User talk:AssistantWikifag

From 1d4chan

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

Archive of stuff from 2012

Archive of stuff from 2013

Archive of stuff from 2014

Archive of stuff from 2015

Archive of stuff from 2016

Contents , 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/[edit]

I'm requesting a temporary suspension for Blackcap/ 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/ are not even bothering to defend themselves. -- Triacom (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Requesting I don't get banned for user Blackcap/[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.
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 " 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[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 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)[edit]

Hey, this is Derpysaurus, just found this anon called (His Special:Contributions/ 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.-- 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", removed the quotations un-diplomatically, no one else cared, Derpysaurus put them back.-- 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/ 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/ just showed up to call each other names.-- 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriously. Now Special:Contributions/ showed up (clearly the second guy again by tone and IP). This fight has nothing to do with anything.-- 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/ 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/
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/
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)
>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
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.-- 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)


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)

He says he just wants to put Dawn of War 3 behind him, and his edit history supports it. It's his talk page, and there's no active discussions taking place on it, so I don't see a reason to intervene. Please refrain from harassing him going forward. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
If they had simply said that the first time I asked, I'd have been fine with it. -- Triacom (talk)`

Requesting ban on[edit]

  • This anon (Special:Contributions/ has been on a mass deleting spree on both the Yu-Gi-Oh page and Triacom's talk page. He believes that the former has no place on /tg/ and should be shoved back to /a/. However, he seems hell bent in removing Yu-Gi-Oh from the annals of history. Request a temporary ban for a week for him to cool off his hateboner. Derpysaurus
They're definitely weird. If they were just after Yu-Gi-Oh then you could waive that away as a hateboner for that series, but I really have no idea why they went after my talk page. Surely if they wanted to go after me they'd target my user page, and that card game isn't even mentioned on my talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting ban on[edit]

  • This little fucker (Special:Contributions/ has been consistently vandalizing the Meatbread page. Request a temporary ban for a few days to see whether he will stop or will continue to troll. If he persists after the ban, than I request bringing out the banhammer to permaban him. Derpysaurus
I've given 98 a few days to cool off. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Triacom and EatTheRich vandalism[edit]

As the title suggests, Triacom and EatTheRich are currently performing a sitewide purge of all TTS related content from various pages. This is plain vandalism, and desperately needs to stop.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Look at the talk page for Dorn. There's a discussion about this there. Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Triacom and EatTheRich regarding top-article quotes. They should be few in number and short, so that readers can get a brief introduction and then get directly to the main content of the article quickly. I'm not going to rule on what sort of quotes are best, but long-winded quotes from fanfic (or one-word quotes that are meaningless out of context, as was the case on Rogal Dorn's page) do not belong at the top of articles. It would not be inappropriate to have a section of the Primarchs' articles devoted to their portrayal in fanfic and /tg/ fanon, and a quote from a fanfic or two might fit there, but it is a poor introduction that distracts from the main article content.
You can see from my page above that I am not always in agreement with Triacom's priorities or behavior, but in this case, what they're doing is not vandalism (rather, it's good wiki stewardship to ensure that an article reads smoothly) and it is certainly not a "purge". TTS is /tg/ related, and does have a place on this wiki; however, that place is not necessarily at the top of tangentially related articles.
--AssistantWikifag (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Personally I feel that the top quotes should, if nothing else, be something that accurately describes or gives an accurate feeling of the Primarch in question and while TTS is occasionally funny, it isn't accurate on most things 40k related (or well liked by everybody). As Memestealer pointed out though we've already had this discussion, and to say that I'm currently performing a sitewide wipe when I've removed one quote only once in... I don't know how many days is just laughable. -- Triacom (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I have an idea how we can solve this. I haven't been on the TTS page in ages so I don't know if this is a thing already. But why don't we just put one quote for each character in TTS, ie Rogal Dorn's bit would have "No". Tyranid Memestealer (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That discussion is better held elsewhere (like the TTS talk page), but I will leave you with the suggestion that it is better to take it easy with quotes in general. Articles are written to summarize, interpret, and analyze; it's one thing if a quote is the subject of analysis, but is it really the best use of words to simply duplicate part of the work in question for the sake of flavor? --AssistantWikifag (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree; quotations should only be used if they're especially fitting, as opposed to being a gratuitous gag. Besides, we can make our own jokes just fine without borrowing somebody else's. (For what it's worth, I have never watched any TTS videos and do not intend to do so.)--Newerfag (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


While I do applaud his willingness to add to the MtG pages, I cannot condone his grudge against the Yu-Gi-Oh page and certainly do not appreciate his leaving threats on my talk page in what I assume is his way of bullying me into letting him blank the page. As it seems very unlikely he will listen to reason, I strongly advise banning him for a week or so in order to force him to cool his heels; his prior contributions do not cancel out his current bad behavior. --Newerfag (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree. They've tried to remove that page too many times, do not listen to reason, and when I undid their efforts of blanking the page they attempted to blank my talk page (anonymously before trying to defend their actions once they logged in). I've tried talking with them before only to get no response and I doubt that's going to change now. -- Triacom (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Even after nearly a month, he doesn't seem to have learned his lesson- I've noticed him threatening other users again and openly declaring he will not stop trying to get the page deleted. In spite of his contributions, it seems like a ban will be the only way to drive the message home for him. --Newerfag (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
And he's still doing it. Banning him would be doing him a favor at this point. --Newerfag (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I've given him a week to cool off, and if he hasn't cooled off by then I'll give him a month. I was not terribly bothered by his blanking of Girls und Panzer, since that page is kind of thin on tabletop gaming information (although clearly it does exist and more details should be added to that page), but he was specifically warned to leave the Yu-Gi-Oh page alone. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting suspension for[edit]

This user has removed content from the /pol/ page repeatedly in spite of requests to him and another anon to take it to the talk page. Mystery (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've given him a few days to cool off. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Naming an article[edit]

Long story short, I want to add a page for Ka the Preserver, a Mystara Immortal (god) who is basically an allosaurus that spontaneously developed intelligence, invented magic, then ascended to become the Immortal of Magic, Healing, Dinosaurs, Extinct Races/Civilizations, and Racial Preservation, making him the guy who runs and maintains the Hollow World. Anyway, what would be better for titling the page? Ka? Or Ka the Preserver?--QuietBrowser (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Because there's lots of things called Ka, some of which may be /tg/ relevant, I'd suggest Ka the Protector (to be specific). Or you could start with just "Ka" and if we make other Ka pages, we can work with redirects and disambiguation pages and so on. Take your pick, and even if you "guess wrong" it's not hard to fix. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks a lot for the help. I went with "Ka the Preserver" - the result will probably need tweaking to avoid breaking the box.--QuietBrowser (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit skirmish[edit]

The Tau 8E tac page situation is starting to get silly. Several users are repeatedly moving Shield Drones around in the tier list and undoing each other's edits, leaving some of the text occasionally unreadable. The TL;DR section was edit war bait from the start, and I've put a separate discussion on the talk page about removing it because it's useless anyway - but it's this constant back-and-forth that we could probably use some enforcement help with. I tried posting things on the talk page, and even editing a "stop edit warring over this and use the talk page" line to the actual section body (not exactly good practice, but the parties involved aren't responding to other attempts at communication - and some of them are anonymous anyway) but it's been going on for a few days now. Not exactly the end of the world, but I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Spider/ Vandalism of 8th Edition Space Marines Tactics[edit]

We've got someone who is currently trying to editwar a vandalizing set of edits on,000/Tactics/Space_Marines(8E). Both me and Newerfag have confronted him on this, and he extremely adamantly refuses to talk or even acknowledge himself, only to continue making edits that are so blatantly incorrect as to be vandalism. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

These are both the same person, he went anonymous once I confronted him the first time.

While I'm not as confident that they are the same person, the IP has proven himself consistently unwilling to be reasonable on the talk page when we forced him there and shows no intention of ending the edit war. --Newerfag (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
My assumption has proven correct about their identities being separate, it would seem. Still, I'd keep an eye on him. --Newerfag (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • This Spider fellow has nothing to do with it. I was first contacted about it today and participated in the talk. I have identified myself and have nothing to hide. I am not vandalizing/mass deleting anything. I am posting a strategy you disagree with and you guys took it way too far for no reason. Darthmustang (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll gladly post screenshots of Spider's contribution log where he editwarred us last night on the vandalizing edits, but that shouldn't be necessary because you guys can check them yourselves. I simply refuse to believe that more than one person exists who is stupid enough to continue this two and a half-day long edit war for a single paragraph of extremely bad advice.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
          • I don't care about your screenshots. I only ever edit the Space Marines tactics, and all I have really done is add in the info about the ABILITY to take Devs as a better Tac. I am doing this from work and from home so maybe that's why you are getting the different IP addresses. I think its more your problem that you can't believe multiple people exist with different viewpoints from you. Darthmustang (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Just because you can make an entirely new account in order to divert attention from yourself, doesn't make you a new person. Your account was only created shortly after I sent a message directly to spider asking him to stop, therefore you wish to throw chaffe off of this. You only exposed yourself to it because you immediately took up exactly the same point that your previous account hit up, as soon as this new account was created. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Just wow - you literally have no idea what you are talking about. As soon as someone contacted me I immediately created an account and started talking, I didn't even know these talk pages existed. I just would sometimes log onto the Space Marine Tactics page and read up, and sometimes make some edits. You have taken this way too far, won't listen to anyone, and sound like a crazy person. I don't know what Spider did or why you're so mad about it, but seriously, grow up - what are you - 12? Darthmustang (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Because your refusal to make an account and actually engage the community of the wiki you were editing until I directed you to it myself dragged someone else into the crossfire, all because you refused to take responsibility for your edits. Ignorance is never an excuse. Evilexecutive, leave Spider out of this for the time being.--Newerfag (talk)

This wouldn't be the first time Evilexecutive has overreacted to other users making edits he disagrees with (see above). Speaking of overreaction, Newerfag, you could stand to take it a little easier on the new guy. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • If he has been editing as long as he has without even noticing the "Discussion" tab, it's his own fault. Between that and his obstinate refusal to understand that just because something can be done doesn't make it a good idea to do, he has so far made a poor first impression on myself and others to say the least. --Newerfag (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As a latecomer to the talk page, I'd like to point out that it's a valid point that a combi-plasma on a naked Dev squad performs better than a combi-plasma on a naked Tac squad but costs the same. That's simple fact, and tactics pages usually don't hesitate to point out little quirks like that. Screaming vandalism doesn't change that. EatTheRich (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Nobody objected to that so much as that said savings came at the expense of a badly utilized heavy support slot and a unit whose full potential was being wasted for a strategy that in practice would only make it a fire magnet. Had you read the talk page, that would have been clear. --Newerfag (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Making an 80 point unit with bolters and power armor with 4 ablative wounds to keep the sergeant alive is actually a pretty useful fire magnet - they won't be shooting your other shit. Darthmustang (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I addressed concerns of slots/unit role on the talk page. Announcing I didn't read the talk page (a habit of yours) isn't just false- it lowers the quality of debate and angers people. EatTheRich (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Then you should accept the consensus opinion, which is that while it is a passable gimmick it ultimately fails to perform in the majority of situations. --Newerfag (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I never said it "performs"- I said it's a quirk that's worth pointing out and could be exploited in some situations. EatTheRich (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Like what? Name one. --Newerfag (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You have a spare 90 points an an empty heavy support slot. EatTheRich (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Technically true, but I do not imagine many situations where both of those are happening at once. Even then, I'd add at least three HBs to deal with hordes since this is the horde edition.--Newerfag (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
If you then add 3 HBs the squad costs more than 90 points. Please try to READ other people's comments. thanks. Darthmustang (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I was simply stating how I would have used such a squad; of course, were I to do so I would be willing to cut points from elsewhere. In any event, this whole thing is growing increasingly virulent and I sincerely doubt anyone will be convincing anyone else of their side's validity. For now, I've settled on a compromise in order to stave off further disagreement. --16:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
If I may suggest something:

Instead of seeing the the Devastor Squad with just 1 heavy weapon as an unit of its own, why not see it as an alternative to a tactical combat squad? You've got 5 guys with an heavy weapon (or combi in case of the sarge) costing and basecally doing the same stuff, only that one of them is using another slot and is getting a buff. There is no reason to use that devesator squad *instead* of an fully equiped unit of heavy support, but it is a great way to get a small benefit out of an otherwise empty slot.

lol that ^ argument got me called "subhuman" but I agree entirely. Darthmustang (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I still believe it is a waste of the unit and the slot, but I've added the compromise acknowledging it as an option, if one that only works in extreme circumstances. --Newerfag (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Spambot surge[edit]

I've noticed a ton of spambot activity today. Maybe we need new Captchas? --Newerfag (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea, but that's something Wikifag will have to handle, I don't have that level of access/permissions. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for myself[edit]

This is EatTheRich (talk) 03:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC), and I've had enough of this wiki. Could you kindly ban me so I'm not tempted to come back?

