User talk:The General

Please leave messages at the bottom of the page. Replys will be posted on this page

Did you know?

	Shrooms!!
	This user realizes that you can make George Washington into a mushroom.

I would have done it on the SW wiki, but uploads are not really working at the moment as you know. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 14:22, 11 April 2007 (GMT)}

Hah, added. You know, we really must rescue some of the content off the scrollwars wiki, as some of those templates may be useful.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:20, 11 April 2007 (BST)

Warning

If you're going to leave me a warning, at least explain to me what I'm being warned for- as far as I can tell Ive received a first warning and a second warning for one edit removing some disparaging remarks made against me, when I didn't know the rules. So either add some explanation with your warning, or stick it where the sun don't shine. --Shantzman 02:21, 17 April 2007 (BST)

It's not my fault you didn't read the guidelines. Anyway, I quote you as saying:

Shantzman said:

Go ahead you pansy- see if I give a shit! --Shantzman 17:44, 14 April 2007 (BST)

. If you don't "give a shit", then get the fuck off my talk page and quit whining about it. If you've decided that you do, now, "give a shit", then the warning has done it's job.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:16, 18 April 2007 (BST)

Template on FAQ

Hi General, Just a drop by for this the template is in your comment Here would you mind removing it or me changing it so that the category can be removed?--Vista 18:16, 30 April 2007 (BST)

You may change to to remove the category. I'm having a mental blank as to how to do it, other than removing the template, at the moment. :P--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:39, 30 April 2007 (BST)

FOR WHAT?

whose page did i mess with?--Sexualharrison ^{MR• ה •T} 21:48, 26 May 2007 (BST)

You changed a users page to this.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:05, 27 May 2007 (BST)

He is my friend, we are in the same group. I chat with him on a daily basis. unlike you I spoke with him about the edits and he found it funny. And I quote "Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here" Try doing your homework before you jump to conclusions. And mind your own business.--Sexualharrison ^{MR• ה •T}

01:35, 30 May 2007 (BST)

The user in question has given not the slightest inclination that he wishes to have insults posted on his user page. Those lines are referring to articles, not signed comments. This is my business, as it was reported in vandal banning. The warning stands. If you feel this does not apply to you, then feel free to try it again so you can receive your second warning.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 01:54, 30 May 2007 (BST)

Reported by whom? just get a life, he's never on the wiki.--Sexualharrison ^{MR• ה •T}

05:19, 30 May 2007 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#Sexualharrison. As I said, feel free to continue vandalising if you think the rules do not apply to you, maybe you'll believe me that it's not allowed when you get your first ban?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:54, 30 May 2007 (BST)

Listen loser, it's not vandalising if I have permission from the User. Go look at his page now. feel better? dumbass. gosh I wish i could punch you through the interweb. and you can't ban me for calling you a overzealous janitor can you? when was the last time you got laid?--Sexualharrison ^{MR• ה •T}

19:50, 30 May 2007 (BST)

You have not received permission from the user. Being his "friend" doesn't automatically grant you permission to edit his page, he has to specifically state that he gives you permission to edit his page in any way you wish. Rule number one of winning an argument: Physically threatening the other side does not help you case, though I also wish you would try punching me xD. No, I can't ban your for that, but I could either get an arbitration ruling to have you leave me alone, or just delete this off my talk page. However, the former would be too much hassle and the latter actually helps you by removing the evidence of your stupidity.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:58, 30 May 2007 (BST)

Harrison, chill the feth out. And General, I'm sorry you have to deal with this on your own talk page of all places. I take it you posted that link above so Harrison can argue against his warning on the A/VB page?--Lachryma^☭ 19:56, 30 May 2007 (BST)

He asked who reported him, so I linked to the report. And, yeah, basically if he wants to complain against the warning then he is more than welcome to make a fool of himself there. He's not, however, going to get the warning retracted by insulting me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:58, 30 May 2007 (BST)

Well, duh. People and their tempers...--Lachryma^☭ 00:12, 31 May 2007 (BST)

Your project

Hows that going along? I'm just a bit curious and I'm waiting to see what you've come up with so far. You can reply on the SW wiki (or e-mail me) if you want because I still check there on a regular basis. I just wasn't sure if you did (hence why I'm asking here) - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD CT SR: 11:34, 27 May 2007 (GMT)}

