User talk:Aichon
Announcement: I'm no longer active. My talk page is still your best bet to get in touch. —Aichon— 04:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- New conversations should be started at the bottom using a level two header (e.g.
==Header==). Or with the + - I like to keep conversations wherever they start, but if a conversation ends up here, I will keep it here.
- I will format comments for stylistic reasons, delete comments for whatever reason, and generally do anything else within reason.
Riddle me this
WE have and want the Burchell Arms. We want to make it a Zambah BAr.Give me some suggestions on how to reflect that. Otherwise it looks like the Arms is still Survivor Controlled with a meaningless sidebar at the bottom... Just saying this seems completely one sided. They no longer OWN it. We OWN it, we've been OWNing it; Tell me how I can resolve this. I mean, unless all you want is some pretty coding, I can give you that if so. I just want to clarify before I put all this work into it just to have someone reneg it. Let me know. I wont touch the pages till I hear back. I'll work on some basic Page forming and get a rough draft going in the mean time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raining Fire (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 March 2014.
- The problem with your edits wasn't so much wanting to update the Burchell Arms location page (which is both allowed and very welcome), as was the complete replacement of the page with a single sentence, destroying all the content like basic structure, categorization, danger report, mini-map and pretty much everything else. Completely wiping out the Burchell Arms Regulars group page didn't help either. - If you want to edit constructively, a start would be to keep the structure and pre-existing content of the page as it is, and limit your edits to the areas meant to reflect current events (such as Building Status, Historical Updates, and the related danger reports). -- Spiderzed▋ 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Let's back up a step and make sure we're on the same page on some stuff.
- The BAR (The Burchell Arms Regulars) is a group that resides in The Burchell Arms (a bar). The BAR page is theirs and theirs alone to do with as they please. You're not allowed to edit it without their permission, since groups own their own pages and generally get to say who edits them and how.
- In contrast, the location page, much like any other location page on the wiki, is owned collectively by the users of the wiki. You are welcome to edit it, but edits must be kept neutral, given that the location page is not yours alone to own or control. The current location page uses virtually the same basic structure that every other location page uses, though it's clearly been filled in with more details than that link I just provided. Given that the BAR is a notable group that has resided at the bar for years and years, the location page quite naturally reflects the undisputed fact that they have had a long-time presence there. At the same time, however, you have just as much right to edit the location page as they do, but because your efforts at that location are relatively recent, they'll naturally occupy less of the page at this time.
- If you want to get out the message that you own the bar, the most effective way to do so would be to make a group page, which you would control fully and which you would be welcome to edit to your heart's content. As for the location page, beyond updating the news and status sections, there's not much you can really do. I'd definitely suggest updating the DangerReport for the location, that way it shows up as ruined on various maps around the wiki. You may also want to add a small mention regarding your group in the description section of the location page, as well as a link to your group page. Add a link to your group page to the group listing for Rolt Heights too, that way others know you're there.
- Also, since you and I haven't interacted before and you have no particular reason to trust that I'm impartial in this matter or advising you fairly, the truth of the matter is that I actually do have a history with this particular location (in addition to a history of participating in and leading zombie hordes). In fact, a group I'm in evicted the BAR members and piñatad the Burchell Arms location 21 times over the course of 23 days last year. To say the least, you're not the first one to "own" the location, but you won't find any mention of our "ownership" on the relevant pages, since our "ownership" of the location in the game didn't give us any right to wipe out the history of the location, and we also understood that our presence there was but a heartbeat compared to the lifetime the BAR had spent there. Long story short, try and keep things in perspective and remember that none of the pages you edited are ones that you have sole ownership of, despite what might be going on in-game, hence why I suggest you make your own group page. —Aichon— 22:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just wondering but what aspect of the Burchell Arms is being described here? "The B.A.R pledge to maintain all these facilities according to the barricade plan of the area (below), as well as providing both safehouses and revives for locals." It is following the BAR talking about their glorious deeds maintaining other buildings in the area. Although the cade level (for the arms) certainly seems relevant as does mentioning who maintains that cade level, what does BAR providing revives and maintaining other buildings have to do with this building? I was under the impression that the description was for the building not for what good deeds the groups occupying it perform. --K 21:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you go back and look at it in context with the preceding sentence that you didn't quote ("The pub has excellent strategic importance due to its proximity to two hospitals, Schreiber Drive PD, and to the east in Pescodside are the Clewett NecroTech building and the Otto Street revive point."), it seems apparent that they're talking about the strategic value of the bar given its proximity to other important locations, and that the bar is used as a staging point for revive and reclaim operations in the area. I'll grant that it could be rephrased more neutrally (much of the page could, if we're being honest), but the gist of it is an okay one, I think. —Aichon— 21:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Just wondering but what aspect of the Burchell Arms is being described here? "The B.A.R pledge to maintain all these facilities according to the barricade plan of the area (below), as well as providing both safehouses and revives for locals." It is following the BAR talking about their glorious deeds maintaining other buildings in the area. Although the cade level (for the arms) certainly seems relevant as does mentioning who maintains that cade level, what does BAR providing revives and maintaining other buildings have to do with this building? I was under the impression that the description was for the building not for what good deeds the groups occupying it perform. --K 21:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for being thorough. That being said... Can I go in and add "Used to" to all relevant sentences? Just asking if this could be a good start? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raining Fire (talk • contribs) 00:04, March 15, 2014.