EatTheRich, you're not thinking straight. A minor squabble about the Space Wolves not going your way is not a good reason to quit the wiki. Sleep it off, and really ask yourself if it's really worth getting yourself banned over. --Newerfag (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Why not just stay away from the 40k pages or the wiki as a whole for a while? That's what I did in the later half of July when I was kind of bored with it and it worked for me. Take some time to cool off, and if you don't want to come back to the wiki, then just don't. If you do want to come back later you're just going to regret getting banned. -- Triacom (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you guys for your input, it means a lot, but this decision has been bouncing around my head for a while. The issue isn't really the edit squabble over the Space Wolves page; I dislike the way I behave given the anonymity of the Internet, and if I take a break and come back I'll act the same way again. Really, thank you guys, but this is something that I need to do; this wiki, funny and surprisingly deep as it can be, isn't where I was meant to be. EatTheRich (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You sure? I mean, I know we've had disagreements in the past but I've never thought you were acting that badly. Why not try giving what Triacom said a shot first and see how you feel? That way if you end up regretting your decision, you won't need to make a new account or ask to be unbanned. Still, it's your choice in the end. --Newerfag (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, but I'm sure. This is the best course of action for all concerned. EatTheRich (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Remember, if you give up entirely the "people" who have infuriated you so will have free rein to be fags. Take a break. Also, is this about you, really? Or is it about everyone else here? If you really do intend to get yourself b& you have nothing to lose by coming clean. OriginalPrankster (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The reason I want to get banned is that I don't think being on this wiki at all will do myself or anyone else any good. Some users are jackasses at times, but that's always been the case. I want to get banned because I'll use personal attacks instead of actual arguments on this wiki; that's never on the table in real life. Do you know that Cherokee saying about the two wolves inside us all? EatTheRich (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyways, Triacom, Newerfag, OriginalPrankster, I've had disagreements with all of you, but I regard you all highly. Flutist, if you read this at any point, stay classy. I've had time to think this over, and this is my final decision. So that ban would be nice whenever it's convenient. EatTheRich (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked you for six months, and if you do want to come back, I think you still have permission to edit your own user page. All the best to you. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you ban me too?[edit]

I'm not an edgy dude like ETR, I'm just going back to college and I have literally no willpower. Can you ban me for like 6 months so I can get my upcoming classes done? They start in 20 days, and it'll be pretty annoying if I keep checking the wiki instead of doing my homework. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

"Edgy"? Blow it out your ass. EatTheRich (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually completely serious about this, my life is shit and I have no willpower thanks to PTSD. This wiki takes up entirely too much of my time trying to watchlist 80 pages. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked you for six months, and if you do want to come back, I think you still have permission to edit your own user page. All the best to you. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a ban[edit]

Another phone number spambot here. Pages were marked for deletion already. LGX-000 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to ban spambots[edit]

I have found dozens of spambots lately. They are called Special:Contributions/Fgsdgsad, Special:Contributions/Kim aderson, Special:Contributions/Llisamith56, Special:Contributions/Piya123, Special:Contributions/Popo5, Special:Contributions/Poojasonu88, Special:Contributions/Dk9234, Special:Contributions/Markus, Special:Contributions/Terimerianti, Special:Contributions/1800 272 4167 QuickBooks Payroll Support Phone Number and Special:Contributions/Anksgriffis. Requesting immediate, merciless and swift permabans to these maggots right now. Derpysaurus

Request to lock SJW and /pol/ articles[edit]

For extremely obvious reasons, these articles have been a hotbed for ugly edit wars from the moment they were created. As all attempts to clean them up have failed, I would like them to be locked so no further edit wars or flame wars can erupt over them. I know this is an extreme measure, but I cannot trust my fellow editors not to turn either article into a soapbox for political opinions best shared elsewhere. --15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, you seem like the only one who's really, truly butthurt about the subject. Maybe you should just walk away and not worry so much about what your "fellow editors" feel like writing about? OriginalPrankster (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I only seek to put a stop to the incessant complaining and bickering that goes on with those pages. Trying to keep them both neutral and directed primarily at the context of /tg/ and nothing else, however, consistently fails because editors cannot resist using them as soapboxes for their own personal viewpoints or sniping at the "other side", all without any genuine comedic value (let alone informative value, because let's face it- nobody gives enough shits to trace the full history of the movement as opposed to looking at Encyclopedia Dramatica for that). If you have some magical way of preventing another flamewar from happening again while also limiting the page to only its relevance or lack thereof to /tg/, go ahead and implement it so I won't need to continue this line of inquiry. I've already culled the most severe tangents, though I don't expect them to last a day before someone tries to re-add them despite their irrelevance to this wiki. Leave the armchair sociology at home.--Newerfag (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Newerfag you're one of the biggest proponents of the editwars on both pages so if anybody should be asking for these to be closed, it definitely isn't you. Do as OriginalPrankster asks and take a break, it'll die down in the meantime because without you, we could've temporarily suspended the troll who was editing the /pol/ page and there would no longer be an editwar there. We also wouldn't have to worry about somebody constantly blanking the SJW page. -- Triacom (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Why? You should know that trying to clamp down on bullshit like this just makes it spread. It's better to just leave the damn thing alone and leave open the chance that someone else will improve it instead of tearing it down because it isn't working out the way you want it to.
In fact, I would like to request a topic ban for Newerfag regarding these two articles and their subject matter, as it's clearly causing him serious distress and he can't seem to let it go. OriginalPrankster (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Forget it, I'll just withdraw for the moment since I've made all the changes I think are sufficient to keep the pages stable. But don't try pinning the blame on me. The edit wars will keep going whether or not I'm involved in them by the very nature of the articles; if they were capable of being improved since I first asked its deletion to be considered more than a year ago, it would have long since happened by now. --Newerfag (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to wade into the talk pages and adjudicate who was putting out fires and who was starting them, but I agree that the pages as they are currently are about as good as I've ever seen them (they cover who these people are, why they cause trouble for /tg/, and a few brief notes on notable encounters...not sure what else needs to be said). Let's chalk them up as a win for the wisdom of the crowd, such as it is. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hear, hear. If nothing else, I'll have more energy ot sperg out on tabletop articles instead. --LGX-000 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Boo. The meme that /pol/ and SJWs are equal and opposite is still there, when it clearly isn't the case even as it specifically applied to /tg/. (Last I checked, white supremacists weren't injecting sidebars about racial superiority into major RPGs.) The /pol/ article also carries a distinct whiff of butthurt (especially the section on the whole God-Emperor business) and the text of both articles is still a bit bloated than I would like. This most recent shitstorm finally motivated me to try and fix it, but now I can't do that. OriginalPrankster (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a month-long lock, which is more than enough time for all parties involved to cool down completely and/or fuck off elsewhere. I'd just put a pin on it until then. Shit, I'll even help you fix that if I can. --LGX-000 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not one to sit and wait and risk having it drop off my radar, so I went ahead and made some sandbox pages. You're welcome to bounce some changes off there and if it gets too hot I'll just nuke the things and wait it out. OriginalPrankster (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a bitchslap for Khor'neth[edit]

Check Rosario + Vampire and its talk page; this guy keeps deleting the talk edits of everyone who disagrees with him, is acting incredibly butthurt in general and is refusing to give any decent explanation as to why this page is appropriate for 1d4chan. Also, he talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded. OriginalPrankster (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Page Dispute[edit]

This is a request for arbitration for a dispute between on the matter of Total War: Warhammer I and II.

There was a blanking/redirect on the page of Total War: Warhammer II. There was absolutely zero mention of this on the article that was getting redirected, Total War: Warhammer II, so this come as a complete surprise. Triacom said they had a vote (on another article), but that's complete nonsense, because only four people quickly "voted" on articles edited by hundreds of people. I know many users don't know of the talk page and many users with new accounts or without cannot give their views because of the restrictive permissions, so it's definitely unfair to them. The burden of proof is entirely on them, we had this article for five months before they did this without any warning. Wiki protocol is: different game, different article; therefore I don't think the feelings of a few should override this. I'm asking in advance because I want to prevent an edit war that will most likely come here anyway. Bruce Yarrick (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeesh, if you're just gonna parrot the same argument here I guess I'll just repost mine since coming here seemed to be your first action, aside from immediately disagreeing with five people and trying to undo what they did. So without further ado:
  • You seem to be living in a glass house there Yarrick. You claim that I don't get more say than anyone else, but then what makes your opinion so special that you can do exactly this? You claim this isn't a vote, just a circlejerk, but then what is a vote in your eyes if not several different people agreeing on a course of action? You claim that the articles are edited by hundreds of people, yet by looking at the history page we know for a fact this isn't the case, and I've been here for enough years to know that most articles relating to specific games have maybe a dozen active users editing them at best. You say that it has as much content as the first game, but in reality it has the same content as the first game with a new map and new factions, just like those expansions that did the same exact thing. You say that 'wiki protocol' is to make a new article for a new game, but aside from this being an expansion instead of a new game, this is arguably the second worst wiki to use that argument on (short of something like Encyclopedia Dramatica). I don't know if you noticed, but this isn't exactly wikipedia or any other wiki, instead this one's opinionated and that's part of the charm of it, which already breaks 'wiki protocol' because this wiki doesn't follow 'wiki protocol'. Despite what you think you can't just disagree with several other people and do something because you think that it's better to do this, and I have no idea where in the world this would be appropriate to do without convincing other people to go along with you first. What do you expect to happen besides it being redirected again now that I've pointed out the flaws in it? -- Triacom (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I have posted my response there. I am not going to post it here as I don't like unnecessary clutter. At this point, I'll leave it up to Assistant Wikifag, but my position is that it's fine to have a brief explanation of Total War: Warhammer II on the original game page, but a dedicated page for the sequel is necessary and should not be blanked without notice. Bruce Yarrick (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There was a full week where voting was left open and anybody could've objected in that time. Also if you're not going to try convincing people on why you're right before you undo their work, then you're just going to create the editwar you claim to not want. -- Triacom (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Tria, please keep the discussion there as there is my response. Bruce Yarrick (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask too for arbitration on the Total War: Warhammer pages. After a long discussion Bruce Yarrick has not given any reason for why the Total War: Warhammer II page needs to exist aside from parroting the same arguments that I've countered three times now (they don't even change their points either, they're just outright stating the same things again and again). They're also going against a vote that was done by several users on the talk page to merge the two pages together that nobody objected to until they came along and undid everything, I guess because they decided they knew better than everybody else and they've been quite hostile on the talk page as well whenever they're not making up facts or trying to claim that the vote should've included 'hundreds' of users and taken place over months instead of the week that it took. I honestly don't know why they want the second page so badly as Total War: Warhammer II is the exact same game with different factions and a new campaign, which is what the Dawn of War I expansions did yet they don't get their own pages, and the sequels of those games did because they changed everything around enough to warrant them. -- Triacom (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I haven't played Total War: Warhammer, but my impression from a few minutes of research is that TWW2 is much more like TWW than Dawn of War II was like Dawn of War. Wikipedia (source of all knowledge) says that "Total War: Warhammer was designed to be split into three parts, the initial game being the first episode." TWW2 only offers single-player content for a few new races, and players will have to own TWW to use its races in multiplayer, in much the same way that (for example) players could not use Imperial Guard in multiplayer if they owned Soulstorm only. And frankly, looking at the relative sizes of the articles, it's hard for me to support keeping the TWW2 content out in the cold. This is, of course, subject to change when the game itself is actually released, but you asked for my ruling and that's how it looks to me.

It might not be bad to have a discussion on Talk:Main Page as to whether we should have a general policy of "one game, one article", as Wikipedia does, but our current "state of the art" as developed ad-hoc by users over the years is that we combine expansions (or even entire sequels, as is the case with X-Com) when we don't feel there's enough content to stand alone and, by and large, only divide articles out as necessary. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel like normally we do pretty well on determining whether or not a page needs to be given to something just by talking about it. Take the Primaris Marines page for example, I was arguing pretty heavily initially that there was not enough information to warrant splitting up the units into their own pages, and that was eventually agreed upon. Now that there's quite a bit about them however I have no issue with it since those pages can no longer be summed up with a single paragraph. As for TW:W2, somebody else asked on the talk page what the difference mechanically there is from the first game, and aside from the different races and new campaign the answer is nothing, so I really don't get why it needs a new page. -- Triacom (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary suspension for Bruce Yarrick.[edit]

Bruce Yarrick has repeatedly gone against what other people have voted on with the Total War: Warhammer pages and when pressured to defend their opinions, they've responded with outright hostility (not that I wasn't annoyed with them, but they took it to a whole new level) and eventually went silent without answering the main question of why the sequel page needs to exist. After giving them some time to defend their points and them not doing so I redid the redirect, as was already decided by the community before they butted in, and they've undone it yet again while showing that they have no interest in discussing why the page should exist, they just want it to. At the very least I'd like for the Total War: Warhammer II page to be made into a permanent redirect as was already voted on since that game isn't a new game, it's just an expansion pack to the first one and as an expansion pack that adds very little, it does not need a new page especially when (as you mentioned earlier) it was made as the second part in what is essentially a three-part single game. Unfortunately I do not see that redirect happening anytime soon while Yarrick is still around as they consider their opinion far more important than everyone else's. -- Triacom (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to add something more to this point. Bruce Yarrick as of now is still not going to the talk pages at all, and that is the main reason I'm requesting their temporary suspension. It's one thing when you can talk to them, but if they're just going to keep undoing other people's efforts/decisions without even trying to defend their own position then I see no way to resolve this conflict besides giving them a suspension. -- Triacom (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous Salamander Redirect[edit]

Given that the Salamander is a mythical creature in the form of a fire lizard, and in /tg/ terms can apply to: a race of fiery serpentfolk in Dungeons & Dragons, dragon-like magical beasts in [[Warcraft], dinosaur-like monsters that spit fiery venom and which are thus tamed by the Lizardmen of Warhammer Fantasy, and a common form of fiery reptile creature in fantasy settings in general, is there any real reason that Salamader should automatically redirect a browser to Salamander Reconnaissance Tank? I wish to vouch for the de-commissioning of this redirect so a true Salamander article can be created.

