live with the same rules everybody else does. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:30, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I have a feeling you are just being able to cope with that realisation yourself. For the record, I use AHLG lots too, its so loverly and convenient. Unlike CF's myspace. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:34, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Firstly, that first sentence doesn't make sense. Secondly, I don't have a MySpace. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:36, 24 October 2008 (BST)

lolwut?--CyberRead240 08:11, 24 October 2008 (BST)

lolwut?--CyberRead240 08:15, 24 October 2008 (BST)

0 friends??!?! Just like IRL and on teh wiki...--x o x o 08:12, 24 October 2008 (BST)

FUCKING SNAP! He's 19? Why did everyone tell me he was 12? and live in Sydney? Grargh! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:15, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I'll spell it out for you: I find it slightly humerous that you are dishing out the 'you are the same as everyone else' lessons when I think you are finding it hard to cope with that realisation yourself. Hope the extended version of said sentence was fantasmic enough for you. You don't have a Myspace? Thats not what myspace says. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:43, 24 October 2008 (BST)

You think wrong; notice how I am not contesting the deletion of my own redirect page (which I had forgotten about; from the creation date it can't have been made more than a few weeks after I first joined). As for the thing about MySpace, why would I lie? All of my contact with my friends is done IRL. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:47, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Err...are normal users allowed to vote, here? I find those redirects immensely helpful. :( --Jen 07:47, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Yes you are, in fact it would be encouraged :) Although this isn't suposed to be here, one keep vote nullifies a Speedy delete request.--x o x o 07:55, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Can all these clowns be slapped with vandal warnings for needlessly shitting up the Admin pages with their drivel? --WanYao 08:15, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Stop licking Sysop asshole Wan you douchebag.--CyberRead240 08:16, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Real constructive wan.--Nallan (Talk) 08:17, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Also, by saying that wan, you have contributed to the shitting up of the admin page. If you want us A/VB'd, do it yourself, don't shit up the admin page asking someone else to do it,--CyberRead240 08:18, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Take it to the talk page, now -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:18 24 October 2008 (BST)

Keep - Due to the number of links. If Bob was to (quite legally I might add) change all of those linked pages to the correct link rather than the redirect, then these would qualify. Not until. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:32, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Delete as per crit - Bob makes a sound point. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:04, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Please note that Criterion 9 says nothing about link numbers. I did not mention Criterion 3 in the request. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:39, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Good point, i carnnt reedz. Vote changed accordingly. Someone please move my vote onto the page when unprotected. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:04, 24 October 2008 (BST)

When will this be unprotected (lol), so the community can vote?--Nallan (Talk) 10:02, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Keep btw. The pages don't harm other users, don't add to server overload (the pages themselves being of tiny, tiny size), in comparison to other pages all over the wiki and help promote work and users that work in a way that is beneficial to the wiki community. Also makes things a lot easier. And yeah, as Nick. Seems somewhat redundant to have a page that requires voting yet you can't vote. --Scurley7 14:47, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Delete - We don't need 15,000 similar pages and these ones serve no purpose, hell two of them were even crit 6 and I'm willing to be DDR only has so many because it was probably a past sig for that user. Ooh, look at that, User:DanceDanceRevelution is purposely altering his Templates Sig to game the numbers, that's about as borderline vandalism as you can get. 5 enter, only two can leave, DDR was deleted for being kept under false pretenses and meeting Crit's 3,9 and I'm also contemplating starting an A/VB case for what was done.--Karek^maps?! 15:32, 24 October 2008 (BST)

What crit did you delete DDR under?--CyberRead240 15:48, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Reading is fundamental.--Karek^maps?! 15:53, 24 October 2008 (BST)

So is spelling. It's "Revolution" btw. So if you are going to go to every page that he used DDR on and change it to something else, at least spell it right. I still don't believe you have the right to delete these, they have been moved to this page by Boxy and ZombieSlay3r after being on A/SD--CyberRead240 15:55, 24 October 2008 (BST)

And so I haven't deleted any of the ones that are reasonably subject to a vote.--Karek^maps?! 15:58, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Don't they all go up for vote? Especially DDR, I just screencapped you deleting a link made using the DDR redirect by another user, from BEFORE the history purge. Your telling me people don't use it? Well I am capping everything you do, and every history revision.--CyberRead240 16:01, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I was fixing the link so it wouldn't become dead, in the process I was removing one of the three uses of that abbreviation. Ever. Trust me, that qualifies, we've always done it that way with speedy deletions.--Karek^maps?! 16:05, 24 October 2008 (BST)

I will take your word for it, but I am still going to cap it all so that it is easier for DDR to look through tomorrow, rather than him having to trawl through history etc--CyberRead240 16:07, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Personally though, I think you should have let the acronyms stay on the deletions page for voting. Just because I do use DDR in the search box every time I look for him. I just think there should be special exception if your name is three words or more. I would have voted keep, but not for Nallan, Ron Burgundy, or J3D.--CyberRead240 16:11, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Speedydelete the lot. We don't need acronym redirects for every person on the wiki, disambiguation hell -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:03 24 October 2008 (BST)

Cities

So if the general prerogative of users is that we delete that page and merge it into Category:Related_Games, then we'll need to merge/delete Zombie Infection Simulation and Graaaagh!, delete the already merged pages of Nexus War and Vampires!, and just delete Ahhh! Real Zombies! (cartoon) page. After all, the Unofficial UD Forums don't have individual forum pages, so why should the Category:Related_Games be any different? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 21:23, 23 October 2008 (BST)

Seeing how short all of them are, I wouldn't object to merging/deleting them all and turning the category into a regular page. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:52, 23 October 2008 (BST)

That would make the most sense. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 21:56, 23 October 2008 (BST)

The Mighty Republic of Lolz

Delete - What the fuck is this bullshit? Stop wasting our time.--Nallan (Talk) 13:43, 2 October 2008 (BST)
Keep - Changed my mind!--Nallan (Talk) 13:44, 2 October 2008 (BST)

I'm glad I came back. Someone needs to be here to keep you two faggots in check when you go off on your litle sugar highs. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:25, 2 October 2008 (BST)
I'm glad you came back too :) --Nallan (Talk) 03:13, 3 October 2008 (BST)

P.S. Great job keeping us in check.--Nallan (Talk) 03:15, 3 October 2008 (BST)
Delete - Serves no purpose, as it's not linked anywhere.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:40, 2 October 2008 (BST)
160. The Mighty Republic of Lolz ‎(541 links), i think you'll find The Mighty Republic is one of the most valued pages on our fair wiki! --x o x o 09:15, 3 October 2008 (BST)
I wonder if that has anything to do with these three edits you just made? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:35, 3 October 2008 (BST)
Who's to say? Perhaps it's just the wiki's most linked to redirect, unfortunately the delete template prevents it from functioning as a redirect, sigh.--x o x o 09:40, 3 October 2008 (BST)
Delete - and Bob, ffs get your /b/ quotes off of the UD wiki. Some of us here frequent that particular image board and feel saddened at your newfaggotry.--CyberRead240 15:15, 2 October 2008 (BST)
It didn't originate from /b/, you pathetic fucking mong. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:24, 2 October 2008 (BST)
But that is where you found it, you make it too obvious. Your poor attempts at trolling have not been missed on this wiki. I will no doubt expect a well thought out and considerably constructive retort after posting this, where you combine your knowledge of the intarwebz that you gained from reading Encyclopaedia Dramatica, with a witty, well thought out "insult" along the lines of "muppet" or "mong". I like how you use these words instead of curse words, they make your rebuttals look more respectable. Sorry Bob, your antics have made me yawn lately. Don't expect a reply, I think this post will do your next 100 complete justice.--CyberRead240 16:57, 2 October 2008 (BST)
Er, "mong" is a highly offensive term. You might like to go look it up. As for your other bleating... well, some people just can't be saved. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:05, 2 October 2008 (BST)
Delete - Birthday's over, it's served its purpose. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 07:14, 3 October 2008 (BST)
I demand ALiM get a new birthday where the wiki isn't down for 7 hours of it! Damn you kevaaaaaaaaan!--x o x o 08:58, 3 October 2008 (BST)
Well, because of the history purge, we only really know for 100% sure that the birthday was in the month of october. Therefore, every october, for its entirety, is ALiMs birthday.--CyberRead240 09:00, 3 October 2008 (BST)
That'd be birthmonth then :). You know, this is still going to stay here for almost two weeks, so you'll get half of the month covered. It's not like you celebrate your birthday for the whole 24 hours (well, at least most people don't). --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 09:29, 3 October 2008 (BST)
It's decided then - October shall henceforth be known as Cocktober, in tribute to ALiM's cock locations, which are speculated to number in the thousands.--Nallan (Talk) 00:30, 6 October 2008 (BST)

UZM Discussion

Moved from Main page

Wan's Vote

Delete - As above. --WanYao 18:50, 22 September 2008 (BST)
Question - This page had existed in this form for more than a year. Why the sudden interest in it now? -- C h e e s e 19:10, 22 September 2008 (BST)
Simple, I think: no one noticed it before then. Now, however, we have noticed. And...ah, and I just clicked the links in the old version: and that version takes you to the Groups' wiki pages. Period. Annoying, maybe, but ultimately innocuous. This new page is an external web-monster, and thus a totally different beast. See points 2 and 5 in particular. That's my own personal answer, anyway. --WanYao 19:26, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Jen's Vote

