User talk:AssistantWikifag

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

Questions, comments, complaints? I'll listen. I might even act on them!

Archive of stuff from 2012

Archive of stuff from 2013

Contents

Another Defacing Idiot 2014[edit]

I have encountered some vandals in the A.I. Quest discussion page with the http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.125.50.27 and http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/96.125.49.157 tags. Is there anything that can be done about them? i am still new to 1d4chan, so i hope i am at the right place to ask about this. --70.188.30.231

Blocked him/them for a day. To be clear: I don't mind (and don't much care) that they don't like what you write. However, editing somebody else's talk-page posts is over the line.
Finally, you can sign your messages with the date and time as well as your username by using four tildes (~~~~). I (and many others on this wiki) also like to put two dashes in front of the signature to set it apart from the rest of my post, but that's a style choice. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Trip Into Hell[edit]

So, that you for trying to restore the trip in hell page, but they're at it again. - Gundamguy

I wouldn't say "they" since it was only 122.61.192.20. The guy's made productive edits elsewhere; I hope he swats the bee in his bonnet and either accepts Trip Into Hell's existence or more clearly explains his objections. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at his previous edits to that page (before he started blanking it), he claims that he had a part in writing it and didn't like the ending. The former is completely unprovable, and the latter simply means that his actions can be chalked up to "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE, GAIZ!".--Newerfag (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Since my ban has lapsed, allow me to explain myself and the reasoning for wanting that story removed. I’ve had contact with the original author, and in fact helped him out from time to time with other projects, and I know that he’s deeply ashamed and loathing of the story that he wrote. It’s caused nothing but misery, not only for himself but also for the other writefags who used to work with him, who have had to deal with the backlashes caused by this story and in one case the massive dislike one has for the story. The story has even driven him to a mental breakdown. He’s gone on record as wanting this story removed, and has already deleted every copy he could get his hands on. So I decided that for his peace of mind, and so the other authors would not have to deal with this story anymore and the endless arguments, fighting and issues over it I elected to have it put on the deletion list. If you want conformation on the self-hate, breakdowns and loathing the author has for this story and the misery it has caused him and those who associated with him, you can ask the other writers, Someone Else and ILikeCommas. They’d say the same thing I have. This story is poorly written, has caused massive issues with other authors trying to write within the setting and is better off removed and deleted so they can write PD fanfiction without having to be forced into fighting with the author of this story over his characters and story. I do hope you will see why this is necessary and go through with deleting this piece of work. --122.61.192.20 22:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If Ahriman's Aide has a problem with Trip Into Hell, he can put up the delete template himself. If he has forgotten his password, he can email Wikifag about resetting it (I don't have the permissions to execute such a request). --AssistantWikifag (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Why hasn't the page been deleted yet? The OP put his request in for its removal, and yet nothing has happened.
As I said on his talk page, the way he phrased the message gives me the impression that he thinks I have something against the page, when I don't at all. I want to be sure that he wants it gone for himself, if that makes sense.
Part of this is probably my natural inclusionist instinct. You may have noticed that there are a lot of pages in the "deletion" category that I haven't deleted. When I delete a page, I feel like I'm sending a message: "We, the entirety of 1d4chan, don't want this page, and we don't want pages like it." That's something that I'm very hesitant to do, unless it's something with tremendous consensus against it, like spam, or the author personally requests it (as with various old campaign articles that GMs put up for deletion -- the reason I don't delete all of those at once is because I'd rather the "tone" of the recent changes stay focused on editing and contributing, not deleting, and because they don't cause any harm while they're here, unlike spam).
Am I making sense, or should I just stop worrying and hit the delete button? --AssistantWikifag (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Would this be considered spamming?[edit]

I noticed earlier that one of the users (User:Malak) here was putting up an external link to his EBay account with the intent of advertising on his user page. While I have noticed he has made a couple of other edits to other pages and removed the offending link for a short time when I noted that he might be mistaken as a spambot on his talk page (which makes it unlikely that he is a spambot), I do not wish to force a needless confrontation with him if he is in fact a legitimate user. What would be the best course of action be in this situation?--Newerfag (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

An eBay store with 40K models for sale is not exactly "unrelated". I would have said that I'd feel better about him advertising his store on this wiki by buying an ad, but he's done just that. I think that, by keeping the link on his user page or in an ad, there's no endorsement implied (it's "his" page, leading to his store). If he had, say, linked to his sale of Centurions from the bottom of the Centurion page, I'd have considered that over the line, but he didn't, so I'm not concerned at this time. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense- I didn't realize that ad for cheap 40k models was him until now. Thanks for clearing that up.--Newerfag (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles under assault[edit]

Assistantwikifag, I let wikifag know but i was hoping you would be able to help if he was unavailable. An unregistered user has been vandalising Games Workshop and Minorities in the Imperium of Man, motivated by some desire to remove all mention of race and racism from the articles. He deleted a lot of content unnecessarily so I reserved it but he has reserved it himself and seems ready to make an edit war of it, which of course I don't want it to turn into. I was hoping you could advise what to do about this? - Alorend, 00:03 28 January 2014

I've blocked him for a few days to let him cool off. I suspect he's most interested in causing trouble, but if he has an objection to the Minorities in the Imperium of Man article, he should explain it on its talk page. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
And he's back with a different IP address doing exactly the same shit that got him blocked earlier. He's either a troll who's too dumb to quit or a castoff from /pol/, and either way I doubt he's going to stop willingly. Maybe he's just a racist?--Newerfag (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I blocked that address (a little longer than the first) and protected the page for what I hope is long enough for him to lose interest.
Funnily enough, his most recent IP address is located in Israel. gb2/pol/ indeed. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Amazingly, he still hasn't learned a thing. I just caught him vandalizing the Games Workshop article again with a third IP address. He could be using a proxy or a dynamic IP to bypass the blocks- nothing else makes sense.--Newerfag (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Question about Fanfiction/Codices[edit]

I've been reading 1d4chan and had a chance to read stories based on games and such (amusing stuff). Also been reading fluff in regards to WH40K (I like it). My question is: is writing not based on anything existing allowed to be posted here? Does it have to be based on existing games/writing/movies, etc?

Thanks.

Derka Der (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, it's not really my job to curate content -- I only delete things that other people mark for deletion (obvious spam aside -- I'll delete that on my own initiative if I catch it) -- so you shouldn't be asking me this question at all. Arguably, you shouldn't really ask the question to anyone -- if people think something shouldn't be here, they'll let you know directly.
That said, in terms of what content is acceptable, this wiki is meant for things that are /tg/ related, which in the broadest sense means "things that /tg/ finds interesting". This is not limited to only tabletop games -- see HFY as an example of work that originates on /tg/ without being derived from any particular work that already exists.
Short answer: go ahead and put it up. You might put it up on /tg/ first to get some eyeballs on it before archiving it here, as that's the usual pattern, but nobody's going to stop you from making the page here first if you want. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
If I might chime in, I might note that putting your real name on the page you made and your E-mail address on your userpage is not a good idea for quite a few reasons. If I were you, I'd suggest removing that kind of sensitive information, if only as a safety precaution. Spambots do tend to show up here every now and then and I'd hate to see them harvest your e-mail address or something like that. --Newerfag (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks for the response.

Derka Der (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Board Games page under constant vandalism[edit]

Hey AssistantWikifag, how can you deal with the constant Spammers that has been constantly deleting pages related to Boardgames? Even though you have blocked a number of them, it seems that more clones are still popping up trying to violate the page. This is the IP of the reported SPAMbot----> 46.119.117.208, hope that helps.Derpysaurus

Got them both. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not going to protect the board-tans page, since that only got hit once and it's changed relatively recently anyway, but that might change.
Unfortunately, this latest batch of spambots isn't trying to add links or create pages, so they don't trip the challenge questions. Fortunately, they also seem to have a very narrow set of interests. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Spammers are now targeting other unexpected pages and violating users account pages[edit]

Derpysaurus here again, now the Spambots are targeting pages we do not usually see much violation from, such as the Chaos Pretty Marines. Furthermore these spambots are now targeting user pages now such as Indonesian gentleman, which as we all know, is illegal in this wiki. Here is the IP for one of the Spambots I digged out----> 178.137.160.124 . Hope that helps bring in the Banhammer.

It was that one bot that did both, actually. I'll probably see these when I look through the list of recent edits (they are helpful enough to leave odd text strings in the edit reasons, and you all usually add "undoing spam" or whatever to the edit summary when you undo their work), but thanks for the heads-up.

Yeah I am back again with a new Spambot, this time he is plagiarizing the My Little Pony page. Here is his IP number-----> 203.98.92.94 ,. Hope that helps. Derpysaurus

"Plagiarizing" refers to copying content without crediting it to the original creator, and "spambots" are automated users that add spam content to pages (usually links to sites that sell dodgy things). 203.98.92.94 is neither; what 203 did is properly called "vandalism".
I suspect that 203 is, like other users before him (My Little Pony is one of the pages I keep a closer eye on since it's been vandalized before), simply expressing his frustration that /tg/ likes things that he doesn't like (well, maybe /tg/ doesn't like My Little Pony for the most part, but they certainly think enough about it to make an article about it here). If he persists, I might block him for a few days to give him time to cool off, but otherwise, it's not possible for a regular user to actually remove information from the wiki, and someone has already undone his edit, so I'm not inclined to block him at the moment. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

accidentally uploaded a copyrighted pic[edit]

hi, i accidentally uploaded a copyrighted pic. could you delete it for me? [deleted -- AssistantWikifag (talk)] thnx --Kapow (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, if you want me to delete anything else, just put the {{deletion}} tag on it (though asking on my talk page will certainly get me to respond more promptly). --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

99.246.64.46[edit]

The user for that IP has gone back to vandalizing the Bioware page again after his ban expired. Perhaps you should consider protecting the page and/or giving him a longer ban? (I would suggest the latter, as I have also seen him leaving threatening messages on other users' talk pages.)--Newerfag (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So This Is Where The Heretics Reside?[edit]

It appears that User:Dtortor attempted to recreate the deleted page "So This Is Where The Heretics Reside?" [since deleted --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)] and does not seem to understand why it was deleted in the first place (if his peculiar comments the talk page is any indication). Would you kindly explain to him the rationale for its deletion on his talk page or the article's talk page? He does not seem willing to listen to reason so far, and while I assume it is frowned upon to recreate a deleted page I think he might calm down if you made it clear to him why it was deleted.--Newerfag (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Recently, the above user has begun to post insults directed towards me in the talk page of the disputed article. While I would like to believe that I have been quite reasonable towards him thus far, the fact that he believes that the page should have been "replaced" after you deleted it is itself a sign that he is unwilling to make constructive edits to the wiki. I am currently at a loss for what to do about this situation for the time being and do not wish to see this dispute escalate any further, but I have no reason to believe that he will be willing to engage in a civil discussion at this point in time.--Newerfag (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

37.115.184.222[edit]

Blanked the board-tans page, so I restored it. That is all.