I wasn't sure if I should put the draft of that Salamander article here or not, but I figured it'd be taking up space if I did.--QuietBrowser (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just do it. I fixed the erroneous links on the 40k pages to redirect to either the Salamander Reconnaissance Tank or the Salamanders; the only links still there refer to the critter. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Um... you haven't fixed it yet, Biggus Berrus - I type "Salamander" into the Search 1d4chan engine and I still go straight to the SRT's article. I'll put together a Salamander article as soon as I can actually go to the Salamander page without being redirected.--QuietBrowser (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
If you search for a page that gets a redirect you get a (Redirected from X) message below the page title. If you click that you go to the page that is the redirect. If you click "What Links Here" on that page you see there's only two pages linking to the Salamander page: the Salamanders and Azer pages. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

My Page was up for deletion, requesting mediation[edit]

Hi assistant Wikifag (gosh that's a mouthful!!). I've just joined, and my first article was one about my story on fanfiction. Now, I know that I did sound egotistical (really, I don't have much of a ego (being a geek and all)) but I was quite surprised to find my article had been put up for deletion on the basis of being a egoboo. I would like some help mediating a agreement between me and the member who put it up for deletion (that would be MONSTERMAUS). I would like to apporach this is a calm a peacefl manner, and don't want to start a edit war or other form of disagreeable action. I know that your time is valuable, so I'd like to resolve this as quickly as possible. My reasosn for removing the deletion notice are on the articles talk page at Life, Death and the Greater good. Thank you very much.

Crazy Minh

  • I'll be blunt, I agree with the other guy. I posted my reasoning on your story's talk page, but the short version is that its relevance to /tg/ is limited to it's subject matter. The stories we allow here are almost always ones which were written by and for /tg/ itself- you on the other hand look and sound like you just want to farm more views for your fanfic rather than making a genuine contribution to the community. Why else would you boast about the following of the story when only you would care about such a thing?--Newerfag (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This wiki is about things of and related to /tg/, the traditional games board of 4chan; we do host fanfiction here, but predominantly as an archive of fanfiction that was originally written for and posted to /tg/ itself (by nature, posts on /tg/ turn over and clear out after a day or two, so we can be a more permanent repository for works that people want to keep around). I won't say that we will "never ever" host fanfiction that originated elsewhere, but as a general principle, I don't think it's appropriate (especially fanfiction that was originally posted to a dedicated fanfiction archive, as opposed to an image board). --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I've never BEEN on 4chan. WTF is it??

I had a feeling you would say that. Google it, go to the first result, and whatever you do, don't post anything yourself until you have a good handle on how things work over there. Otherwise any hope you might have of getting a good reception will go up in flames.--Newerfag (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Or just check out the first external link on our /tg/ page. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

thanks man :)

Requesting ban/suspension of[edit]

Just letting you know that this guy, girl, or bot, or whatever has been blanking pages, seemingly at random. By the time of writing this they seem to have stopped though, but they may come back. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've given 62 a one-day suspension, in case they come back tomorrow. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like didn't quite get it the first time, fixed up the Awesome page after vandalism. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • He's a fucking troll. Just permaban the faggots ass and be done with it. Derpysaurus
I think they're looking for a permaban after what they just did to your user page. -- Triacom (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for arbitration/deletion[edit]

A shitty attack article (Feminids) was made, marked for deletion, and is now the subject of more than unusually insufferable squabbling by a bunch of IPs that have apparently never made a single wiki edit until now. Would you kindly get rid of the offending article and slap some sense into everyone involved? --Newerfag (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please consider reading how the discussion played out. A number of the people wanting that page deleted were being openly racist.-(talk)

One single anonymous IP who has been acting as bad as you? Hardly an excuse to keep a shitty attack article on the wiki, and certainly not justification for your own bad behavior. --Newerfag (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Do remember I started the talk page and a discussion with another poster while you were still blanking the page.-(talk)

The logs say you made the talk page after I had already marked it for deletion and then promptly got into an edit war that had no business happening in the first place. And remember that you seemed to be completely unaware that similar issues had already been discussed on the SJW talk page, which you disregarded either out of ignorance or refusal to accept the page could document the phenomenon without bringing in irrelevant nonsense as you seem to believe was necessary. Besides, it's hypocritical to say "Frankly I think all articles like this do not have a place on the wiki because it's just not appropriate since they are only related to /tg/ tangentially (like the /pol/ or SJW articles)" and yet insist that the worst article of that kind shouldn't be deleted. --Newerfag (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that I can't remember events I was not here for. I have nothing further to say if you're so childish that you'd start making the same arguments you've made on the talk page in the other article when I've already thoroughly proven it wrong. -(talk)

Then make yourself familiar with them instead of falling back on your own flawed arguments. Your ignorance does not serve as an excuse, and your insolence is only going to make things worse for you. Also, you're the one who tried to bring the argument over here so perhaps you should take your own advice every now and then. --Newerfag (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Shitty attack article was shitty. Comparing current events and living people to 40k characters and factions (who are intentionally exaggerated and larger-than-life -- veering into being strawmen at the poorer end of the writing spectrum -- and thus 'unrealistic') is a bit of a minefield (we've had this discussion on e.g. the God-Emperor of Mankind), and veers dangerously into 'egoboo' territory. This 'article' in particular was flamebait and uninformative.

Elsewhere on the wiki, there's an adaptation of the old "prologue narration" comparing GW to the Imperium, but (a) it's actually funny, and (b) it's part of an informative article.

As I was winding up to delete "Feminids", I see it has been redirected to SJW (which has a stronger case to exist, though not an unshakeable one in my mind -- but that's a topic to think about some other day). I'm willing to consider the matter closed for the day, if y'all have gotten all this out of your systems. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The redirect was me, though you are free to delete it anyway. I'd also ban the guy who wrote it for a few days, as I have no confidence he intends to become a productive editor. That said, I strongly suggest deleting and salting both the SJW and /pol/ pages as well. How they have even persisted as long as they have is a mystery, even with my own interventions keeping them from being complete disasters.--Newerfag (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC) is a potential spambot[edit]

User: deleted a section of an article and replaced it with a mix of poor English and a line of spam text. Either we have a very low quality shitposter on our hands or it's a spambot. It's also the only user's edit so far, so this might be something to keep an eye on. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Requesting 1 week ban for Anon: 2A02:587:3A1B:2300:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1[edit]

A anon called Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A1B:2300:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1 has been repeatedly vandalizing pages with images that does not make any sense. So far his edits has been nonsensical and pointless. His worse abuse includes the Death Guard page. I suspect the anon is either a troll or has nothing better to do but fuck with random pages. I request a temporary ban for a week for him to bugger off. Derpysaurus

  • It seems that he is continuing on his random image spam vandalism. Maybe upgrade that ban into a month.Derpysaurus
    • They're still doing it... just random images of yu-gi-oh cards or warhammer pictures in nonsensical places without explanation or connection. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Guess what? Heeeeee's baaaack! This time he is called Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A16:C100:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1. This fuckface is definitely a spammer. Don't believe me? He has been spamming the same shit on Wikipedia as seen from his contributions: [1]. Yes, I know its fucking Wikipedia, but his actions is rather prolific. Requesting permaban of his cancerous ass immediately.Derpysaurus
I don't see 2A02's behavior as cancerous or spammy, just clueless. He's improved from last time, in that he's not including images in his army lists; I'm content to wait and see if a couple more weeks of "negative feedback" (i.e. reversions of clueless edits) do any good before blocking him again. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, it seems he is still randomly spamming images after taking a few weeks break. I have a really good feeling that he is not being clueless and is just doing it for the sake of doing it, but is now being smart and cautious about it. Derpysaurus

Dealing with the problem with image spammers[edit]

It seems that the anon from above had continued his campaign on image spamming (His 'contributions':Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A0A:6B00:4099:5D97:9196:C893). So far, it seems to be a one man crusade. However, I am wondering how to deal with this continuing problem. If it is possible, should we add in some restrictions to anons so that they can't upload anymore spam images? Or have something similiar of that sort. Your thoughts? Derpysaurus

That's something you'll have to bring up with Wikifag -- I don't have that level of control over the wiki configuration. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting ban for Ladnav[edit]

User:Ladnav has made over 80 edits in less than three quarters of an hour, most of which being entire pages being blanked. The first dozen or so involve the page content being replaced by what look like attacks of an indivual rather than the work of bot. All the edits have been undone. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Image spammer may have returned[edit]

So it seems that a new anon under the user Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A0B:B100:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1 have been spamming the same old random images that made no sense. I advice that all of us should keep an eye on him. So far he seems to be laying low for now, so I will update you if anything spammy may warrant my red flags here. Derpysaurus

  • He seems to be posting literally the same spammy images as before such as the Mitt Romney emprah image. I would say that we ban him as quickly as possible. Its better safe than sorry. Derpysaurus
  • Yeah, upon further inspection. It is pretty much the same guy. Sorry to sound like a nag, but we should not only permaban him. We should also try and delete his rubbish spam images too. Derpysaurus
  • Annnnndddd...he is still spamming gibberish. Would it be the right time to ban this faggot and his spam images ASAP sir? Derpysaurus

Request to lock SJW and /pol/ articles...again. This time for good.[edit]

Those two abominations continue to create nothing but trouble for this wiki. If they cannot be deleted completely, I strongly urge you to permanently lock the page and remove all but the most absolutely necessary links to them. It may sound extreme, but the wiki is better off without them and without the endless shitflinging they create simply by existing. --Newerfag (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The only one actively shitflinging here is you. Seriously, counting you there are only three or four people on the wiki who get unreasonably, irrationally angry whenever someone tries to significantly change these two articles. Certainly nobody else responds with the same kind of passive-aggressive (or just plain aggressive) attacks on the poor fuck who did it, both in talk and by immediately reverting them and/or making backbiting additions to the article that specifically target the other guy. Everyone else either tries to make it better (but gets their ass bitten because of the above) or ignores it like any other part of the wiki they're not interested in. Why should part of the wiki be permanently prevented from getting better just because you can't get over your personal issues with it? If just seeing those two articles in recent changes is enough to cause this kind of instinctive reaction in you, maybe you should take a break from editing for a while. OriginalPrankster (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I simply cannot see how it can be made "better" at this point, and I certainly don't trust anyone to make any changes to it without making it worse. Politics has never had a place on this wiki, and I loathe having to deal with something that keeps being turned into somebody's soapbox. And why should I take a break from editing just because you can't just leave well enough alone? At least leave the goddamn "Cultural Marxism" shit out if you don't want to drag it all down by association. I've already told you and Namefag that it's little more than a toothless school of sociology blown up into a bogeyman over the years, a d your insistence on keeping it in is very indicative of your intentions for the article. If I could trust you to avoid making such additions, I wouldn't be so territorial about it in the first place. But I can't trust you or anyone else not to drag it down with misinformation and hysteria. Prove me wrong if you can. --Newerfag (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm reserving this space to rebut the above argument because I don't currently have the time to say what I want to, but don't want to look like I'm just blowing it off either. In the meantime, I'd like to point out the revision history: it seems to me that Newerfag reflexively threw out an easily refuted and emotionally-charged statement in reply to me, realized that he was going to get it thrown back at his face, and replaced it with something less obviously anguished and possessive in an attempt to avoid proving the argument he was trying to rebut. Seriously dude, calm down. I'm speaking from personal experience here. OriginalPrankster (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
A matter easier said than done when I get worked up, especially when I'm posting at 3am my time and only realize it looks idiotic after a semi-decent night's sleep. I really ought to stop doing that. --Newerfag (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, what shit-flinging? I've flicked through a few of the previous versions but nothing jumps out at me. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pay my earlier posts no heed, my paranoia about those articles was acting up. Feel free to delete this section.--Newerfag (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
For completeness, here's what I wrote to explain the situation.
In brief, Newerfag became personally offended by me trying to make SJW less "oh this is a thing people say to be mean and it doesn't even matter so why are you even here?" and more about ways in which SJWs have negatively affected traditional games. In not so brief....
Most of my efforts are in a user subpage of mine, which I set up when the article got protected and continue to use for the sake of not leaving the real page in a fucked-up WIP state while I slowly nibble at it. The only editwarring that happened was when I edited the real page's section on 40k to point out (without derailing the section's existing flow) that the hiring of the artist/writer of Eagle Ordinary for the Wrath & Glory sneak peek may (not does, may) indicate that Games Workshop is beginning to work with or hire on SJWs. From my reading of the comic it was in the vein of shit like modern Penny Arcade and Monsterkind, where the anatomy/composition is fucked because that's the artist's "style" and the writers are so wrapped up in being simultaneously 2quirky and totes srs that they forgot to make the script actually good, so I was somewhat concerned that either GW or Ulisses US had chosen something like that to be the face of this new 40k RPG.
At this point Newerfag frankly threw a tantrum and reverted my changes, claiming that I was some kind of obsessed crusader while going out of his way to add catty snipes to the real page in an attempt to undermine the point I was trying to make. (He also claimed that whiteknighting was a /pol/ concept when that shit was a common term when people still used LiveJournal.) Shortly after that someone else threw a big dump of basic shit about SJWs (apparently taken from an earlier revision) on my userpage, which I kept (for my own convenience if I decided to pick through it for usable bits later, after all if it's just a userpage who gives a shit if it's a mess, I'm not going to pave over the real page until I feel it's better than the real page in all the areas it needs improved upon) and informed him on his talk page that his contribution was surplus to requirements for a /tg/ article on SJWs.
Newerfag then proceeded to jump in and undo everything I had worked on while claiming on the other guy's talk page and my own that, by his reckoning and based on some bullshit about "Cultural Marxism" being a Nazi slur, he couldn't trust anyone else to talk about politics on 1d4chan, so he was going to run to you and have you "deal with [the articles] permanently" so nobody could say wrong things about politics again. (For the record, when I the Cultural Marxism header there I was going for the idea of scholars interpreting cultural history in a similar way to how Marxist scholars interpret economic history. This viewpoint tends to lead to the idea that the scholar's beliefs are Right, the scholar's opponents are Wrong, and that History must lead to the triumph of Right-thinking individuals, similar to Marx's theory that history could be viewed as a grand struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The /tg/ connection I had in mind here was the relationship between Beasts and Heroes in Beast: The Primordial, in which the Beasts are Right because ??? and the Heroes are Wrong because they oppose the Beasts, despite how utterly contrary to common sense this is.)
As you can imagine, I find this very hard to believe. Moreover, Newerfag seems to have a high degree of emotional investment in this topic. He's already admitted that he's gotten worked up about this, and looking at his original revisions in talk (before he catches himself and revises so he doesn't look as bad) I believe there is a distinct undercurrent of moral indignation here. Almost as if he feels his personal beliefs are being attacked. Hence my urgings for him to calm down or take a break, because no matter how much it may seem otherwise the Internet is not, generally, serious business enough to get this upset about it. OriginalPrankster (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The part with Eagle Ordinary I felt was simply uncalled for. Unless those comics start openly announcing their support for SJW ideas, his personal beliefs should be not more relevant than those of any other nameless GW artist, and the writing was no worse than any of the other Examples of Play I have seen over the years. Declaring that the face of the new RPG is quite bluntly nothing more than fearmongering.