Keep and Edit? - I'm new to this whole wiki vote/edit war thing...but...if iwitness and other tools like that can have wiki pages, I don't see why this can't have one. There's four zombie groups that DO use the thing, along with the four that want nothing to do with it. It's a resource out there, and it's being used. Most of your issues are with the browser itself, NOT the wiki page that is, at the moment, pretty accurately describing said browser. --Jen 21:07, 22 September 2008 (BST)
Tools like Iwitness, and their wikis, do not associate themselves with any specific group(s), nor do they claim or imply to be a sort of pseudo-metagroup as does this page/tool. Those tools which are associated with a specific group(s) -- like the DEM revive request tool, for example -- state pretty explicitly their player group connection. This page / tool, as it stands, fits into neither category. In fact, it appropriates the names of groups not involved in a manner that is, frankly, little more than a technologically adept form of impersonation. All the while IMO rather disingenuously claiming to be "neutral". That is why, in my opinion, it is different. --WanYao 21:39, 22 September 2008 (BST)
In what sense is the page related to Extinction apart from my building it? I'm not a group! It was set up as a zed meta-group well over a year ago and went nowhere and now it's just a Zombie browser. Since peeps here have a problem with the implied meta grouping I've already said the term 'United' can go and have a logo ready for such as soon as the UZM can be redirected. I think it's a useful resource and use it all the time so am offering it to anyone and everyone. Or are you just using any excuse to be anti-Extinction? --Zeug 03:49, 23 September 2008 (BST)
My reasons have been clearly explicated. I feel no need to repeat them. --WanYao 05:51, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Yes but I'm not clear about your unexplicated reasons, apart from you think it's a meta-grouping. Where is there any link or even implied connection to Extinction in the UZM beyond it being included along with the other groups? In what sense apart from your 'feelings' is this open access portal, as useful or otherwise to survivors as it might be to zeds, in any way an Extinction project?--Zeug 10:33, 23 September 2008 (BST)
The explication is the responsibility of the "critic". It's not my fault you can't understand the text. Actually, I am pretty sure you do, in fact, "get it"... Which is why I keep throwing around the word "disingenuous"... which for everyone else, it means "a lying sack of shit"... --WanYao 16:58, 23 September 2008 (BST)
See now this is a perfect example of the moronic stupidity I have to put up with from the more logically challenged members on this wiki. All I get from your intervention Wan is that you for some peculiar reason despise me and Extinction therefore the UZM should be deleted. And actually the explication is up to you since you are the one who actually started this deletion debate. How is the UZM a 'propaganda' technique? Simple question but you can't answer it can you? --Zeug 17:14, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Again, I see those things as problems with the tool, not the wiki page. The wiki describes those groups as "covered" by the tool because the tool DOES "cover" them. The wiki page looks meta-alliancy because the tool itself makes things look like a meta-alliance. And deleting a page describing the browser is not going to solve that problem. It's the equivalent of putting your head in the sand and pretending things are better. Or getting mad at the symptom instead of the disease. Throw a paragraph onto the page that includes the history of the tool, and how it was created to help Extinction, and is currently used primarily used by Extinction, if the group-affiliation thing is causing problems. The page is describing a browser tool. Make the description on the wiki page accurate. Fix the tool. Don't delete the page. --Jen 17:47, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Boxy's Vote

Delete - there was every opportunity to be reasonable about this, and remove groups that didn't want to be associated with it, and those shoutboxes are way out of order. It implies that people are actually contacting the groups in question when they use them. While some groups may use them as intended, those who want no part of this project should not need to monitor "their" shoutbox, on an extinction site, to ensure they arn't being misrepresented -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:08 23 September 2008 (BST)
Which shoutboxes exactly? For instance the MoB's shoutbox actually is their shoutbox, I quite enjoy watching the conversation. The Undeadite shoutbox is also theirs, I made it for them and gave them the admin pass. Extinction's of course, and FU ... but not the RRF's. So no, I wouldn't remove the shoutboxes at all, but certainly there's room to clarify their use. But what's that got to do with links on wiki pages? --Zeug 14:25, 23 September 2008 (BST)
removing the shoutbox for the groups who explicitly ask is only fair... I would even suggest removing them for those that do not give permission and only activating them when they do so! The damn things are extremely misleading and detract considerably from the usefullness of the tool!--Honestmistake 14:31, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Well I'd prefer to keep the MoB shoutbox for example, it's a publicly accessible web service provided by cbox and no different than showing their wiki talk page. But relabeling the RRF box makes sense as it's not theirs, although they're of course free to use it and I'd give them the admin pass. As a general use shoutbox peeps would be free to leave messages on it ... how about label it as a generic 'Zombie Browser Shoutbox'?--Zeug 14:47, 23 September 2008 (BST)
How about you do the decent thing, and just remove those groups who want no part of it? Putting their own shoutboxes onto a page that they have no control over is just as bad -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:39 23 September 2008 (BST)
Just as bad as what boxy? As survivors linking to it? Or me showing their forums? Your argument lacks logic somewhat. But yeh, just did a quick config edit and I do like the neutrality of 'UZM Browser Shoutbox', should encourage peeps to post there which was the whole point of building the thing originally ... to encourage network communications across the UD meta game. --Zeug 16:08, 23 September 2008 (BST)
It's totally news to me, as a MOB member, that MOB has a shout box.... MOB has its own metagaming infrastructure (which is ultimately run by jorm) that has nothing to do with this tool... I don't speak for MOB in any capacity... but jorm does... and jorm -- along with the leadership of the RRF, HH and IS -- has expressed some pretty clear displeasure with his group being attached to this project, and asked to be removed. No... I've said it before, I'll said it again: this is little more than "a technologically adept form of impersonation".... VERY disingenous... Therefore, delete with prejudice. --WanYao 16:47, 23 September 2008 (BST)

If anyone is using your shoutbox with our name on it they are NOT members of the MOB, who have explicit orders *NOT* to use your shit. REMOVE IT. I don't know how much fucking clearer I need to be to get through your fucking peabrained fucking head. I am the leader of the MOB. No one else speaks higher than me.--Jorm 18:45, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Ha gods you're a tosser. And your shoutbox isn't mine, it was already in use when I found it on your zombie multi-alt sharing site barhah.com so go fuck yourself you pathetically pompous twat. --Zeug 21:34, 23 September 2008 (BST)
The history of that "shoutbox" is irrelevant. If Jorm says its not to be used for MOB related communications, nobody else can rightly say it is. Calling him "pompus" in this case is a very correct thing; look up the origin & meaning of the word. As far as MOB goes, Jorm's position is quite like that of the Pope's, and you can no more say some shoutbox is a MOB communicatio method just because you saw some MOB members there than you can say the corner store is a Catholic church just because they sell candles with the virgin on them; that's not for you to decide. Swiers 22:27, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Hi swiers, and yes I meant pompous precisely in terms of jorm's totally gay quasi-religious Jesuit bollocks which I find not only hilarious but grotesquely sycophantic. And fuck the pope cos he is irrelevant, this was a MoB shoutbox from barhah.com, they've been chatting on it forever and if gormless jorm would like to give me the admin pass so I can adjust their crappy css I'd be more than happy to relabel it as a UZM Browser Shoutbox like the others. But he's a fuckwit and can't handle a rational conversation while 'in role' as whatever he pretends to be in this game. As for me somehow being obligated to pay my respects to the twit ... HAHAHA ... you a very funny man.--Zeug 10:40, 24 September 2008 (BST)

I wish state... again, sigh... that I speak for no one except myself. Period. That being said, though he needs nothing of the sort from me, I concur with Jorm. And, now, more than fucking enough has been said on this subject... Good-day. --WanYao 18:53, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Yes and how are your beerhah alt swaps with barhah.com going Wan? But it's not my shoutbox, the colours are all wrong. I picked it up from barhah.com ages ago, in fact the creation date for their browser is 4/06/07 and they've been chatting on it since forever. --Zeug 17:09, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Grogh's Vote

Delete - I really hate the way this thing poses as being associated with The MOB. IT's NOT -- Grogh 19:30, 23 September 2008 (BST)
*headwall* Y'all's problem is the tool itself, not with the wiki page. The problem is only the wiki page insofar as the wiki page gives an inaccurate description of the browser. And the solution to inaccurate descriptions of things is to edit the pages related to those things. Not to delete them. This page has every right to be on the UD wiki, as there are zombie groups that make use of it. Put a flipping "history and controversy" section up on the page, for crying out loud, but don't delete something just because you hate what it's describing. Please, someone -- tell me I'm not crazy for saying this. What am I missing?--Jen 19:46, 23 September 2008 (BST)
I don't think you're missing anything, but you may not see that some (most?) zombie groups do not wish to have links with their name on them which point to an external sight that then appears as if it is related to that group. This is intentionally misleading, along with the labels on that page that also appear to belong to the group. Remove any references to The MOB and every other group that hasn't specifically given permission to use their name and I'll withdraw my vote. -- Grogh 19:59, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Mmm...OK. That helps. Yep, I can see the list of links as it stands now (linking directly to the "portals" that the tool has created for those groups), as being a problem. There's a HUGE implication of endorsement there -- plus links like that are wholly unnecessary, as the complete list of them is just one click away, in the first place. Again, though -- wouldn't this be something to edit, not delete? Even Wan says up top that the old list was "annoying, maybe, but ultimately innocuous." And so long as the tool continues to "cover" those groups, I see no reason why they couldn't keep being listed on the wiki page as "groups covered." --Jen 20:14, 23 September 2008 (BST)
It's not even just about "misrepresentation"... It' also about appropriation. Again, this is a technologically adept form of impersonation... And, as for Zeug's comments, like below... He's just butthurt... and overcompensatinf because he doesn't actually garner any respect... And... actually, Zeug could be in the MOB... however, I really, really doubt it, for reasons I'll keep to myself... Anyooo, ciao for now... ::sits back to watch the next syndicated instalment of zeug's frothing-at-mouth-but-thinking-he's-winning show:: ;P

You're missing the meatpuppet show jen, it's how this wiki works. Relax, sit back and enjoy the spectacle of an IRC coordinated barhah.com assault. It's as awesome on the wiki as it is in the City, and actually a lot of fun. My MoB alt loves it. --Zeug 20:01, 23 September 2008 (BST)
What MOB alt? Quit the lying BS. The only way you got a MoB alt is if you used a proxy and hid your real identity. -- Grogh 20:14, 23 September 2008 (BST)
A bit off topic but since you asked I could be using work and home puters, and the idea of a 'real' identity in this virtual space is kind of ridiculous don't you think ... in fact how could anyone know I'm not Grogh replying to myself?--Zeug 20:21, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Richter Fury's Vote

Delete - The page misrepresents itself in a fundamental way, clearly the zombies of malton aren't united at all in this. --RichterFury 01:59, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Yeh I've already offered to redirect UZM and change the wiki name to UZM Zombie Browser. You'll notice the pics are already changed and the website tool has been edited to make it more neutral. But this is more about attacking Extinction than any concern with a sane wiki process. A sysadmin should probably have squashed this mad thread before it started and taken it straight to arbitration, instead we've got 12 more days of this awesome display of barhah.com meatpuppetry. --Zeug 06:08, 24 September 2008 (BST)
the word "united" does not designate a choice to be so it merely means "together" Look at the United kingdom and the number of Scotts who want to break away.... Look at the USSR and how united they proved to be when they got the chance or the US and how united they were when not given the choice... (I doubt that the Southern States were particularly happy to stay in the Union after the civil war) You could try banning lots of groups and bages for being misleading... Indeed if this goes through I might try just to prove a point!--Honestmistake 10:28, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Yeh the browser 'unites' us in a neutral network sense, whether they like it or not. I use it to jump into my various alts in the MoB ... and others. Of course they're crapping themselves about the positive connotations, which is fair enough, so I can change it to UZM as in UrbanDead Zombies of Malton and offered to do so in my first reply to wan's bollocks above. But like I told grim and iscariot before this started, the UZM wiki idea is well over a year old and ancient history so I'm not too fussed if they want to take me on ... and they have. I'd love to set a wiki precedent here, next up all references to Barhah as somewhow a barhah.com copyright! The only REAL BARHAH is Salt the Land and working towards a Zombie Apocalypse! Anyways ... can we go to jorm's arbitration case yet or do I need to organize some meatpuppets of my own to keep this bollocks going?--Zeug 11:13, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Monroeville

With Monroeville being left for dead and decaying into a ruined wasteland, what's the policy on Monroeville related pages? From locations, to groups, to miscellaneous junk, we need to figure out what if any should be considered obsolete or deletable content, or at least require a "Historical" tag. Techercizer^(Food)_(TSoE) 02:02, 16 August 2008 (BST)

Subpage for Scheduling?

