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)

Yes, ops should be checking what links before deleting an image. I'd love it if a category for used on the template though. We already have Category:Unused Images and it would also fall in line with a project I started a while back, Category:Orphans. ~

_{15:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

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

Yes, this is why it should be substituting now iirc. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:03, 6 May 2011 (BST)

Questions about bid

Just nudging you about some questions I've asked on your bid. *nudge* ~ _{17:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)}

Yup, I'm writing a response now.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:26, 6 May 2011 (BST)

A/M

Thank you for being the first to actually rule on the subject and not the validity of Iscariot's request. I don't agree with you obviously but I do appreciate your ruling. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:44, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I hate to point this out, but it's technically not a ruling because I'm not a sysop. It's just my opinion (which is, of course, how I would rule if I was an 'op).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:53, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I keep confusing the people who have been promoted, are going to be promoted, and stepped down is seems. Either way, it's still the first actually reasonably based objection regarding the actual case and still appreciated.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:57, 16 May 2011 (BST)

March'11 Deletion Archive

Can I protect it now. It's scheduled but I was waiting until your were finished unlinking everything. ~ _{19:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)}

Yeah, sure, thanks for waiting. I've been fiddling around with it to see if you can get my bot to work properly, but it still can't seem to work with whitespaces.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:07, 16 May 2011 (BST)

BTW, you probably want to remove the {{delete}} tags when you've cycled a deletion request Hades Corporation and Malton Park Rangers were still tagged.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:09, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks. Yeah I haven't checked {{delete}}'s what links in a while to see what might have been missed. So the bot is having trouble with redlinks after indents? I wonder if padleft or padright magic words would help? not sure if a Python equivalent exists. ~

_{20:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)}

Well, it's currently having trouble with spaces in redlinks. I've uploaded a snippet of the code here: it basically uses regular expressions to find links in a page, which works fine for titles which are only one word but fails when they have spaces.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:47, 16 May 2011 (BST)

Your promotion bid…

… was successful. Congratulations. You know what you do. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:33, 23 May 2011 (BST)

:D. Thank you.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:06, 23 May 2011 (BST)

Gongrats, Le Generale. ~ _{14:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)}

A Challenge

Hello, Mr. The Janitor.. I, Ryu, the greatest warrior, would like to challenge you to a duel. In fighting games. You have a choice of Super Street Fighter 2 Super Turbo, Street Fighter 3: Third Strike, Street Fighter Alpha 2 or 3 or, if you happen to have a 360, Super Street Fighter 4. If you are interested then I will give you the details on how we will play them. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 15:14, 27 May 2011 (BST)

fuck off

stay away from my talk page. i don't fucking like you. i want nothing to do with you. don't post on my talk unless it's wiki biz. now piss off. and if you revert something on MY talk page again i'll take you vandal banning. again if you had bothered to check i archived kemptys message you fucking stupid janitor--User:Sexualharrison19:33, 27 May 2011 (bst)

i jumped the gun.. gonna save this for it does happen. I'm sorry man. :P--User:Sexualharrison19:38, 27 May 2011 (bst)

Unusual and incorrect locking of the Dunell Hills Groups template

I am writing to you, The General, today on the very unusual and also incorrect locking of the aforementioned template: Template:Dunell_Hills_Groups.

For months this template was static and the Dunell Hills Police Department were not active in the suburb, and were thus rightly not on the list.

However, the wiki vandal Codeist decided to vandalise and deface this template to incorrectly include the Dunell Hills Police Department. This is a bald faced lie, a fabrication of the rudest and highest order. How can this remain?

The conscientious and community minded Vasari returned the template to its unspoiled state.

Wiki vandals Rosslessness and Michaleson have then attempted to steamroller their vandalism through this wiki, and despite the valiant effort of WikiTruth fighters SprCobra, Vasari, Sykic, Laughing Man and myself (who gave mostly moral support) this vandalism has now been accepted and the page locked.