As for what you call "cultural Marxism", I believe it is simply shitty writing with no political intent behind it beyond 'lol subversion of tropes". However, the origins of the term "Cultural Marxism" as Nazi propaganda that was later repurposed by /pol/ still stand and have actual academic sources to back it up; if you require specific sources, I shall link them, but right now I assume you would rather not waste time with history lessons. In any event, this influenced my later overreaction to a considerable degree, as it is invariably used as shorthand for "International Jewish Conspiracy" on the places it is most often used. The term "whiteknighting" has also since been adopted primarily by /pol/ and has since become strongly associated enough with them to further fuel my suspicions about your intent. Even the pic you linked came from a site which was using it to label all pro-feminist men as whiteknights, rather than those who merely supported SJW ideals.

From there, I will admit I panicked in assuming that you planned to spin the page to a pro-/pol/ bent by degrees until it was as bad as the page used to be. This being one of the few sites I frequent that stays relatively clean of politics, I acted without thinking for fear that it might act as a foot in the door for something worse. Upon further reflection, I should have simply asked you what you were trying to do instead of treating you as if you had a hidden agenda. I apologize for my outburst. --Newerfag (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting ban for A02:587:3A1A:E200:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1[edit]

Mostly spam, with the occasional odd political bent. Think someone else displayed a similar "fixation" on Greek revisionism or whatnot, I'll update this if I ever find that. -- 04:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm not seeing any contributions from that IP address. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Fuck, the 2 fell off mid copypaste. Thanks, Derpy. -- 09:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting ban for User[edit]

User has been engaged in an Edit War on the Thri-Kreen and Mul pages, vandalizing both pages to attack the edition. User may also be connected to user, who engaged in similar behavior on the Dwarf and Kender pages.--QuietBrowser (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Seconded, for the same reasons. —SpectralTime (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Thirded for same reasons plus the fact that they swear I'm a communist 4e fanboy for actually trying harder to be neutral than they were. -- 10:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Fourthed, because this is just annoying. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
And now it looks like he's ban evading by using a new IP: User/2620:132:300C:C01D:0:0:0:6 literally just undid AssistantWikifag's edit with the exact same "faux-reasonable" description.--QuietBrowser (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Fuck me, he's still fucking at it! This cunt won't quit! User/2001:41D0:8:EB9D:0:0:0:1 is his new IP.--QuietBrowser (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest puppet here. I recommend locking Dark Sun and Thri-kreen as well. -- 06:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from blocking that IP for the time being, since those edits don't look as vandalicious to me. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't user banned? Because he's up to his old tricks again, vandalizing the thri-kreen article in order to promote edition-warring about 4th edition.--QuietBrowser (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Block was temporary, may as well permaban him since he ain't learned shit. -- 21:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting ban for[edit]

After I undid an edit of theirs on the Dawn of War III page which deleted some of the "pro" opinions, the user began editing my user page; trying to sneak insults in, deleting everything on it, etc. Additionally, they've become increasingly hostile on the Dawn of War III page, throwing insults around rather than explaining the reasoning for their edits. --Sieger (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Motion to recreate the Final Fantasy Page[edit]

I know that this page was deleted - apparently due to trolling? - but... 1d4chan does have a lot of pages for only tangentially related content, such as Transformers or, I don't know, the entire freaking Video Games and /co/ categories! Even if the later editions did devolve into weeaboo, the series does pop up on /tg/ from time to time, as people try to convert races, classes, magic, etc from the games to the tabletop. To say nothing of how the original Final Fantasy 1 was basically one of THE Old School Roleplaying videogames, stole most of its monsters from Dungeons & Dragons and, heck, is basically a D&D videogame in disguise in most of the ways that matters. Freaking Chocobos got converted to D&D 3e in Dragon Magazine #323, whilst the Unified /tg/ Setting has a race based on Burmecians. If handled in the right way, I think it more than has the chops to warrant a place here.--QuietBrowser (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what used to be there (the revisions of pages which are deleted by admins are retained for some time, but may be lost in clean-ups or server migrations), but the page wasn't protected or don't need to ask permission to put something there. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Permaban to Anon[edit]

So this faggot called Special:Contributions/ has been replacing random content with gibberish or outright deleting entire pages of their content. Request to permaban this idiot permanently. Derpysaurus

Since it's not a known spambot address (according to Project Honeypot), I'm not blocking that IP permanently, but a month should be long enough to cool off.

Yugioh spammer at it again[edit]

Special:Contributions/ has been uploading a series of oddly named YuGiOh cards, series of images simply named "tier *" and vandalized the Musclegirl page. Fairly certain we've seen this person before. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Image Spammer is back[edit]

Requesting to permaban image spammers Special:Contributions/ 2a02:587:3a03:4900:c4b5:9d8b:7448:168f and Special:Contributions/2a02:587:3a03:4900:111d:139c:c244:9e0b yet again. Derpysaurus

Seconded. This is kind of getting annoying. Tactical Mehren (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A03:4900:D869:D288:C66E:E39A is also shitting up pages now. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A15:F00:5D20:DA92:2FBD:BC88 is another sockpuppet IP address for this spammer. -- 13:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Another one. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:AC2C:B66:AC91:A8BC 08:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Another one of the fuckers is here again ThatOneBruvva (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.

Intervention required on the Warhammer Adventures page[edit]

A user called User:Heir of Sigma has proven to be highly combative and intent on pursuing an edit war on the Warhammer Adventures page. While others have tried to talk him down, he has interpreted their attempts as a sign of malicious intent directed at him and his viewpoints. I strongly suggest banning him, if only to force him to cool his heels, as his edit history has shown absolutely no constructive edits outside of the edit war. --Newerfag (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've changed my signature name - and this talk request - to better answer the issue.

My answer is quite simple : I was wrong about the 1d4chan community and the /tg/ mentality as a whole. This place is clearly not in synchrony with myself and vice versa.

Therefore, I'm taking my leave from this website forever and will no longer spend time reading or editing/writing articles any longer.

Also, I request to purge all my previous edits from the page history and ban this account, if possible.

Thank you very much.

Heir of Sigma what you've seemed to miss is that this site is not encyclopedia dramatica. When somebody disagrees with you on this site they're not doing it as a group or trying to act as a group, they're doing it as an individual and usually with the intention of trying to make the page better/more accurate without losing its character. If you think somebody's belittling you or mocking you then it would be better to talk with them about it rather than write it off as SJW behaviour since there's a good chance that didn't enter their mind and that sort of thinking leads to nothing productive (it would've just been a shouting match until the page got locked). There's nothing wrong with having opposing opinions on a page so long as there's weight to their argument (which you can argue about on the discussion page), but there's no point to editing something in the way you were doing it if you're not going to try to be civil about it. Eventually the page is going to be locked and when it's unlocked your edits will be gone, so what is the point in making them? There were many ways you could have made your same points without antagonizing others, or you could have made them to antagonize others but back them up with a solid foundation so that even if other people don't like them they can't really argue against them. -- Triacom (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

As I stated : there is no synchrony with me and 1d4chan and vice versa. It will stay this way forever.

You can help me to vanish from this place and to fulfill the mutual desire if you explain it to me how to make the edit history vanish or teach me how locking edit posts work.

Would someone still be able to access and see those edits after such event?

Could an admin or related delete my previous edits in the history? I would like very much to thoroughly disassociate myself from this website and community, please.

It is my wish as an individual, as you stated yourself.

I can block your account permanently if you'd like, but it's not within my power to suppress an edit completely from history. Ask User:Wikifag if you want it done.
Incidentally, I'm sorry that I wasn't very verbose when I blocked you a couple weeks ago -- the point of the block wasn't to eject you from the community (pretty much the only unforgivable offense around here is being a spambot, which you're not -- though I wouldn't object if you used fewer linebreaks and signed your talk-page comments, like so: --~~~~), but to enforce a few days to cool off. (See 1d4chan:Policy.) I can't make you stay if you want to be gone, obviously. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Heir of Sigma you're making this much worse than this has to be. If you just wrote on the talk page of the original article " I was wrong about the 1d4chan community and the /tg/ mentality as a whole. This place is clearly not in synchrony with myself and vice versa." That would be it, nobody would bring it up unnecessarily and everyone would move on. You're not going to be given this long walk of shame or be raked across the coals because of a fuck-up so long as you own up to it (nobody's going to say that your apology isn't good enough). This changes when you want to erase your mistakes however, because that comes off as you hiding from them and depending on how you look at it, could also come off as you trying to pretend the mistake never happened. The more you ask for your mistakes to be removed the longer this goes on for when it could end in the 5 seconds it takes to write "Sorry about that, my bad." -- Triacom (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

There are two points you are missing :

1 - Any quick search on google for "dox twitter past" or similars can quickly disprove and refute you completely. Clearly, you are either unaware or simply being dishonest on what is happening out there.

Whichever it is, it doesn't matters.

People are being fired, threatened, denied service and sometimes losing massive financial opportunities because of ventures such as these.

2 - I will state this for a third time : I do not want to be associated with this community, /tg/ or 1d4chan anymore.

Sincerely speaking, this whole website is a huge and massive disappointment.

I feel disgust even wasting my time typing this or the fact that I ever enjoyed the franchise in question, regarding the mini edit conflict.

It is time for me to grow up, quit buying games and plastic toys based off of a company that is alive solely because of people who refuse to even acknowledge issues within their own and the company responsibly for their hobby.

Thank you for your explanations. I will outgrow that article, anons, /tg/, 1d4chan and tabletop in general. I will outgrow all of you.

There is much more to life than soy, cowardice and denial. This place has plenty of that.

Good day to you.