108.206.68.211[edit]

Apparently this Butthurt bot has been plagiarizing my old fan-fluff The Glassing of Djangoris Alpha IV, without any of my permission nor notice to prior hand, and just deleting a massive amount of content and then replaced it with "Humanity Fuck Yeah!" Wank and 19 Megajoule Lasgun bullshit. All because I was in a relatively pointless and petty debate with Erebus Kain over Carapace armor/Mjolnir armor comparison. Right now he is being an annoyance and irritant. What can you do with him/her/it? Can you protect this page and anything related just in case?Derpysaurus

UPDATE: And apparently his calling me a troll and constantly deleting the fan page after I called him out that his edits are not acceptable, he is accusing me of not doing any calculations (What calcs, I have no idea) and re-igniting a stupid edit war that I tried to avoid via deleting the debate in the first place. Can you backhand this uncompromising, butthurt idiot who is jerking off his WH40K cock so much and throwing out language in which I have to respond back equally; to the extant that I am absolutely embarrassed that he likes the same subject as me? Since I tried to calm things down and compromising the pointless issue initially, and then he started these abominable edits because some people don't agree with his bullshit.Derpysaurus

MORE UPDATE!: As you can see, his editing skills are reminiscent of trolling, I kept most of my cool here but apparently, our poor little bot is getting all pissy and upset over a fanfic. He is still asking me to prove calcs (Which I have no idea what calcs he is asking me) despite the fact that the only thing he got was the 19 Megajoule Lasgun bullshit in which I tore down due to the absurdity and contradiction if it were true. He still have the hubris to call me a no-life or fanboy despite him having a massive rage boner over as something as petty as a cross-over. Can you hurry up and maybe ban this irritating maggot to teach him a lesson here?Derpysaurus

-199.126.52.169 19:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Derpy, I hate to sound like a hypocrite, but I think the best solution here is the one one you might like the least- just take the story off of 1d4chan. I'm sure you put a ton of work into it, but if it's attracted someone this persistent in vandalizing it then it may not be worth keeping up in the first place. As far as I can tell, whatever problems he's supposedly causing are between you and him, and AssistantWikifag isn't likely to ban someone just because they have a grudge against you. (Plus, if he's an anonymous IP he could just go and reset his router to evade the ban. It's been done before quite a few times.) For now, I suggest transferring what you've written to a seperate site (I suggest pastebin), placing the delete template up on the page, and waiting at least a couple of weeks before putting it all up again. The anon will likely be appeased by this and move on, and you can restore it like nothing happened. --Newerfag (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this stupid edit war was created over a stupid Lasgun calcs, apparently this page is a battle ground over this pointless and immature debate. I don't think it has to do with the contents of the page but what I stated that Lasguns are 16KJ, but unfortunately this bot has de-evolved himself into a nonsensical troll over Lasguns. I'm not sure whether he is actually trolling or being serious, but his actions are essentially breaking almost every rule in this sight, he does not want to compromise nor let it go and is just there to wank the ever loving shit out of Lasguns. This is why I am tempted in the banning of his IP, since he is non-cooperative, rude, butthurt, can't edit for shit and all around pathetic and he is just using this fanpage as nothing more then a placeholder for a pretty stupid debate. Derpysaurus

Aaaannnnddd....its confirmed, this bot is a troll. Derpysaurus

  • All the more reason to remove the page for the time being. With nobody to debate with, he'll get bored and leave on his own. Every snippy edit summary you make just provokes him further, but deny him his soapbox and he'll go away. --Newerfag (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately he is spreading and vandalizing other people's talk pages. Yeaahhhh...I don't think my fanfic is now the main target here. Even if I deleted the fanfic, I bet he would most likely come back so can anyone use the Banhammer now?Derpysaurus
    • I disagree- his own comments suggest his behavior is directed exclusively at you. Incidentally, it may be possible that he and Erebus Kain are the same person, as this anon appeared shortly after your disagreement with him. I still suggest trying to take it down for a while, if only as a precaution against further vandalism until you can be assured of its safety. --Newerfag (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not me, but I personally know him. - Erebus Kain.
  • Of course I know he is directed at me, but what I'm trying to say is that he is going to other people's talk pages to escalate the situation. Also, everyone knows its not you Erebus Kain, you were a pretty cool guy to debate with until that raging anon came, don't worry, I consider you cool. :) Derpysaurus
  • And he's back, doing exactly the same shit. Best permaban him, since he learned nothing from the first ban. Erebus, if you know this guy could you please tell him to let it go?--Newerfag (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yah, I came over to let you know as well.
Sorry for not being on the wiki to catch this user "in the act". I'm forgoing blocking him for the time being since he seems to have lost interest (and so blocking him now would be a bit like closing the barn door after the cows leave), but I've put your page on my watchlist, so if he messes with it again, I'll see it more quickly. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

109.228.22.219[edit]

Looks like we have a fella blanking out the work on Dranon's Delight. Don't believe he's from Tumblr, but probably your garden variety troll.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Harem of Chaos edit war going out of control[edit]

I'm doing my best to revert vandal edits on the page, but it's happening too quickly for me and I can't keep it up forever. Given that the original author has said he doesn't care what happens to the page now, it would be wise to just delete the page and permanently block the vandals. The sheer persistence they've displayed so far gives me the impression that they will not stop under any circumstances unless they have no other alternatives, and at this point the history is so cluttered with vandal edits that there's hardly anything left to salvage of the original page. I have the feeling that the vandal may be using multiple IPs, as some of the vandal edits have come from IPs that have not touched any other part of the wiki.--Newerfag (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • By looking back at the edit history, the Vandal bot is indeed using multiple IP's to continue with his failed attempt at trolling. We should probably just delete the page as you said and possibly ban all the past IP's the bot has been using to hide behind, just in case if he comes back on the previous IP's. Derpysaurus
  • If it was a bot it would have left something in Chinese or Russian, and it certainly wouldn't be smart enough to keep reverting the page after I undo its edits. It's definitely a human with a bee in his bonnet. (I've been on 4chan long enough to know what trolling is, and I can see that he's not trolling anybody but himself.)--Newerfag (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

More problems[edit]

While I have personally noted that Nlstrong's contributions were of questionable quality in the past, but recently he has begun vandalizing the (admittedly poor) Jews article with rants decrying anti-semitism, posting copyrighted content directly from books, and advertising the games he has made himself within articles. Would you be kind enough to go and smack some sense into him? He doesn't seem to be willing to listen to other users, and I do not believe he will stop on his own.--Newerfag (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright woes[edit]

Hello,

I'm an artist, and on of the clients I work for is Hasbro, who creates Magic: the Gathering. Once upon a time, I did a bit of my own fan-art of two of the characters I've helped make popular, and it has since plagued me to no end. The image on this page http://1d4chan.org/wiki/File:Chandra_and_Liliana.jpg is my work, and permissions have never been given to anyone to use it. Yet it gets used, on bootleg merchandise and all sorts of things. And every time it does, I have legal troubles requiring my time and money. So beyond simply stealing the work to turn a quick buck, they're literally costing me directly by using it.

I'm trying to get as many instances of the image removed as I can. I know, I know: it's the internet. But I've got to do what I can to at least slow these people down.

Can you please, please, remove this image from the wiki?

Thank you so much,

Steve Argyle

Done. Given that it is relevant to the articles in which it is (was) used, is it available on a site of yours for us to link to? --AssistantWikifag (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Unfortunately, I myself am also under an order to keep the image off my site. Thanks again.

Jews- why do we even have this article?[edit]

The Jews article may be better written now compared to what it was before, but its relevance to this wiki is still nominal at best, and at worst it's a flamewar waiting to happen or an open invitation for vandals to fill it with antisemitic screeds. Additionally, I have yet to see a single thread on /tg/ that has ever seriously mentioned Jews in regards to making them a playable race/class, and the stat block that was originally made for the page doesn't seem to have been made on /tg/ at all. At the very least, I would like it if you made some kind of statement as to whether or not its continued existence is justified or not. --Newerfag (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Why do we have this article?" Because somebody cared enough to create it.
Regarding the Jews page specifically (which I see was deleted way back in 2009, before being recreated in 2013), maybe somebody on /tg/ (most likely in jest) suggested generating a stat block for them a while ago, and only once. Or some /tg/ user made it for fun and put it up here instead of posting it on /tg/ first (which is not how I would have done it -- I'd rather put something up on /tg/ for discussion and then archive it here -- but that's hardly enough to delete a page over). I see somebody on Talk:Jews asking if we are "the History Wiki", but there is a heavy basis of many RPGs and settings in history. I wouldn't have thought we needed an article specifically about swords, but then I just saw a thread where someone demonstrated iron smelting and then talked about how that iron could be worked into nails, swords, and other things, to great interest from other fa/tg/uys. The list of "things that (some portion of) /tg/ finds relevant" is not small.
I feel like we've had this conversation before, and maybe we just have different ideas about how the wiki ought to be administrated. I don't see it as my place to make calls on whether a page's existence is justified or not, since it is (it ought to be) the users who decide if a page ought to be deleted, and then they flag it for me to perform the actual deleting function. However, since you've asked for a personal statement, I'm what Wikipedia calls an "inclusionist"; even if a page is substandard, I'd rather leave it here so that someone can improve it. If a page is marked by flame wars or spamming, I can protect it until the vandals lose interest. We're not running out of disk space, and I assume that Wikifag would say something if we were -- he does come through now and then to update MediaWiki if for no other reason, so I assume he checks then.
I'm also slow to delete pages in general because I think that it is better that the majority of the edits visible in the "recent changes" section at any time are page creation and editing, rather than the admins deleting stuff. It's a little detail, but when I go to a wiki for the first time it's the first thing I check to get a feel for the "tone" and health of the wiki.
I get that you think the page ought to go, but looking at its talk page (and on other talk pages of articles you have nominated for deletion), I don't think you have consensus on your side. (I could also envision deleting the page if having it would cause actual trouble for the wiki, but that doesn't seem to be the case either.)
What do you think? --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Spambot Reports 2015[edit]

It just wouldn't be a new year without more spambots! 89.98.115.140 was just tinkering with Monopoly/OccupyBoardwalk. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

pervasive vandalism from 138.180.194.3[edit]

On the Ork tactica we've been having a problem with a user stripping profanity out of the article. Now, I can see why someone might want to set the tactics page into a more serious tone, but this is 1d4chan. Also, they aren't rewriting the article, they're effectively vandalizing it. Replacing swears and 4chan colloquialisms with bowdlerized forms even when it reduces the readability of the section. Previous edits ([1] ,[2] ) from that IP reduced phrases like "Can carry a metric fuck-ton of orks and royally fuck up the shit of anything it gets in the way of." to "Can carry a metric fat man ton of orks and royally fat man up the shit of anything it gets in the way of." and then again to "Can carry a metric bubbles ton of orks and royally bubbles up the buttocksof anything it gets in the way of."

Other examples of similar behavior can be found on the tyranid tactics page, where they replaced "FUCKHUEG" with "huge". In that case at lease, the meaning and readability was maintained.

