User talk:Concerned'Citizen

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Example page]]

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

[[Example page|this]]

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

It's quite useful;thank you so much!

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

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

In thanks and appreciation,C.C.

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

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

First of all,thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome & Suburb Danger Levels

Hi Concerned'Citizen!

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

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

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

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

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

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

One...Two Words of Wisdom

1. Asparagus

2. Potato

Heed these words wisely,

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

haha

will do my best possible

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

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

Groups

Thank you,Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W!!

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

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

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

Regarding Danger Reports

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

Keeping things simple

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

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

Reasons are:

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

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

It states the report is outdated.

Encourages anyone in providing new fresh accurate data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually,an revamp of the UD wiki could work!

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good day!

Welcome to my talk page!