There's already quite many of them, and following them is pretty hard as most of the edits to the page are to regular deletions. Why not put them on a subpage? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 03:19, 11 July 2008 (BST)

I don't see why not, it would make it harder to just miss new things being added to the list.--Karek^maps?! 18:16, 11 July 2008 (BST)

I was thinking about doing that myself to be honest. Would make thinks much easier. -- C h e e s e 18:18, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Tselita - Templates

Here you go, Gardenator. Spam-Insult away. --Tselita 21:30, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Please, laugh with me at the sweet, sweet irony of Tselita calling my posts Spam. --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:11, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Tselita, you are beyond retarded. Your templates are shit, you have no idea what humor is, and you call others spammers when you are the biggest spammer. You are an idiot, get it? It's because you have no brain functions and should have been euthanized as a child. Don't like it? Too bad. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:16, 28 June 2008 (BST)

"Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement." - Michael --Tselita 17:07, 3 July 2008 (BST)

You know, Sonny...A move request to a user subpage would be smarter, and also the fact that if you didn't like yours, you should just put yours up for deletion, rather then everyone else's. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:23, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Heh, I posted the deletion for Grim who couldn't get onto the wiki since his ISP locked him out for accessing the site too many times too quickly. I would like it if Tselita just took the raw code and handed it out instead of making a new page each time she wants to make a shitty template. But then again Tselita is a wiki-noob and wouldn't know to do this. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:34, 28 June 2008 (BST)

She new, yes we all know that. Is she learning how to edit this wiki? Yes, she's learning. Slowly, but still learning. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:38, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Michael to Sonny: "It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." --Tselita 17:05, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Me to You: "You're a fucking retard. You should have been an abortion. Please kill yourself, preferably in a fire." --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 21:26, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Tsk tsk, Tselita...can't you see I'm trying to stop a war here? That's not gonna happen if you throw insults back at them, now... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 21:28, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Ok, how about this? I agree to stop fighting with Tselita is she drinks a whole bottle of Drano? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 21:37, 4 July 2008 (BST)

I don't care what you two do to resolve your issues, just do it. I'm getting sick of playing the diplomat here... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 23:06, 4 July 2008 (BST)

It's obvious that he likes the attention. --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 10:02, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Don't go all insult-ish and stuff if you think Tselita is actually a guy. Ever heard of Mia Kristos? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 14:35, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Don't act like you are being diplomatic when you're obviously on a certain users side trying to protect them from the hell they themselves wrought. It's annoying.--Karek^maps?! 14:56, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Hahaha! You mean Mr "I have multiple personalities and its therefore not my fault that i pretended i was a drunken chick and tried to cyber with people on IRC", when multiple personalities just plain dont work that way, dont you Kooks?--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:46, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Hm? Kooks? What makes you think I'm Kooks? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 17:08, 5 July 2008 (BST)

The fact that ive been up for a good long time with very little sleep and my brain is fizzling off. You are who i say you are, so shut up Kooks :P --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:38, 5 July 2008 (BST)

You hush up, Cletus. He's not Kooks, that there is General Robert E Lee and he done be saving us from that there Yank Army across the Potomac. Now me and JEB will be meeting with Longstreet at Stonewall Jackson's flank. I hope to God you brought your gun cause we got us a mess of a fight ahead of us. Tselita is really Yank General Grant and we ain't about to be licked by no northener. Now charge and let that rebel yell go. FOR VIRGINIA! --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 18:41, 5 July 2008 (BST)

No more peace keeping attempts from me...It's a try and fail technique... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:10, 9 July 2008 (BST)

Groups

Yeesss, lets spam the Deletions page again with all the groups that were purposely rejected under crit 12 when it was still around. Didn't we already go through this? With some of these exact same articles even. The ones that meet other crits should be put to A/SD as needed(that means no mass spamming please) and the ones that don't probably shouldn't be here at all. --Karek^maps?! 18:12, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Damn me? Ok then....

Fact: Crit 12 applies exclusively to Speedy Deletions. Were any of these forwarded for Speedy Deletion?

Fact: Since Crit 12 was removed, precedent shows that group pages can be deleted through the standard deletions process.

Fact: Accordingly this template is erroneous at best and plainly deceitful at worst.

Fact: The act of following established precedent and policy should not be disapproved or implied to be a spam contribution, certainly by a member of wiki staff. If something is unclear or erroneous within the system then the policy should be fixed and amended.

--

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:09, 16 April 2008 (BST)

Iscariot, Just because you're trying to get it done through A/D does not mean you aren't still attempting to get some form of Crit 12 enforced whether you believe so or not, your whole stated purpose for deleting the groups is that they are defunct, that's Crit 12, the precedent that these are considered spamming the system, isn't a new one, it's been around since before those speedy deletion cases you linked, some cases, by the way, that were influential in getting Crit 12 put down like the overreaction that it was.--Karek^maps?! 04:43, 17 April 2008 (BST)

It's fine to put abandoned groups up on deletions, but please be a bit more selective about it. I personally only vote for deletion if there is a very short edit history, or the page is very sparse -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:45 18 April 2008 (BST)

Arkham off topic discussion

Delete - Escalating BBK retardness.--Luke Skywalker 11:57, 7 April 2008 (BST)
RE: Actually, Finny, this has nothing to do with the BBK. It is a different group, containing only Nick and Jed. Personal Vendettas do not belong on admin pages.--CyberRead240 12:03, 7 April 2008 (BST)
RE: I was using it as a general term to classify you and your retarded friends.--Luke Skywalker 12:06, 7 April 2008 (BST)
RE: Well then, retard would be an apt name for my retarded friends. Very literal. For you, I use cunt rash.--CyberRead240 12:15, 7 April 2008 (BST)
RE:Boxy, move this and the preceding comments to the talk page please, it's shitting up the admin page.--Nallan (Talk) 12:10, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Why couldn't Boxy just do this as requested? Seems petty that he left it, then cited it in a Vandalism case. Shit sysop.--CyberRead240 13:19, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Jesus christ already, give it up. I did it, and I did it first probably because I saw it before he did -- and it was the correct thing to do. Who's really being petty here, I wonder... --WanYao 15:17, 7 April 2008 (BST)

You, for weighing in on a subject you bear no relation to in an effort to have people see you as a sensible diplomatic type. You are all attacking every page that is Arkham involved because you are not letting it reach its potential. FYI, I hold no relation to any of those pages. I just know them in real life and have heard them talk about the plans they have for the pages, which are quite interesting. Killing them before you give them time to grow, as well as attain some constructive criticism, is a really horrible way to go about things. The only reason any of these pages are even in contention for deletion is because one user placed pages edited by those he has a personal vendetta against. It's pretty stupid really. It seems as if the only way to get on anyones good side here is to tell them how wonderful they are and how they could not improve if they tried. It's pathetic.--CyberRead240 17:31, 10 April 2008 (BST)

As of now it's purpose is simply self referencing nickname promotion -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:59 7 April 2008 (BST)
Well it was simply a redirect (that no one had a problem with) until Finis decided to change it to a disambiguation page.--x o x o 12:01, 7 April 2008 (BST)
Whatever my opinion of Finis outside this context may be... He did the right thing here, since the redirect to which you refer led directly to you peoples' "Arkham Sisters" page... Your little clique is engaging in attention-whoring, pure and simple. Please stop. --WanYao 13:44, 7 April 2008 (BST)

Assylum

Might a vote settle things? Everyone from Assylum should vote on whether they want it kept, or deleted. Majority wins. Bad/good idea?-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let the vote run its course. If it's still there you guys can probably get it moved to a userspace, where it might be more suited. – Nubis 23:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But doesn't that defeat the purpose? The spam is still there, and no one will take all of Assylum into a subpage. Although if it comes to that, I say 73.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There's always been an awful lot of crap in some userspaces, so it's really not that big a deal. – Nubis 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can put it as my subpage. I don't care. It's not like it's gonna be a page no one can edit. Although...put me as a third choice...73 could be the first choice, while Gnome the second... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 23:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no. There'll be no more Assylum if you stick it on my page... -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 23:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would a crackpipe convince you?

	It seemed like a good Idea…
	Axe Hack has given A Helpful Little Gnome a crackpipe to make Assylum as one of his subpages.

--•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

NOOOO!!!! It got deleted! Now I have to steal my infamous battle with Gnome from Gnome's page...I don't trust his page...I think he might have altered the battle... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohnit'soquitetsafe.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(Takes a look at Gnome's page) BOOM!!!!! (Axe is blown off his feet by a hydrogen bomb.) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you see that crypted message?-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Gnome, so I ignored it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I gotta tell you, I love this precedent we've set. Any group, active or not, can now have its page deleted no matter what its own members say. So who's next? How about TZH? The RRF? The DEM? C'mon, don't keep me in suspense. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither,Dear boy. Both groups are perfectly capable of using meatpuppets. --User:Axe27/Sig 05:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Assylum was not a group, it was a spam dump, a collection of spam that had been apparently cut out by vista and dumped on the offenders talk pages, until they put it in the new page. People just claimed it was a group so as to try and prevent its deletion. This sets no precedent except the one that you cant defend pure retarded spam by claiming its a group. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hooray for Grim being rational! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, hooray for Grim ~~taking over the wiki~~ being rational! Now I never have to look at that page again! Thanks again Grimmy!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know just as well as I do, as a "member/contributer" listed on the page, that it was never a group--Karek^maps?! 13:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Could you delete these pages- the Hellfighters and the Sons of Liberty. I created both pages, but I now belong to a new group and the old pages are only causing confusion. Thanks, --Gehennanow^† 14:54, 11 April 2007 (BST)

Policy regarding single votes

What is our policy regarding single votes? IMO, we should require at least one additional delete vote before a page can be deleted. In addition to that, we might consider a rule statating that the moderator deleting the page isn't be allowed to cast the deciding vote, if there is no other votes. I'm asking this, because one of the two recently deleted pages, Zombie plague, was deleted without any votes. The original recommendation was placed when the page in question contained one sentence, and in the meantime, I added some additional content to the page. Now, I guess I should've voted to keep the page, but yet I didn't do it, and now the page is deleted based on the single initial recommendation. Thoughts? -Daranz-Talk 03:56, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

That sounds like an excellent suggestion. I'll happily place that on the guidelines now. As an note, feel free to ask for Zombie Plague's Undeletion, if you feel it was deleted unjustly. -- Odd Starter 04:00, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Schedules?