Their most recent edit is here [3]. I'mma revert it, but I figured that this might be worth bringing to your attention. The comment on their last edit suggests that they aren't going to take a revert lightly. (edit: someone else beat me to the punch on the revert.) --Hiddenkrypt (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that vandalism. I wouldn't even call it edit-warring. Like many matters which are brought to my attention, it seems to have resolved itself without my intervention, which suits me just fine, but for future reference, I will probably come down on the side of less profanity. I've got no fucking problem with profanity in general, but overdoing it makes pages hard to read, which is especially problematic on pages which are supposedly intended to inform, such as tactica. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Image rot?[edit]

I put this on Wikifag's page, but no one seemed to notice. Anyway, every now and then an image will just no longer exist out of nowhere. Case in point, the C.S. Goto picture. This seems to happen most often with images who have spaces in their filenames. 50.184.110.243 18:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well. Not sure what I can do about it, but it's annoying.--Newerfag (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Man, that is a bummer -- I liked that image. I feel like we've tried resolving this sort of thing before (you may notice that most images have a "Importing image file" edit from "Maintenance script"), but short of re-uploading or re-importing stuff, or resolving some kind of bug with a MediaWiki or server update (which is Wikifag's thing more than mine), I don't know what we can do. Sorry. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I still have it with me. Let me try reuploading it- it's not the ideal fix, but it's better than nothing. --Newerfag (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Permabanning 192.99.14.91[edit]

Hey Derpysaurus here, should we permaban anon 192.99.14.91? He has been harassing the user page of Boss Ballkrusha for countless time already, we have warned him multiple times but has ignored it. Please permaban this troll faggot's ass already. Derpysaurus

I can't help but notice that he doesn't contribute much either, all the IP Address has done so far is vandalize Boss Ballkrusha's user page, and he's been doing so several times over the past week. This is clearly a personal attack on someone. Evilexecutive (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to miss this one -- obviously 192.etc. got bored, but I'll keep an eye on Boss Ballkrusha's page for further vandalism. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 03:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting permaban for 124.184.9.18[edit]

124.184.9.18 has been blanking random pages, and adding "Trigger warning" to them. Evilexecutive (talk) 01:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Issue has been resolved, thanks to another user(Whose name I suddenly forgot literally the moment I moved away from his userpage >.<)Evilexecutive (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Political matters: Putting a stop to unwanted political disputes[edit]

Lately, I've noted multiple disputes over articles such as Female Fantasy Armor, Tumblr, and the like- normally I'd call it a flamewar or acts of vandalism, but it seems to be a byproduct of a general sentiment that political concerns (especially in regards to contentious issues such as racism, sexism, and so on) in general and the issues that crop up around the so-called "Social Justice Warriors" in particular have no place on the wiki. In order to maintain order and keep users from going at each other's throats both in talk pages and in articles, I would like to suggest a rule against bringing up political concerns in the wiki- we shouldn't need to worry about an article breaking into a tangent on why the depiction of X is "problematic", nor should we have to care about the percieved inequalities or discrimination in fictional settings. --Newerfag (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The situation regarding the Female Fantasy Armor article is worsening rapidly; half of the talk page is being taken up by ad hominems directed at the editors involved in changing the page, and the main article is looking as if it will be soon subject to a major edit war. It would be best for everyone to either protect the page or intervene in the discussion before it grows out of control or spreads to other pages. --Newerfag (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think anyone involved, including Asorel, whom I freely admit that I have personally attacked, is edit warring or planning to at this time. I would like to revert to my previous edit, which streamlined the discussion and removed the real life section, but I've asked for TheWiseDane's permission first. --SpectralTime (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Good to hear. However, I get the feeling it might just be part of a larger problem that an official statement from AssistantWikifag would be able to clear up better. Otherwise this little drama will just replay itself on other pages instead. --Newerfag (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Without diving deeply into the specifics of those pages, I think it's safe to say that argument in an article (vs. a talk page) is poor form. I hesitate to make an absolute statement against political content in pages, because (I think) an article about a controversial topic would be incomplete without some mention of the controversy (and who's to say what political content is anyway?), but I guess if a page does spiral out of control, the only "fair" option available to us (the admins) is to squash the section in question and replace it with some wishy-washy statement that "there is controversy on this topic". Since I'd rather not be a judge of content, my primary criterion for doing this will be arguing in the article. I'll look into these specific pages in the next day or two. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a good answer.--68.204.237.58 03:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur, and commend even those I've disagreed with for (mostly) avoiding editwarring and in-article argument on the subject. --SpectralTime (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


About That Spam..[edit]

Not shown: humans tearing their hair out at CAPTCHAs that spambots are better at solving than humans.

It seems that hidden amongst the recent spam texts is a set of generation keys used for botnets. While I doubt it's harmful for anyone viewing the page(But it could be if the spammers decided to get clever and upload fucked up image files and embedding them in pages), it looks to me like someone's using these pages to control botnets. Reddit had some problems with this too, where people were using the site to store keys that deceptively simple programs used to generate entire botnets and self-replicate.

I would highly suggest looking into making the spam filter not solvable by a bot that can distinguish between "What chapter bjorn belongs to", and "what chapter does indrick boreale belong to", and apply one of literally two possible responses. If I can make a bot in under 50 lines of code that can solve the damn spambot filter, it should probably be replaced. Replacing it with randomized math wouldn't work well either, bots are pretty good at that too.Evilexecutive (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean what recently was done on Template:Board Games? Straight-up text editing doesn't get sent to the filter, and we can't block that sort of thing without blocking all anonymous users from editing (which is why I don't protect it permanently, even though it is a frequent spam target).
The filter is probably not changing. I can't change it myself because that's on the server/MediaWiki side of things, which Wikifag controls, and I don't think Wikifag is planning to change it because the trivia-based system is performing objectively better than the typical garbled-text Captcha that we used to have. The latter system failed to keep the bots out (see the picture to the side) and was a hindrance to humans. It's true that the current system is brittle, depending on the fact that the typical spambot dictionary doesn't contain traditional-gaming-specific terms (we've had to switch up the questions a couple of times) and that no attacker feels like going to the trouble of changing this, but since we switched over, the spamming has reduced by orders of magnitude -- I think it's been years since a spambot has created a page or account or posted a direct external link (which do fall under the filter). --AssistantWikifag (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
*Chuckles quietly at that picture*, that's fairly amusing actually. I'm just worried that someone might put something malicious in the wiki; as annoying as it is to have images that download shit onto your computer the moment you try to render them, they can be pretty bad. There's actually two methods I recall to making a spam-bot that can solve captchas, the first being the complicated method of using Machine Vision Programs to figure out the contents(Which is something a university student would do, not your average internet-taught spammer), or just.. Buying a bunch of chinese people to solve them by hand. Evilexecutive (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning 81.129.29.114?[edit]

Hey should we warn or at least ban 81.129.29.114? His edits consists on rapid unfunny dick jokes that has no informational value whatsoever other then being an unfunny, childish, space waster. Derpysaurus

"[W]arn or at least ban" is an interesting way to phrase things.
I gave 81.129.29.114 a day-long block -- that should let the novelty wear off, and we'll see how things go from here.

Batman[edit]

So, I get that Asorel and I (and others) have different ideas about what's /tg/-related, but given that there's a Batman Miniatures Game, there is no way that the Batman article should be reduced to a redirect to Konrad Curze. --Not LongPoster Again (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The existence of a Batman mini game allows for the creation of an article on the Batman miniature game. An article on Batman with two sentences about the game thrown in for justification does not qualify.--Asorel (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The article mentions Batman just enough to bring people up to speed on the miniature game. If you don't like it, rewrite it, don't delete it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Reducing the article to a redirect was absolutely over the line. While I'd like to see more attention paid to the game itself, it's definitely appropriate to include some context on who this Batman fellow is, the world he lives in, and why they made a game based on it. (Also, the Alignment page has a couple of Batman-related images that would go nicely in the article.) --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Banning 74.131.194.223[edit]

Hey I found another timeless troll here. Shall we request permabanning him? His name is 74.131.194.223. Derpysaurus

He's gotten a time-out. Thanks for the heads-up.
For future reference, it's easier for me if you link to the contributions page of an anonymous user, like so: Special:Contributions/74.131.194.223. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Spambots creating Spampages[edit]

Hey its Derpysaurus again, now the Spambots are creating Spampages. Here are the bots responsible:

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the heads-up. They're blocked, and I'll delete their pages over today and tomorrow (so as not to fill the recent changes with delete messages). --AssistantWikifag (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Heh, I don't see what the problem is with flooding the Recent Changes pages with delete logs. The way I see it, any day is a good day when your name is plastered across the entire Recent Changes Page. You're doing the God Emperor's work, keep it up!Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't need to worry about filling up the recent changes, since the update all similar updates are collapsed automatically so your edits will only take up one line if you do them all in one day, and will actually take up more space if done over multiple days. -- Triacom (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up on that feature (I usually just monitor the RSS feed, which is not so advanced). Deletions are all done! --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Another spambot[edit]

Hi, I just found this spambot and undid its edits.

Hope it helps. -- The Hat That Was

You missed a couple. ;)
Thanks! --AssistantWikifag (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Spambots attacking another page again[edit]

Here's a spambot attacking several pages.

From. Derpysaurus

Archaon[edit]

There's a jackass defacing the Archaon page. Redmaw (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of that is just the usual churn, but the taco bell nonsense was over the line. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Current editwar[edit]

There is currently an edit war going on at the Ollanius Pius page, which has lasted since the past 3 or so days. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Permaban 2602:306:36DA:52F0:48CD:952:B247:3EB5[edit]

Hey. Found this idiot (Special:Contributions/2602:306:36DA:52F0:48CD:952:B247:3EB5) vandalizing both Biggus Berrus and my user page. Says he is not a bot, but his actions speak louder than words. Request banning his sorry ass permanently. Derpysaurus

We have a mass deleting asshat[edit]

Found another mass deleting bot called Special:Contributions/206.176.100.14 who have vandalized a couple of pages now. Derpysaurus

Board-tans pages being vandalized again[edit]

Looks like the Board-tans pages are being vandalized by this bot. Special:Contributions/89.178.207.116, do we need to have the page protected again? Derpysaurus

God-Emperor of Mankind talk page dispute[edit]

Since November, there's been a growing flamewar on the talk page of the God-Emperor of Mankind article regarding making references to Donald Trump as a previous identity of the Emperor. Nobody's willing to give it a rest, and it's led to at least a couple of edit wars that I think might be motivated at least in part by real world politics. Would you mind stepping in to defuse the whole thing (or at least locking the page so people can cool off)?--Newerfag (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I haven't even touched the Emperor page at all since november. The only thing I've done is undoing edits that REMOVE content from the talk pages, since that violates rules of the wiki. People don't get to censor other stuff on the talk pages. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
You (Evilexecutive) are correct, but why did you feel the need to proclaim your innocence when Newerfag made no mention of you? (That's a rhetorical question.)
As for this and any future disputes over the modern-day secret identities of the God-Emperor of Mankind: he will reveal himself when and how he chooses. It is futile to speculate what he might be up to right now, and while surely he is leaving his stamp on history, such is the subtlety of his actions that his impacts cannot be noticed with less than a thousand years of hindsight. (inb4 flame-war over whether Muhammad was the Emps if Jesus was. inb4 flame-war over whether I'm the Emps.)
There doesn't seem to be an active flame war now, but I'll keep an eye on it going forward. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Cute, now you're banning random anons over your own political views. That one person had precisely 1 edit, and probably came here to make the same joke that 20~ other people have wanted to make since 2015. No warnings of any kind, just up and ban for a few hours. You could easily just post on his talk page like a normal person. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
I did not ban the anon, I blocked him (from editing) for two hours. My intention was not to punish but to enforce a cooling-off period, so as to break the "feedback loop" that drives edit wars. (I may have been a bit hasty in doing so, that's a fair criticism.) I only bothered blocking at all because I noticed the edit very shortly after it happened -- I wouldn't have bothered if I'd noticed e.g. two days later, because there would be no need to enforce any cooling-off. Looking at the timestamps with the benefit of hindsight, I probably shouldn't have blocked him at all -- it was more than a few hours after his edit, and clearly no edit war had broken out.
Thanks for your feedback. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