Heir of Sigma nobody on this wiki currently has participated in or condones doxxing. Nobody is going to try and find out who you really are. When I speak about what is happening on this wiki, I am purely going to talk about this wiki, and nobody here is going to try and figure out who you really are, at least not while remaining a member since doing that would get them kicked off the wiki pretty fucking quickly. I also don't know a single person who's been fired because of 1d4chan or lost a large amount of money because of it. For the second point, if you really don't want to be a part of the community then the best thing would be to do as I suggested, just say that you were mistaken and move on, that is it. I'm honestly not sure what you were expecting, however I feel I should point out to you that to myself and the people I know of on the wiki, we view the game as a hobby. If you're trying to make a statement by just writing the franchise off as plastic toys and saying that you're going to outgrow it all then you're not going to offend or even surprise anyone, after all everyone needs a hobby and people are just going to say the same thing about whatever it is you choose to pick up. People here do point out issues with the company and when they royally fuck up, should Warhammer Adventures turn out to be a massive pile of pig shit then you're going to find the article condemning it in every way imaginable, the only difference between then and now is people don't seem too interested in condemning it before it's even been released yet. Finally I'm going to say that trying to get your mistakes removed and attempting to run away from it all (as that is what you're doing instead of learning to grow up, which is learning to live with the mistakes you make) just proves to the people who disagree with you that you have everything you claim this wiki has plenty of. I can guarantee right now that if you just posted "I was mistaken about what kind of place this is" on the original article instead of whining about it for this long then nobody would even remember your mistake within a week, less if you chose to hide it behind a collapsible section. -- Triacom (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, this wiki has caused at least one person to be ambiguously threatened with legal action by Games Workshop, but I ignored them and nothing bad happened. --Wikifag (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
>I had highly unrealistic expectations of an echo chamber and I'm mad you didn't confirm my biases like I wanted you to, I'M LEAVING FOREVER 11!1!
Get over yourself, you weak-willed wannabe anime protagonist. You'll never be that important, and the sooner you realize that the better. The best scenario you can hope for at this point is a faintly amusing footnote if you persist at this rate.
Stop acting out for some misguided idea of recognition, get your shit together, and most importantly, stop uncritically regurgitating the first bit of half-assed rhetoric you find that gives you validation and trying to live through it - because at the end of the day, that's something you have to prove yourself. No amount of righteous crusading is going to hide the kinds of character flaws you're exhibiting. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:E045:BD99:A191:F24C 06:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Quiggsy's Edit War - Ban required?[edit]

So, a user named Quiggsy has returned after a long hiatus to resume spamming an attempt to force a pol-based edit on the Vistani article (strike-throughing the sentence "bad stereotypes" and replacing it with "accurate stereotypes". He and user Newfag got into an edit war on May that ended with Quiggsy vanishing, and on his first day back he's changed the article once again. I don't know if a ban is required, but this /pol/-tier crap needs to stop.--QuietBrowser (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

Hey, I accidentaly uploaded a new version of a image as new file, File:Hala Symbol.jpg, can you please delete it? --The Hat That Was (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

User's edits[edit]

So, new user literally just showed up out of nowhere to make two "Degenerate" templates, each consisting of a single line of text about "don't post skaven furry porn" and then delete various images on the Skaven and Ratfolk pages before applying his "templates" to them both. Is this okay? I don't want to pick any fights, so I wanted to check that he was doing the right thing.--QuietBrowser (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is completely out of the blue, and has no precedent. He's probably just butthurt because of all the Ratfolk threads, since those are the only one's he's targeted, which is telling, considering he could have targeted any of the other furry related pages. Hell, he could have gone for the furry page itself! Technically, it looks like we don't exactly have a rule against doing such a thing out of the blue, but somehow I don't like the idea of some random nobody doing that at such short notice. --Fortunade (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Since it's easy to undo revisions, I'm not inclined to take action against a user who just makes a couple of edits and swoops out. It looks like 47's gotten the bees out of his bonnet, but I'll keep an eye on things. Thanks for the heads-up. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Captcha Shit[edit]

I just got cockblocked by the page creation captcha, wat do? For reference, the questions and answers I tried were: What is the capital of the Imperium? Holy Terra, Terra, terra What is the species of the legendary Pun-Pun? Kobold, kobold What diety does Sandwich Stoutaxe worship? Moradin, moradin What would expect to find in the grim darkness of the far future? Only war, Only War, only war

Restarted my computer and reloaded the page after trying again, it worked. For reference, on the bottom captcha works no matter what, but might error if the browser is too slow.


Its another month and time again for the next bot to vandalize pages. [[Special:Contributions/ has been blanking pages from both the Xenos pages like that Tau and Necrons as well as their tactics pages. Time to pull out the banhammer eh? Derpysaurus.

He's been given Thanksgiving off. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm don't think they're the same editor (different behaviors and activity times), but yes that's also block-worthy. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a perma-ban for user and Guard Women Remover[edit]

Could we get a perma-ban on user So far they've done nothing but try to vandalize the wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the edit war over the Guard pages, but this guy is constantly removing the female guardsmen for no reason and has ignore an attempt to talk about it on his talk page. --2001:8003:3800:800:6822:17F9:7CBA:27E4 09:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, he seems cool enough! No ban is required.
1. Sign your posts.
2. Do you not understand we can see who posted what anyway? --2001:8003:3800:800:6822:17F9:7CBA:27E4 09:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
No ban is required, he's right about a lot of his points.
This has to be the most useless form of sockpuppeting I've seen. --2001:8003:3800:800:6822:17F9:7CBA:27E4 10:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Please refrain from using the word "sockpuppeting" as it might be seen as offensive.
Daww, did I offend the poor little troll? --2001:8003:3800:800:6822:17F9:7CBA:27E4 10:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Very offensive, with your racist terms.

These anons are either the same person who was doing the same edits, or they're equally as terrible. Could we please get both IP's perma-banned? These kind of trolls are always the worst, trying to pretend as if they're making a parody of special snowflakes without realizing that in doing so, they've become a way bigger and more sensitive snowflake than anyone they're trying to make fun of. -- Triacom (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

As of now the user is not only still doing their edits, but they're now editing this page as well. I'd really like to see this anon banned. -- Triacom (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary suspension for user TheBadageBoys[edit]

For some reason TheBadageBoys has such a hate-boner for Matt Ward that they've continuously edited in lies to his page, then they've lied about those lies in order to try justifying them. They even do this when it involves them contradicting what they've just said one reply earlier, or that the following was presented as a joke and not presented as a fact:

"Yet, all the cheese prompted a spike in sales for Daemons of Chaos, and Ward's career was saved."

Seeing as how they have given up talking about it I'd like to request a temporary suspension, should they continue to edit lies into the page. -- Triacom (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

As of now, they have outright refused to discuss the issue any further and I'm going to request their suspension outright, seeing as how they aren't giving up on editing the page. -- Triacom (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Another update, as of current TheBadageBoys has continued to edit Ward's page to say something false, and when pressed on them could not back up their claims with any facts. The only defence they had for their edit was "this is how people felt" for why they edited in something that's outright wrong, but they're unable to provide any sources and when asked to post it on something like /tg/ they refused, probably because their claims are things like "Daemons are logical creatures" and "Daemons cannot show up in large numbers", both of which would've gotten laughed off the site. At the moment they've refused to talk about the issue further and refuse to cease the edit, so I'd like to ask for more arbitration. -- Triacom (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Scratch that, once more I'd like to ask for a suspension on TheBadageBoys. I've asked again and again and again for a while now for them to post any source or any facts that could back up any of their arguments, and not only do they refuse to do this, they've stated they've refused to stop their edits. They've also stated a few times now that they're not open to any further discussion, and that they're going to continue to put their edits back in regardless of anything anybody besides a mod/admin says. -- Triacom (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I'm totally fine with arbitration if need be. I've explained my point and it seems we're at deadlock. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You don't have a point, to have a point you need to use facts, and you haven't listed any. The only thing you've done is say "I think this is stupid" then ignore my attempt at a middle-ground. -- Triacom (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry for engaging in the edit war on the page. At this point I'm going to stop that, and I ask for your arbitration on the issue. TheBadageBoys (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I've read the 7E Daemons book and haven't found any mention of Chaos giving up from boredom. Additionally, I find it disingenuous of you to only think to ask for arbitration after a week of fighting over a page. Kindly take a few days off (I insist). You can put that sentence back after you have given us (here) a page number that backs you up. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
To be fair to TheBadageBoys, they were complaining that the 8th edition book has Daemons losing because they were more interested in fighting each other than the humans when they'd gotten close to winning. That's something that happens in 7th edition too though, under A Fortunate Betrayal and The Daemonic Duel, on both pages 21 and 22. -- Triacom (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, thanks again for checking into this. Sorry for any confusion on the source. I was referring to a bit in 8th, not 7th, where it said that Chaos "grew bored on the very eve of victory" fighting a previously-never-mentioned invasion of the Empire. It's mentioned only once, never before, and only serves as a bit of pointless faction wank, almost as if it's implying they could've just come in and won any time they wanted to. This is on page 17, timeline box An Enemy Within. That's what Ward is notorious for, it drew skub from fans for good reason, and I feel it's worth mentioning on the article. This is different from, say, when a Khornate daemon backstabbed a Nurgle daemon to claim credit for a victory, which ended up in them losing the battle altogether. This wasn't a result of treachery or gloryhounding, or the renegade actions of one daemon leader, but a unified, concentrated effort of Chaos to abandon fighting one of their greatest threats, Sigmar, because they were bored. No way can one look at it that makes any sense, I think, and that's the idea, that Ward often interjects these random, nonsensical bits into his writing that seem to be dropped as soon as they come in. On another note, I just want to add that I feel it's a little unfair to specify me at fault for the edit war, when it was definitely a two way street. I wanted arbitration, yes, but I didn't come to your profile demanding someone else be suspended because I didn't agree with them while deliberately spinning disingenuous arguments on their page as to why they're a "liar" who shouldn't be able to edit due to said disagreement. All that said, my only issue is with the article. I feel like my edit was proper, fit the tone, and provided correct information. TheBadageBoys (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I've told you many times and given numerous instances in which Daemons would rather fight each other than humans, this isn't new. You're still ignoring The Daemonic Duel I see, and you're still pretending you know why Skarbrand attacked the Great Unclean One when we don't know why he did it. I've also pointed out how you're not only ignoring part of the section you're referencing (pretending Sigmar didn't have an impact) but you're also ignoring every other entry on the page that proves Chaos can't come in and win any time they wanted to. You also say it drew skub from fans yet I've asked you to provide a source of that and you were never able to. If the Chaos Gods left to fight in the Realm of Chaos that means it wasn't a unified effort, because they're leaving to fight each other. I also don't think you get the fact that Daemons, especially ones that Tzeentch has, are not logical creatures. As far as the editwar goes, you were the one who came in and went "my way or the highway". I was still trying to discuss it but you refused to respond unless I edited the page. I came here because even after you couldn't back up a single argument you continued to make them anyway, then refused to defend them or even talk about them, then refused to stop editing in arguments that were demonstrably wrong. What option does that leave me? -- Triacom (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
As I've said you can go see where people have talked about this. This isn't some kind of Wikipedia deal where I need to provide analytical sources or something of skub. It's skub. It's opinion. I think most would agree any kind of pointless faction wank isn't a good thing. Your "discussion" was just continually insulting me, calling me a liar, and to top it off continually editing the article and making no attempt to actually discuss it with me. The proof of all this is right there on my Talk page and in the edit history of the article. This is a line about a bad writer writing something bad on his article, which is dedicated to how bad he is. I'm not sure what part of this is so disagreeable to you. You're also using examples within Ward's book, which is a moot point, because that's the whole point, it's Ward's writing. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that every single Daemon is a lol-random-crazy being, which is just as false as saying they're all perfectly logical. I'm saying it's more of that they're being faced with a very genuine threat, Sigmar, and with him not yet being a god, they could do something about it, but they don't, because they're bored. What if they let the Vortex go up because they got bored? What if each Everchosen lost because he got bored? What if Archaon lost in the Storm of Chaos because he got bored? It makes no sense, it clashes with other material, and it only serves as needless faction wank, and yes, if it happened in an Orc book, it's just as bad, but this is an article about Ward, not Orcs, and he didn't write that codex either. TheBadageBoys (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
When you make a claim, you need to back it up if you get called on it, otherwise I can say it isn't true and/or you're lying about it. I only started to get mean with you after you repeatedly contradicted yourself, refused to cite anything, and kept making the same false statements. Even here you're doing it because you never cited a source backing your claim that Daemons wouldn't grow bored, yet on your talk page we both discussed the part in the book where it's stated that Daemons turn on each other when they're about to win. That happens when Skarbrand attacked the Great Unclean One and it happens here, that's not being illogical for the overall narrative, it's being consistent for the faction. Any time you replied to me I talked to you so don't go making the false statement that I was avoiding a discussion. The Ward article also isn't dedicated to how bad he is, it's dedicated to him, which is why there's examples of how he can do good lore as well. On your next point, even Tzeentch doesn't know everything about the future, why would they think Sigmar would become a diety, instead of just dying in a few decades? I also like how you're now claiming Daemons aren't all logical, I'm glad you stopped making that claim. As for your questions, those events didn't happen that way, so what's your point? You're trying to present actual efforts by other Chaos-aligned factions who are not Daemons and a literal infinite amount of Daemons as if they're the same thing as Chaos giving up on killing tribesmen and burning down their tents. The event doesn't clash with other material because it doesn't contradict anything (if you have proof it does I'd love to see it). Finally making it look like the faction might've been able to win one fight when everything else on the page isn't a victory isn't faction wank. It isn't a sin to show a faction getting a leg up on another, unless you want to claim every recorded fight is faction wank for the winner. -- Triacom (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I backed up my claim very well. The article is mostly negative, as Ward is in the minds of many a very negative writer, so you're wanting sources for a conjectured point of view, that his writing's bad, why not go through the whole article then and demand sources on him being a bad writer? Because he simply is, and people would challenge your edits. If you like Ward, that's fine of course, but you seem to think it's a very novel concept that he's disliked, or that people take issue with what he writes. You have a point, that you can't just say whatever you want in an article, but I feel I've backed my point up very well. Daemons are not "literally infinite", not even close, and they do work with Chaos-aligned factions. I'm not sure why you're saying they don't, for some reason. Infighting's a big part of it, but not the only part. They know to unify when a threat is severe, AKA the Vortex or during Everchosen invasions. And Daemons vary. Not all of them infight, not all of them are random and illogical, but not all of them are logical. I've told you it contradicts it because it was never mentioned before, it was never mentioned after, and it makes no sense that Chaos is poised to invade the Empire that early, somehow, and then leave because they're bored. Not every victory is wank, not at all, but when you say "This faction sucks so hard that they only won because the enemy got bored" that's going from giving factions a leg-up, to wanking them at the expense of another. The Skaven aren't wanked when they topple Dwarf-holds, just as Dwarves aren't wanked when they kill a hundred times their number in the process. It's bitter struggles between rival powers. This example is just pure, petty wank, made up for a subpar book by a poor author. If you go on /tg/, or many other communities, Ward's reputation is negative. This is one bit that's a negative part of his writing. I think where our problem is coming from is that you feel I need to source my point (which I did), but that if it's based on opinion - as in skub or poor writing, both purely opinion - it can't be on the article, and therefore I feel in turn that you're being insulting and don't mean to actually discuss anything. I think we have a serious misunderstanding of each other, I honestly do. Let me put it this way. Most of this site is opinion of its users and editors, if you went through every article and demanded analytical sources on what they say, you'd probaly gut 80% of the Wiki's content. We don't come here for dry scientific summaries of game rules, we come here because it's 1d4chan and we shoot the shit about tabletop games. That's a very broad summary of course, but I hope you get my point. Opinion is something necessary to this entire site, I feel. Without it, we'd just have articles summarizing the rules of systems and then literally nothing else. I really am willing to discuss this with you, I just think we need to be less heated on it, not calling each other liars or thinking we're trying to be disingenuous and sabotage an article. TheBadageBoys (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