Where is the deletion schedules section? I want to put up the one-month unused image thing for review by the other moderators, but can't find a place to do this... --LibrarianBrent 04:04, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Not yet been added. I'll add it in a second... -- Odd Starter 04:05, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Policy Regarding Inane Votes

Now regardless of peoples opinions of the contributions of various users - I was wondering whether votes made without a good reason (namely the only comment given with the vote is directly flaming a user) should be removed, as they are on the suggestions page? Or are they allowed to count as real votes here? --Daxx 00:06, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I would say that it makes sense to remove votes that have flames attached, but I'm unsure of votes with simply no attached commentary. Those are allowed in Suggestions - but should they be allowed in something which has a more-permanent result? --Drakkenmaw 00:26, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I don't think votes should ever be removed. Maybe strikethrough the comment, maybe, but certainly don't remove the vote. Hell, it's not even required to provide a comment, and shouldn't be. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 06:25, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Sorry, I meant strikethrough. I think that's what they do in suggestions too. --Daxx 12:53, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

My personal opinion is that we should have some sort of policy in place to limit all the ad hominem attacks and flaming that are plaguing the wiki lately. There's far too much of this behavior taking place in areas where we should be trying to have legitimate discussions. I realize that this wiki will never be "serious business" like wikipedia, but as I've stated elsewhere, if people want to flame each other let them take it to the forums. --Chester Katz 03:38, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Searching

The Searching page has been kept after voting, but there's still a "Moderation Services - Deletion" notice at the top that it's under consideration. Should I remove it, or is that a mod-only kind of thing? --Dickie Fux 20:24, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

No, feel free to remove such notices if they don't match up to current reality. This is just my forgetfulness... -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod} 00:24, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)

An Idea About Deleted Articles

While starting on another project of mine, I noticed that having all those broken links on the Deletions and Speedy Deletions pages star cause issues, albiet minor ones. Would anyone object to removing the brackets to those headers so they were no longer broken links? --Sirens^{T RR} 21:46, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I'm not intensely worried about it, myself. Feel free to do so. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:55, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Since Odd's Ok with it, can I make a suggestion? Wait until they are archived before delinking them — that way it can be a good indication if something has been recreated. If it hasn't been recreated in the time between it showing up on the page, and it being archived, then odds are that the next version of the page might be more palatable. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:12, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Thanks for replying, but Grim and I already discussed this. Talk:Moderation/Speedy_Deletions --Sirens^{T RR} 12:31, 2 May 2006 (BST)

sigh this is one thing I hate about wikis... with so many goddamned talk pages and a search function that is only slighty more helpful than going through every page manually, it's hard to tell when some issue has already been dealt with.

Admittedly, this was a logical place to look at, and I should of done that, but still… –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 02:42, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Template:NoWiki

Considering it's current voting status — the fact it's had "speedy delete" from 4 different users for days now and has no keep votes. Why isn't it gone already? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:08, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Well, strictly speaking, the Deletion/Speedy deletion rules say:

Speedy Delete. For indication that the page meets one of the Speedy Deletions Criteria (includes an implicit Delete).

and

To be eligible for a Speedy Deletion Request, the page must fall under at least one of the following criterion:

so, technically, all the speedy deletion votes are invalid... --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 16:45, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Roll 1d3. Choose the response from below that is most amusing, or makes the most sense. Eat the die.

I'd argue that they are merely an indication that it meets the Speedy Deletion criteria, and that you haven't been halfway imaginative enough to match it against one of 'em. :p
You moderators and your infallible damn logic!
Kevan saves. Template:NoWiki takes 13 damage from fire. Template:NoWiki dies.

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 10:41, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Disbanded Groups

Note: This section was created as a result of Punchkin and MaulMachine's responses to the Starlingtown Resistance Front's nomination for deletion.

Historical groups should be reserved for groups that exist for more than a moment. Everybody will agree to that. But exactly when does a group pass from the "they only existed for a moment" category to "they existed for a little while, let 'em stay" category?

Punchkin raised the issue that small, non-notable groups might fear their page getting nuked, and thus will be less likely to update their page to reflect their disbandment. I contend that many groups that disbanded never updated their page, leaving it full of erroneous and sometimes misleading information.

MaulMachine said that the talk page was still being used. I don't think one spam from Codename V, one confused response from Labine50, one thank-you from PadreRomero a day before the disbandment, and one warning that ther recruitment ad is going to expire from John Rove a day after the disbandment really counts as "active".

The Starlingtown Resistance existed since April 26^th, and ended May 17^th. They existed for 3 weeks. Not even a full month. So I ask you, what is the minimum length of time that a group should exist before their page becomes "permanent"?. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:41, 19 May 2006 (BST)

Forever. Why do we have to delete them? What's the rush? Why the big issue with erasing our history? I don't see any possible value here. Don't give me any bs answers about "polluting the wiki" or anything like that, either - we all know that isn't true. They don't take up any disk space (in fact, the discussion about them seems to take up more). They don't take up any bandwidth (because, frankly, they're rarely hit).

There seems to be an upswing in "OMG DELETE EVERYTHING" lately and I don't think it's warrented. In fact, I think it's primarily backed by a bunch of people who want to become moderators and feel that they need to prove that they are doing something. "Look ma! I can be a sysop, I swear!" Leave these pages doesn't hurt anyone. Someone once worked on the pages and once cared a great deal about them. So there's no need to piss on history just to score points on Moderation/Promotions. --Jorm 07:13, 19 May 2006 (BST)

Is that directed towards me? If so, take note: I've been a rabid deletionist long before I even heard of Urban Dead.

Anyway, what about that group that started and ended on the same day? Do they deserve to be around here forever? Frankly, I wouldn't list groups like the Starlingtown Resistance Front for deletion if they had the courtesy to add [[Category:Historical Groups]], and a paragraph saying they when and why they disbanded. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:56, 19 May 2006 (BST)

Same here. I respect the history and all, but I also like to "keep it clean". Everything that isn't needed can go.

But one thing this wiki does not need, is another subject for voting. So I say we let everything stay and never talk about it again. Page should only be deleted if it doesn't contain ANYTHING usefull in any way. No history or current purpose. --Niilomaan 08:11, 19 May 2006 (BST)

(PS. I was actually replying to the message before yours, but I guess it didn't show well enough. Your editing powers truly are inspiration to us all.)

Mod asking Mods Procedural Question

Re: Votes on deletions and policies.

Re: Votes on deletions and policies. Since "God" has been revealed to be an alt of a banned persona non-grata, does this not invalidate the Votes of "God" on any outstanding policy votes and deletion votes where God has voted but issue not yet resolved? I'm Guessing we could pretty easily assume anything by a banned individual is automaticaly Vandalism and therefore an invalid vote, but I'm not sure its 100% o.k. to assume that without discussion.And we need to address the issue of outstanding votes from banned individuals for future reference. (fyi I beleive the God votes should all be struck null and void but I wasn't going to do it without some consensus on the issue.)Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 21:35, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Agree, they should be struck out. --Brizth ^{M T} 21:39, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Agreed. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:31, 22 August 2006 (BST)

I agree. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:56, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Same here. - Jedaz 10:14, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Ok, it seems we all agree. No surprising really. So, if anyone sees his votes, please strike them out. --Brizth ^{M T} 10:21, 22 August 2006 (BST)

historical Groups policy

Can someone confirm for me that the Historical Groups Policy passes as originally written? --Darth Sensitive

^W! 10:51, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Yes, it passed. With the exactly 66% voting yes. --Brizth ^{M T} 11:05, 22 August 2006 (BST)

New Criterion Suggestion

New criterion Suggestion specificaly for deletions page: Crit 13:Wiki pages that are created specificaly to mislead players or are complete falshoods are subject to speedy deletion. This would give us the necessary tool to delete certain pages that make obviously false claims, or present utterly ridiculous material as legitimate wiki entries i.e. Throc Mall which I'm going to guess started out as a parody, but in fact creates an unusual conflict with the locations project. Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 08:56, 10 September 2006 (BST)

What's with the comments on votes?

Lately there has been growing tendency to comment on others' votes if they are against your opinion. The talk goes to the talk page I reckon. Replace comment with flame if you wish. --Bonefiver 08:08, 25 August 2006 (BST)

There is no rule for that. People are free to comment on each others votes if they want. If the talking gets really lengthy, usually one of us will move it. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:37, 25 August 2006 (BST)

i dont know what to do here.

as of now, the malton reclaim and malton imperial federation are disbnaded. and such the wiki pages are not needed. i have saved mine, plz delete em.--cody6 02:39, 26 October 2006 (BST)

wtf!?!