Warning

I don't know what bad faith edits I made,I presume it was the Shackelivlle one but they were not for provoking or such and is factual information.Seloth 13:46, 01 july 2007

Montana8

Thanks dude.-- Vista +1 13:06, 17 July 2007 (BST)

No problem.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:41, 17 July 2007 (BST)

Inquiry

Does this mean he has a warning for the impersonation? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 18:45, 21 July 2007 (BST)

In my opinion, he should receive one. however, i've had no word back from the other sysops on this matter.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:49, 21 July 2007 (BST)

Okay. I'll check back in a day or so. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 20:58, 21 July 2007 (BST)

So, what now? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 18:21, 28 July 2007 (BST)

Not much I can do, it seems i'm outvoted.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:54, 1 August 2007 (BST)

I noticed that this incident was deemed vandalism when Nalikill was trying to tone down wiki drama, yet when Gage impersonates me and tries to amp up the drama, he gets away with it. Would you mind warning Gage now? I understand the two other moderators prefer to protect Gage, but it'd just bring his total up to two warnings, with no further repercussions, and would show that even sysops (and ex-sysops) are really just like normal users and have to follow the rules. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 17:15, 27 August 2007 (BST)

I'll look into it again, see if there's anything I can do. If i'm outvoted, though, there's not much I can do.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:30, 27 August 2007 (BST)

Warning??

What the hell am I getting a warning for? --M4dD mUdD 00:24, 25 August 2007 (BST)

You blanked a page. See M/VB.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:26, 25 August 2007 (BST)

And your point is what? It's not a individual user page. It is unapproved information that is not put out by the DEM and should not be on the wiki at all--M4dD mUdD 00:34, 25 August 2007 (BST)

By that reasoning all PKer lists maintained on the wiki should be wiped too. --Karek^maps?! 01:11, 25 August 2007 (BST)

are those pker lists on a group page? Just wondering since it appears you're trying to say that there's all sorts of pk lists on the wiki that aren't housed on a given groups group page? Otherwise I could just make a list of any old group I want and post it and demand that it be taken seriously.--Kristi of the Dead 05:33, 25 August 2007 (BST)

The newfag in Shearbank mad a list of DARIS 2.0 members and it isn't housed on a group page. But no one is removing it because we're not fucking retarded when it comes to wiki rules. Something the DEM has no knowledge of... --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 07:54, 25 August 2007 (BST)

why does the wiki not have an eyeroll emoticon? It's a list not a roster stolen from your private forums. And where is this list of naughty DARIS members?--Kristi of the Dead 08:57, 25 August 2007 (BST)

It is a community page. Just because the DEM do not wish it to be there doesn't give you the right to blank it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:50, 25 August 2007 (BST)

our roster stolen from our private forums is a community page?--Kristi of the Dead 08:57, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Once it is posted on this wiki, yes. It's not our job to mediate in-game disputes or to encourage censorship.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:53, 25 August 2007 (BST)

So you're saying that it doesn't matter what gets posted only that it was posted? It's not censorship nor is it an in game dispute...this was purely out of game. It just makes so little sense to me that someone could post just about anything with any groups name on it and have it be protected is all.--Kristi of the Dead 12:58, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Now here is what I'm wondering. Why do you even care? You're a survivor group so it's not like it's overly difficult information to get and compile independently, the end result is exactly the same and the process really isn't effected(as they could still walk into a room and see one of your members due to them being a survivor). Wasn't aware it was information that was taken from you through crude and disgraceful means, but really, what does it matter anyway?--Karek^maps?! 21:33, 25 August 2007 (BST)

To be honest it doesn't make any difference I suppose. I just didn't want to be complacent on this style of play Rather than being accepted as something trivial. The roster thing isn't so bad but the problem is that they will continue to play like this and if some friends of mine hadn't warned me they'd still have members on our forums spying on us and passing out passwords. It's poor sportsmanship that I have a problem with really.--Kristi of the Dead 14:45, 26 August 2007 (BST)

What i'm saying is that it is not our job to delete pages because a group doesn't like them (unless, of course, it passes a vote on the deletions page, neither do we wish to set a precedent of allowing page blanking if someone doesn't think the information should be displayed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:22, 26 August 2007 (BST)