2a02:fe0:c100:3:34cb:4d9c:5570:db1b‎[edit]

Special:Contributions/2a02:fe0:c100:3:34cb:4d9c:5570:db1b‎ has launched a campaign of purging slang and jokes from several pages, like replacing every occurences of "vidya" by video game. Some jokes may be bad but they are long timers. I've already reverted what he'd done on the Blood Raven page, but since he edited a few page, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to revert in bulk his edits. 185.42.28.68 07:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

If there were productive elements to those edits, I would say you're probably not supposed to simply undo them, but simply changing the tone (when informality is kind of the order of the day here) is not what I'd call productive. Some of 2A02's edits (e.g. on The Last Church) are more-or-less productive, so I'm not inclined to block him for any length of time, but I've left a note on his talk page that if he wants to change the wiki's style, he should talk about it on the main talk page to get consensus first. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Repeat Offender is repeating their offense[edit]

Special:Contributions/97.86.158.22 is once more blanking pages and engaging in behaviours befitting a jackass. Judging by his/her history, they have done this before.--Naeondaemon (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

81.142.193.230 , Randumb edits[edit]

See Rick Priestley. I tried to get them to go to the talk page, but they just reverted it. I get that we are meant to be humorous, but the randumb stuff in articles about actual people is counter-productive. Dies to Removal (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've got my eye on that page (and a couple others 81 has edited) and left a note instructing 81 to stick to reality when writing about real people. If he doesn't get the message, I'll give him a break from editing for a while. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for user Blackcap/82.14.182.146[edit]

I'm requesting a temporary suspension for Blackcap/82.14.182.146 as their main contribution to the wiki recently is to repeatedly delete the exact same paragraph on the 30k tactics page. They've refused to have a discussion about it, and according to them their main reason for removing a tactic is because the page isn't a tactics page. It does not seem as if they're going to stop anytime soon either and when I told them they could discuss it or I'd request their suspension, they told me to go ahead and request their suspension. I'm hoping a suspension will help them clear their head, and if not then I'll have to ask to ban them. As they seem to be nothing more than a troll right now I'm requesting their ban, as their only contribution is deleting that paragraph without explaining why. Originally I posted this over in Wikifag's discussion page, but I figured I'd bring this here too since Blackcap/82.14.182.146 are not even bothering to defend themselves. -- Triacom (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting I don't get banned for user Blackcap/82.14.182.146[edit]

Referring to above comment. I'm currently trying to edit 2 minor changes to a paragraph within the 30k Legions list. Above user wants me banned because... I don't know, because he doesn't have a real say over what I edit... maybe? Probably that. Requesting that you ignore user Triacom. Here's my explanation why I want those paragraphs edited: 1: "according to them their main reason for removing a tactic is because the page isn't a tactics page". I said it wasn't a tactica, yes. But what I meant was that the paragraph in question was not suited to where it was. It put the character/model in a hypothetical scenario with a unit that a player might not even want to be part of or even have. The character/primarch is a versatile tool. To write up how to use any of them would easily take up several dozen lines of what units they go well with or they don't. Which is kinda pointless since a user will put them in any unit they feel like or think will suit their playstyle. 2: I wrote the paragraph. Which is some weird bullshit to be quite honest that I can't delete something that I wrote that I now think is now redundant, and other users are hell-bent on keeping it in. 3: The other paragraph was erroneous, what the original user had wrote would not work in the game. As those units they had (Proteus with Augury Scanner and Damocles command rhino would be held in reserves, and their benefits useless until at LEAST turn 3+. I added a little note at the end saying this, etc etc. But of course someone had to just delete it for no explanation. Then they decided to delete the whole paragraph. And left a single line that now doesn't make a lick of sense. I deleted it, saying it should be explained further or removed, asking if there were alternatives. User Triacom stuck it right in again with a simple "Yes". And he says I'm not trying to discuss or explain myself...


That should wrap it up. Thanks for reading. And please don't ban or suspend me. Thanks!

