Talk:Bjorn the Fell Handed

From 1d4chan


That story was fun as fuck to read. Ok... so, apparently, when he went back into stasis... some other chapter of Space Marines stole him and his Dreadnought? Which chapter was it? --MercWithMouth 05:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok... so he was stolen by the "Blood Ravens." But, why the "Blood Ravens" of all the possible chapters...? --MercWithMouth 05:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe if you read our article on the Blood Ravens you'd understand the joke. Also, correcting obvious spelling and punctuation mistakes is fine, but please don't go altering the main text or dialogue of stories like this. Regardless of whether or not you think "pube-faced tard" flows better than "pube-faced cock", it was originally written that way when posted and there's no need to change it. I also take special offence to you adding a "PLEASE" to Bjorn's dialogue in the second story, like Bjorn would ever ask something politely, and also your arbitrary Americanisation of perfectly good English. -- 09:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'll say it again. These aren't collaboratively written stories. They were not constructed by consensus on a wiki. They are transcribed from original posts on the board and are supposed to remain accurate to that. Correcting a spelling mistake or an errant piece of punctuation is fine, but PLEASE stop fucking about with the main text and dialogue. As it so happens I wrote the second story on this page and if I had wanted to use American English, Bjorn to say "PLEASE", or mangled grammar in certain parts, I've have written it that way myself.

That said - blanking out discussion pages and putting a giant banner on your userpage that announces "DON'T FUCK WITH MY EDITS" makes you look like a goddamn twelve-year-old. I hope it shouldn't be too much to ask for you to behave a bit more maturely. -- 10:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • (1) Hey! It's a WIKI. That means collaborative edits and IMPROVEMENTS are to be expected! I am well-aware that they were written and posted to the image-boards. But that's also why for all their greatness, they have FLAWS. So, NO, preserving originality for the sake of originality, is not and should not be, by itself, the larger objective if a few MINOR edits can improve it significantly.
  • (2) American English OWNS. In fact... anything American OWNS anything else in the English speaking world. even your IP Address is from New York. The country with the most English speakers in the world? USA. The country with the second-most? INDIA!!
  • (3) Man, go back and look at what I changed. Really. Go back and LOOK. I improved the paragraphing/spacing/added more pics of Bjorn. Even IF you had certain reservations about my edits... just pressing the "REVERT" button is lazy and 2nd-rate.
  • (4) Twelve-year old, eh? Trust me pal... there ain't NOTHING kiddish about getting .CSS to appear properly on a wiki-engine as old as the one we're using.
  • (5) Break the fuck down already and make an ACCOUNT. "" is just dumb. Or... did you ACTUALLY make an account called ""...? Because I wouldn't be sure if doing that was cool or just insane.

--MercWithMouth 18:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. For descriptive and informative articles, yes, make improvements. I have no objection on principle to you altering the text at the top of the article (although I might disagree with you in the particulars about what's actually better). But the story sections are supposed to be a reproduction of something that was posted to the board - they're not drafts or collaborative works! As I said, correcting spelling, errant punctuation and, if you really have to, I suppose even paragraphing and spacing is okay. But as has been said below, you don't need to go rewriting the actual text. That's missing the point.
2. My IP address is not from New York and your misguided blind patriotic ranting about "AMERICA IS THE BEST" is unwarranted. If you want some locational information, I'm English, this site is hosted in the UK, and if I want to write in British English I will. Personally I want my written works to remain in British English.
3. You changed a lot of text and I lack the motivation to take a newer revision and try and manually edit back all the little details. It's a lot of effort to force other people to go on the basis of things you shouldn't have done in the first place. How about you make edits which just improve spacing and add pictures without altering the text?
4. Technical proficiency doesn't excuse or invalidate immaturity. You have a userpage which is arrogant and pointlessly threatening, and you've blanked a discussion page rather than respond properly earlier.
5. This wiki is rooted in an imageboard that thrives on anonymous contribution. I'm pleased with my edits and contributions but I feel no need to try and identify myself to take credit for them. More pertinently I have no desire for my edits and opinions to be given inflated or deflated value on the basis of my identity; they should be judged on their own merits. Account-based elitism, all in all, is something very much not welcome here. -- 12:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a historical document, in a sense. Correcting the spelling and spacing is fine. But changing it to "what you think it should be" ala Matt Ward, is not what we're trying to do here. We're trying to make sure the text stays the same, while correcting things like spelling mistakes. The Constitution had flaws, but you don't see the president scribbling his edits with magic marker on it. Because, despite it's flaws, it's history. We should preserve this in its original text. Now, I'm not critisizing your other edits, regarding the pics, the spelling corrections, or the spacing. But we're trying to preserve a work of, well, art. By changing the wording, you're defecating all over the page, and the /tg/ community by extension. Second of all, a person doesn't have to make an account to edit. That's the beauty of a wiki. And, remember, the 4chan communtiy thrives on anonymity, the ability to speak one's mind without hiding behind a name or avatar