Why is the project page protected!?! -Certified=Insane^☭ 00:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I requested a temporary lock on the page. See M/PT for details. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Shouldn't there be a header on the main page saying this page is protected because of reason for amount of time? Would make things more obvious, I thought it was some mistake... -Certified=Insane^☭

01:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there should be some kind of template there but we don't have one. Don't worry, it should be unprotected the moment someone sees my unprotect request. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since people weren't allowed to vote for the full 2 weeks, shouldn't the items that were up for voting when the page was protected be put up for a vote a second time? --Kiki Lottaboobs 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is already anciente history kiki, the files/pages that were up for deletion were already deleted or kept. (sadly, most of them were deleted) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Escendo Numerus

Delete Wrong. It doesn't link to your group page as said page has already been deleted, for lack of members. A page cannot belong to a category that does not exist. Mark Williams 10:24, 1 April, 2007 (PDT)
I'll mention this here. If you want to continue it, take it to my personal talk page. No group is linked to or mentioned anywhere on the page in question. It's not harassment, it's meta game fun. Furthermore, my group page and all the others associated with it are just fine, thanks. See for yourself. Adrian Jeshua 18:29, 1 April 2007 (BST)
The discussion is germaine to the proposed deletion of this page, therefore it stays right here, Adrian. Mark Williams 10:33, 1 April, 2007 (PDT)

Delete They've turned one page of harassment into multiple pages of spam. Also, Spicy A = Adrian Jeshua. PROXIES ARE AWESOME! Mods, have fun. I'm gone. -- Aiden H
Haha, wrong. -- Vigeous _RHA 00:56, 2 April 2007 (BST)
You're pretty unobservant then. Reveka himself calls Jeshua by that nickname on a very frequent basis. Jeshua has also used the account lemonade (one of his regular nicknames when he attacks our forums) as well as a few others to vandalize this wiki in regards to 4H pages multiple times. -- Aiden H
You, sir, are wrong. I have never referred to Jeshua as Spicy A. There is no point in it, either, as they are two completely different people with whom I am good friends. If you wish to accuse us of things of which you have no proof, please do it on the EN talk page, to spare both yourself humiliation in a public setting and to keep this page free of grudge driven lies. Thank you. Josh Reveka 01:59, 2 April 2007 (BST)

yes you have, though I'm sure you'll write that off too. As for talking to you on your page, several of our members including myself have tried a multitude of times to speak with you two civilly and request you leave us alone, and we are always met with insults, mockery and more harassment. So stop trying to present yourself as civil. -- Aiden H

Err, no, not really. When he was referring to Spicy A, he was referring to me. Notice that he said "our" Valentine, denoting the Valentines for both himself and Adrian, and not him alone. Adrian and myself are two completely different people. Just because his first and my last initial are the same does not mean we are. --Spicy A 05:49, 2 April 2007 (BST)

Yes, I must say I do concur with my spicy comrade. Josh and I were asking if Spicy A would be our valentine. We knew it'd be photographed. We wanted an homage to her. As for several of you trying to contact us in a civil manner, no. The only 4H members to actively seek contact with us have been yourself, Mark Williams, and Yaznov. And if anyone who is curious please direct your clicks here you'd see that no, you are guilty of exactly what you claim us to be. Adrian Jeshua 20:13, 2 April 2007 (BST)

Keep - It seems to me like some people with a grudge against Escendo Numerus trying to get the page deleted. Yaznov is part of the 4H a group that is in war with EN.It’s a hostile and childish act to get revenge. Revenge and ingame fights shouldn’t be a reason to delete a page. IMHO trying to get a enemies page deleted is a form of griefing. Pathetic Bill 00:05, 2 April 2007 (BST)
Incorrect. We have NEVER been in a war with another survivor group. They formed a group specifically devoted to harassing us ingame. They have run over 35 players completely out of Urban Dead in the process of harassing us. They spam our forums, deface our wiki, zerg us ingame, beg for people like you to come help them grief us, and have even have tried to access our UD accounts as a means to kill us without shooting us. We, for the mostpart, have tried to go on playing the game the way it's meant to be played (survivor vs. zed) and ignore them, but they refuse to go away. We have defended ourselves in the past, yes. But we have NEVER been at war with them. We have no interest in killing other survivors. -- Aiden H
Pardon me, but unless you have any proof, such as screen shots, profile, and IP address, then I do not think that you can prove they zerg you. And last time I checked, I could kill someone, so obviously your 'the way it is supposed to be played' thesis is in fact, wrong. Also, Spicy A and Adrian are two different people, unless every time Adrian wants to be Spicy, he gets a sex change. (Sorry mods I i am trolling, but almost delete on this page is from a 4H member. Not at war, eh.) -- Vigeous _RHA 01:44, 2 April 2007 (BST)

I've shared the proxy service Jeshua uses, along with example IP a number of times. It's always met with indifference from the moderation, and a pack of lies from ol' Ade. You would do well to not interject yourself into a long-standing issue you know nothing about. I am aware that Ade is a good e-public speaker but that doesn't make him any less of a snake oil salesman. -- Aiden H

Well, that is exactly what I am doing. People this is a (Expletive) game, I don't give a rat's (expletive) what kind of rivalries you have, as game laws entail, I can get right in the {expletive} middle. Also, your Spicy A being Ade picture isn't working. -- Vigeous _RHA 12:49, 2 April 2007 (BST)

So. This would mean they have all the proxy data they'd need to prove my guilt and ban me then? I suppose it isn't much to you that a system operator said I wasn't using a proxy?. They've met you with indifference because you can't give them any solid evidence. Why? Because none exists. Adrian Jeshua 20:24, 2 April 2007 (BST)

This is crap. Everytime we do anything public you people scream bloody murder and humiliate the both of us. You want a debate? Fine. Direct it to our talk page like Josh and I have said three times now if you're so for blood. I'm so sick of you dragging our garbage and bad blood into the public. For everyone else who may want to vote who doesn't already know the story, my responses to the claims against us thus far are here. You claim we don't have lives, but Mark sure can bitch and moan, and Yaznov sure can operate his four alts pretty well in such strict time limitations. Adrian Jeshua 02:30, 2 April 2007 (BST)

The discussion should be limited to the deletion of the page. To bring in other factors to prejudice voting is not only irrelevant but also childish to the extreme. --Karloth Vois ^RR 15:06, 4 April 2007 (BST)

Copywrited Content

It's a major foodchain, It's got that little (r) in it that says it's registered. this is copyrighted. It's clearly stated just above the summary line. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION! this also includes fair use, artistic license and for uses of parody. that means there won't be a vote on it but that it should go straight to bit heaven. I'm leaving it up here until a second sysop gives his opinion as I don't want to restart the drama we had over copywrited work before.-- Vista +1 21:55, 9 July 2007 (BST)

It's not copyrighted, it's trademarked. Does the wiki have a policy against the use of trademarks?--Kali Magdalene 22:57, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Better watch out, or Arby's will take valuable time away from its billion-dollar empire to sue the wiki. Sweet zambah g-zaz. Hagnat, what do you say about this? It'd be nice to hear from someone who doesn't swing from the survivors nuts. --Goolina _{Gore Corps} 23:04, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Goolina, grow the fuck up, I've been a member of the RRF since papa Petrosjko. I've got 3 characters of which 2 are zombies. And this has fuck all to do with being a or zombie or survivor. And yes Kevan has been threatened with lawsuits over copyright infringement in the past for similar nonsensical issues.-- Vista +1 23:15, 9 July 2007 (BST)

But is it copyright infringement, if it's a registered trademark? I think not. --User:Axe27/Sig 23:29, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Registered means it's considered the intellectual property of the registering company. If trademark infringement falls under copyright law or under it's own unique category I don't know. But then again neither do you. as neither of us are copyright lawyers, Now, it is unlikely that Arby's will react to this, but it's Kevan who bears the risk and it's Kevan who would be paying the lawyer bills.

Quite frankly I'm not willing to bet on I think not just to let 4 people keep something as trivial as a template. Especially as it's not about us being in the right, but Kevan proving them wrong. They'll always have the upper hand. Now as long as there are no cease and desist letters we're pretty much in the clear. But for four people, why risk it?-- Vista +1 23:57, 9 July 2007 (BST)

Let's see what Kevan said in the policy: "The Urban Dead Wiki prohibits the usage of copyrighted material in anyway way shape or form without the express consent of the original owner of such material. This includes the usage of logos and other forms of intellectual property." So, has Arby's agreed to the use of their trademarked logo (which is prohibited on the wiki) on this wikipedia? If you can prove that, then I will drop this. If not, then Kevan has clearly defined his view on this policy. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 01:49, 10 July 2007 (BST)

What does Abry's have to say on this, I wonder? "Trademarks: The Trademarks displayed on the Site are registered and unregistered Trademarks of Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. Nothing contained on the Site should be construed as granting, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, any license or right to use any Trademark displayed on the Site, or any license or right to use any other trademark owned by any other third party. In the event that you misuse any Trademark in violation of these Terms and Conditions, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., will aggressively enforce its intellectual property rights to the fullest extent of the law, including the seeking of criminal prosecution." This means that they will sue Kevan in order to protect their trademark. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 01:59, 10 July 2007 (BST)

That only matters in a case of misuse, this isn't misuse.--karek 02:00, 10 July 2007 (BST)

No, Arby's said that they would prosecute people who use their trademark and will not let anyone use it. Kevan says: "The Urban Dead Wiki prohibits the usage of copyrighted material in anyway way shape or form without the express consent of the original owner of such material. This includes the usage of logos and other forms of intellectual property. This is a very clear-cut case. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 02:06, 10 July 2007 (BST)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Logos] --karek 02:14, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Uh, thanks for doing the work for me? "Guidelines: Logos should be presumed to be trademarks and/or copyrighted." Nevermind that the regular wikipedia isn't Urban Dead's wikipedia, right? --Akule ^{Akule News.} 02:22, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Read the rest first.--karek 02:40, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Sure. "When a logo is removed because of an objection on the part of the owner, no attempt should be made to re-insert the logo (except perhaps under very extraordinary circumstances, and only after extensive discussion). The other provisions of this policy are intended to cover ordinary, common-sense usage. When the circumstances are unusual and the use of the logo is in dispute, this policy should not be cited as weighing on the side of inclusion." Now, didn't Arby's expressly say they didn't want their trademark used? Ah yes, they did. Then: "U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by non-owners for purposes of criticism and commentary." The UD Wiki is hosted in the UK, which means that it is subject to UK law and not US law. Even then, how is the Arby's image being used for criticism or commentary on Arby's? Despite this, that is the wikipedia and this the the UD Wiki. Look at the url, you will find they are two different sites. You'll recall Kevan's previous statement on this matter. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 02:51, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Why not just replace it with a photograph of two people trying to choke each other in front of their local Arby's.?! --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 02:50, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I am all for replacing it with something else appropriate. Get two people trying to choke each other while dressed up in red cowboy hats and using lariats. It'd be funny and an original image, which is allowed on the UD Wiki. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:07, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Question. If I type out the word Arby's and put it on a picture of a red cowboy hat would that be copyright infringement? The Arby's foodchain (barely fits under the category of food) is copyrighted or registered trademark or whatever, but not the word or the use of red cowboy hats. The font and style maybe. But Arby's does not own the word Arby's or red cowboy hats. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 02:51, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Depends, if it looks mostly like the symbol then that's not ok, but if it were say a real cowboy hat and not a drawn one then I'm sure a parody argument could probably be made.--karek 02:59, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Nope. The logo would have to be used to criticize Arby's for it to fall under parody law, which doesn't exist in the UK, where Kevan's servers are located. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:07, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Excellent Question, Sonny. I'm glad you brought it up. Surprisingly enough, Arby's does hold a copyright over a typed out version of their name, "Arby's". Feel free to browse the US Trademark database if you don't believe me. It's a basic search for "Arby's". You see, Sonny, if they didn't own the typed out version of their name, then anyone could theoretically make an Arby's by putting up two different signs and claiming they were a completely different restaurant named Red Hat Arby's. However, the combination of the red hat and the Arby's name is a trademarked logo and would get you sued. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:07, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Okay mister lawyer guy. What about if it was spelled different?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:09, 10 July 2007 (BST)