About fucking time you came here. I've only been asking you to come to the discussion pages for several days now. I've asked for you to be suspended and then later banned because nothing short of that has gotten you to go to the discussion page no matter how many times I've asked. Now as for your argument:
1) A tactics page is a tactica, simple as that. Yes it's talking about a unit combo that a player might not take, but guess what? It's not saying that's the only way to use them and tactics pages are full of hypothetical situations and useful symmetries. Deleting it because you think somebody else might not want to use it shouldn't be done, and as far as that logic goes you might as well delete all unit entries and even legions because other people might not want to use them.
2) Do you have any evidence that you wrote it? Your username doesn't show you as having wrote it and neither does your IP address. Other users are hell-bent on keeping it in, not just me and you're the only person who seems hell-bent on deleting it because that paragraph doesn't give a bad idea of where to put Dorn, especially if you use the Stone Guantlet RoW.
3) The other paragraph mentions that there's ways to increase reserve rolls without Polux, which there is. You once again kept removing that and ignoring repeated requests to take it to the discussion page, and I told you I'd be willing to discuss it if you took your issues to the discussion page.
4) If you check the discussion page for the 30k tactics page you'll see that I actually made a section on it specifically for you where I replied to your argument in an attempt to get you talking, but you refused to have any sort of discussion. If you're not going to go there then why do you keep reverting the edits? All that'll happen is you'll just be seen as a troll, which is why we are here now. Keep in mind that when I told you I'd come here if you didn't go to the discussion page, you told me to go right ahead and come here, so don't try and make it look like you're the victim. -- Triacom (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
And here comes Tricom like a dog looking for whipped-cream covered cock.
1) It's a not very helpful tactic to say what squad a primarch should be in. I didn't say he should go in with a squad of Tartaros terminators with storm shields and power axes and a forge lord with rad grenades so they can ID space marines with his furious charge while riding about his Aetos Dios , picking them and dropping them off, did I. Why is it he, and only he (to my imminent knowledge) has to have advice on what units he should be in? Does Perty have that issue? Do I have to tell people that he goes well with Siege Tyrants with a Damocles in the backfield so he comes in 1st turn on a 2+? Do I say Angron is good with red butchers and should be stuck in a kharybidis?
Naw. I didn't. Why? Because that's fucking dumb. Tactica blah blah blah. If you want to do a comprehensive guide on how to run a particular primarch, how many sentences would that take? 10? 20? 30? 40? Everyone will use their primarch however they bloody want. Alpharius in a squad of quad thudd guns? Why not with a squad of grey slayers? Why not with a squad of red butchers? etcetcetcetc. It would be a never ending cycle of people adding what they wanted or saw what they thought best for their characters. I don't want to scroll through commentary about how some guy used X with Y. I'll use them however I want.
I put it there because I was like "hmmm maybe that shit gun of his might be useful in X situation with a squad of breachers using Stone Gauntlet." But then I realised, its in the wrong. fucking. place. If you were to put him in that scenario, put him in the Stone gauntlet section as an example of how to use his benefits to buff his legion with that ROW, making it tougher. I WAS going to make some edits to the Stone gauntlet part. Mostly say that with army wide LD10, some soul might want to have a T5 army with rerollable 2++ behind an aegis defence wall, while also having D3 combat resolution etc etc. But oh nooooooo. Someone is so hellbent on having that section shitting up RD's personal info. Guess we need it there. How else will readers know what to do with their primarchs. How else will they survive the 30k universe.
2) It's donkeys old. IPs change.
3) Where then? what are they? Does someone have to go on a treasure hunt to get that info now? Either you tell the reader where/what(or how) it is or remove the sentence. At the moment, its just hanging there, doing fuck awwwwww.
4) Victim? Youre the one bitching and moaning about a few lines of text.
And what about you though? You've offered next to fuck all regarding why that text should be where it is?'s a better defence than "I think someone might find it useful". Where I guess you've got too used to this place being your personal diary where you can do whatever you want and then complain when things don't go your way or when someone doesn't bend over when you ask.
Here's my compromise, why don't you do what others have done in their primarchs' section. Add a weakness paragraph. Remove the section you seem so cock-ravished for, mention his shit gun needing a defensive, non-CC, unit (like breachers! And why not say breachers are good with Stone gauntlet?? Fuck, I wish I was smart enough to do that. But I bet some cunt would just delete it).
And then how about you name some sources for buffing reserves outside of Polux? Or someone. Anyone who isn't too busy making fan-wanks or making long winded tirades about toys or rules.
Deal? You get to keep my fantastic paragraph on your little blog, reworded for the benefit of the humble reader.
How about that, you text-fiddling wankerous wordsmith of the men's bathroom gloryhole. Easy and simple.
Ooh, careful, you might cut yourself on that edginess if it wasn't 13 years old and already dull.
1) Of course it's a very helpful tactic to say what squad a Primarch should be in. This is a tactica and all infantry have certain places they should/should be in, which includes Primarchs. He's not the only one who should have advice on which unit he's in, and nobody said that was the case, so I've got no clue where you're getting this from. Yes Perturabo does in fact have a squad issue, and if you read his unit description you'd see that he's very vulnerable to being tarpitted. If you want to say he's good with Siege Tyrants or that Angron is good with Red Butchers then you should absolutely add that in (though Angron with Red Butchers is kind of overkill).
I do like how you seem to think it's dumb that a tactica would include tactics on how to use units though. Yes people are going to run their own units in their own ways, however the point of the tactica is to try and find good ways of running the units and wether or not they're worth it. If somebody was going to get a support squad with rotor cannons for example then they should be aware that it's not nearly as efficient as any of the other options. If there's a combination that doesn't work then it should be removed, otherwise a combo being removed because somebody might not use it is just stupid, and like I said with that logic you might as well delete all the units you don't like, because you think somebody else might not use them. If you want to use them however you want and say 'fuck symmetries' then why the hell are you reading a tactics page whose goal it is to tell you the best way to use the units?
Why should a tactic that needs Dorn to be present not be included in his unit entry? If you want to include it under both then that's fine, however there's no rule that says it can only be included in only one spot, and never before did you say you were going to move it from one spot to another. In fact, you said the opposite, you said you were outright removing it and I'm calling bullshit on this claim of yours. At any time previously you could have simply moved it, but you refused to time and time again regardless of who restored it. This is on top of the fact that the paragraph is Dorn specific, and isn't reliant on using the Stone Gauntlet, so it obviously fits Dorn's entry better.
2) So you have no proof and for all we know you could be lying, just like you're lying when you claimed you planned to move that section. It doesn't take hours to remove a section from one place and paste it into another, just like it doesn't take much to read that you said you wanted that paragraph gone. Not moved, but gone.
3) Simple, you can get Warlord traits that buff reserves or you can use the Shattered Legions to get other characters from other legions (such as Captain Remus Ventanus, Strike Captain Alvarex Maun, as well as any White Scars character) to help with reserves. Yes the sentence is hanging there doing nothing, and I was trying to use it to get you to come to the discussion page so we could talk about it, yet you refused to do that.
4) You deleted your fourth point before my response became public, however that doesn't mean I didn't see it: I'm not going to have an argument with these people in the history section of the page. He hasn't attempted to even offer discussion or add anything meaningful to explaining why it should be included. Because I'm the villain here right? Obviously I'm not one for discussion, which is why I told you that I didn't want to take things this far and why I made a topic on the 30k discussion page about it. Also you say I'm the one bitching and moaning over the text when you just wrote several paragraphs about it. You cannot pretend that you're not involved.
I've told you before why it should be there, it's a good combo. Just like Motarion's command squad with combi-grenades and heavy support with frag missiles are good combos, just like we've got an entire section discussing Warlord Traits for Fulgrim that makes for good combos and explaining how units work and finding good combos should be the purpose of the tactics page. I participate in a lot of discussions in this wiki, and I'm pretty sure I've started the longest one on here (a discussion that went on for over a month over an edit I did) because I like to take other people into account when making/editing articles on here. There's many articles I'd like to see gone, just as there's many sections in various articles I'd like to remove, however I don't because I know that just because I don't enjoy something, doesn't mean it should be destroyed.
As for your compromise, I've never added a weakness bit for Dorn because I never felt a need to, and I still don't feel a need to. If you want to add that then go right ahead, and if it's wrong it'll be corrected. I don't see why that paragraph would be removed when it already mentions his rather decent gun being good in a unit like breachers, and breachers are already mentioned to be good with the Stone Gauntlet.
As for the buffs, I'm mentioning them here, not that you'll seem to care for it. For your deal, I'm going to have to say no. Even ignoring everything else you've stated your 'deal' still keeps the removal of that paragraph for some reason and you still don't have good enough justification for it. If you don't like a particular tactic then that's too bad, add one you might think is better or explain why it doesn't work.
I'll make a different deal to you: Explain why putting Dorn in that unit is a bad idea, and try to do it without sounding like a teenager with tourettes. If you can do that, then I'm sure we can come to a reasonable deal. -- Triacom (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just popping to tell the new guy that if he's trying not to get his ass banned, he's doing it all wrong. You're not supposed to make demands when you're the one who needs to prove his innocence. --Newerfag (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Innocence... Lol.
blahblahblahblahblah.
Says the guy digging his own grave. Don't say I didn't warn you. --Newerfag (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
1) I said "...do what others have done in their primarchs' section. Add a weakness paragraph." And you say he does have a weakness of being tarpitted, which is true. And what is Dorn's greatest weakness? I'd say his gun of course. Since he can't charge after shooting it, so what did I say he should have? A "defensive, non-CC (orientated), unit". And that unit? Breachers of course!
I said "It would be a never ending cycle of people adding what they wanted or saw what they thought best for their characters." And it's already starting with you: "though Angron with Red Butchers is kind of overkill". Heaven forbid some pour mentally challenged person comes along and says: "He wrong, will remove, never overkill with world eaters." And with you so keen to keep my little paragraph in, I know you'd go full potato to keep yours in.
2) What happens when I take something out of a box? I remove it. It still exists outside of that box.
3) That's a shattered legions list, and you can't take allies. Name those warlord traits then. Easy-peasy. Paragraph done.
4) "Also you say I'm the one bitching and moaning over the text when you just wrote several paragraphs about it."
Allow me to greentext:
>Bitch about a section long enough: "Take it to the discussion page"
>I proceed to provide an argument in discussion page
>"You're providing too many arguments! reeeeeeeeeeee"
5) "As for your compromise, I've never added a weakness bit for Dorn because I never felt a need to, and I still don't feel a need to."
So no weaknesses for Dorn? Nothing? But you've done it in other paragraphs, right? I think you're the sort of person who would just delete it anyway. Don't want someone to ::::complain about Dorn when you have your own gripes with your fave character, right?
1)Yes, all of that is a fair point that should be included in his section which is why I don't get why you're trying to delete it (except saying that Dorn being unable to charge is a bad thing since he's mostly defensive and a buffer to his army). Yes adding that could lead to people adding in a lot of what they thought was best for their characters, which is a good thing considering it's a tactics page. A tactics page should state what's best for their characters and if it's wrong information then it'll be corrected. The difference between me and you however is that I'll actually have a discussion on whether or not Angron with Red Butchers is overkill, since I've yet to see units that Red Butchers don't destroy when they charge them barring some of the tougher Mechanicum units (admittedly I've yet to see the Custodes in action).
2)Except it doesn't exist outside of that box except in the view history section since you didn't add it back in anywhere else.
3)They're not considered to be allies in a shattered legions list. Also the Warlord Traits are Strategic Genius and Master Tactician. You're wrong on both points here.
4)When have I ever complained that "You're providing too many arguments!" I've never done that, I've always done the opposite and I was calling you out on your hypocrisy since you were saying that I was the only one who was bitching and moaning, when your entire section here is just bitching and moaning that people aren't agreeing with you.
5)Dorn does have weaknesses, but very few and as I've stated before I didn't feel like adding them, and you know what? I still don't, because I'm not under any obligation to do so. Also if you read the discussion pages you'd notice that I've said before how I was confused about why the Imperial Fists were considered to be one of the best legions, and you'd also know that my favourite Primarch to use is Mortarion (because he covers a lot of bases and does them really well) because I mainly play Death Guard.
When you next reply please think before you type. Try replying to my arguments because so far you're doing nothing but trying to straw-man me and it's not doing you any favours. You're not doing anything to convince me that you're not just a troll who's convinced that tactics don't belong on a tactics page and it seems that I'm not alone in this aspect, both here and on the 30k discussion page. -- Triacom (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You boyos seem to have move quite far away from what the argument should be about, you're having a Horus Heresy rules argument when you should be deciding whether this Blackcap fellow should be banned or whatever. Unification (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If I'd intended to block anyone, I'd have gotten it done quickly. Blocking someone a week after the incident (which has not exactly resolved itself, but is no longer boiling over) wouldn't do any good. Blackcap and Triacom are probably too combative for their own good, but as far as I can tell, they're both working in more-or-less good faith, so there's no need to block anyone permanently, and since their tempers have cooled somewhat, there's no need to block anyone temporarily. (That said, I would like future HH rules discussions take place on the appropriate talk pages.) --AssistantWikifag (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the argument should be about the Horus Heresy rules since the only reason I brought it here was to try and get Blackcap to talk about it. I'll fully admit that I'm combative, however I also like a good discussion, and I've tried to get Blackcap to go to discussion pages so many times before this point over several days that I was left with no other alternative. I do not like to see new users get banned so if we can resolve this issue Blackcap has with a tactics page having tactics on it without getting them banned then I'll be perfectly happy. -- Triacom (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a suspension for user 108.206.81.39[edit]

I'll admit I do not read the angry codices that users make on this wiki, namely because they're always changing around the rules and I'd prefer to try to get into something when it's finished rather than going through constant updates. That being said, user 108.206.81.39 seems to have made it their only purpose to troll on one of these pages, changing one of the characteristics without rhyme or reason, seemingly just to annoy the other users on that page and this has been going on since December. They were asked to take it to the talk page and haven't listened (or done anything else beyond edit that one number) so I'd like to request a temporary suspension on them to hopefully get them to realize they shouldn't do this, and a full ban if that doesn't work. -- Triacom (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe we need a suspension on Carol Chen[edit]

Hey, I found this User called Carol Chen (His Special:Contributions/Carol Chen) spamming links to any mention to clothing. I would like maybe a warning on him, but if he continues with his habit I believe he should be suspended. Derpysaurus

  • An update, another User coming under the name of Angela888 (His Special:Contributions/Angela888) is also spamming the same links. I suspect they are sock puppets made from a bot. I request not suspension but an immediate ban. Time to bring out the banhammers. Derpysaurus
Thanks for the heads-up, blocked and blocked. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

72.231.192.169[edit]

Hey, this is Derpysaurus, just found this anon called 72.231.192.16 (His Special:Contributions/72.231.192.16). So far his only contributions is mass deleting the colored quotations from the WH40K gods and trying to insert some edgy 13 year old level of angst. Which is ironically more cringy then any of the quotations he seems to bitch about. I told him to put his problems in the discussion page or change the quotes instead. However, so far he said that he himself is too lazy to overhaul or do anything meaningful other then deleting the quotations, which raise my warning alerts. I think its best to keep an eye on him for now to see what he does. Derpysaurus

In fairness, the quotes did suck above and beyond the dumb Uncyclopedia-style ones.--97.104.199.133 03:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll agree that as far as how they did it, they weren't very diplomatic. That being said, the quotes they removed were either pretty bad, or were annoying to read so I wasn't going to try undoing their edits either. -- Triacom (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't mind if he changed the quotes to his liking as he is free to do so. I am completely fine with that. Its just that the problem I have is that he just deletes it for his own personal interests while still bitching about it without contributing anything of substance. This sort of laziness is what I frown upon. The quotations should be kept as it give them character IMO, but modifying the quotes themselves is completely fine by me.Derpysaurus
  • Although I do agree that some of the quotes are outdated as heck (Like a few years out of date). So I am going to be off again fixing these quotes to be more in line to their character. Part of which is because I want to avoid a pointless edit war in which no one wins and everyone loses IQ points. Derpysaurus
Some of the quotes I feel shouldn't be on here. There are a number that are just unfunny memes, and I see no purpose in keeping those. -- Triacom (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So far I am editing those really bad ones like Asuryan, Ynnead, Lileath, the Burning One, the Outsider and The Nightbringer. The rest are either tongue-in-cheek to their character and lore whilst the rest are too harmless to be changed. For the Void Dragon, I suppose I can change it to binary.Derpysaurus
  • There! Changed it. Its much more serious in tone however. I think Vaul and Morai-Heg should stay as it is part of the lore. Isha is just referencing If the Emperor had a Text-to-Speech Device. Derpysaurus
The only real issues I have with that, is that ETtSD is both a meme-only series, and not funny. Most of what comes out of there is rather annoying to deal with, to say the least. -- Triacom (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I guess its really up to what we consider as funny. Comedy is subjective anyways. The Isha one is just a homage to all of the NurglexIsha moments that has been going on. All in all, the re-edited quotes is much more better now IMO. A bit more serious, but I think it will float on its own. Derpysaurus

Derpysaurus wrote the "quotations", 72.231.192.16 removed the quotations un-diplomatically, no one else cared, Derpysaurus put them back.--97.104.199.133 20:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A request for arbitration[edit]

