|
|
Post by Sonny on Aug 10, 2007 1:02:10 GMT -5
I like the humor page. It's very funny. But it isn't historical. Move it to a C4NT subpage. That's all we're asking for. We're not saying it isn't epic. We're saying it isn't historical. It isn't factual at all. It barely describes the battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by asshole doctor™ on Aug 10, 2007 1:09:37 GMT -5
how about stop your bitching and put a disclaimer on it?
it's in. it's over stop being such shits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lachryma on Aug 10, 2007 1:09:57 GMT -5
I like the humor page. It's very funny. But it isn't historical. Move it to a C4NT subpage. That's all we're asking for. We're not saying it isn't epic. We're saying it isn't historical. It isn't factual at all. It barely describes the battle. But wouldn't two funny pages be better? With that much POV, any reader will know to ignore all the boasting and accept the parts that are present in both sides view (like, there was a building, and it was in Blackmore, and zombies eat people, and...) and yet still enjoy reading all that. |
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Aug 10, 2007 2:46:18 GMT -5
How about "Everyone Shut the fuck up."
We can settle this without becoming overly pissed off and being assholes, so lets do it! Instead of witty lines that do nothing for this discussion, how about contributing? Yes, harrison can be an ass sometimes, but don't let that stop you from having a nice, clean discussion. Is it that hard?
|
|
Vecusum
Full Member
Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Vecusum on Aug 10, 2007 2:56:28 GMT -5
Sorry my one post was so evil and wrong.
The page was made as a recruitment tool to get survivors into Ridleybank. It's not an overview of what happened or how it's just basically "Hey the RRF is weak here, let's get them. Oh and they suck and are bad and do this and this so you should want to do this cause it hurts the RRF".
|
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Aug 10, 2007 3:07:06 GMT -5
Yes Vecurek, that post was filled with so much evil, Satan himself couldn't stand being beaten by a "14 year old with insulting lyrics on his page"  Thats why I said we should have a main NPOV article, with two links to a zombie and survivor themed version at the top. I'm willing to write the damn NPOV article myself, albeit with some help. I took part in that battle as a survivor, so I don't know the mainstay about the Zombie side. My zombie was busy in the Arkhams. |
|
Vecusum
Full Member
Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Vecusum on Aug 10, 2007 3:31:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gregory on Aug 10, 2007 3:33:35 GMT -5
As one of the vets of the Battle of Blackmore who still wears his spade, this one finally got me to register on the wiki. This thing happened almost a year ago. Bringing it up now is just petty. It's like trying to revise the Iliad because it is not historically accurate. This page is a work of beauty, and anyone who can't tell it is intended to amuse more than to inform is a moron. What will replace it - facts and figures that I sure as hell can't remember after this long?
So I've cast my black stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Aug 10, 2007 3:35:58 GMT -5
Noice. But still, I think we need the three versions. Other countries view great battles differently than the victors (or the losers...), and I'd like to see what kind of POV article that the zombies side can come up with.
|
|
Vecusum
Full Member
Though I am not naturally honest, I am so sometimes by chance.
Posts: 205
|
Post by Vecusum on Aug 10, 2007 3:37:14 GMT -5
It only got historical status about a week or two ago, and that's the issue, historical pages are intended to inform not amuse. No problem having the content around, just not as historical. By the way the RRF tends to keep everything hidden away in public boxes, not sure if the NMC does that same but I'd assume so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Animatronic Daemon Skwerral on Aug 10, 2007 3:41:52 GMT -5
Gotta love how anyone voting on keeping the article got their vote debated. I'm positive alot of you failed your civic classes junior year if you cant just let people vote without having to tell them theyre full of shit.
but anyway. the voice from Unreal Tournament just screamed HUMILIATION at this part
It is possible to write something with a POV.
I am FOR abortion, but i use facts at hand to deliver my thesis of aborting babies. therefore you must debunk the facts of something in there, not just say "NPOV!!!"
the thesis here is that the Bank isnt a black hole and it's possible for survivors to organize and take hold and have fun while doing it. The facts are presented clearly, and i challenge ANYONE to point out where we went wrong. Seeing as it was almost a year ago, any editing will just be done to make it more vanilla by people who probably weren't even there. So in a fact-debate, if i want to get petty, i could say cite your sources of your being there. I was there and have a lot of concrete proof of being there, and I agree to this being the truth.
Therefore if this going to be held in the regards of a real Wikipedia article then we should cite accounts and sources.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Aug 10, 2007 3:46:19 GMT -5
well, that was great an all, but if I have to start citing sources, I'm going to kill you.  |
|
|
|
Post by Animatronic Daemon Skwerral on Aug 10, 2007 3:54:55 GMT -5
if you plan on passing senior basic engrish, going to community college, and then taking a wiki article for a game seriously then get used to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Murray Jay Suskind on Aug 10, 2007 9:50:26 GMT -5
how about stop your bitching and put a disclaimer on it? it's in. it's over stop being such shits. Chicago Harrison, voting twice and then calling us shits. Also, one that has not once ever, ever EVER been refuted is that the page could still remain perfectly intact as a non-historic (ie. not the supposedly factual description of the battle) C4NT subpage. You claim we're taking this way too seriously, when you're completely ignoring and shooting down a perfectly reasonable alternative to keep the damn page intact. It's insulting to the RRF to say that's the factual account of the battle instead of a humorous one-sided narrative. As long as it has the "historical" tag, all it'll be is a massive insult to the horde I lead. |
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Aug 10, 2007 9:52:10 GMT -5
The second vote was a comment that Hagnat added in wrong.
|
|