What about the red text Arby's with a red oval that is cut off? Or a top hat even? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 03:10, 10 July 2007 (BST)

It may just be me, but couldn't you just use the word Arbies and have it apply better to what you were using it for anyway.--karek 03:13, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Arby's could still argue that you are attempting to circumvent a registered trademark by simply misspelling their name. People would still look at the logo and know exactly what it meant to say, which is still covered. Try opening a restaurant called Arbi's and see how far you get. Seriously, just take a picture of two guys in red cowboy hats strangling each other with lariats. You get the same intent but without the copyright mess and will be able to work within the copyright guidelines that Kevan made for the UD Wiki. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:15, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Uh, Sonny. Read above. Arby's owns the copyright and trademark for the word "Arby's" So you couldn't even put a red balloon or purple horseshoe over it. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:17, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Since there have been keep votes and a discussion on the issue doesn't it become ineligible for speedy deletion and should be move to Deletion instead? - Vantar 03:24, 10 July 2007 (BST)

The only reason why it is still here is because Vista is waiting for a second sysop's opinion. Otherwise it would have been outright deleted as a violation of UD wiki policy.--Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:31, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I thought you meant the combination of the word and picture. Ok, since it is a shortened version of Arbitration couldn't we do Arby.'s? It's like Information and Info. A store can be called Info but that does not mean can't use the word Info. I'm just trying to say that I made the template because of so many people going to Arbitration that it was like going to the restaurant. What about just Arby? That's a shortened version of Arbitration without going into the restaurant. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 03:27, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Both actually. The main problem is that the logo is still recognizable. Why not get someone to take a picture of a guy in a red hat dragging you to a darkened room using a lariat? That would play up on the fact that people are dragging you constantly into arbitration and would be your own copyrighted image. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:31, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Maybe if the picture was huge but this is for a small template. No one would see it. What about a picture of an Arby's sandwich? They cannot possibly copyright the look of their sandwhich. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 03:42, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I'd have to check, because they use several iconic images in their marketing advertisements. How small does the template have to be? You could easily enlarge the template a little bit and get a clear view of a guy dragging you off. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:48, 10 July 2007 (BST)

The picture has to be 80x105 because I can't be assed to change it. And everything on my user page is in a nice little order. If I take a picture of a fucking spam sandwhich (since I've never seen roastbeef that looks like that before) would that work? Their commercial sandwhiches are VERY different from the actual product. The sandwhich you get looks like a fat guy sat on 3 pieces of spam slapped on a dried out bun. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 03:53, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah. If you took a picture of a spam sandwich, it should be kosher. I even think a spam sandwich might be even more amusing than an Arby's sandwich as it hints at the merit of the arbitrations against you. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 03:56, 10 July 2007 (BST)

So the image has to go but the rest of the template is fine? Here is a roast beef sandwich. Not an Arby's one. http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/3726/roastbeefsandwichmdhousmp6.jpg --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 04:05, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah, it's basically the image that is violating it. I'd say the only problem with the new image is that someone else took the picture. Can you get a roast beef sandwich and take a picture of it yourself? That'd make it your own copyrighted photograph. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 04:11, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Dude, it's a fucking sandwich. Let the inventor of the sandwich sue me. And no, I will not get my own picture. I hate Arby's. Their food tastes like shit and I'm not wasting nearly $4 for a picture that I'll probably take with my camer phone. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 04:22, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I tell you what. I'll take a picture of an Arby's sandwich and it will cover all bases. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 04:29, 10 July 2007 (BST)

First Akule, check the history. Kevan never said any of that, all he said was "All content on the Urban Dead wiki is owned by the individual user who created it, and may not be reproduced without their express permission." Now, the reason for this edit was to stop people from going over board and adding thousands of copyrighted images, which I belive it has done. As of such unless Kevan specificaly says that he wants the image gone we should keep it under fair use. Is it doing any harm? No. Is it giving Arbys a bad image? I don't think so. Then why should Arbys care about it? They don't. At the very least it should go through the deletions process rather then being speedy deleted. - If Jedaz = 04:23, 10 July 2007 (BST) then pi = 3

I did. And he did. "Have gone with the default assumption that people posting their content here don't want it blindly reproduced anywhere and everywhere (and I imagine this is the default copyright status anyway, that a single user thinking it's funny to post "we don't need no stinking copyrights" is legally meaningless), but feel free to thrash this out as a policy discussion or something." and "All upload and edit pages have boldface warnings against posting copyrighted work, and always have." This is why the policy was modified to say: "The Urban Dead Wiki prohibits the usage of copyrighted material in anyway way shape or form without the express consent of the original owner of such material. This includes the usage of logos and other forms of intellectual property." by a moderator at the time. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 04:29, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Let Kevan decide for himself for this individual case then. If it has to be deleted I'll replace the pic. No big deal. But let's check with Kevan first. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 04:31, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Kevan does not have time to judge each and every case on an individual basis. This is why he appointed administrators to help create and maintain current policy. The Current Copyright Policy states that no copyrighted images are allowed on the wiki without the express permission of the creator. Period. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 04:34, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Akule that is a poor excuse. Your demanding it be deleted, when another User is asking for clarifaction from Kevan. Poor form. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:35, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Kevan has already discussed this sort of thing before. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 04:38, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Your point? Akule demands it should be deleted, therefore it is deleted? --User:Axe27/Sig 04:39, 10 July 2007 (BST)

If you are so sure that he wants it to be deleted then just let us waste our time by asking him. Worst case scenario for me is him saying delete. Either way I couldn't give a shit. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 04:40, 10 July 2007 (BST)

No. I am pointing out a violation of UD Wiki policy, which is in-line with something being deleted. Kevan supports copyrighted images being resolved on the speedy deletions page. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 04:45, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Did you even notice who edited it? Let me link you to their user-page User:Jedaz. Yes, Kevan doesn't want peoples work that they placed on this wiki to be reproduced everywhere. However he doesn't say that people can't legaly use copyrighted material. This falls under the category of fair use by parody. Just so you know, I didn't get the "will of the community" or the "support of other sysops" to change the policy. No, I was working back in the day where people didn't bring up crap just because they could, and everyone was working towards the same positive goal. Alot has changed since those days. But I can solve this problem once and for all if I want, since that the second half of the policy is mine I can remove my copyrighted work. Of course that would be extreamly childish so I'm not going to. Why? Because it's helpful and it makes people happy. So why are you trying to ruin that by removing this image? - If Jedaz = 04:43, 10 July 2007 (BST) then pi = 3

I did notice, hence why I pointed it out. Kevan even stated that the UD wiki is following UK laws, which does not allow parody. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 04:45, 10 July 2007 (BST)

You're trying to tell me why I changed the policy? Thats all I can see you pointing out, please correct me if I'm wrong though. Anyway since we have established that the Copyrights document on the wiki is moot for this case then we can safely ignore it. As for UK laws I'm unclear about them specificaly, however as Kevan himself stated (looking at the link you just gave me) "it's okay if it's an obvious frame from a film or something". Anyone looking at that image would know that it's from the resturant chain, infact the image description states that it's "in this case the Arby's Sign". Can we get any clearer, Kevan stated as long as there is a good write-up to indicate that it's someone elses work then it's allowed. By the way you ignored my last question. - If Jedaz = 05:00, 10 July 2007 (BST) then pi = 3

No. I am saying that Kevan said: "Write up a policy." Which you did. As for the link I posted, the text I was indicating was: "I guess we're going with UK copyright law, since my server's located in the UK. Requiring the write-up on each image page is definitely a good idea, but I don't think UK law gives much room for fair use (no "parody", for a start), so not much is going to be allowed." The page, Copyright merely defines what a copyright is, not the Policy on Copyrights. Also, when you read what he said on that copyright policy page, did you note this: "All upload and edit pages have boldface warnings against posting copyrighted work, and always have." According to the policy which you wrote and that Kevan supports copyrighted images are not allowed on the UD Wiki without the express permission of the copyright holder. Arby's said that they don't want third-parties using their trademark and that they will sue to keep it protected. How clearer does this need to be for you? --Akule ^{Akule News.} 05:09, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Heh, I'm sorry, but I can't see how you get that Kevan Supports it in it's entirity from that page (I'm not saying he doesn't though). All I can see is him saying that someone should write up a policy. Anyway could you please show us a link where Arby's stated that? Or more specificaly stating that where by they also indicate for non-commercial reasons (it's obvious for commercial reasons). If you can I'll apologise and back down. As for the bold faced warnings, they are a wiki default. Plus it doesn't define what copyright is, so according to that it is nice and legal to have this image because of fair use laws where I live. But as I said before, show me a link to where Arbys stated that they don't want their image used in any non-commercial way (because thats how it's being used here). - If Jedaz = 05:44, 10 July 2007 (BST) then pi = 3

Sure. I linked it above, but I can do it again. "Trademarks: The Trademarks displayed on the Site are registered and unregistered Trademarks of Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc. Nothing contained on the Site should be construed as granting, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, any license or right to use any Trademark displayed on the Site, or any license or right to use any other trademark owned by any other third party. In the event that you misuse any Trademark in violation of these Terms and Conditions, Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., will aggressively enforce its intellectual property rights to the fullest extent of the law, including the seeking of criminal prosecution." They don't want their trademarks used, period. --Akule ^{Akule News.} 06:06, 10 July 2007 (BST)

As a side note, where you live doesn't matter. All that matters is where the images themselves reside. It's kind of like how prostitution is legal in Nevada but is pretty much outlawed everywhere else. Since the images are hosted in the UK, it means that they are subject to UK law, which has very strict terms for fair dealing (fair use UK style). --Akule ^{Akule News.} 06:12, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Ah, my mistake I didn't see that link earlier. Anyway I guess you are right so I'm sorry about that, but my point still stands that it's just for a bit of fun and that they won't care so theres no harm keeping it until they ask for us to remove it. As I see that document we are allowed to use the image, "Arby’s authorizes you to view and download the materials at this website (“Site”) only for your personal, non-commercial use...", I think that fits into the criteria. Of course that document contradicts itself by saying that we can use the materials on the website for out personal, non-commercial use whilst saying that we don't have 'rights' or 'liceneces' to logos. However in the legal sense I imagine that the rights are intelectual property rights, and licences are the rights to use them for financial gain. - If Jedaz = 08:33, 10 July 2007 (BST) then pi = 3