SaltyMan seems to be growing incredibly combative over his work on the Drowtales page (and in fact it seems to be his only source of edits over the past few weeks), which is itself becoming more and more of a personal rant than about anything directly connected to /tg/. As he has been obstinate in his refusal to listen to other users in regards to toning down his bile, I would like you to please have a word with him. I also suspect that Special:Contributions/78.189.235.179 is a sockpuppet of his, as the language they use is nearly identical. --Newerfag (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on a quick reading of the page, nothing seems directly out of line. However, the "Are They?" section feels excessively long compared to the scope of the page, which was also an issue I had with SaltyMan's contribution to the /pol/ article (though a later revision was substantially less so). Unfortunately, I'm about to head out of town for a conference (scientific, not /tg/-related). I'll take a closer look in a couple of weeks, when I'm returned and recovered. If I haven't said anything more by May 1, poke me here and I'll get on it. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
While the edit war has faded, he remains combative and overly aggressive with users, to the point where he harasses anonymous editors under the false assumption that they are sockpuppets of users he dislikes. I sincerely doubt that he is either willing or able to function as a productive community member. --Newerfag (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The matter has been settled, no further action is required. --Newerfag (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Transformers whining[edit]

Special:Contributions/2601:147:4200:6280:A883:EE9C:6E89:851D and Special:Contributions/118.165.29.165 just showed up to call each other names.--97.104.199.133 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriously. Now Special:Contributions/118.165.14.170 showed up (clearly the second guy again by tone and IP). This fight has nothing to do with anything.--97.104.199.133 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Slight update to this for when you get back from work, but I think it might be best to give Special:Contributions/118.165.14.170 the ban ASAP. Aside from being incapable of reason and doing little besides calling others retarded, they've also spent a very long time trying to defend sexualizing children. Here's a quote: " For the last time, sexual imagery even with underages is not pedobait. You're missing this thing called context. Probably because you lack the IQ points to understand it. And shock content ≠ pedobait. Still not a fucking argument." Here's another: "Sexual imagery [of children] is unequal to pedobait or pedophilia. I thought we already went over this." Here's another: "It is wrong to sexualize cartoon children for the sake of sexualizing them or for the sake of fanservice. It is NOT wrong to sexualize them as a plot element, as a storytelling device, or even if it looks vaguely sexual due to art style. Get that through your underage skull." And the cherry on top: "So what if [those children] were being sexualized? What the fuck is context? You still don't get that your definition of pedobait is so fucking vague that you've just blacklisted a shit ton of media and entertainment including incredibly popular series like NGE, which I mentioned, primarily to either prove that your logic is flawed or that you're just a retard. I successfully proved the latter." You can find those quotes over on the Transformers discussion page. -- Triacom (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
That's some quality quote mining. You're really not helping the case that you're an oldfag and not a goony beard man here, because those are the only people in this milieu who are equating inanimate drawings (the subject of the discussion) with sexualizing children these days. OriginalPrankster (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Quote mining would be if I took them out of context, and the only context here was that I said doing such a thing was wrong. That's how they responded and I'm certain that AssistantWikifag won't take me at my word on this (as they shouldn't) and that they'll read the talk page before deciding what to do. As for equating them, I'm not going to argue that point because I'm not having anything further to do with that discussion anymore. -- Triacom (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
You did take them out of context, especially that last fucking one lmao. You really are the premiere at twisting information and the interpretation of it to your advantage. From blatantly ignoring explicit quotes, pretending entire arguments don't exist, and now quotemining? Good lord, the real cherry on top here would be if you had jewish ancestry.
I like how you're pretending I did quotemining when you had no issues with the other user on the Transformers page who followed Cryptek to dakkadakka in an attempt to paint them as a SJW. -- Triacom (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
He didn't quotemine though, he literally took entire posts and pasted them. Fucking ranting and raving about trannies and fags? That is SJW as fuck. He even posted the fucking source to all those quotes so one could easily check the context (oh wew look it's this word you don't understand again) of said posts. If you took a full post of mine and posted it, rather than fucking "So what if [those children] were being sexualized?" I wouldn't be fucking accusing you of quotemining. But once again, you just have to prove to the world that you're an obnoxious subversive cunt. Have a (You).
And there was no context to where the posts came from, so it was still quotemining. I had to look it up on dakkadakka to find out that it was a discussion on representation of minorities and not just them spouting off for no reason. Since you want me to 'fix' those quotes of yours though, I'll do that. -- Triacom (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you so fucking stupid as to think that those quotes were genuinely just "spouting off for no reason"? Literally anyone with an IQ higher than 80 would have instantly recognized that his posts were on topic, just fucking moronic as all hell.
And this is much, much better. The fact that I have to fucking call you out for your bullshit before you move your ass to fix shit says a shit ton though. The fact that you even have to fix anything at all exemplifies everything that is fucking wrong here honestly.
Of course not, that's why I visited dakkadakka, so that I could see what they were talking about. Also if you call moving your arguments here 'fixing shit' then maybe you should just post them here in the first place. -- Triacom (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Read the page. Good lord, I thought the Drowtales discussion page was a complete clusterfuck. How the hell did we get from a page about Transformers into an argument on what constitutes as pedobait!? Seriously? Anyways, IMO, I think we should give whoever the anon is a stern, fucking warning, because going into topics over child sexualization is not something I am comfortable with and it raise fucking red flags everywhere. It is both derailing the original content of the page and adding something abhorrent in return. I do not want to see this degenerate into another AnonTalk. Derpysaurus
For the record I did warn them, several times in fact (you can see it on the page). Also the topic didn't get derailed into talking about that, this was one of their main grievances. They were literally arguing for it from the beginning and all of the arguments I made fell on deaf ears. -- Triacom (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Read the view history on the main article. The editwar started in the summaries, anon mentioned TFWiki's sperging about Transformers Kiss Players (which is basically a shock-value magical girl horror series with Transformers in it) as evidence of their obsession with political correctness, which was twisted to mean that anon was a "lolicon" which is apparently the same thing as a pedophile in nerd-world now. All you did was push in that direction further. Next time, get it right, Biff. OriginalPrankster (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I did read the view history, it was what got me over to the talk page and it was also what caused me to talk to them about why the tfwiki doesn't like Kiss Players, yet they refused to accept any answer. Considering that most of the time they were calling me a retard in every single reply (and called me one again for trying to reason with them when I said I was done) I highly doubt there's a 'right' way to deal with them. I will admit that I did get angry when I shouldn't have though when they started calling Cryptek a retard when Cryptek was explaining why the tfwiki didn't like Kiss Players, and I'll also admit that it was a bad idea to not take a break from editing the talk page during that whole discussion. Those two are definitely on me. -- Triacom (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
You know what? After reading back on the edit history of the discussion page (to see how it devolved), while I'm still not sure there's a 'right' way to deal with them I'll agree with you OriginalPrankster that the way I went about it and being that combative was definitely the wrong way to go about it. That one's on me as well and I apologize. -- Triacom (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Derpysaurus nothing was added to the article, stop lying. That shit was confined to edit summaries and the talk, and primarily as fuel for shitflinging while willfully ignoring all forms of context when they didn't agree with that aim. Also, as a matter of record, loli != child pornography, just as killing hookers in GTA != killing hookers in real life and worshipping the Dark Gods in 40kRP != being a crazy cultist in real life. This has been iterated, reiterated, and shouted in the face of moralfags thousands of times over the history of imageboards, and enshrined in law in the United States and Japan, among other places. AnonTalk comparisons are simply disingenuous, as those guys were actually talking about fucking real-life children. OriginalPrankster (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you've really gotten off topic here. The issue there wasn't whether or not loli equaled that, the issue was that the tfwiki thought sexualizing children, regardless of art style or context, was wrong and I agreed with them. The anon didn't, and that's what primarily drove their point about that. -- Triacom (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that the Talk:Transformers‎‎ page has already been degenerated into a flame war. I suggest every active party to refrain from a week. This shit is becoming out of hand right now and is turning unto a uncontrollable shitstorm. IMO, a temporary ban from all active parties for a week should calm down the storm for a while. Derpysaurus
Nah, I'd say let them get it off their chests. It has been truly a illuminating experience. When they're done it can all be put in a collapsed box so it doesn't clutter the page. OriginalPrankster (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
At least here's one thing I can agree with you on. While I'm done with the page I know that others are not, and when this is all finally dealt with it should be put in a collapsed block so that it doesn't hinder any future discussions on the page about other things. -- Triacom (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking back at the edit history. All this shit could of been avoided if someone just changed that one sentence into a more objective approach. But I will see how this will pan out, hope they have some restraint and prevent this from becoming into a even bigger shitstorm. Derpysaurus
I just did (or at least made it so whether it applied to skubfights or politics was left for the reader) and someone completely uninvolved in the talk page spergout immediately reverted it claiming I was just butthurt, then replaced it with a passive-aggressive attack when I un-reverted. OriginalPrankster (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I can give you kudos for trying to take a more objective approach at the very least. Shame it still got reverted though. Derpysaurus
  • Last I checked, "sperg out at hinting at holding opposing views" isn't objective. Mystery (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • IMO, Kiss Players didn't even deserve to be mentioned here simply because it has never had an impact on /tg/ in any form whatsoever. It being "pedobait" has nothing to do with that, you should have been more concerned as to whether or not it's even /tg/ related. Everything else should be of strictly secondary importance at most, and given that (as far as I know) no tabletop game, RPG, or fan codex has been made based on it there is no reason it should have ever been brought up. The best approach would have been to simply delete that thing, no questions asked and no justifications required. --Newerfag (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
While I don't have a problem with the article being here, I don't think we need a detailed review of the fan wiki. I haven't really spent time on that wiki, so I have no idea whether it really is bad or if anons are just angry people don't agree with them, but that's utterly irrelevant to /tg/ and the article. EatTheRich (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it bad, but he has a valid point based on my own experience with TFWiki. They do a lot of pearl-clutching about how WEIRD and GROSS and ICKY OH YUCK DAD I DON'T WANT TO EAT MY BRUSSELS SPROUTS TODAY the Japanese weirdness Takara has bolted on to the franchise is. I see the same mindset here, but that's a story for another page.OriginalPrankster (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I sincerely hope that week-long ban thing was a joke Derpysaurus. I'm involved in more than just the Transformers page, I'm pretty much done there (which is why I'm not arguing with the anons any more) and it's also very unfair to Cryptek who stayed out of the vast majority of the discussion and only came in once again to defend what they said on dakkadakka when an anon linked it. If you want everybody to cool down then instead of suspending accounts, the better thing would be to lock the page for a while so that nobody can edit it, at least that way somebody can't go somewhere else to continue editing the page (especially while the other users are unable to respond) and it doesn't screw other people over from helping out with the rest of the wiki. This has also been done in the past and it worked then. -- Triacom (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
As someone who doesn't have a stake in the issue one way or the other, I'm inclined to agree. This mess has been running for almost a solid week with no signs of slowing down, yet the argument seems to have lost any possible relevance it might have had, days ago. Locking the page and just letting people cool off for a couple days is sounding like the best course of action at this point. -- Anon
For you Newerfag, the issue in the talk page wasn't actually about how Kiss Players was mentioned here, the anon simply didn't like how the tfwiki talked about Kiss Players, and that was one of the reasons they wrote that sentence (Kiss Players isn't even mentioned in our Transformers page). That sentence was also deleted multiple times, yet that started an editwar that always had the anon coming back to add the sentence back in. Personally I agree with EathTheRich, a detailed review isn't all that necessary. -- Triacom (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
And hilariously, that makes the whole edit war even less relevant to our wiki and the resulting argument even more asinine. Why even have a blurb about it at all? It should've been like I just edited it to be- just say it's the unofficial Transformers wiki and keep the commentary out of it. Do we really need to know how they run their wiki on our own page? In any event, it would be best to lock the page and delete the talk page as well for good measure.--Newerfag (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I see no reason to have that blurb there, but if you check the history page that anon kept on re-adding it every time somebody removed it and that was what caused the editwar. I'd like to see the page locked, but I don't like deleting things on talk pages. Archive them if you must, but taking away somebody else's argument, regardless of how little I agree with it, doesn't sit right with me. -- Triacom (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Fuck it, I'll bite. The anon here may suffer from a lack of tact, but he's right. I know he's right because I edit TFWiki anonymously. By contrast, speaking of "an anonymous user" like that was somehow automatically bad combined with your willful blindness to the salient context (or simple failure to cogitate, I'm not sure which) of the argument and your use of the NeoGAF/SA tier "loli is morally equivalent to sexualizing real-life children" canard does not speak well of your intentions. I do have to give you credit for not agreeing to snackbar yourself for the sake of punishing your opponent though. There's more I'd like to say on the subject, which is actually the reason I jumped into this manure pile, but I'll leave it to the Transformers talk since that has a more appropriate segue. OriginalPrankster (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
He has a right to his opinion, and as far as I can see he did not state it as an objective fact. Even if he did, his viewpoint on lolicon is completely irrelevant to this whole clusterfuck and everyone involved is incredibly immature for assuming it has even the slightest relevance to this wiki. --Newerfag (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Where I live those two are considered equal in a legal sense, as it is in many other countries. That's as far as I'll get into because I'm not going to get into that discussion again. -- Triacom (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
>I hope someone is banned for having a different opinion from me
Literally can't make this shit up.
Also, my argument was that TFWiki was sperging out over fucking drawings of children that include sexual imagery for plot purposes. There is literally fucking nothing wrong with that. But clearly you're so inept at understanding even the core basis of my argument that explaining this to you will make no difference
Furthermore you continue to ignore other incredibly vital parts of the full argument and focus on that one fucking thing about sexualizing cartoon children. You ignored Dery because you couldn't worm your way out of the shithole you dug for yourself when you decided to blatantly ignore every implication and even explicit lines that didn't fit your narrative, you decided to ignore the Megatronia comic page because you literally could not defend it at all and you decided to drop the Nekomimi when I called you out for being the fucked up one for finding that sexually attractive or even intended to be sexual in any manner in the first place.
Like I said, go and whine to your shitty mods if you want. I'm gonna sit back and let whoever else wants to plug in their opinion say what they want. -- Special:Contributions/118.165.14.170
The people who kept on fucking trying to justify their behavior clearly did, rather than attempt to tell me off for plugging in my opinions or just removing that entire box in general.
My issue isn't that I'm not allowed to express my opinion, it's that we have fucking tards who genuinely think they can get away with calling this place "their lawn" all while shitposting about their tranny nieces and how context is irrelevant and cartoon drawings of children cause physical harm to real children. -- Special:Contributions/118.165.14.170