Return this page at once to its previous uncontested state, and ban these vandals Codeist, Rosslessness and Michaleson for their WikiWarring, which is strictly forbidden in this wiki's WikiLaw. --Capt Schwartz 00:45, 31 May 2011 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)

You've been around long enough to know how edit wars should be dealt with. You revert to before the contested edit until a consensus is reached, usually through arbitration. You don't get more say in which is the right version. Go to A/A, don't do that again. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:54, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks

Thanks for your answer on IP addresses. LoneGuardian09 07:14 31st May 2011 (GMT)

about that bot of yours

wut abot adding a link to it in your user page ? i tried to find his page but couldnt find anywhere (and i am to hangover to remember it). And wut about moving every User:DangerReport subpages and changing every link into a template of their own ? --hagnat 17:36, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Good point; will do (The link is User:Thegeneralbot BTW). Moving the User:DangerReport subpages is certainly doable but we'd need to get concensus and probably sysop the bot (I believe moving pages is a sysop permission?) Not sure what you mean by "changing every link into a template of their own" though?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:29, 9 June 2011 (BST)

point every link to user:dangerreport/something to template:something --hagnat 18:34, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Now that's *very* doable - I've already got a script for it. I'll just need to work out where the appropriate place to put a discussion is.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:32, 9 June 2011 (BST)

Start it off at Category talk:Danger Reports. ~

_{20:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)}

/* keep an eye on. */

(diff | hist) . . N User:Helpdesk‎; 05:34 . . (+19) . . HelpDesk (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "Helpdesk. Survived.")
(diff | hist) . . N User:HelpDesk‎; 05:33 . . (+19) . . HelpDesk (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "HelpDesk. Survived.")

--User:Sexualharrison13:32, 16 June 2011 (bst)

Warn

Don't warn people if you don't update A/VD please. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 10:24, 17 July 2011 (BST)

Oops, forgot about that; seem to be nmaking it a vague habit that I'll have to watch out for.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:48, 17 July 2011 (BST)

Still won't finish the job? Okay, I'll add his entry into A/VD for you. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 11:20, 17 July 2011 (BST)

I intended to do it; I'm currently editing on a BlackBerry and got somewhat distracted by the spam on my talk page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:23, 17 July 2011 (BST)

You are a disgusting fatbody, private pyle and you are not allowed to have jelly donuts!-JohnnyCakes 11:25, 17 July 2011 (BST)

If you're on a phone that's fine, A/VD is bad enough on a computer. dw. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 11:27, 17 July 2011 (BST)

He's just lazy...are you going to ENABLE Private Pyle forever? You people have not given Private Pyle the proper motivation. From now on, whenever Private Pyle fucks up, I will not punish him...I will punish ALL OF YOU!!-JohnnyCakes 11:31, 17 July 2011 (BST)

JohnnyCake's spam goes here

UD Tool

Erm I can't get the online lists to work. and can I see an example of how to format the offline lists?

this is what I have currently. #00ff00,Philosophe Knights it's right above all that url stuff. 00:01, 22 July 2011 (BST)

I think I have it figured out. 00:29, 22 July 2011 (BST)

There is an example of the online lists included in the default file. If you have one of the newer versions then it will be pre-configured to include the rezens' zerg list.

I'm actually going to dump an explanation of how the online lists work onto the web when I get round to it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 04:30, 22 July 2011 (BST)

I haven't tested it but I believe DT said the zerg list didn't work. But it is suppose to just get the list from those sites isn't it? 12:10, 22 July 2011 (BST)

I haven't been able to explicitly test it (cause I haven't run into a zerger recently) but I do know that it works for other lists (i.e. Red Rum memberlist). Yes, it should just silently get the list - it'll only complain if the formatting is screwed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:20, 22 July 2011 (BST)

I've noticed the inventory combiner doesnt work for me(it won't even color the names when it's turned on) but that might be from other scripts I'm running probably UDICOS. Also our list of Knights is in the following format: Mazu, Philosophe Knights, MS (Docent) and when in safemode (I think its turned on by default?) the "MS (Docent)" part produces error messages saying its in the wrong format. Turning safemode off it works just fine putting that last but in the comments box. I'm running version 0.7.5. 13:12, 22 July 2011 (BST)