I see what you're saying and agree the page shouldn't be blanked thanks for your time.--Kristi of the Dead 14:45, 26 August 2007 (BST)

A new bureaucrat round has started

And you are a candidate. good luck.-- Vista +1 23:09, 3 September 2007 (BST)

Thanks for telling me. Looks like i'm not going to be elected, though.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:29, 5 September 2007 (BST)

It seems hagnat and me are sucking all the oxygen out of the race. As soon as there are three or two candidates with a lead in votes they get all the votes from then forwards. Especially if you have so many candidates. A lot of people aren't getting the votes they should.-- Vista +1 14:25, 8 September 2007 (BST)

McZeds

Can I ask why you reverted McZeds' page, when you haven't been elected to lead the group? Just because Not-So-Amazing founded it, doesn't give him any power over it now. It's a takeover of a MIA management, supported by all the (active) stores. Also, if you check it isn't Vandalism. Look, I'm trying to fix up the group again, and a long-dead management isn't going to help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stuartbman (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 September 2007.

The group pages are the sole property of the group leader. Thus, claiming leadership yourself and making major changes to the page without the blessing of the group leader was vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:21, 10 September 2007 (BST)

I am group leader, as of July 16th. The original leader went MIA 6 months ago. Please stop the reverts or you will be reported to VB.--The-Not-So-Late Stuartbman The Third

^{MBE OBE} 22:22, 10 September 2007 (BST)

No, you are not. You were not appointed by the group leader, you merely voted yourself to be leader. In fact, it is you who risks the vandal report, not me.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:37, 10 September 2007 (BST)

Y'all might want to stop the edit war and take it to Arbitration. Nalikill 22:38, 10 September 2007 (BST)

Done, go to AA, General.--The-Not-So-Late Stuartbman The Third

^{MBE OBE} 22:57, 10 September 2007 (BST)

WHOOPS

Sorry, I accidentally deleted one of your templates, Ill try to put it back now...should be done. Ill accept any punishment you give. --Molh394 3:13, 13 September 2007 (GMT)

Happy belated Wiki birthday!

*Gives The General a shiny badge with "I am two!" written on it.* --Toejam 01:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! It's weird to think just how long I've spent on this wiki *Insert long lecture on how things were in the good ol' days* :P.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

VB and Sockem

I think what he needs is a chance to calm down; do everyone a favor, please, by not replying again, it's clearly not helping him. He said on his talk page he's having a bad day; all replying does is make him angrier, and you know that if you rule on it, he's going to launch a misconduct case that will cause huge amounts of drama, as such cases always do. So please, let another sysop handle it; preferably Boxy or Vista, or someone that Sockem would consider neutral. Nalikill ^{TALK E! W! M! USAI} 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Of couese I do. I haven't ruled because I know it would cause way more drama than it's worth (Though I doubt that it would be ruled against me). As my opinion has already been registered, I will take your advice and refrain from replying to him again.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A/VB

Yes, you are right, but it isn't right that a user attacks another user.-- Savant Chit-Chat 13:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that Cyberbob was probably wrong to do it, but there's no rule against it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But there should be a rule. And that is the problem with this wiki. People still think that it's okay to say someone "Die Bitch" or just make an insulting picture.-- Savant Chit-Chat 16:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with such rules is that they're often easy to abuse or get around. Also, the picture Cyberbob used is in no way insulting in itself, it was insulting only because of the way he used it. Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you ban insults in the form of pictures, you have to ban verbal ones too. Also, Savant's site is infinitely worse than my picture. I'm not sure where he gets off complaining. "IT WAZ IN DEFENCE!111111" doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If pictures and "bad" words were banned, this would be a better place.-- Savant Chit-Chat 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean swearwords? You can insult people without swearing. And how do you define an insulting picture anyway? Or do you mean all pictures? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you chose to respond in worse kind, actually lowering yourself below me. Congrats. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true. You can insult someone without using swear words. Watch. Savant is an annoying fool for posting such a malicious link. Mind you that was just an example, using the discussion context. What I actually think is a mystery to everyone, including me.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Open Discussion regarding ParserFunctions extension

Since you've shown interest in this subject in the past, I thought I'd let you know that I've started an Open Discussion regarding Arguments for-and-against the ParserFunctions extension. I'd appreciate any constructive comments you might be able to provide there. Thanks! --Morgan Blair 06:46, 17 May 2008 (BST)