Nobody ever argued that it caused real harm to children and Cryptek merely defended his niece when another user tried to paint them as a SJW for not only having one, but supporting them too. -- Triacom (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
If you think the reason why that other guy decided to call Cryptek a massive faggot was for "supporting his niece" then you really are fucking delusional. This fits the pattern of you being a fucking retard who not only fails at 3rd grade reading comprehension but also being a subversive piece of shit who intentionally twists words to make everyone else look like the big bad evil boogeyman.
You were the one who called them a 'pussy faggot' for that niece bit, not anyone else. Don't try to bring in this 'other guy' shit when I can see it was you in the history. -- Triacom (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"So you can take your whiny screeching, your tranny niece, your precious outrage, and turn them sideways and shove them right up your bitch ass."
A direct quote from his final post in the argument.
Of course you'll say "b-b-but it doesn't e-explicitly s-say f-f-f-f-f-f-faggot i hope my mom didn't hear that" because you are as always too mentally incompetent to understand implications.
That wasn't the quote I was talking about, the quote I'm talking about can be found by going ctrl-f 'pussy faggot' because that was the one you wrote. -- Triacom (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, "moving the post to AssistantWikifag's page" is totally an excuse to make my post look half finished and incomplete to anyone who walks in here to see the kind of shitshows you've participated in. Really fucking makes me think.
And literally saying that my arguments meant nothing IS what I mean when I say you completely fucking miss the point. You are quite literally proving me right time and again that you are either so fucking incredibly stupid that your IQ does not permit you to comprehend opposing views with evidence, willfully ignorant in order to prevent your tiny brain from imploding from the sheer cognitive dissonance, or intentionally being as fucking stupid as any human could possibly be.
Would you have had me move the entire thing over there, or do you prefer me keeping mention of you on here? I'd rather not remove the fact that you were on this page, regardless of what you say, but like I said I'm not having that argument on a page where it is not relevant since I'm done with it. If you want to claim to be right, then good for you, I'm just trying to get it through your head that I'm not arguing the points any further. -- Triacom (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Still trying to delete my posts under pretense of "moving them to moderator's page" when copy and paste exists! Because "m-muh it'll start a flamewar". Well faggot, if you're so worried it'll start a flamewar, why not you do your part and just not fucking respond? I thought you were supposedly "done with this"? What a joke.
I am pasting them here, I'm simply not having irrelevant arguments attached to my page because I've told you, I'm done arguing the points, and I told you this before you tried bringing them there. I'm not worried it'll start a flamewar because as I've said, I'm not arguing those any more and they're irrelevant to my user page. -- Triacom (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, your truly precious user page is definitely more important than trying to set the facts straight. Because calling you out for your bullshit and repeating what can be seen multiple times on at least 3 other pages is definitely going to start a flamewar
What a pathetic forumfag mentality.
If somebody wants the facts then they should just visit the relevant pages. Spreading the 'facts' out through three talk pages just makes it more annoying for others to deal with, especially when I've got no interest in discussing those points further with you. I really don't know why you're still bothering me about them, just declare victory if you really want to. -- Triacom (talk) 05:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You mean spreading the exact same fucking facts with literally no modifications at all over 3 pages for ease of reading.
The only reason you have no interest is that you cannot handle having to deal with an opposing opinion, neither can you comprehend that you might have been at one period in your precious fucking life wrong about something and that a different viewpoint may have been correct all along. But hey, we've already established that you're the equivalent of a retarded kid who thinks that he can shoot lasers with his new dollar store toy gun so there's no point in really pointing this out.
You do know that attacking another user on the administrator's own talk page is the worst thing you could possibly do, right? And for someone who can't stop complaining about forumfags, I can't help but notice you haven't made a single actual contribution to the wiki anywhere whatsoever so you can't hold the moral high ground yourself.
And your spiel on the transformers talk page is just ridiculous. The community isn't some big evil cabal of SJWs who has nothing better to do beyond bullying you over how you're on the "Wrong Side of History" (as if history could give a fuck about an edit war on a /tg/ wiki). They just made edits that nobody else had a problem with. The edit wars you refer to were well over a year ago, and it was concluded that the jokes you wanted back in were removed due to being unfunny, not because they were racist. Heck, even if they were unjustified you're not even attacking the right person about them. Did you even bother to look in the history to see who was making the edits you're so butthurt about? --Newerfag (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not OriginalPrankster. I don't have an account here and I certainly do not intend to ever have one.
And yeah, I'm going to fucking call him out on his shit for all to see because that's what he deserves. He's a subversive jackass who's been twisting words, cherrypicking with quotes, playing games with implications and even explicit sentences etc. He deserves ever single piece of flak I'm giving him.
Hey Newerfag, I'm pretty sure the anon and OriginalPrankster are different people, though don't quote me on that as it's just a hunch. Just mentioning that as they seemed to be who you were talking about there. -- Triacom (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Their points seemed a little too similar for comfort, and I could've sworn I saw the anon sign with OriginalPrankster's signature at one point. But I could be wrong.--Newerfag (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"Person X and Person Y both have the same points so they must be the same person! btfo!"
Literally the exact fucking mentality that serves as part of my main argument to tfwiki's Floro Dery page where they accuse anyone at all playing devil's advocate to be Dery himself samefagging.
Also, get your eyes checked, I don't even know how the fuck any of this signature namefag shit works, and I definitely don't want to.
4 tildes (~). That's it. And if you don't want to do it, then you'll just keep getting accused of being the same guy. And it's not just the same points, it's also the same ways of phrasing it, the same use of ad hominems, and the same obsession with a wiki that has nothing to do with this one beyond your love-hate relationship with it. Go and bitch about it to them, I don't want a part in your grudge. --Newerfag (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Accused by what, one person? Ok. I don't really care at all honestly, I just think it's a dishonest tactic and a petty scheme.
I mean, I can't exactly control how he speaks or what kinds of insults he slings at them. And really, the only part where I can reasonably see why one might assume we're the same person is because we both have had incredibly poor experiences with the moderators of that wiki. We're not the only ones too. Go onto /tfg/ on /toy/ and ask them what they think of tfwiki and you'll get the exact same fucking responses. It's not just one or two people, it's the good majority of the non-delusional Transformers fan community that dislikes that site.
Spreading the exact same arguments is bloat, and they were modified since you didn't do copy-paste. Also saying that I can't deal with opposing viewpoints is laughable, I don't think anyone has had as many discussions on talk pages as I have, and even if they did they certainly didn't go on for as long, with most arguments eventually ending with a mutual compromise. -- Triacom (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
"I-I'm a-an o-o-o-o-o-o-oldfag so u-ur wrong haha btfo!"
The reason this is still continuing is because I'm not the only person here who thinks you and your fuckbuddy are retards, and because you're fucking cancer that belong more on Tumblr and reddit than they do on /tg/ or anything related to it. No seriously, when was the last time you actually went onto fucking /tg/ and looked and saw what people thought of this fucking wiki? When was the last time that anyone here with a stupid fucking name and a reputation actually did that? You're all living in your own delusional pseudo-community advertising yourselves as a 4chan wiki while being blatantly out of touch with /tg/ culture that's at this point ancient.
Well at least you admit that I'm an oldfag, though I certainly don't remember making that logic fallacy. The last time I went on there was to get advice on how to improve my WIP codices (seen on my user page, and yes I posted there with the same username and stated that I was from here) and that went well, though to be honest I never asked them what they thought of 1d4chan as it was never relevant (that thread's also gone now, a shame since it was a good thread). This however is very much another community, and nobody's under the impression that it isn't. -- Triacom (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not admitting you're an oldfag or stroking your stupid fucking ego, I'm pointing out that you're resorting to an appeal to experience in order to justify your bullshit.
See "I don't think anyone has had as many discussions on talk pages as I have", although you'll just either edit that out or deny it. Again.
Also, jesus christ, not only are you absolutely fucking delusional in every way, you don't know how the fucking thread expiry system works? What the fuck am I even dealing with? You really are the fucking cancer that's turned this wiki into a regressive shithole stuck in the mentality of /b/ circa 2012.
Then you're saying that because you're a newcomer who has minimal exposure to the community (the contribution log doesn't lie, your first edit was 4 days ago) and less interest in working with it rather than against it, then you should get special treatment as a result. Why are you even here? Make your own /tg/ wiki if you think you can do better, a little competition never hurt anybody.--Newerfag (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, the "muh newfag" argument. When you run out of actual points to give so you resort to calling them a newfag.
I dunno, maybe I think site specific wikis are fucking cancer and are literally begging to become drama infested shitholes.
Then I repeat: why are you here? You don't want to be on this wiki, and you claim to hate the drama, and yet here you are. What could you possibly hope to accomplish at this point? It just seems like a waste of time and effort that could be avoided just by leaving the site.--Newerfag (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
See my response to the exact same question you left on my user page.
I've never resorted to do such a thing, I never claimed to be in the right because I've been here for years (I pointed out I was here for years to counter the other user who claimed I was new) and I'm using the talk pages thing to show I'm not against opposing viewpoints (with a few exceptions, like when we're talking about something illegal in my country). I'm also fully aware of how the thread expiry system works (I mention as much on a different page) so I've got no clue how you jumped to that conclusion. -- Triacom (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
So because of a bunch of laws in your third world shithole country you're expecting everyone to abide by your twisted logic and retarded justifications? What kind of law says "no sexual imagery involving children at all period including in imaginary drawings" anyways?
And you really do not fucking know how the thread expiry system works considering you're lamenting about your singular fucking thread 404'ing. This is forumfag tier.
You do know that there are a lot of countries in Europe that also have that law? In my opinion it's quite a reasonable law. I also informed you that the thread's gone in advance so that you didn't go looking for it, it has nothing to do with not knowing how it works and I said it was sad because I had a great time there and got a lot of useful advice. -- Triacom (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
>europe
>refugees welcome the continent
So yeah, a third world shithole then?
It's not a reasonable law at all because it would mean that any art attempting to portray psychological complexes like Oedipus or Electra would be banned on sight and the maker jailed. There are way, way more reasons to use sexual imagery involving children in art than just fetishfaggotry.
And why the fuck would I go looking for your thread or even bother doing so? Literally anyone who's used 4chan knows that bothering to do something like that is fucking retarded because there is literally 0 chance the thread hasn't already been autopruned from the archive. Even if I wanted to go looking for it this thing called archives exist.
In fact, let me dig up your own fucking thread for you
http://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/44088099/
This thing is 1 and a half years old. Do you realize how fucking stupid you sound now when you say that the thread no longer exists? Because it got fucking autopruned? Because that's how fucking 4chan works?
This is how much of a newfag you are. You don't even know how the fuck threads work.
Jesus, you really are the epitome of a forumfag, to the point where you don't know how imageboards work. This is a fucking mess.
Says the person who doesn't know what 'also' means (if I say countries in Europe also has the law, it means I'm not in Europe). I also don't find it an unreasonable law but as I said, I'm done with that argument. As for why you'd go looking for it, probably to fail on calling me out on something else again. Thanks for digging that up for me though, I did go looking for it a long while ago but as I said on the other page I could not find it. -- Triacom (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that you tried to imply that Europe wasn't a third world shithole area with that law, when it is in fact at this point in time a fucking mess. It's the worst possible example you could have picked for a non-third world continent.
Also, I posted the archive link to it to prove to you that you seriously are a massive newfag. And that OriginalPrankster's argument and the other anon's argument has a shit ton of weight when you put this into context with that. The fact that you have no clue how thread archival systems work, or how 4chan's thread pruning system works, is already proof that you definitely are not from fucking /tg/ at all. It's like a newfag on /b/ asking "what's sage?".
Yeesh, if you really think Europe's that bad then I guess we've got nothing more to discuss there, because I'm not going to get involved in an argument like that. I also don't think you realize that when I say I searched for it, I did not mean or say that I was searching /tg/ itself (like I said, I know how their system works). I meant that I was searching for an archived version and could not find it. I already told you that I do understand it, yet you keep making these assumptions based on nothing. -- Triacom (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Dude, I found the fucking archived version if less than 20 seconds. You either are so fucking retarded you don't know how to use the archives or you're trying to cover up your own total lack of knowledge of 4chan via shitty lies.
And europe is a fucking mess. Different story for a different time though.
And thank you for that, like I said I couldn't find it. I don't know what the issue was, it simply wasn't appearing when I went looking for it. Also the thing with the indents was intentional on my part, at a point there's simply too many and you have to reset a lot of them. -- Triacom (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You literally said you were namefagging, how did it not occur to you that you could search up your own name in the archive?
What kind of newfag bullshit am I even reading?
I did, it didn't appear. How many times do I have to tell you that I searched for it but couldn't find it? I guess I'll drop it since (like everything else) you have no interest in listening. -- Triacom (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
You're the one who isn't listening here because he's too busy attempting damage control. But whatever I guess, you'll just deny this too. As usual.
  • So it seems that the war has, for all intents and purposes, officially transferred over from the Transformers talk page to this one. You gits sure know how to pick your battlefields. I just hope you are aware that the only reason this madness hasn't been shut down is because AssistantWikifag likely has not been paying attention, and in fact is probably asleep right now. It isn't going to be pretty once he finally checks up on what's going on in his own bloody talk page.
The reason it's still here on this page is because AssistantWikifag's away on a business trip, though I predict when they get back they'll have some choice words to say to everyone involved (and yes, that includes me since I intend to own up to escalating it so quickly). -- Triacom (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Und Wikifag ist auch hier, though I honestly lack the mental fortitude to do more than skim this massive wall of text. The whole situation sounds ridiculous though and you should all think about what you've done. --Wikifag (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems that this situation has also resolved itself. I guess I'll give it one or two more days and then collapse the argument in the talk page, unless anyone has any objections. -- Triacom (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the situation has resolved itself, it's just that all parties involved have gotten tired of shouting past each other. (Crazy Cryptek hasn't touched anything since blowing a gasket on the 22nd, which I find mildly amusing.) I personally plan to draw up an "executive summary" of what went went down with both a factual account and my own bitching commentary, partially so I can explain myself in a reasonably coherent manner and partially to help AssistantWikifag combat the urge to just say "fuck it" and bring the hammer down without reading the situation. (Yes, it sucks, but it happens to the best of us.) I just haven't had a unified block of time so I've been doing other shit to gain some emotional distance and "be the change" at the same time. OriginalPrankster (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Considering that the situation really was just everyone getting mad at each other, I'd say that having everyone quit does count as it resolving itself. If you want a comprehensive summary then you can add it to/replace the one I'm going to be making when I collapse that section. -- Triacom (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Users randomly show up to fight, based on some off-wiki (on-another-wiki) drama. Fight happens on talk page. Random pedo stuff. One sentence gets removed.--97.104.199.133 03:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ambitious D&D related project[edit]