No. It doesn't. "Nothing contained on the Site should be construed as granting, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, any license or right to use any Trademark displayed on the Site, or any license or right to use any other trademark owned by any other third party." --Akule ^{Akule News.} 08:45, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Have we asked Arby's if we could use the logo for the template yet? I mean beyond reading what their stated policy is and sending an email along the lines of "Hey can we use this image for this reason on this website".If not shouldn't we since it would save some time. If they say yeah go for it use the image than case closed or if the they no don't use we have lawyers then we just take it down. It's not like contacting them is impossible [1] I have done stuff like this before and a lot of the times the companies are really good about stuff like this. - Vantar 08:55, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah...maybe they'll send us free t-shirts and coupons and endorsements. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 08:56, 10 July 2007 (BST)

This sticker is really damned inconvenient , but I do love fig newtons. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 09:00, 10 July 2007 (BST)

They say ahead of time, they don't allow you to use their trademark, period. I seriously doubt you will want me to go and contact them, as they will contact Kevan. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 09:09, 10 July 2007 (BST)

If they contact Kevan we take the image down no problems but hopefully it won't go that far, if you are going to contact them could you tell us in advance so other people don't, I'm sure 3 or 4 emails from us asking the exact same thing will only insure a no from them. - Vantar 09:18, 10 July 2007 (BST)

They are surely going to say no, regardless. Just look at what is below the image on the deletion's page. Would you think Arby's would want to be associated with this wiki? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 09:25, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I doubt they'd read the shit on this wiki anyway. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 09:29, 10 July 2007 (BST)

They will when someone contacts them. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 09:32, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Akule would certainly want you to believe that Arby's is copyrighted material. And he make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

Exhibit A

Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending the wiki, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 09:38, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Because stranger things have happened, I can go in to more details and back it up with facts but there is no real reason to, All you really need to say is,

"Dear Arby's I work on the Urban Dead Wiki [2], a site that provides information for the zombie survival MMORPG Urban Dead [3]. On the site we have an area called arbitration where disputes are settled among different player. Over time this area has gotten the nickname "Arby's" and this template was created as a joke amongst some of the users. We are aware that the Image used belongs to Arby's and would like to know if it would be okey for us to keep using it, we would be happy add what ever copyright information you see fit. If not we can also remove the image from our files. Thank you for your time"

Or something like that- Vantar 09:42, 10 July 2007 (BST)

You spelled okay wrong. Now we're fucked. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 09:47, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I'll be sure to area call arbitration. It's on the Pluto right?--karek 09:50, 10 July 2007 (BST)

It's 5am I'm allowed some sellling errors,Also the Wookie defense is flawed for two reasons

1) It makes perfect sense for Chewbacca to live on Endor, the constant tribal wars of Kashyyyk are what lead to Chewbacca leaving and eventual meeting of Han Solo. The way Ewoks live in a harmony with their environment is something that Chewbacca has been searching for all his life.

2) Chewbacca doesn't live on Endor he died on Sernpidal. Yes I am a geek I know- Vantar 09:59, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Chewbacca left because of the Imperial backed Trandoshan slave hunters. And the Ewoks were at constant war with the Duloks. Chewbacca died when the Yuuzhan Vong imploded the moon that Anakin and Han Solo were evacuating people off of. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 10:03, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Teddy bears > Sith?!--karek 10:07, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Don't make me quote Chasing Amy on Star Wars. Lord knows we don't need it. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF CoL DORIS Hunt!} 10:09, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I only know the clerks discussion on star wars. There's one on amy as well?-- Vista +1 10:13, 10 July 2007 (BST)

You know, sometimes, with someone who you really care about, it's acceptable to go ass to mouth.--karek 10:16, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Just out of intrest has anyone checked if the "arby's" food chain copyrighted their logo in the UK because if they didn't (and not operating over here i doubt they bothered) then its not protected anyway is it??? Now as AKULE is fond of saying "UK law has no parody protection!" sadly for him, he is american and has probably never visited the UK and thus won't realsie that we don't have it because we don't need it. We have different laws and a vey odd system of interpreting them so even if they did want to persue this its unlikely that they would get far in court (mac donalds spent over 10s of millions chasing someone through the courts for abusing their copyright, it took them years but they eventually won, damages were less than a weeks minimum wage!) Such cases are judged by Judges and frankly if Arby's went straight to court and it was proved that they never asked for it to be removed they would lose, If they asked and it was removed and they went to court as-well they would lose and finally if they asked we told them to blow and they went to court they would be laughed at and probably awarded less than the price \of one of their burgers in compensation while we would have to remove the logo!--Honestmistake 10:50, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Well the problem isn't really whether it is allowed or not, because we'd probably would have the law on our side, eventually. Problem is the eventually. A lot of corperations are in the habit of simply sueing so they can say they defended their trademark, because if they don't have a consistant record of doing that they'll risk losing all control of their trademark under the law. It's not that they care about us, but sueing a lot of small users inoculates them them for the big cases. And as small users are more intimidateble and less likely to have to have the money for lawyers It's more cost effective then going after the more harmful infractions. And it's Kevan who they would held accountable for the content of this wiki, not us. And the money he'd need for lawyers is probably more then the money he'd lose on the settlement. Now as long as there are no cease and decist letters everything is fine. but personally I'm in favor of simply not running the risk.-- Vista +1 11:18, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Following a link kindly provided by Akule i did a search of the US trademark list and it would appear that they cancelled their registration in 2004! now it may well be registered elsewhere but i cannot be bothered trawling the world to find it! I have checked though and US trademarking does not carry over into UK law, Arby's don't trade here so it is very unlikely they have TM'd over here. This is a UK site so one presumes UK law applies, what we would be guilty of (if anything) is dilution but for dilution to apply we would have to be diluting something... as far as UK law is concerned we are not and in fact it is arguable that should Arby's wish to start trading here we could sue them for diluting our image as we have prior use in the UK :)--Honestmistake 10:56, 11 July 2007 (BST)

The page I created is up for deletion?

If so, Why is it not in the queue? I do not care if the page gets deleted or not, just want to know why there is no place to vote on it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TexasRed (talk • contribs) 04:05, January 10, 2008.

It looks like Nalikill put the template on it, and got distracted by something else, and never got around to nominating it. Feel free to remove {{delete}} from the page if you are still active, or put it up for A/SD yourself if it's no longer needed -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:24 10 January 2008 (BST)

Figures. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

the dead of Dunell Hills

Speedy Deleted per request. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting on that deletion. For some reason someone just changed the name of the page and now it's like a whole new page. Except not really. --Laughing Man 15:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore the fact that this page was recreated as a redirect to DHPD/the dead of Dunell Hills gives credence to the idea that that page was created as a deletion workaround. Tell Mobius187 or whoever to cut it out immediately. --Riseabove 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The redirect is now gone, but a placeholder page (essentially blank) is needed. If we delete it, it will just be recreated again, and again, and again when newbies turn up looking for the page. Because the group is so large, and at the moment so controversial, there is no way to ensure it will be kept deleted. If you want to discuss this further, please use the talk page here, or on speedydeletions, where this is also being discussed -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:18 26 February 2008 (BST)

Allow me to clear things up, since pages were deleted repeatedly along with their histories and comments, thus anyone coming across this may not be familiar with the events. The The_dead_of_Dunell_Hills page was originally put up by Conndraka without our permission, and after a edit war Laughingman (a member of the group) called everyone whiny bitches (rightfully so) and created a basic page for us. Editing continued to be made to it without our authorization, so we called for deletion, which happened. Conndraka then copied and pasted the page in its entirety before deletion to DHPD/the_dead_of_Dunell_Hills. Additionally sysops hagnat and karek placed redirects of our group name and its misspellings (as seen on the stats page at the bottom) leading directly to DHPD/the_dead_of_Dunell_Hills. This is what Laughingman and riseabove were referring to. Furthermore it was a clear act of deletion circumvention if I may say so myself. In any case, those are the events and now that we are once again forced to maintain a page for ourself, but without the faggotry, the situation is partially resolved (we still would prefer no page with no redirects).--Gregarious Instigator 03:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just misleading, I redirected nothing.--Karek^maps?! 03:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You sure? I've been looking through your forums a bit, and it seems some people want a page. Regardless, there has to be a page, otherwise people will keep creating it. I can't protect a non-existent page as far as I know. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke, you did not redirect anything Karek. You just gave us a ton of shit on the matter.

As the page, only a few people have voiced that we should have a page, and as I said the situation is mostly resolved. We do not want a page, but we recognize your last sentence as an inevitable truth.--Gregarious Instigator 03:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The best thing for you guys to do, is to go away, decide amongst yourselves what you want on the page (be that blank or a short statement about yourselves, or even a full on group page) and then get back to us. Make an edit request on the protections page and it will be done. Please note that if you decide on a page with no content at all, a short NPOV section may be added to give the basics (ie large zombie group, not zergers, etc.) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:00 26 February 2008 (BST)

Why is this necessary at all? Conndraka does not seem to be interested in removing his copy of the page, let that serve whatever informational purpose is required if it must exist. Juan carlos 07:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the answer to that would be damned obvious. The DHPD is an enemy, having them write the "official" information about the group, and disallowing anyone else from editing it is a ridiculous suggestion. Now, if this is a suitable compromise, just leave it. If TDODH want to add to it, or want to make a proper group page down the track, request it be edited, or unprotected, on A/PT -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:38 27 February 2008 (BST)

This is REALLY starting to piss me off!

I dunno if you people have been aware of xela798 aka. Dr Sinclair's prodigious "business" standings, but she creates a new business every single day. And, it isn't because her "business" is expanding, it has all of 3 active employees. These pages are a waste of space, and therefore should be deleted.

The first two up for deletion are....

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Sinclair_Hotels/Sinclair_Biological_Weapons http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Sinclair_General_Hospital Jill Valentine 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put these up for deletion, stick them on the main page and see what the community thinks. :) I personally think she needs the one page rather than about 11 pages that look the same. -- C h e e s e 18:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

...Isn't this where you'd put the requests? Jill Valentine 18:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. :P They go here. This is the Talk Page. -- C h e e s e 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Errr....

was % kills does a request need to go? Is it 50%, 66% or what? Can't see it anywhere (didn't look very hard). I had it in my head it was 50% but that seems stupidly low....--x o x o 14:17, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Wrongly deleted image?