How did you back up your claim? You declared something was a fact, then did nothing to prove it. If you want to back up your claim that fans thought that was skubby then you need evidence, and you haven't provided any. The only thing you're doing is restating it as if what you say will become true with enough repetition, which is the opposite of backing up your claim. Yes Ward's article is mostly negative, that doesn't mean it's only about his negatives. We had a similar issue on Lovecraft's page, where just because it's mostly about his literature doesn't mean it's only about his literature. "so you're wanting sources for a conjectured point of view-" I want evidence people were stating what you're saying they're stating. People talk about their opinions and feelings all the time on forums and imageboards, if it's really as notable as you claim it is then finding people talking about that section should be easy. As for your comment about me, if I really thought him being a bad writer was a novel notion we wouldn't have briefly discussed how he fucked up an existing concept when I brought up his Grey Knights codex. Rest assured I think it's awful, as were the majority of books written by him around that time (he did eventually get better). I find he'd usually have decent lore backing shitty rules, or shitty rules backing decent lore (and rarely a genuinely good/completely awful creation). "Daemons are not "literally infinite", not even close-" A few times I've wondered if you were new to the setting or not, and it's because of statements like this. Before the vortex was erected the Daemons were spilling out of the rifts in a never-ending tide and crashing on people's defences in huge waves. They were literally infinite and the whole point of the vortex was to draw magic away from the world so that there wasn't enough to sustain them. This is why Daemons can only show up when the winds once again blow strongly and why they fade away when they recede. "and they do work with Chaos-aligned factions. I'm not sure why you're saying they don't, for some reason." If you can find the part where I said that then please show it. What I said is that you're acting as if Daemons and their mortal allies should behave the same way. Personally I fail to see why they would, I don't recall an Everchosen being executed by a rival right before they were about to win and having it cost them the battle for instance. I also can't think of any time when a Chaos Lord and his army fought another and his army while being inside another enemy's territory. "They know to unify when a threat is severe, AKA the Vortex or during Everchosen invasions." We've already been over this, the Empire in its infancy is not a severe threat because there's nothing there yet. They were not even close to being a world power and would've been like a fly to everyone else in the setting. "I've told you it contradicts it because it was never mentioned before, it was never mentioned after, and it makes no sense that Chaos is poised to invade the Empire that early" I think you should look up the word "contradicts" because you're using it wrong. Bringing up an event that wasn't mentioned before only contradicts existing material if there was a reason it could not happen, in this case there isn't. Introducing new battles you haven't seen before is also how every army book has worked since there were army books. It not being mentioned again is because it's a piece of history, why would it be mentioned again? I don't think you get how Daemon invasions work, they don't have to be 'poised' to invade because they're literally always ready to carry out their purpose the second they're in reality, it's their default state. Finally, nearly all Daemon invasions were the Daemons fucking around. In those they show up, sow chaos (shocker) then leave when they're beaten or the winds recede. Only rarely do they Have a purpose besides just it for the kicks. Hell, you could probably count the times they wanted to have a permanent impact on one hand. As for the wank, we've already gone over how the Empire was armed with shit, armoured with shit or nothing, and at this point they wouldn't have even had a standardized army, what faction in the game would have trouble with them besides Beastmen? The only reason anybody loses to them in that state is because Sigmar kills their leader and that causes their forces to route, making it look like he's literally all they had. Anybody who likes the Empire should get that the Empire 30 years after Sigmar United the tribes is very different to the version thousands of years later. I don't have the opinion that skub can't be on the page, my point is just that you have to prove a problem exists or that a thing exists before you start calling it a problem/thing. I've been here for years and a few times you'll see this show up, either in a page called "tubes" or a page where somebody wrote fanfiction on the tyrant star. In these cases they'll claim they are a thing but when they weren't able to prove it they got slapped with the delete tag (before you ask, no I was not the one who put that on them). "Most of this site is opinion of its users and editors, if you went through every article and demanded analytical sources on what they say, you'd probaly gut 80% of the Wiki's content." Now I mostly browse the Warhammer parts of the wiki, however I can't think of a page that isn't accurate should it get fact checked, aside from the bits were it's obvious comedy which gets a pass because comedy here is allowed. If you asked me about anything on those pages then I'd likely be able to find you a supporting source very quickly. It's a testament to the contributors that it's in a state like that while also coming off as an opinion piece, and that's something I enjoy too. I don't have an issue with people writing that sort of thing, and I've done the same myself (most notably on the Damocles Crusade page) but again, I've never stood by a statement I couldn't back up with evidence. If you really did have evidence of people who got mad when the book launched over that section, and people who liked the book for that section (because that sort of divide is what skub is) then I really would ease off. -- Triacom (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, with statements like "Daemons are infinite" it makes it seem like you don't know the setting too well, or perhaps you're confusing Fantasy and 40k when they're not the same thing. Theoretically a Chaos god could keep making Daemons, but that expends energy, so there's a theoretical limit to how many Daemons they could keep making to replace their losses. 40k ups the numbers a lot on everybody, to where millions of Guardsmen is a small force and millions of Daemons is a minor incursion. That's why I think you're mistaking it, and why I think you think Ward's writing isn't that much of a problem. The Daemons very much want to win and leave a lasting impact, because they're the only way the Chaos gods can try to directly take over the world (corrupted mortals are much less reliable and prone to rebellion), and just the same, people like Sigmar are the only way the non-Chaos gods can try to directly stop them. How much godly help he was getting before he actually ascended is unclear, sure, but the point is Sigmar would be viewed as a great threat to Chaos, given how he'd been stomping their creations and uniting the most easily-corrupted race against them. If he'd just left it was "Sigmar's peerless battle skill", that would've been fine. Why does he have to throw in "they got bored"? That's the entire problem, and a problem with his writing across the board. It's also what turns it into faction wanking. He could've made up any dozen number of reasons they lost, but he chose "They could've totally won, but didn't want to! Lol!" How can you defend that? The Empire was stronger than you seem to think it was, and you seem to think Chaos wouldn't have had a strong motive to take them down when they could. Granted, you could put it in a way of underestimation, that they simply didn't know the Empire would later grow into a major thorn in their side, but that's not what Ward did. He wrote it with the express intent of wanking the faction, inventing this big invasion nobody ever talked about before that serves no purpose. And no, they couldn't have manifested like that on a dime. Daemons are unstable at the best of times and have difficulty even coming into the physical Chaos Wastes, and only when there's a concentrated effort to fight some major threat - again, Vortex - can they come into the world in large numbers, and only then if the Chaos gods can get the Winds under their control and stable long enough to keep them there, and by that point they're doing everything in their power to win. This isn't just a Daemon or two showing up to lead a raiding party, it's an entire army solely of Daemons invading the Empire. Yes, in theory that could happen with a great expenditure of energy, but it'd mean that they're there to either do or die, not walk off when they get bored of fighting. Sure, the Empire 30 years after formation is still somewhat primitive and not very numerous, but they're still strong enough to hold their own under someone like Sigmar, and it also begs question that if they're not that strong, what would drive Chaos to invade in the first place? If they knew Sigmar would become a threat, that could explain it, but that raises a second problem of them leaving if they're there in unison to defeat a future rival while he's vulnerable. As you said, even Tzeentch can't predict everything, but for them to band together to take down Sigmar, putting in all the effort that entails to field a Daemon army and so far from the Wastes at that, and then change all their minds out of nowhere and decide he's not a threat and leave? Daemons can be very fickle, but not all of them would be that indecisive or shifting at the same time. That's where I take issue with it, not that it couldn't physically have happened, but because it simply wouldn't happen. Can you really not see why that's illogical? Yes, Ward writes them losing elsewhere, not out of boredom, but that doesn't justify doing it in the first place. You can't just sweep a bad piece of writing under the rug because you only did it once. It's still there, and it matches Ward's track record. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
If I can't convince you, I've asked you to look it up and search around, just like you asked me to post on /tg/ to get a consensus, so I don't think either of us are honoring each others' requests. It's "skub" as in bad, it's something that people dislike, and for good reason. This is why I'd like arbitration, because at this point, and as I've said before, it seems we're not moving on this issue. You keep asking for facts, I keep asking what facts, and we're going in circles, which I think is what's caused frustration here. It's not that I want it my way or the highway, or that I want to lie or something, that's seriously not the case. I can't go out and find a scientific source that says "x number of players negatively felt about this change", and I hope you can see why that's a ridiculous request. It feels to me like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, and admittedly I think I've acted the same way to your counters. We've given everything we've got to say, and if we still can't find a resolution, that's when asking a mod to come in is the best option, right? To put it simply: Ward made up an invasion that shouldn't have happened, that he promptly dropped any mention of, resolved with Chaos becoming bored, all simply to wank the faction in question, a treatment that almost never happens. Again, your Orc example, but that's not Ward. Two wrongs don't make a right. And if you cite examples from the rest of his book, I point you back to the example I gave on my talk page: if Ward wrote in a Grey Knights codex that all of them were actually Orks the whole time and worshiped Gork and Mork, then wrote the same thing in his next Grey Knights codex, that doesn't make it okay, it doesn't make it sensible or logical writing. He could write something dumb a thousand times and it'd still be dumb. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I've never seen it referenced anywhere that it takes actual effort and resources that the Chaos Gods have a finite amount of to create Daemons, and descriptions like this: "washing over the world in immense and ever increasing tides" (6th edition Lizardmen, page 6) really does make it sound like not only are the Daemons numbers infinite, but that they're going to keep coming until the world is overwhelmed. At no point in any book is it stated that the Daemons numbers slowed or stagnated before the Vortex was erected. The biggest example of their infinite numbers to me is when Lord Kroak tries to hold them back from Itza. First he creates a massive dome that destroys Daemons who touch it, yet they were not only able to batter it for days on end because there were so many, but even when the dome explodes and levels the jungle for miles around, killing the Daemons in range, it's immediately beset on again as "countless more" pour into the city. Kroak fights them for months in the city, slaughtering thousands at a time and he's still overrun. It also mentions how even after his physical body was destoryed he continued to fight, "eventually denying them victory" which judging by the timeline and the fact that it doesn't say he won, would mean he lasted until the Vortex was erected. If you have a source that says it takes the Chaos Gods effort and energy that they have in a limited supply to create Daemons in Warhammer Fantasy I'd love to see it. On the contrary in 40k it's possible to kill Daemons forever, whereas I don't recall that ever happening in Fantasy (in this case I'm not saying it can't happen, just that I've never seen it) and this was true ever since the Eisenhorn books first came out (aka since 3rd edition). In 40k the kind of incursion that happened in Warhammer Fantasy is the kind of incursion you'd only see on a Daemon world, in which case the world's still fucked and they're not going to be able to just fight the Daemons off of it. "The Daemons very much want to win and leave a lasting impact-" I'm not saying they don't, I'm pointing out that in nearly every Daemonic incursion there was no way for the Daemons to leave a lasting impact, that's why nearly every incursion is them just fucking around. If I thought that is all they did I'd be ignoring the time they went after the Vortex and lost, or fought in the Storm of Chaos campaign and lost so badly, that they accidentally brought Volkmar the Grim back to life (I'm not kidding). "-but the point is Sigmar would be viewed as a great threat to Chaos, given how he'd been stomping their creations and uniting the most easily-corrupted race against them." Here's the thing though, mankind's easily corrupted and at that point as a whole is really weak, seeing as how nobody thought Sigmar would become a god why would they really care since he'd be dead in two or three decades? Even if they killed him the Daemons would fade away anyway once the winds receded and honestly you'd probably still have the same outcome, only a little sooner. I could easily see Sigmar becoming a martyr who died defending the Empire, which would've led to the spread of his cult a lot sooner since initially it looked like it was hampered by people not knowing what had happened to them. In that regard I could even argue that killing Sigmar would've been a terrible move. As far as throwing in them growing bored, I still fail to see why that's an issue because, as I've said again and again, the Empire wouldn't have presented any sort of obstacle and Daemons choosing to fight one another as opposed to a weaker group of humans is something that does have precedent. "The Empire was stronger than you seem to think it was-" Before Sigmar showed up they were a bunch of disparate tribes, that's it. They had no industry and were easy prey for Beastmen, going ahead just a few decades would hardly change anything. "and you seem to think Chaos wouldn't have had a strong motive to take them down when they could." Right, the Daemons could've... done what exactly? I already mentioned that burning their homes wouldn't have done any damage they couldn't have easily repaired, and as soon as the winds recede there go the Daemons. What kind of thing could they have done to "take down" the Empire that would've prevented its reformation as soon as the threat was gone? "He wrote it with the express intent of wanking the faction, inventing this big invasion nobody ever talked about before that serves no purpose." I don't know if you've noticed, but this sort of thing has been happening since 4th edition. Fights happen that aren't mentioned before, that's called filling in the blanks. Certain factions kick the shit out of other factions, usually when they're in a position of power and the other faction isn't. That's not being unfair to a faction or faction-wanking another, that's how life plays out and a number of factions intentionally fight dirty. In the Dwarfs Army Book on page 53 there's an entry called Affront in Athel Loren where the Wood Elves kick the shit out of the Dwarfs and slaughter them. On page 56 there's a bit called Vengeance of Athel Loren where a group of Dwarfs went into Athel Loren, cut down the oldest trees they could find, and then slaughtered any resistance they came across without any difficulty. In both cases both parties fought dirty and were in a position of power over the other, you should note that not once does the Daemon book talk about the Daemons losing because they grew bored once the Empire actually had its shit together, and they ended up being defeated in nearly every fight after that because they were up against a stronger foe than what the Empire could pull just a few decades after it was formed. You keep treating this one event as if it's saying the Daemons could beat the Empire at its peak at any time when it isn't saying that at all, and the book's history section is littered with examples of them failing to do that. "And no, they couldn't have manifested like that on a dime." I never said they did and neither does the book. It's vague and if you're trying to argue that means they just appeared without issue, then all you're doing is making assumptions. "only when there's a concentrated effort to fight some major threat - again, Vortex - can they come into the world in large numbers." Actually they can do it whenever there's a lot of magic around. They don't all have to pool together to do it, Tamurkhan for example would've summoned a massive horde of Nurgle's Daemons had he not been killed in the nick of time. There doesn't need to be a great threat and the winds of magic blow randomly, which is why poor kingdoms like the one in The Daemonic Duel can just be subject to a large Daemonic incursion if they're extremely unlucky. Daemons also can't "get the winds under their control" the way you seem to be describing, you're acting as if they can stay in reality indefinitely because they have some control over magic when I've never seen any example of that happening. The closest I can recall is possessions, but even then the physical body degrades and once that's gone the Daemon only has a limited window where they can remain in reality. "-and by that point they're doing everything in their power to win." What do you consider 'winning' in this scenario to be, because I guarantee whatever it is the Daemons weren't going to reach it. I also wouldn't call betraying your allies "doing everything in their power to win." "This isn't just a Daemon or two showing up to lead a raiding party, it's an entire army solely of Daemons invading the Empire." Are you sure? Because the book never says that. The Daemons numbers are not stated and we're not even given vague terminology like "hordes" or even "packs" of Daemons to go off of. It really could just be a raiding party and I already brought up on your talk page how, given the state of the Empire, it wouldn't be surprising if this force is something they could laugh off in their prime. "Sure, the Empire 30 years after formation is still somewhat primitive and not very numerous, but they're still strong enough to hold their own under someone like Sigmar-" Can you find even a single mention in any Fantasy Army Book where a single person from the Empire is mentioned to have helped hold it together besides Sigmar, while Sigmar was alive? When I said he was all they had I meant it because it seems like he was needed for everything, they didn't hold it together under him, he was the one who held it all together and they only seemed to get it together after he disappeared and his cult formed. "and it also begs question that if they're not that strong, what would drive Chaos to invade in the first place?" Well that's easy, it says right here in the book: "Briefly tired of their constant fraternal warfare, the dark brothers grant Jarl's desires." They fought with the Jarl because they were bored of fighting each other, then they went back to it because it was more exciting than fighting the Empire. Were it written a bit better it could even be comedic. "If they knew Sigmar would become a threat, that could explain it, but that raises a second problem of them leaving if they're there in unison to defeat a future rival while he's vulnerable." I addressed it before but I want to do it again because I wouldn't mind starting a second discussion over this, but don't you think becoming a martyr would've made Sigmar's cult grow a hell of a lot faster? "If I can't convince you, I've asked you to look it up and search around, just like you asked me to post on /tg/ to get a consensus, so I don't think either of us are honoring each others' requests." I did look around online, I didn't find any argument sparking out about An Enemy Within and the reason I asked you to post a link is because I wasn't assuming arguments didn't exist, I was assuming that if they did exist I was having a hard time finding them. "It's "skub" as in bad, it's something that people dislike, and for good reason." Oh, you don't know what skub is. Skub isn't something bad that people hate, skub is something where there's a large group of people who despise it, a large group who love it, and these people frequently fight over it. A good example of this is The Last Jedi where you'll find defenders and haters going at it like no tomorrow. It's a tag usually reserved for things that get people pissed off at each other, not for bullshit that makes no sense. "This is why I'd like arbitration, because at this point, and as I've said before, it seems we're not moving on this issue." Honestly I think we are getting somewhere, it's just taking a while to get there. "I can't go out and find a scientific source that says "x number of players negatively felt about this change-"" I don't need or want that, I just want a forum argument or imageboard argument that came out after the book was released. You don't need to take a poll on it. "Ward made up an invasion that shouldn't have happened, that he promptly dropped any mention of, resolved with Chaos becoming bored, all simply to wank the faction in question, a treatment that almost never happens." Let's try something new then, you keep saying this is just faction wank, but how many Daemons were there and how many humans did they fight against? What were the defenders armed with and what lasting damage would this have caused? How many battles did they fight and what level of resistance did they find themselves up against? I'm trying to see why it's a bad thing for writing in general and I'm not able to, but maybe that's because we might have different opinions on what faction-wank is. To me faction wank is the 7th edition Tau stuff, where they have a Stormsurge suit outright tank shots designed to tear through it, or have a Crisis suit take shots from a heavy bolter while being directly in front of the gun and it doesn't do any more than glancing damage. To me that sort of faction wank is shown when the Tau win a war because their enemies mysteriously lose all of their transports, artillery, scanners and all notions of common sense. They also suddenly lose the ability for their Rosarius's to protect them just so that the book can pretend Commissar's don't exist, and it forgets the fact that the Imperium can just shoot the Tau forces from orbit (it remembers it once, then immediately forgets again). Faction wank is when two characters and a drone manage to figure out there were Imperial Assassins skulking about, not because of something the Assassin did, but because they had a hunch that something was wrong, or that they were "somehow" picking up something on a sensor even though that would've been impossible (and the book addresses that, then forgets about it). Faction-wank to me is repeatedly describing the Tau as "perfect" and operating "perfectly" while showing the Imperials as not only being incapable of forming a cohesive battle plan or even fighting (having an Assassin forget to use her gun no less, which would've instantly killed her target), but being so incompetent that they literally march the Guardsmen into the areas where they'll be easily killed, then march Knights to where they would be easily gunned down, then send Marines to where they'll be easily gunned down. They were all marching in a line to one side of the city they wanted to take in a long line, instead of surrounding it and attacking on all sides which would've easily let them take it. Faction wank is two hundred Assault Space Marines getting into melee combat with the Tau by surprising them with an ambush, and losing. There's other bullshit like the Tau using gear that wasn't functional and they couldn't reach but I've gone on enough. That to me is faction wank, not just an off-hand mention about a time we had no detailed records of. If Ward had written that there were only a few Daemons ripping their ranks through because they were just awesome and perfect and their opponents sucked and stood no chance against them you'd find me right beside you in decrying it as a massive pile of shit.
Finally I want to address this last bit here in a separate paragraph: "That's where I take issue with it, not that it couldn't physically have happened, but because it simply wouldn't happen. Can you really not see why that's illogical?" What I find illogical is that you're fine with the four growing bored of fighting each other, yet you get mad when they grow bored of fighting in the very next paragraph as if there's no precedent for it. -- Triacom (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, so I think we've back-and-forthed enough. It seems we have a fundamentally different idea of how this event went down or should've gone down, possibly different understandings of Warhammer itself, which is totally fine, but it really does seem like we'll not make much more progress beyond blowing up AssistantWikifag's talk page. I don't mean this rudely at all, I just mean we're not getting anywhere quick, and there's more important stuff than this for people to discuss here. Saying that to both of us. I'm glad we've agreed on some things though, and like I said, I wanna work this out with you, but I don't want to drop my side entirely; this said, I don't want to drop yours either. Why not hit a compromise: instead of the edit saying it's a gross misunderstanding of history on Ward's part, just add in "aside from questionable fluff" to the entry on 8th? This way the idea of poor fluff is there, which is how I feel, and there's no indication that it clashes with anything, which is how you feel. I should mention your citation of other 8th fluff bits - such as Athel Loren's fights and Tamurkhan - are also regarded by many as poor. 8th is practically the prototype for The End Times in many ways, that's something you can see commonly stated on /tg/, and I doubt I need to go far looking for evidence of hate for that. I think it's fully fair to say it's fluff of questionable quality, but to meet you halfway, no mention of clashing or Ward misunderstanding the setting's history. Just like our compromise with Lovecraft the information is still there, but there's no overt judgement or accusation of what's been done, just a mostly neutral statement that it raises questions among fans. That it even makes people ask about it should be reason enough to include it. Good or bad is up to the reader's interpretation. Skub - which to clarify I didn't mean mine was the definition or something, it's just how I was using it, but I understand you correcting me - is of course two sides fighting over something trivial, which I think we've both done (not gonna lie, it's funny) would warrant a mention like that. Both sides get their say. Sound fair?
To emphasize, it'd look something like this: "Aside from some questionable fluff, it's not all that bad." We can reword this of course, I just want to find a neutral way to state that not everybody liked the fluff, so that way both sides - me not liking it, you being fine with it - have a mutual say. I am 100% fine working with you on this one. TheBadageBoys (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that's a middle ground I was trying to reach originally when I added a bit trying to reach a middle ground. A quick bit on the Dwarfs though, I've never found anybody, online or offline, who'd consider the Dwarfs example poor once they heard the full story and that one was 6th edition, not 8th. The Wood Elves crushed the Dwarfs because they attacked a merchant caravan, while the Dwarfs crushed the Wood Elves because they attacked in winter. I wrote it the way I did to show how a little additional context really changes the nature of the event, and how we shouldn't jump to conclusions when we don't have that context. -- Triacom (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I mainly meant the Tamurkhan stuff, but yeah, otherwise that's the kind of stuff I'm totally fine with. Factions exchanging blows, struggling with each other, all that. I'm glad we could hit a compromise though and if anything I'm sorry on my part it took so long to do so. I'll edit the article and you can have a look. TheBadageBoys (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting A Deletion of the Last Ringbearer page[edit]