Munch munch 18:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • He isn't fuckin' kidding about editing articles. Dude is a MACHINE about fixing spelling, grammar and wikifying keywords.
  • Well then...! You're IN LUCK!! 'Cuz you just volunteered to go through my version of it LINE BY LINE and edit those things that you think are truer to the original... and leave well enough alone the grammatical/capitalization/spacing/paragraphing mistakes! OK??

--MercWithMouth 19:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh shit... Fine. I'll take a look at both versions. It would help if someone could provide a link to the original story, but I'll do well enough without it. Also, I've noticed that your edits weren't exactly what most would call minor. EDIT: I'll do it in a bit. Gonna watch transformers 3... Munch munch 19:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Coincidentally... my edits DID include a link to the original story...

--MercWithMouth 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just realised, praps there would be a way to include both the original, and newer versions with the edits? Munch munch 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Lol. Well, yeah...! That's why the link is there. So that anyone that's so interested can see the original thread in its original form. Complete with jokes about the Blood Magpies and everything. Has Bjorn shown up in any other works (fan-created or otherwise)? I've found a few general-purpose Dreadnought pics, but little else.

--MercWithMouth 03:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

-So, it looks like everyone gave up on fixing grammar on the original version and putting it up in place of this version with arbitrary content edits? :( 20:50, 16 October 2011 (BST)

So who's the "you know?"[edit]

Title says it: who is the intro paragraph talking about with the whole "active service" distinction?

Could be any number of people. Many veterans of the long war, for one. Plus there's trazyn's Pokemarines. Josman (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Warzone Fenris[edit]

What was Bjorn doing during Warzone Fenris? He sleep through it or something? Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

For most of it he was psychically battling daemonic hordes while he was asleep. No I'm not kidding. -- Triacom (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

So he became like a mini Emperor? Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, despite not being a psychic. -- Triacom (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

How did he do it then? Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

He fell asleep, because he's so good he can battle daemons in his sleep. No, seriously, that's the explanation the book gives us. -- Triacom (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
That sounds really dumb. I mean, if it was Nijal Stormcaller then that would make sense but Bjorn? No. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
"That sounds really dumb" -An apt description of basically every expansion GW has done in the last year save for Traitor Legions. Josman (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I did like Imperial Agents (as shown by that tactics page) if only because it helped fill in holes a lot of Imperial Armies have, and it also made the Deathwatch, the Grey Knights, and the Sisters the Chambers Militant of the Inquisition again. Aside from that I can agree, most of the stuff isn't good and from what I've read the second Gathering Storm book is really shitty. -- Triacom (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


Bjorn Cripplehand was apparently skald of Magnus III, aka Magnus Barefoot, a Norwegian king famous for his conquests of the British Isles. Would this be worth a mention in the main body of text? I would say relevant, given the ironic GeeDub bastardisation of history and names etc.