Inactive sysop demotion thing

You have been absent from this wiki for four months. As per This policy you have one week to demonstrate a return to this wiki to retain your sysop status. Alternatively you could request demotion under the bid on your page, or simply remain inactive. If you fail to return to the wiki after one week has elapsed, you will be demoted. I am also emailing this message to you. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 15:43, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Nice to see you, too, Grim. I think I might just be coming back.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:22, 27 July 2008 (BST)

I wasnt required to send you the email, FYI. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:26, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Thank you, then. If my message was taken as an insult, it really wasn't meant to be; merely a rather poor joke.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:46, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Nah. Its just that as usual i am being subject to some sniping. Not as bad as st the turn of the year, but i have the defenses up and zapping people left and right (Sorry if it seemed like i was getting annoyed with you). Anyway, much has changed. Vista and Hagnat are gone, and im now the second crat. Im still not entirely sure how that happened. Also, we lost five other sysops. And there are a few new faces. Oh, and suggestions is rather slow at the moment, what with all the enraged wikizens armed with spam cannons, theough Talk:Suggestions may almost bring you to tears at the stupidity. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:54, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Don't worry, just trying not to cause any offense. I can't remember a time when you weren't being attacked for one of your decisions, I particularly love the "I agree with you but am going to argue about it anyway" thing going on at Promotions Talk. Well, I can't say Hagnat is any great loss to us. I'm not sure who else was on the list, meaning they weren't memorable. You ending up a 'crat is certainly surprising, I'll read up on how that one happened. I just took a look at Talk:Suggestions and I now feel like killing myself; or, at least, killing most of the people who suggested them.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:09, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Welcome Back

Welcome back. :P -- C h e e s e 18:52, 28 July 2008 (BST)

Hi, it's good to be back. I see you have now joined the sysop, so here is a very late congratulations!--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:31, 28 July 2008 (BST)

Meh

Whatever. It is just totally out of context there. While i agree the decision or whatever you want to call it should be on the front page i think that as the user it addresses my response should appear there too. apparently you disagree so i'm gonna dupe grim's decision post so it is on both the talk (to give my comments context) and on the front page (so people can see the verdict without having the clutter of my response).--x o x o 09:38, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Discussion of the bid should take place on the talk page, I believe that is standard procedure, we do not want to clutter the main page. I agree that Grim's post should also be on the front page so people know the decision. If you want, you can add a note saying that discussion was moved to the talk page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:10, 29 July 2008 (BST)

I'm fine with Grim's post on both pages as it is atm.--x o x o 10:12, 29 July 2008 (BST)

Well, so am I. It's agreed then.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:43, 29 July 2008 (BST)

nods. And welcome back to the wiki following your extended absence.--x o x o 11:55, 29 July 2008 (BST)

delete.

Thanks. I knew there was something I forgot to do. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 17:32, 4 August 2008 (BST)

No problem.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:33, 4 August 2008 (BST)

Permabanned Users

I know you haven't been around for a bit, but it seems that members of the team are open to reviewing previous vandal banning cases in order to bring them up to date with this policy. Does this work for you? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 20:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be OK with that. I'll post a comment there tomorrow.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So...

Have you started puberty yet? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are upset because I ruled that your opinion isn't law. You haven't changed much in these 2 years.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Butt, hurt.--CyberRead240 11:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it now because you haven't said anything in so long I pretty much forgot about you. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 13:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy

I'm sorry, but I removed your policy from voting, it's got at least one section that needs work on it to make it clear what it's saying, and the old discussion was more than a month ago. I think new users need a chance to have their say, as well as everyone else being allowed to reconsider -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:15 24 December 2008 (BST)

I will correct the unclarity and spelling mistakes, thanks for pointing it out. On the matter of discussion: I believe everything that can be said about the policy has been said and replied to, the only thing left to do is troll or repeat the same aguments. It'll probably stay in "discussion" until I get round to fixing it, but I don't see the need for another 3 days of time-wasting when nothing new can really be added.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you think it's as good as it'll get, anytime is fine. Sorry for butting in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:50 24 December 2008 (BST)