The page is bloody useless. It should be deleted, as it has no value to tg and others seem to agree and want it deleted. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC) 08:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You forgot the part where the mass majority of what you're citing was a discussion at least six years old.
Call for deletion if you want, I feel like it should be at least subsectioned under the LOTR page itself if we keep it, but for fuck's sake, try to be less dishonest. --LGX-000 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
That just means we've gone 6 years without finding a reason to keep it. -- Triacom (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Which is perfectly fair, just a dumb thing to omit when pinging an admin for the purpose of having it deleted, along with the possibility of rewriting it as a small subsection of another article (which is likely the route I'll go, personally). --LGX-000 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I have already added The Last Ringbearer to the LOTR page. I would recommend someone read over it, seeing as I have a serious hate boner for this thing existing.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Old IP with new vandalizing[edit]

Apparently a Tyranid-fucker resurfaced, though whoever's editing under IP now has abandoned that in favor of more stock "insults" when vandalizing tactics pages. Requesting ban. --LGX-000 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary suspension for[edit]

I'm requesting a temporary suspension for an anon who's deleting large portions of the Age of Sigmar page, and has outright stated they think discussing those sections is a waste of time. This is the same section that's already been discussed at length multiple times and from what I'm guessing, they wanted it removed because they don't like that people called AoS names in the past. They're also deleting large swathes about the current state of the game, mentions of the General's Handbook, mentions of the various supplements and mentions of the old Warscrolls that are still up on GW's site, to the point where I'd almost call that vandalism. -- Triacom (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually it turns out this is an old IP that's up to the same trick, if you check their talk page you'll see it's the exact same user who was doing the exact same thing last year, and even back then I left them a message on their talk page asking them to come to AoS's discussion page to talk it over. I'd like to request a perma ban for them because they just keep coming back to delete large sections of the page. -- Triacom (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A little update, I'm happy to say after being asked again and again and again to go to the talk page, the anon finally decided that it wasn't a waste of time and went there. As such I'd like to retract my request for a suspension/perma-ban, since at the time of writing this I now only had no reason to think they would, but I was 100% they were like other users who wouldn't. -- Triacom (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting ban and/or page protection[edit]

So Starship Troopers keeps attracting editwars, primarily between Thundercles and some other anon who insists on calling him various forms of "white trash faggot", etc. etc. Not a particularly severe insult or anything, but the page history and linked edit histories makes it clear that they're done this before in multiple instances and they're probably just gonna keep doing it to pick a fight, which I feel warrants a ban, and at the LEAST calls for the page to be protected so we can stop this dumb shit repeating itself. e: added links. --LGX-000 (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Anon: may be a potential vandal[edit]

  • I am putting my two cents here to keep an eye on Special:Contributions/ as the anon's history shows edits that are either nonsensical or - in the case of the images - reuploads of shitty images that has very little to do with the targeted subject. IMO, this may look like a vandal in the making, suggest to put the anon on our watch list just in case. Derpysaurus (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent ban for[edit]

I'd like to request a permanent for anon, they seem to be the same as that other anon a while back who just kept deleting any mention of women (and tried deleting part of your talk page) and since it's a new IP, and they've done this before under a different IP I'd also like to ask for the pages to be protected, so that the anon can't continue to edit it. It might be possible that they're all different people who just happen to make the exact same edits, but I highly doubt it. -- Triacom (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again the anon is trying to delete topics, this time on Root's page instead of yours, so I'm definitely saying they're the same person. -- Triacom (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I can now say with 100% certainty that they're the same, since they make the exact same mistake with undoing punctuation that they did when they were under the other IP's. They also don't seem to have any interest in stopping their deletions on Root's talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary block for KiTA[edit]

While this user has made several productive edits in the past, he has recently instigated a long and increasingly acrimonious edit war in the SJW article that he refuses to compromise on. I would like to request that you give him an opportunity to calm down before he can exacerbate the matter further. --Newerfag (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit war in Lasgun[edit]

User keeps deleting a section I wrote (and many people elaborated upon) from the Lasgun page. May I also point that, despite the Policy forbidding it, this kind of behavior is quite widespread in the Wiki.