Yes, other inventory combiners will screw up UDTool; not much I can do about that. Safe mode should be turned off by default; it makes the extension essentially more "cautious" at scanning names so it ignores capitalisations and extra spaces, but is thus slower - it shouldn't have any effect in this case. What happens if you put the same entry in without brackets?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:28, 22 July 2011 (BST)

Might be worth checking in 0.7.4 as well, to see if my most recent change (which did affect list parsing) is what causes it.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:32, 22 July 2011 (BST)

I'm not sure. I'll test taking out the () with safemode on in .7.5 and .7.4 later tonight when I get some time assuming I don't forget lol. 14:19, 22 July 2011 (BST)

Oi! UDTool Doesn't work with FF 6.0!! D=

Just making sure you know 01:43, 23 August 2011 (BST)

Ah, yeah, I guessed it might not but hadn't checked. Thanks for for reminding me; I'll get it fixed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:25, 1 September 2011 (BST)

I've put out an update that should fix it. It isn't yet pushing to the clients correctly, but you can get it off the site.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:49, 18 September 2011 (BST)

Yeah. I've been using it. Thank ye 14:11, 25 October 2011 (BST)

Desu Nōto

This is a memo to all interested parties: The Desu Nōto group page is just about complete. The only thing missing is the group's logo that would normally appear in the group box. But that's no reason why Desu Nōto should delay it's launch. A minor setback is what it is! A minor setback that won't interfere with any hunting business! So feel free to join in whenever you want to. Happy hunting to you, General! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 05:17, 12 August 2011 (BST)

Regarding the A/VB case

Yeah, that doesn't make it invalid, it's still an escalation for vandalizing in addition to whatever misconduct ruling he gets. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:55, 7 October 2011 (BST)

I assumed that "moved to misconduct" meant that it was, well, moved. If uou want to reopen them then feel free, though it might be easiest if we just collated it all in the misconduct cases.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:43, 7 October 2011 (BST)

It's either one or the other. Since it involved the direct use of sysop powers, it's Misconduct, not Vandalism.

21:49, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Passing comment. Karek, misconduct encompasses the vandalism because it is not just simply editing a protected page, it is also the content of the edit. Otherwise, I suppose vandalizing the page is distinct from misconduct, and it will be not misconduct as editing a protected page is not in itself misconduct; and it will be a vandalism case instead. It's a double ruling for the same act, if you ruled both as UNJUST ACTIONS. Unless you want two congruent rulings for the same one thing. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 22:45, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Honestly, my stance on it is that either it was vandalism or it wasn't and it was misconduct or it wasn't and the two are completely separate issues. In cases of sysops vandalizing protected pages I tend to be for the approach of letting both cases have their lives fully independently of each other in the sense that one is a violation of community trust(misconduct) and solely about that and one is a violation of a page(vandalism) and solely about that. That's generally always been my approach to that, neither page supersedes the other and just because something is or isn't vandalism doesn't indicate that something else, or the same thing for that matter, is or isn't misconduct. Otherwise all cases of sysop vandalism would then automatically go to misconduct instead since judgement action is a sysop privilege, and that's just ridiculous. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:15, 8 October 2011 (BST)

I personally disagree. However usually they are treated as different cases and as an unspoken rule, one is often thrown out in favour of using the other as the means of punishment. Eg. in this case we would have usually ruled not vandalism on the A/VB cases by now just so all the discussion is funnelled to A/M where, in this case, I think it should rightly be. not that two punishments wouldn't be justified for such silliness. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 07:22, 8 October 2011 (BST)

Okay. Sysops as trusted users includes that trust in anything they do here, so then whatever edit they make is under that trust. Right, then by what that says, all vandalism/bad thing is a violation of trust and therefore also misconduct. And like you said, that's silly. Evidently, that's not how it works here: we may say trust is what is being violated, but what we really evaluate is improper use of the abilities that sysops have only, and that is what constitutes misconduct. Editing the protected is a sysop-only ability, and it was done so improperly. So of course it is misconduct. But the question is if that misconduct is also vandalism. If the page wasn't protected, it would be only vandalism, even if a sysop did it... Although it was protected, and this does not change the edit content, only the ability for it to occur. I think, since what we really are talking about here is the sysopness of the edit that only could occur because it was sysopee we are talking about misconduct and not vandalism. Sensibly. (Technically the edit is both misconduct and vandalism, but which is more accurate and important?) -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:59, 8 October 2011 (BST)