Well, I'm happy to take comments but most of them seem to be either "This is good" or they take the Iscariot line of "This is absolute bullshit I hate you all!!!!!!!". I'm still open to any reasonable (read: Technically implementable) suggestions if there's anything you want to bring to my attention.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure it has to stay the three days minimum. Even if it's just so we can actually see what has changed between the two, if anything.--Karek^maps?! 10:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't because what I'm effectively doing is moving a policy from "Under Discussion" to voting and rewording slightly as I do. It is currently under discussion until I fix the mistakes and everyond is welcome to comment.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to do something with it. It's about to get archived. Linkthewindow Talk 06:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Again.--Karek^maps?! 09:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to put it up for voting in your absence. It's better than having the discussion again in about a months time after you resurrect it again. =p -- C h e e s e 21:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, go for it. I do a lot of wikiing (is that a word?) on my BlackBerry which I can't trust to reliably edit long policies. Thus the reason for it being ignored.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Ok. I'll do that now. =p Thought I'd give you a bit to see if you replied. -- C h e e s e 22:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki

I suppose deleting pages (Images exempt) within the namespace of the user currently logged in would be outside the realm of functionality of this version of MediaWiki? Also, is it possible to have a template (or Extension) determine whether or not a link is valid (points to an existing article/page), and then if valid, a link; If not, text, Perhaps a symbol to signify the type of 'link'. _■^■ 18:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping. _■^■ 22:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Socks

Could you please review this VB case so that we can get a clear idea of sysop consensus before things get pushy -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:58 20 January 2009 (BST)

Currently I'm sitting behind an annoyingly intrusive filter, and apparantly it is impossible to conduct A/VB with any level of civility so I'm kinda stuck for commenting until I get home this weekend. I'll have a look at it on my phone, though and make a comment here.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just read the case and I have to agree with Karek: It was inappropriate behaviour, for a sysop particularily, we cannot ban him because he has done nothing to warrant a ban but a warning is in order.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave your suggestion some consideration

And have come to the conclusion of no. --Cyberbob 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A/D

Your comment didn't have a vote on it so I added one so it would be valid... I don't know if its necessary, but anyway, if I got the vote choice wrong, I'm sorry for medling. Liberty 03:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

New Stuff

We've got a new autoconfirmed policy up for voting --> here and we're just 6 votes short of the required 20. Any chance you can head over and have a read of it? =) Thanks. -- C h e e s e 21:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I will go vote for it now.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

	Anti-Bureaucracy
	This user hates bureaucracy and encourages wiki-revolution!

DOWN WITH THE CRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Imthatguy 18:59, 3 July 2009 (BST)

evaluation

As per that policy, and as ye oldest sysop, you are due for evaluation at UDWiki:Administration/Re-Evaluations. I've put you up, but feel free to swing by and add your own part. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:29, 20 August 2009 (BST)

OK, thanks. I'll drop buy and say a few words <insert extremely long and boring speech here>.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:34, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Thanks, and good luck. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:42, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Your evaluation

Good to hear you are going to be active again because you were a good sysop when you were here. Recent inactivity means I will be sticking with the weak against but only because i don't think Abstain is worth a piss in this instance. --Honestmistake 00:30, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Misconduct

You must have used an extra tilde accidentally on your ruling of the first case because it only came out as the timestamp. Wan struck it (ugh). Cyberbob Talk 11:06, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Nope, wasn't me. My ruling is above that unsigned one.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:32, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Ahhh, twas Conn. My bad. Cyberbob Talk 11:36, 31 August 2009 (BST)

To early?

Is it to early for me to poke my head back in here again? That was like years ago anyway. Maybe nobody will even remember me. Stale 2000 17:23, 5 September 2009 (BST)

Well, it does seem that no one remembers you. I am quite surprised, to be honest.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:57, 6 September 2009 (BST)

"takes a quick glance at A/M, A/VB. A/arb, and A/PolicyDiscussion". This place hasn't changed a bit... Stale 2000 00:59, 7 September 2009 (BST)

I may have screwed up

Hey dude.. I accidently had some trouble with the wiki page located here. I dont get how it happened and when i tried reverting it back with the old code it wouldn't revert..Which by this time i started getting scared because i know alot of sysops stalk the recent changes page and my edit could be mistaken as vandalism.. This was the image before i started screwing around with it..Located here This was the image i was trying to renew..(update) right here Could you give me some directions on how to revert it back? I would highly appreciate it..I suck at wiki code.. Heres the code i was trying to revert it back too..I always keep a copy of the code before i make a edit so if i screw up it can easily be reverted. I was trying to make a contribution lol..wasent trying to screw it up. If you could help me i would highly appreciate it. Thanks --Suff -TMS- <-- Killin' zombies! 04:18, 11 September 2009 (BST)

Hi. The image you uploaded was corrupt for some reason, I've reverted it back to the older image (this is done by clicking the "rev" link next to the revision of the image that you want to revert to).