So, I know I've been tinkering with D&D racial articles pretty much since I added my name here, and since you're the closest thing to a big boss guy I'm aware of, I wanted to check on something.

Basically, I was thinking of uploading a single great big page listing all of the PC races from Dungeons & Dragons that have shown up in various editions and, where possible, listing where they came from. I wanted to ask if this would be allowed on this wiki?

If it would be allowed for me to upload it, do you have any ideas for a name I can use to call the page? --QuietBrowser (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, AssistantWikifag isn't home right now. However, I don't see any specific reason why it wouldn't be allowed. The main issue I see with it is the sheer effort required to tie it into the rest of the wiki and keep it updated. As for the name, I'd say something like "List of D&D PC races" would be fine. OriginalPrankster (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Basically, the only things strictly forbidden on this wiki are spam and "not /tg/ related" things (and the list of what is /tg/ related is quite broad). I would recommend against making a giant article, though. It might be better to make a template that could be added to the bottom of each of the race's articles. (See e.g. Template:D&D-Settings.) --AssistantWikifag (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

User Lucy spamming and creating new pages with advertising rubbish[edit]

Just found this sock puppet called Lucy creating new pages filled with advertisements and general spammy rubbish. I have already sent the same message to Wikifag just in case either of you are not available at the moment. Here is the contribution logs (Special:Contributions/Lucy). I request an immediate permaban on this bot and immediate deletion on the pages. Derpysaurus

Submitting Personal Work[edit]

So, I have a huge list (70+, at last account) of D&D 5e race conversions and a 5e D&D setting I'm working on. I have actually asked for feedback on both at /tg/ at various times, but would pages for either fall under the relevant content umbrella for this wiki?--QuietBrowser (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, with the understanding that the wiki is a public, communal resource for the /tg/ community. If you want to retain tighter control over your material, you may want to consider setting up a website of your own (e.g. a Wordpress blog). "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
I'll leave it to Wikifag to say if you're adding too much material or whatever, but I don't think that will be a problem.
Thanks! --AssistantWikifag (talk)
Understood. Maybe just the races, in that case... but, still, how would I actually set up a page like that? Is there some specific sort of titling scheme I need to give it?--QuietBrowser (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Usually, the name of the race(s?) in question is a good place to start. Pages can be moved to new titles if need be, so I wouldn't sweat the small stuff like that. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary suspension for Inquisitor Owl.[edit]

Inquisitor Owl is a new user who seems to find vandalizing pages fun, and as such I'd like to ask for a temporary suspension on them to let them cool off and realize such vandalism isn't a good idea. -- Triacom (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Temporarily suspended. Thanks for the heads-up. It looks like it was out of his system anyway, but if he comes back tomorrow he'll get the message. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Writefaggetry[edit]

How exactly do I upload stories? Just want to know
YerManOverThere (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You have to make a link using the story title that you want, then click that link, click edit, add in your story and there you go. Do note that unless your story gets popular on /tg/ it's unlikely that it'll be tolerated here. -- Triacom (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Yo, I'm trying to add Cypher to the Fallen Angels category and the Forces of the Fallen expanding box. How do I that? I've added the category to his page but the link to his page isn't showing up in the category. Thanks. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you change the actual template itself? as far as I'm aware, he's only added to it if you add him on the template page. -- Triacom (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't. I'll do it though,
Don't worry, I just did it for you. -- Triacom (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah ok. Thanks mate. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary suspension for SergeshD123.[edit]

SergeshD123 is a user who joined seemingly because they had a bone to pick with Dawn of War 3, and I tried talking to them about the points they repeatedly brought up on their discussion page, but now for some reason they've decided that they don't like the argument and have repeatedly tried blanking their own discussion page without giving any real reasons, which leads me to assume that they just don't like it. I've asked them multiple times to stop and I've explained to them that if they didn't stop blanking a talk page that I'd be forced to come here, so now I'm hoping that they can be given a short ban to cool off for one or two days. -- Triacom (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)