But here's the thing. You can have misconduct without vandalism, happens all of the time. Vandalizing a protected page is still vandalism, it just also happens to be misconduct. The fact that it is misconduct doesn't make it also not vandalism anymore. We have a clear place where vandalism is determined with specific punishments(and specifically escalations). We have a clear place where misconduct is determined with intentionally unspecific punishments(and by design historically aside from a few strange rulings they do not include vandal escalations). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:47, 8 October 2011 (BST)

Okay, again. Yes, I said that. And improper blocks are not edits, and improper protections are not edits (without getting into silly technicalities) so those are sysopee purely. But we're talking about both: the edit is of course vandalism first, and the edit is misconduct second because it was an improper use editing a protected page, and it was improper because it was a vandalism edit. Are we not getting at one and the same thing? The edit (picture insertion) is vandalism in itself, so it is distinct; and the edit is misconduct in itself because... well, hrm... it is vandalism. But the vandalism is vandalism, and misconduct is the sysopee occurrence of the vandalism (there is nothing inherently improper about editing the protected page; hence what are you calling misconduct but the vandalism?). Have I confused myself, or are these not really distinct, but that misconduct is the bigger explanation in which the vandalism is enclosed? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:59, 8 October 2011 (BST)

I don't view one as bigger than the other. Misconduct in the pursuit of vandalism doesn't make it simply misconduct and we really shouldn't treat Misconduct as a way to get around ruling on a vandalism case, in part because it sets a bad precedent for potentially more lenient treatment of sysop vandalism on protected pages than off. As part of misconduct we've always insisted that misconduct and vandalism aren't the same thing but in this case the insistence is that because the vandalism included misconduct it's solely misconduct and punishment is whatever the hell we want to say it is instead of the escalation a normal user would get, or even these users would get otherwise. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:08, 9 October 2011 (BST)

I think it has become clear that we getting at the same thing but in different ways. So, you say vandalism as distinct and misconduct as distinct, but the misconduct needs the vandalism (the actual edit content) to be viewed as misconduct, as the misconduct (editing a protected page) is not at all misconduct by itself. But the vandalism and misconduct are not distinct things, but the same action. (Well yes). Otherwise it makes no sense. Anyways, whatever. I am saying that the misconduct encompasses the vandalism, so that it includes the vandalism, plus more consideration on top of that because the vandalism was facilitated by a sysop-only action (so it makes it worse than simply vandalism). I am not saying that we ignore the vandalism; I am saying that the handling of this most terrible and improper action of Misanthropy's be handled via misconduct because it is the more accurate and encompassing description of the action. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:46, 9 October 2011 (BST)

tl;dr Heck, let me put it this way: it's more concise on the misconduct page. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:46, 9 October 2011 (BST)

can regular users comment? if so, i agree with Karek. here's an analogy...if a curator defaced protected artwork by disarming sensors using their access code, the curator would be guilty of misconduct & vandalism. in this case, misconduct is "more important" than vandalism, but if the Main Page was a painting, misconduct & vandalism would be equally important. just curious...what would have happened had he vandalized & swiftly undone the vandalism? would this be an issue? -- →Son of Sin← 03:16, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Gnome's right, though. This isn't a real world analogy - misconduct is, strictly speaking, vandalism which involves the misuse of sysop powers. The misconduct case includes the inherent presumption of vandalism and deals with that as well. The better analogy to use would be the American criminal system's definition of misdemeanours and felonies. Can't be both, it's either one or the other.