Don't worry about it, we all screw up occasionally :D.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 07:46, 11 September 2009 (BST)

No Prob, sorry for the confusion

Won't happen again General, if you are curious to know where I got the idea, check out what User:a11an0n did here: [[1]]. Once he did it to me, it was fair game in my book. But as I just said, I will never do it again. Thanks for your hard work.--Dhavid Grohl 23:45, 11 September 2009 (BST)

No problem. That user was reported shortly after you and has also been warned for his edits. I can see how you might have thought it was OK after seeing other users do it. I'm glad to here that it won't happen again.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:00, 15 September 2009 (BST)

I see...

So you really had no intention to keep up activity. You know, if they had tried to demote me in my absence because of my inactivity, I'd have no problem agreeing with them on it. Don't say you're going to be more active and make a few edits to try and look good if you're not actually going to follow through with it. It's quite frankly bullshit what you've yet again done, which is skirting by with a few edits. If you want the job, then do it. If not, stop editing or just get a demotion and edit like that.

Mind you this isn't said with any dislike of you, I've always just disliked the way you and Daranz and a few other ops have always just made an edit here or there in an effort to keep the 'op status.-- SA 19:05, 18 October 2009 (BST)

He only got through because he was the first on A/RE, and there was no precedent yet. Next time he's up, he won't get through.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:48, 18 October 2009 (BST)

No, he got through because he feigned an interest in the wiki by doing a week of 'work' and saying he would actually come back. And because Link was the crat. This is actually exactly what I said would happen, too. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:10, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Well, it certainly isn't any worse than what was happenign before. It just hasn't fixed a key issue, merely aided it.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:17, 19 October 2009 (BST)

It certainly is worse than before. At least when connie was around I could predict his behavior, General? No.-- SA 07:21, 19 October 2009 (BST)

He can do essentially what he did before, but now he gets kicked out in about half a year for definite, because I highly doubt anyone will believe him this time.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:22, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Quite honestly, I find your accusations that I was "bullshitting" quite offensive. I made those statements on A/RE with every intention of keeping to them. Unfortunately, I spend most of the week sitting behind a rather overzealous filtering system which makes it difficult to post, and this accounts for my lack of activity. There were no malicious motives, I was not "abusing people's trust" and "feigning interest" simply to get through the reevaluation. The accusations don't really make sense: If I had no intention of doing anything why would I bother doing the work during the re-evaluation? Seriously, TINC.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:04, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Work shmerck. I was holding two jobs (tech support and a factory job, running a machine all day) and still managed to get on the wiki at the most ungodly random hours generally everyday. And still held down a decent enough social life.

I can see the year of '07 in the first 500 edits of your contribs. There were months at a time where you didn't edit anything. The biggest chunk of edits out of that 500 comes from that Autoconfirmed policy. Bar those and the only time you're ever active is when it directly benefits you (IE something you're trying to get passed as policy) or when it concerns you losing the badge of power.

The accusations make perfect sense if you think about them. They of course don't make sense to you because you don't want them to. You only went through and "tried to become active again" so you can keep your sysops status. You went to Italy on holiday? Cool beans mate. Now what about the rest of the past two years? You couldn't be bothered to log in once or twice on the weekends? Or even once a month in some cases? I think it's quite obvious, especially after the re-evaluation that you want the power without the work. Dispute that all you want, it's obvious to anyone who looks at your contributions with a cursory glance.-- SA 15:15, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Don't disgust me. Look at your contributions and the only active rate you've had for at leased a year. What you expect any individual thinker to conclude. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:26, 19 October 2009 (BST)

For the record "TINC" was an acronym, not a misspelling. I expect you to conclude "he's not very active", not "he must be deliberately gaming the system in order to remain in 'power' (because being a sysop on a wiki about a free MMORPG is such a huge position of power that I'd want to keep it even if I never intended to use it!)".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:41, 19 October 2009 (BST)

I would just like to note that most of the stuff I was trying to get passed as policy didn't actually benefit me directly.

