User talk:Urban sombrero

Welcome to the wiki

Welcome to the Urban Dead wiki site. If you have any hiccups getting going, our help section should be of some use; or if you need anything in particular, feel free to ask me on my talk page. You might also be interested in the Suggestions section if you're keen on sharing your ideas; and it's a good idea to keep an eye on the admin pages in case you find yourself needing any of the admin services such as deletions or page moves. 02:42, 16 August 2010 (BST)

As per this edit summary, I figured this would be the best way to notify you - the "discussion" tab on the page in question is what's being mentioned, just in case it comes up again. Basically, the section you're contending refers to Ridleybank's five-year (and counting) tenure as the home of the largest zombie group in the game, so temporary changes in its status tend not to be considered in light of its overall history - it's probably the only suburb that's consistently in one side's hands (given that ghost towns are rarely considered "survivor-held"). If you want to bring it up on Talk:Ridleybank, then it can be thought out with everyone's input considered. 23:16, 16 August 2010 (BST)

lol snap.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 23:17, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Ridleybank

Ridleybank is historically the centre of zombie strength, and considering it currently has The largest zombie group in the game in residence, it still is. Hence, the statement is correct. If you want to debate and discuss the issue, please do so at Talk:Ridleybank, so that any relevant parties can come and state their opinions, instead of just changing it without consultation.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 23:17, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Please keep the ridleybank page as is for now, discussing changes rather than making them. Ghost Town status', like the rest of the dangermap status', are superficial and temporary, and hence don't change how the community has felt about the suburb for the last 4 years. If the edit war doesn't stop the page will likely be protected, so everyone will lose. --

 

 

 

 

23:21, 16 August 2010 (BST)

I dont need to mention that it's a ghost town (I understand the point), but it's still poorly written.

True that, and your grammatical edits were great, but its somewhat obvious that some people here are very reactionary to claims like that, Ridleybank is still a very meaningful place in that regard I guess. --

 

 

 

 

23:26, 16 August 2010 (BST)

Well, unfortunately, some people need to get over themselves and accept facts as facts. Life changes, places change, the game changes. Just because certain people have feelings about a topic, doesn't mean feeling should interfer with getting the job done right. Feelings are not right or wrong. It's what we do with them that counts. Their wishes should not control what's posted as that's considered bias and corruption of accuracy. That said, the full level of respect should be placed to the history as well. However, certain people's opinions being catered to/coddled only serves as the root of corruption of these pages true intent.

Anyway, I'll leave it be as it seems that certain content isn't meant to be bettered. However, it's disconcerting that the purveying thought process/feeling about the subject are obviously as stunted as the sentence itself (IE the level of 5 year old). But I digress. I sincerely thank you for the dialogue.

By the way. Just because one Zed group has the largest current community, doesn't mean it was always so (in fact it defintely wasn;t, and the issue is still debatable currently), so it seems that certain people involved in the disagreement belong to this particular Zed group. Unfortuanyle, being biased in favor of that group violates any level of neutrality, and if it's an admin then they shouldn;t be allowed to edit the page at all. In sports there is currently an issue about how a reporter and photographer asked Tim Tebow (Football) for an autograph. This issue is along the same lines. It is considered a "Conflict of Interest" The page itself says it needs to stay NEUTRAL, and if anyone editting it is not so, then they need to leave it be and let someone less biased correct it.

If you continue these edits

I'm taking you to arbitration. What that means is that a neutral arbitrator picked by us will decide what the result is. In the meantime, no edits are permitted to the page in question. And if you continue, we'll protect the page so you can't edit it. Get it? And because so far it's been everyone against you, I can tell you you don't want to go to arbitration.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 21:22, 17 August 2010 (BST)