- I think you would have to hold the building for more than a couple of days, before doing something like that. The Burchell Arms is once again powered and at EHB. And even then, please be respectful of what others have created, even if it's only historic (talking about other parts of the wiki here, as it's pretty clear that BAR is still about) -- boxy 00:26, 15 March 2014 (BST)
Yup. It changed due to this. WE stopped because why put the time and effort into it if it's going to be... you know what. Read up thar ^ I don't have to explain myself to you. Now that we have this newfound information. IT WILL BE OURS. There was a cease fire. Bureaucracy. Happens. Raining Fire 00:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Funny. Because I was one of the feral zombies who helped you get into, and clear out the building originally. I then wandered off (as did others, no doubt). I figure that's got more to do with why the building reverted to survivor control, as other building in the area quickly do, after zombie break ins. Most zombies in the area keep moving, to find fresh meat -- boxy 00:41, 15 March 2014 (BST)
Thanks
Well, me and my friends are happy for your help! Albeit for differing reasons. Me and my friends are there for some cold beer, goodtimes, friendship all around. (Sadly, I'm the one of the two whoactually Gives a F* a bout the wiki. I'm hoping that'll change if I could only Find some Random Horde that would love our ideals, Still working on the images for the page but I hope I can get it up soon. (lol) Tl;Dr Need to have something fancy to show my buds.)
- Hey, I'm glad to offer advice, especially for folks that are just getting started on the wiki. There definitely is some bureaucracy around here, but by and large, so long as you try to be polite to others, give them the benefit of the doubt, and work towards making the wiki better for everyone, you'll find that you can make quite a few friends and get your message out there more easily. I'm sure we'll get the pages sorted out so that the BAR and you can both agree with the results. :) —Aichon— 19:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Question
The barricade policy is pro-survivor, no? Raining Fire 21:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- Are you asking if even having one is POV? If so, then that's a subject for a debate that's been going on for years and that I lack the time for at the moment. Pragmatically speaking, however, barricade plans are allowed across the whole wiki, simply because they're a resource that nearly every player, regardless of side, can use. After all, even zombies can benefit from them by knowing which targets are likely to be squishier or where they should camp their rotter so as to hamper revives. That said, they must still be presented factually and as neutrally as possible. And if the very presence of the barricade plan offends your zombie sensibilities, some of the suburbs have examples for how zombies can have equal treatment for their side (though they're rather silly, if you ask me). —Aichon— 22:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'll point out that the issue with NPOV is more taking sides rather than explaining them. There's some discussion here talking about these sorts of things. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
A helpful little gnome. WIN* Just saying. Anyways.. HERE. Blunt and to the point. "Double POV isn't NPOV, a great example of this is Ridleybank in which both sides have a barricade plan up. Both are in POV because one side doesn't want barricades, the other one does." Aichon, best guy out there so far, your POV? Raining Fire 01:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- The reason why we don't (or shouldn't) make a habit of putting zombie barricade plans where-ever there's a survivor one is because the zombie plans do not provide useful information. They aren't informative; they don't tell you something that you didn't know before. Barricade plans do have a point-of-view. It has a side. Explaining this side (that survivors have a barricade plan) is fine. This is a game; it has sides. This wiki describes the game. It makes sense we talk about the sides. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- ^^^ this. As AHLG said, the issue is more with taking sides than explaining them, since all significant viewpoints should be taken into account and noted, to paraphrase something Revenant said. If we're sanitizing everything to the point that it becomes equally useless to everyone, the wiki will have defeated its whole reason for being. Even so, things can still be presented in a factual, neutrally-worded, even-handed manner, even if they are regarding one side or the other, thus allowing them to remain NPOV. —Aichon— 04:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Intelligent Conversation
About a game I've been playing since 2005 * Sidenote * I'm having a blast with the geek speak. /Just Saying/ . I knew this was going to be hard... ARgh. Just one thing I wanted to say, besides the fact that page has been, *protected* Is the disclaimer. I mean. I honestly don't think I was that harsh in my edits, but criticism is welcome. And about that barricade deal... It's POV then right? That's what I got from it.
"Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."
Btw, So many run-ons! I just don't want to break out in an angry rant, so everything has been.. edited. XD Raining Fire 12:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Question
I was wanting to gauge interest regarding an potential in-game event. Is there a place on the wiki for such a thing or should I just throw up a new page and see what becomes of it? There is a place for developing wiki stuff, which makes sense, but it would seem that there would be a similar place for in-game events. --K 21:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Community Projects? It can be used for in-game stuff as well and is a decent way to try and gauge interest, since the old-timers all watch it, and the youngin's see it on the main page. —Aichon— 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. I thought I'd looked and it was for wiki only, but it seems either I imagined that or am stupid or both. --K 21:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