The image File:Burb-edge-grey.gif seems to have vanished - I can't work out why. It is a part of the Omnimap, and it being deleted breaks the map. I'll re-create and re-upload it tomorrow, but I'd like to mark these images (there's a set of them) as 'in use' somehow. What should I do? Garum 01:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

make a subpage of the omnimap and put them all on it, similar to Mall Images.--x o x o 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is happening far too often, without resorting to the obvious, is it time for a Project:Image Ark for things like this? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think users who frequently use/disuse images should simply make a subpage or community page (circumstance depending) with their images on it. Otherwise we'll be "saving" images in the ark that no one actually has any intention of using.--x o x o 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of running it somewhat like ALIM, a few volunteer users just maintaining it and getting rid of any crap that appears, keeping the needed stuff like Map or Mall images and still allowing the deletion of things like Image:KOTDinthebathLOLZ. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 01:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying no one has any intention of using Image:KOTDinthebathLOLZ?? But yeah, that could work.--x o x o 02:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

People may want to use Image:KOTDinthebathLOLZ, but it's no more important than Image:Cheeseoftheweek and should be subject to the same removal criteria. Images that assist in the wiki's maintenance and information services should be placed somewhere though. Well volunteered J3D ;) --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as an unused image. It can't have been included anywhere at the time. I shouldn't happen, but does. Solutions to this problem are being discussed at the moment on A/U. I would suggest creating a page, Omnimap/Elements where all the images and templates used in the actual map can be included, so that it keeps them off the unused lists -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:52 13 November 2008 (BST)

I'm afraid you'll have to create another, and re-upload it. We can't undelete or restore images -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:54 13 November 2008 (BST)

I've made an elements page, and I hadn't deleted the gifs from my HD, so I just uploaded it again. Problem solved. Thanks. Garum 12:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Old Image Deletion Request

File:Feon.jpg

I notice that both Iscariot and J3D have now included the image on their sub-pages. Wow, don't you guys have anything better to do than "save" images that no one, not even the author, wants -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:14 26 March 2009 (BST)

He already had it? Dammit. Also i would usually have some better things to do, but seeing as they are done i've downsized to saving poor helpless images.--x o x o 12:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh....

Anything we can do about this? Category:Allied Travellers Organisation. It burns my eyes. --Haliman - Talk 02:53, 13 May 2009 (BST)

What's wrong with it? --Pestolence^(talk) 03:10, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Look at all of the subpages. The categories fine, but those pages... --Haliman - Talk 03:17, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Group Subpages...i.e. off limits unless the group itself is nuked...from orbit....twice. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:19, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Not even for Crit 1 not edited since 07? /me goes to cry in a corner. --Haliman - Talk 03:21, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Gaah, two edit conflicts in a row. But yeah, they've gotta stay until ATO is removed. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (BST)

I'm seriously gonna be haunted by that category for days to come now. --Haliman - Talk 03:30, 13 May 2009 (BST)

I'm sure you'll be able to sleep at night. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:33, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Yes... /checks under the bed for the wiki monster. Alright, enough with the spam. I got my answer. --Haliman - Talk 03:35, 13 May 2009 (BST)

If it makes you feel better, I made all those pages in the ATO namespace back when I was a group-UD-player, so you have me to blame. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:54, 13 May 2009 (BST)

May 2009

Bub

Moved from main page.

Delete - It's a character page in the mainspace created by someone who isn't its owner. What next? A Petro character page in the mainspace? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:03, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Would that be because his name is all over the wiki and the game so is an exception due to owner privilege and common sense. I don't see Bub's name in the same places. We move or delete the characters of normal users to their own user space, but Kevan didn't even create this. The character's got one piece of relevant information, it belongs to Kevan, that's it. Petro's done more to effect this game as a character but we aren't creating pages about him in the mainspace, same with Jorm or anyone else who's had a major impact. Why? Because character pages should only exist if created by the owner and in their namespace. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:31, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:55, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan. -- C h e e s e 14:53, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:56, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan? -- C h e e s e 14:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:59, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan?! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan! Living a lie!! -- C h e e s e 15:03, 28 May 2009 (BST)
Kevan...--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:01, 28 May 2009 (BST)
This is the indent police, I'm fining you all for overuse of idents. -- Rooster Dragon 15:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)
~~Timmy!!~~ Kevan!! -- C h e e s e 15:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)
hahaha you guys are sooooo rnadum and "lulzy" xDDDDDD --Cyberbob 15:16, 28 May 2009 (BST)
i no rite? lol!!!1!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)
The page is there to teach. If no one wants to learn it, it shouldn't be there. But Bub is a celebraty. You know why? Kevan.--TripleU 17:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)
Dude at least bother to use a tinyurl *sighs* --x o x o 10:39, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Kevan is a redirect, which is what i think Bub should become, are the 3 of you saying you agree with me? --x o x o 08:19, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I think Bub should stay as it's own page because...Kevan.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:30, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I remember getting an escalation for spamming up the admin pages for shit like this, odd how it's one rule for some, another for sysops isn't it? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:58, 28 May 2009 (BST)

You honestly can't see the difference? ^{(hint: the difference isn't that you're not a sysop)} --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:22, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Pray tell what the difference is Mid. I'm tired right now and I can't figure it out either. v_v --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:30, 29 May 2009 (BST)

If you can't see a difference, then you should be giving out warnings to the people involved. Unless, of course, you think Iscariot was unjustly punished? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 03:35, 30 May 2009 (BST)

The only real difference I'm seeing is the fact of being Iscariot or not. --Cyberbob 04:33, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Either I'm thinking of a different case or you're all blind as fuck. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:00, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, right now, I'm blind in my right eye. It kind of sucks. But mostly I'm just tired and I don't want to think.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:06, 30 May 2009 (BST)

This? -- C h e e s e 18:21, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Iscariot couldn't be talking about that. The circumstances are just too different. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:02, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Welp, I was thinking of something completely different that when I actually went back and looked at it turned out not to have involved Iscariot at all. --Cyberbob 14:09, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Reworking the porn scheduled deletion

Recent cases have shown the lack of definition for porn has become problematic in regards for the porn scheduled deletion. There's no clear "definition" for porn - which is problematic when sysops can define anything remotely sexual as porn. In short, the porn scheduled deletion needs a rework to remove the huge gray area that's in the current version.

As I see it, we've got four ways to solve this:

Leave it - obviously not my preferred way of going foward, considering the problems with the current one. But if the community wills it...
Change the current porn deletion to include a definition of porn (ether in the wording of the deletion itself or in a linked-to page.) This doesn't cover sexually explicit material which isn't porn (the current gray area.) I wouldn't call goatse porn, but it still should be deleted on sight.
Change the current porn scheduled deletion (as above,) but include a speedy deletion criterion for sexually explicit material. This means that another sysop will have to check the item before deletion, and the community has time to vote keep on it if they don't think it's too explicit.
Remove the scheduled deletion, and summary delete all porn under the TOU (probably the worst idea, as the TOU can be quite vague and we still haven't figured out how to interpret a lot of it.)

Thoughts? Linkthewindow Talk 03:13, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Redundant. Remove it, pretend like that scheduled deletion vote never happened. Actual porn or unsavory material gets deleted anyway. The scheduled deletion is entirely pointless. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 7 July 2009 (BST)

^^^^^ --Cyberbob 03:27, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Option 5 is that it becomes a scheduled deletion after the upload of the image is deemed to be vandalism on A/VB. This catches "real" porn quite easily, and borderline cases like those that get taken to misconduct are discussed and a majority of the sysops is required for the deletion -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:10 7 July 2009 (BST)

If an image is even vaguely ambiguous it should be able to get nuked on the spot (my keep vote on the other thing was keeping the current criteria in mind) IMO. As for vandalism... I wouldn't mind seeing that become an option but there would need to be a fairly explicit warning against uploading images of such a nature somewhere (not the welcome template as it's pretty obvious that nobody reads it). --Cyberbob 04:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

(this does not extend to non-sexual portrayals of the nude body - I'm thinking classical art and whatnot here) --Cyberbob 04:19, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Obviously inappropriate images should be nuked, no argument, but not ambiguous ones. If the sysop has doubts as to whether any other sysops may disagree, it should be discussed. We can put a warning about inappropriate images on MediaWiki:Uploadtext -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:25 7 July 2009 (BST)

That's a point. The MediaWiki idea is good too. --Cyberbob 04:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds good. Obvious porn is vandalism and is sent to A/VB then deleted, while ambiguous cases are sent to A/D. Linkthewindow Talk 05:28, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I would have thought A/SD rather than A/D? --Cyberbob 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Don't care ether way. If a community member (or sysop) doesn't think it's porn, then they can just vote keep and send it to A/D. Linkthewindow Talk 05:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Again, this is a wiki about Urban Dead. There should be nothing sexual on here at all. If it is questionable enough that a reasonable sysop wants it deleted then it should be deleted. You can't justify anything sexual on here. Violent - yes. Sexual - no. Violence and sex are not the same. The game won't even let you spray paint obscenities on the walls, why should you be allowed to post pictures of dicks and boobs on the wiki? --– Nubis ^NWO 03:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I really hate to knock you on it Nubis, but we cuss all the time here. You know as well as I that if we start using the "This is the game's wiki. We need to keep it as clean as in there" card, people will push those sorts of things to be enforced and no one will be happy.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:29, 7 July 2009 (BST)

There's nothing stopping you from swearing ingame as long as you don't do it on the radio. I guess you could draw a parallel between the radio and policy documents? --Cyberbob 04:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I propose we accept a certain definition for automatically deletable images, but anything outside that definition that is veiwed as offencive to someone could be put up to vote.... not unlike it is now but, we need a stricter (As in set in stone, not as in less stuff is allowed), and Administration has to abide by the way the people vote.... unless kevan wants it off his wiki which is perfectly acceptable after all i believe the wiki is his property --Imthatguy 04:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)

ur dumb --Cyberbob 04:55, 7 July 2009 (BST)

That the best you can come up with?...... 'ur dumb'......... how pathetic that you have sunk to such a level--Imthatguy 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

but.....you are dumb so i dunno what you're on about? --Cyberbob 05:40, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Nubis that's ridiculous. If what was allowed and only what was allowed in the game was allowed on the wiki then i could say NIGGER all over the place because hey, you can do that in the game. Go undo my 2 vandalism cases then call me and we'll talk--x o x o 11:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

You're so bitter --in before bob.11:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

well if you would just stop being "so bitter" i wouldn't have to keep saying it now would i --Cyberbob 11:38, 7 July 2009 (BST)

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Alim. Should these be pruned too Newbis? The image that started all this (this time) was a simple pictogram suggesting that fort dwellers were wankers... a sentiment that most wiki goers probably agree with. The problem with deleting everything sexual is that it would be an endless process. The bouncing Boobs gif in someones sig, the scantily clad zombie chick on my user page, the use of any vaguely sexual imagery including text? Do you make different levels of censorship apply in different areas? Its all going to get pretty damn confusing pretty damn quick. The game itself must have thousands of obscene names in it by now so just purging the wiki seems pointless. Of course real porn should be an absolute no-no but wander around in the actual game and tell me with a straight face that smut has no place here. --Honestmistake 09:34, 7 July 2009 (BST)