02:41, 9 October 2011 (BST)

okay, if that's the case, you should be "charged" for the "felony" which would be the misconduct? i don't know anything about wiki rules, i haven't read that section. but if you aren't punished for vandalism, regular users shouldn't be punished either. if you aren't punished for misconduct, sysops will lose respect. i'm sure you guys don't care about respect on the internet. as i stated before, i don't know how things work...it seems unfair to ignore the misconduct violation just because it's not misconduct without the vandalism. and it's unfair to ignore the vandalism because the misconduct is more severe (if that's correct). -- →Son of Sin← 03:16, 9 October 2011 (BST)

We are punished for vandalism. If the Main Page was protected, this would just be an A/VB case. It was protected, so the act involved a breach of sysop powers, and is Misconduct instead. Misconduct is a specialised vandalism case which specifically deals with the misuse of sysop powers. Essentially, considering an act to be both vandalism and misconduct and to warrant two cases means a) punishing one transgression twice, and b) essentially negating the need for misconduct as a separate entity. Misconduct exists solely to act as a means of censuring those who commit a narrowly-defined act of vandalism, as opposed to the broader scope of A/VB. I've been brought up, whilst a sysop, on A/VB and been warned there for it, because those were acts which didn't involve the use of sysop powers. I've also been brought up on A/M and been warned there, because those were acts which did involve their use. If you expect cases to use both venues at the same time, then the second, specialised, venue has no reason to exist at all.

03:22, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Honestly, if we had to favor one I'd say A/VB simply because the ruling there isn't negotiable to nothing. My concern is mostly one of the very real possibility of abuse(specifically special treatment) in the future from the precedent of taking A/M for punishment instead of both applicable systems working together. In this case the misconduct is editing the page outside of consensus with a bad judgement(since bad judgement is itself misconduct when privs are concerned) call and the vandalism is the actual content of the edit. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (BST)

In other words I also agree with Gnome I'm just concerned about the implementation of that very correct view in the real wiki. It won't always go the way it would if it were a vandalism case because of the variable punishment issue. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 09:08, 9 October 2011 (BST)

So wrapped up in the misconduct case is at the minimum the vandalism/escalation (if indeed it is warranted as vandalism). And if that escalation covers the misconduct (the improper use of Misanthropy's sysopness to enable the vandalism) then there's no need to go further (which implies, in that case, that the ruling would be identical to a ruling where no sysopness was involved). If the ruling is not enough, then... well further we go. Yes, we got it, Gnome, thanks.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:54, 13 October 2011 (BST)

It works better if first you determine that it was vandalism through A/VB and then determine if the use of sysop abilities to enable the act is also misconduct through A/M. Two punishments each relevant to the action, none with the stupid self-entitled response from the user/s that we got in this specific case where Mis is actually outraged it's being discussed giving him a real punishment instead of simply a warning as if it were a run of the mill vandalism case on the wrong page ad other users like Yon are spamming the page with what I can only think are joke requests for auto-demotion. Procedurally it's a fuck up to do it the way we currently are and practically it causes, and will continue to potentially cause, more problems than the saved time of one case solves. All things being equal we could potentially have one case and reach the correct decision with everyone being satisfied it was handled right, obviously though in cases like this they aren't and different sysops will get different treatment even though the vandalism punishment level shouldn't be a matter of discussion(it has to be if it's all in A/M). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:31, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Wiki Suggestions

So...yeah. It's a bit overdue now but I am finally getting around to doing something with the wiki suggestions system we discussed all those months ago. Care to weigh in on some discussion before I create the new system? ~ _{07:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)}

Question for you

How much do you like copycats? Deity 05:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, whats up with scrollwars? Its bugging out. One day its the a new world, where all the characters are wiped, the next its back to the old world. Also, the software for the wiki, wikia or something, kinda sucks. Deity 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As it turns out wikia is functionally better than mediawiki iirc because it's the same main guys but they charge for it. You can make it look like mediawiki in my preferences but your log in is the same on all wikia sites everywhere. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Questions about bid

Other Question

A/M

March'11 Deletion Archive

Your promotion bid…

A Challenge

fuck off

Unusual and incorrect locking of the Dunell Hills Groups template

Thanks

about that bot of yours

/* keep an eye on. */

Warn

JohnnyCake's spam goes here

UD Tool

Desu Nōto

Regarding the A/VB case

Wiki Suggestions

Question for you

Navigation menu

Search