Anyway, I'm not denying that I'm too inactive, all I'm saying is that it's not a deliberate plot to remain in 'power' without doing anything. I'm not going to give excuses for why I'm not active because, quite frankly, they don't change the facts won't interest you much anyway. I will simply say that I was serious about being more active but other things (and a lack of effort on my part) have got in the way. Whatever happens, I will be judged by the community in about half a years time and they will make the decision.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:41, 19 October 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

A case is being discussed If you wish to comment. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your templates on Developing Suggestions

May I suggest that you begin signing your templates on DS? If they're signed by you then they count as your comments and removing them would be vandalism.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 04:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Idea, but I'm not the one who has been re-adding it. I'll do that next time though. Thanks. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, doesn't that count as discussion, thus invalidating the template!? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think so as it's not actually discussion about the suggestion. All I can say is that I can't rule vandalism unless it's a signed comment.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 06:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pssssst!

~~Make my font GTFO your damn sig you smarmy sel~~

It's been a month, which if I call correctly, was the time you said you wanted to keep using the same sig font as me. What's the status of that? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Heya

You're up on A/RE again, if you'd like to make comment. --

05:08, 2 May 2010 (BST)

You Back?

Like, properly? Because, if you are, ramp up the edits and start sysoping it up. :D --Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 11:36, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, I'm back properly. I'm currently running around fixing broken links, categorising templates, that sort of thing. I'll probably think about running for sysop when I get the required edits.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:25, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Excellent. You were always one of my faves. It was just a shame you couldn't keep the activity going.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 15:15, 2 May 2011 (BST)

333 edits since April by now! Seriously, though, I'd see no reason to not propose you early. The minimum edits aren't a hard criterion, and it is clear that you are doing some fantastic work in the background currently. If you keep up your current surge, you should arrive at 500 edits by the middle of the month (when the crat decision would be cast) anyway. -- Spiderzed █ 17:09, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Well, if someone nominates me early then I'll accept. Otherwise, I'll probably just plod along finding work for the sysops :P--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:24, 3 May 2011 (BST)

488 edits. So much for "middle of the month"

I'll set up a bid soon. -- Spiderzed █ 21:18, 4 May 2011 (BST)

:D, that's very gratifying to hear. I just found this place burns you out after a while: Taking a break was probably a good thing to do. The thing that brought me back was actually that I've started playing with Red Rum again and kept finding stuff on the wiki to update.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:24, 3 May 2011 (BST)

I'm gonna have to second the break thing. I found it very helpful. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:22, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Sometimes Subst

User:Karek/ProjDev/SignForMe is about as close as you're going to get. That with an Switch or If template could probably do what you're looking for. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:33, 2 May 2011 (BST)

sig switch

I think I've got something that works, using {{Switch}}. Code is located here: User:The General/sig/switch. I found that using the "if" statements resulting in the if templates themselves being substituted onto pages--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:16, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Nice. That is a lot simpler isn't it? Have you tried it on a UDWiki page yet? What exactly does <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly> do? ~

_{20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

No. I haven't yet found a chance to post on an admin page since I made the last set of changes.

<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly> means that the {{Switch}} template only gets substituted when I include the sig on a page. Otherwise, it would just substitute the result in on User:The General/sig/switch and it wouldn't be dynamic. safesubst: is used so that if someone directly transcludes the page then the subst: will be ignored an it won't break stuff.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:35, 2 May 2011 (BST)

You could always vote on the crat election then strike your vote.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 20:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Ah, that's cool. I had never seen safesubst: before. I knew there would be problems with having a switch or "if" template on the page being processed before it is transcluded during signing. My workaround was to try to do the coding in preferences. That's a nice little nugget of code, right there. ~

_{21:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, it was actually turned out a lot nicer than I thought it would: I expected it would require and ugly hack. BTW, wikipedia has some nice documentation on template substitution.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:29, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Just checked by nominating a whole bunch of stuff for protection: It's isn't working (It's just showing the templated sig. Not sure why...--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:25, 2 May 2011 (BST)b

It works! I needed to use another set of <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly> in the {{NAMESPACE}} magic word because substitutions happen before transclusions and so {{NAMESPACE}} wasn't actually being evaluated.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:29, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Now I feel dumb. Obviously I'm rusty and forgetting stuff I used to know. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:33, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, I was kicking myself too.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:27, 4 May 2011 (BST)

SysOp Bid

I'm thinking of voting "against" as an attempt at reverse psychology. -- Amazing‽ (UD + WTF = HR) 03:00, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Bot Shutoff

Do you need an op to test the button? I can ban/unban if you give me the ok. ~ _{14:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, that would probably be a good idea.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:27, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Ok yeah it takes me to the confirmation screen. The expiry time url hack doesn't seem to work, though. It goes to the default value of "Other". ~

_{14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)}

OK, that's good enough: The important thing is that it sets it to not autoblock my ip. I'll see if I can get the expiry time working when I get round to it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:09, 6 May 2011 (BST)

It should have some sort of a buffer for newly uploaded images, as it claimed my image was unused after I added the image to my pages. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:14, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, it parses the list of pages from Special:UnusedFiles at the begining of a batch run: If an image gets taken off the list in between the time when it reads the list and gets round to editing that page then it will result in a false message. I'm going to see if I can get it to read the date the image was uploaded from the page history and only tag pages which are >2 weeks old.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:23, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Why not after one week? It could serve as a nice notification system for people who might have forgotten that they uploaded an image or removed an existing image from a page. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 23:30, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Good idea, I'm seeing what I can do to implement a check for this..--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:09, 6 May 2011 (BST)

that robot you have there

Might I suggest that it also takes into account the "What links here" instead of just "file links" ? It's rather annoying when images that are interwiki-linked without the image being included image-like on a page gets deleted (though in the case of the three pics on my talk page, those are useless and can be bableeted). -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:18, 6 May 2011 (BST)

The problem is that it reads Special:Unusedfiles to determine what pages to tag and Special:Unusedfiles doesn't take direct links into account. It would be possible to add a check which queries "What links here" to confirm before tagging, though it would add to server load. My only question is: How often is a useful image linked to but never included?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 00:28, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I have no idea, but probably less than the image being included as an image. Though I do know it has happened with useful images accidentally being deleted, a few times that I can remember (no specific examples, just take my word on it). There's also the 3 images on my talk page right now, but I just happen to not mind them being deleted anyways (so it's useless). If server load is an issue, it might be prudent for sysops to actually check the "What links here" before deleting.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:33, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Zombie Mall Logos being the example that most prevalently comes to mind. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:34, 6 May 2011 (BST)

I think sysops should definitely be checking for links before deleting a page. My only point for consideration is whether or not the bot should be checking for it: While, theoretically, it would be an extra check every time it goes to tag a page (i.e. doubling server load per page and also slowing it down), it probably wouldn't be a problem in practice but I tend to follow a "keep it simple" philosophy when coding.

Given that the current practice seems to be to delete images based on [[Special:Unusedfiles}}, in which case the what the bot tags the image won't make much of a difference. If there is consensus among sysops to use the {{Orphanedimage}} tag as a guide (i.e. by including a category) for what to delete instead of the special page then I'll happily put in the check to ensure stuff doesn't get deleted accidentally.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:27, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Just a note

When the bot drops the warning on your talk page and you click edit it takes you to the template pages edit box. just thought I'd point that out Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 14:58, 6 May 2011

User talk:The General

Archive

Did you know?

Warning

Template on FAQ

FOR WHAT?

Your project

Warning

Montana8

Inquiry

Warning??

A new bureaucrat round has started

McZeds

WHOOPS

Happy belated Wiki birthday!

VB and Sockem

A/VB

Open Discussion regarding ParserFunctions extension

Inactive sysop demotion thing

Welcome Back

Meh

delete.

Permabanned Users

So...

Policy

Wiki

Socks

I gave your suggestion some consideration

A/D

New Stuff

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

evaluation

Your evaluation

Misconduct

To early?

I may have screwed up

No Prob, sorry for the confusion

I see...

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

Your templates on Developing Suggestions

Pssssst!

Heya

You Back?

Sometimes Subst

sig switch

SysOp Bid

Bot Shutoff

that robot you have there

Just a note

Navigation menu

Search