Your section uses a lot of words to say what's already being said in 'Why the Lasgun is still being used'. If you really must put it somewhere, you're welcome to put it on your User page here, but I agree with the 'less is more' side on the Lasgun article itself. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, after the "editwar" we had a discussion and the page was modified accordingly. Nothing against that. But what's irritating is someone coming out of the blue and deleting a section because "he doesn't like it". A behavior that if my understanding is correct is forbidden by the rules. 12:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for user and and and and[edit]

It's just another idiot who wants the SJW page to reflect their own beliefs. -- Triacom (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated to include since they're doing the same thing and making the same edit. -- Triacom (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Updated to include for the same reason. Can that page be protected so that anons can no longer edit it? -- Triacom (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Same for for the same reason. Can the page be protected so that this stops happening from anons? -- Triacom (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Added for for the same reason. Again I'd like to request the page be protected, as anons will continue to think and add in whatever Sargon of Akkad or whatever other anti-SJW tells them to. -- Triacom (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Triacom's conclusion, and I also think the /pol/ should receive a similar treatment. I'm getting tired of dealing with the aspiring /pol/iticians editing these pages. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

As do I. In fact, make them permanently protected since some registered users have tried to do the same thing in the past and I'd rather not have to put up with them too. --Newerfag (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Priority deletion of the SJW and /pol/ pages on this wiki.[edit]

Shit posters and /pol/tards seem to want to edit the pages in order to fit their narrative. I am not alone in this and frankly, most of the other editors are growing--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC) tired of seeing and having to repair the pages after anons and grandoise idiots shit all over them.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think we need to delete the pages, I'd rather have them permanently protected since that would solve nearly all of our problems. -- Triacom (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

requesting a timeout on[edit]

This anon is vandalising several articles, namely MTG (and related), Heresy, Cancer. I'm currently sifting through his edits to see what potential damage he caused --Taufag (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, so he's adding what seems like decent mechanical info on MTG and D&D (can't confirm that on my own, I'm not expert on either), but is also hell-bent on calling WotC heroin-sniffing faggots (he even created the completely off-topic and useless heroin page). --Taufag (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm also going to have to request a suspension for them, they're not going to let up. -- Triacom (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for TheBadAgeBoys[edit]

TheBadAgeBoys have tried to remove all references of Lovecraft's racism from his page more than I'd care to count, purely because they don't like it, and twice now other users and I have discussed it with them on the talk page. The first time they eventually agreed but then they started deleting it again. The second time followed the same route, and now they're back to deleting mentions a third time, ignoring the talk page as they do so. At this point I think it's clear that they're not going to stop, so I'm going to have to ask for a suspension, if not a ban since I don't believe a suspension will teach them anything. -- Triacom (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thankfully the user finally went to the discussion page again after days of avoiding it. I doubt this will change anything though, they're just asking the same questions for the third time and they're going to get the same answers, and then they'll be back trying to remove any mention of it again while pretending any conversation about it didn't happen for the fourth time. -- Triacom (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Opinion on user‎‎?[edit]

Like, I don't know if they're actually doing anything wrong, but something about their recent spree of shilling for the long-abandoned page Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition races feels a little... off. The antagonistic attitude towards the List of D&D PC Races page also feels a little weird, for some reason. Maybe just encourage them to make a better cross-promotion between the two D&D race list pages and make a D&D 3e race category? It's the only edition without one so far, whilst the others do have it.--QuietBrowser (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I caught him adding vitriol and dubious edits to MTG pages, too. I think he deserves at least a two-week timeout --Taufag (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
He's back again, and now he's mixing some legitimate, if minor errors, with actively vandalizing shit, especially the main MtG page. Maybe it's time he got banned?--QuietBrowser (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Ban for[edit]

They modified my user page without my permission, and any attempt for me to get an explanation for this behavior was ignored. I suggest a three day ban to allow him to realize the severity of his offence. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for user TheBadageBoys[edit]

Once more I'm going to have to request a ban for TheBadageBoys. They've now announced that they're no longer interested in discussion in regards to the H.P. Lovecraft page, and they've stated they're going to continue fighting against the edit, ignoring what I, LGX-000, Namefag, Urist, and several anons have to say about it, both in the discussion page and in the edit summaries. They've cited nothing to back up their beliefs beyond their own personal opinion and many times they've made false claims, like saying they've asked for cooperation on the most recent topic when they've not once made the effort. They've also argued in bad faith multiple times, which was so obvious even another anon on the talk page acknowledged it. I expected it to turn out like this though, since twice the user has said they were fine with what was on the page, and then twice they changed their minds both times, editing the main page to be exactly how they wanted it to be again without going to the talk page first, and then refusing to go to the talk page again for days, opting instead to start an editwar.

I don't believe TheBadageBoys can be reasoned with at this point, and not just because they've said they refuse to discuss it further. Even if they claim that they'll talk with other users and are fine with the edits as is, they'll just go back on their word sometime later, as they've already done twice before. As such, I'm requesting the user be banned. -- Triacom (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Having observed his behavior, his "arguments" are textbook sealioning and must be dealt with accordingly. --Newerfag (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a ban on[edit]

User is maliciously 'blanking' the Zweihander page, without any reason. The article has been 'blanked' like that multiple times recently - it could be one faggot doing it from multiple IPs. We might have a bigger problem with a bunch of trolls targeting certain pages recently --Taufag (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we have intel suggesting that 4chan may be trying to troll us? If so we might want to lock down the wiki, or take measures to prepare for the coming storm. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Nah, I dunno about all that - most of the blanking was focused on the accusations of some anons shilling the game in /tg/ and possibly being the creator in disguise, and it just escalated from there. I wouldn't immediately resort to panicking about a raid of vandalism, not just because the most it'd do is waste everyone's time, but because there's nothing to suggest anything of the sort as opposed to being a bunch of disconnected anonymous posters being idiots for unrelated reasons. I doubt the rest of the site at large outside /tg/ gives that much of a shit about us anyway. --LGX-000 (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't have intel, just a hunch. With Zweihander it seems to have started with deleting 'The Shill Among Us' section, and reverts made the anons buttmad, making them blank the page entirely. I wouldn't lock the entire wiki, though. Overall, I doubt there's a major orchestrated plot - what I had in mind was a few independent trolls, each hellbent on shitting up different articles, Zweihander being one of them. --Taufag (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I would note that accusations of shilling and pandering seem to be more common, both from anonymous users and editors about as new as me (1-3 years), than, say, a year or two ago (I might suggest looking at timestamps on discussion pages of particularly controversial articles). I genuinely don't think there is any sort of organization, but I wouldn't be shocked or surprised is raiding is becoming more common. I'm not going to make assumptions on what course(s) should or can be taken to fix future problems, but it seems like there very likely could be problems that worsen in the coming months. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


User:Satyaa is advertising an engineering site. --The Hat That Was (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting temporary lock of the Zweihander page[edit]

The Zweihander page has been subject to editwars for some time now, with one or more anons 'blanking' it. One reason given was "lol don't promote this asshole's game". This leads me to believe malicious edits were made by assmad losers in the gencon's 2018 ENnie awards (Zweihander won two major titles). --Taufag (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a warning for User:Cavgunner[edit]

He's shitting up the wiki with his own opinions and refusing to explain them on the talk page when reverted, instead demanding it should instead be justified for his edits not to be removed. -- 01:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I have refused nothing, sir. As I have explained to you, I provided a concise justification for my logic behind each edit beforehand. I have also indicated to you several times that I am more than happy to openly discuss with you, in detail, any specific concerns about any edit that you may have. Unfortunately, at the moment, the only thing I can ascertain is that you simply don't like my edits. And that's fine, you're entitled to that- but unless I am mistaken, all editors here are free to make reasonable changes without an in-advance personal consultation. So again, if you wish to discuss, I am happy to, but I don't believe that it is reasonable for you to demand that I defend my position (when, in fact, I already have) without providing specifics of your own. --Cavgunner (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Both I and another anon have reverted your edits at this point. Simply put, they're a useless attempt to 'fix' 1d4 and make it more like Lexicarnum. And the standard here is that if your edit gets reverted, you explain on the talk page. Not demand we explain why it should go and resort to ad hominem attacks. -- 01:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Well sir, again, you are entitled to your opinion. You say I'm making 4chan like something else; I say my sole objective is to make some of its neglected articles more literate. And for the record, I certainly have not been anything less than courteous to you. If we are being honest, I don't feel that this is a sentiment that you have reciprocated either here or in your other comments. But look, if all we're really arguing about here is who opens the damn discussion page, I'll happily open it, and I will explain, again and in detail, why I believe the changes I made are positive ones. I would ask only that you keep an honest and open mind. --Cavgunner (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
"I've never been anything less than courteous to you." Huh, interesting, this certainly isn't courteous:
"Now you're following me around? Petty." (For your information there's a recent changes page I look at every so often)
And blanket deleting an entire section (the promotions) from an article has nothing to do with literacy. -- 02:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
No sir, I wasn't trying to be rude, I was just calling it like I saw it within the context of that moment. Do you really want to weigh my one frustrated retort against the context of your own comments? Even though I unequivocally disagree with your blanket reversions, I have indicated numerous times that I am nevertheless 100% willing to engage in dialogue with you. I have not indicated that you should "gtfo if you don't like it," nor have I implied, as you have, that my interpretation of what 4chan is somehow holds more value than your own. I certainly have not attempted to report you simply because because your opinion did not align with mine. And yes, I absolutely stand by that section deletion because I feel that it added no value to the article. That's what opinions are. At the risk of repeating myself, at this point we are only arguing about who opens the discussion page, which I have already offered to do.
So again, I offer once more to open a reasonable dialogue with you about those articles. Can we count on each other to set this argument aside and participate with open minds? I am if you are. --Cavgunner (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the anon. Despite saying they're open to discussing these pages, Cavgunner has not made a topic on the discussion pages and insisted their edits should stay unless proven otherwise on the talk page. I'd also like to point out that while Cavgunner says the anon's reversions are because the anon doesn't like the edit, they fail to mention they made their edits in the first place under the grounds of not liking the main page. They're trying to take the high ground while being a complete hypocrite. If Cavgunner was willing to have a discussion, they would not have avoided the discussion page in favour of an editwar, and the anon wouldn't have had to make a topic on your page. -- Triacom (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Triacom, I am saddened by your assessment, but I've always found you to be reasonable so I will reflect on your comments. I must reiterate that I never once indicated that I was less than 100% willing to discuss the matter. That being said, if I'm wrong I'm wrong and will gladly carry on as guidelines dictate. For my edification, can you please clarify where it states that one party or another is specifically responsible for setting up the discussion page pertaining to any reversion? If that responsibility falls to the person who wished to modify the page in the first place, does that responsibility still apply in situations where the page was reverted without explanation? Once the discussion is being conducted, what parameters define whether the edit can continue or if the page should remain unchanged? How long must the discussion remain open? What if there is no response to the discussion? I have not encountered this situation before, so I hope I am not displaying ignorance in these matters. I will also be more than happy to issue an apology to the anon if one is desired. --Cavgunner (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Actions speak louder than words. You can say you wanted to discuss the matter but if you never go to the discussion page then that doesn't ring true, how do you plan to discuss it without going there? The wiki has a bunch of unwritten rules, such as "if you're going to make an edit you think is controversial, start a topic on the discussion page first and then make the edit if nobody objects or you've talked things through" but one of the most important is: "if you make an edit on the page and it is immediately disputed, make a topic on the discussion page instead of creating an editwar." That one is the entire reason we have the editwar tag after all. Since you say you don't know what to do though, I'll walk you through it: once you've started a discussion, continue through it until you come to an agreement or get a majority vote with other people (or until the talk page is left alone long enough without other replies, I usually give it one or two weeks), and if that's not possible (either the other side refuses to speak with you further or they never go to the talk page yet continue to revert your edits) then you should come to this page or Root's page and seek moderator assistance. Following those steps will solve the issue at hand. -- Triacom (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed they do. I am proud of my many contributions here, and if I was perhaps too zealous in protecting one or two of them then that was my mistake. I didn't understand the process. Make of it what you you will, but that's all there is to it. That said, I appreciate your clarification on what guidelines are actually available. As I have stated my only wish is to adhere to the guidelines, but due to the now-late hour the discussion page will have to wait until tomorrow. No rush, since the pages in question are in their safely reverted state anyway. --Cavgunner (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So I picked one of your edits at random ([2]) and, while I'm not opposed to pruning and tightening up pages in general, you definitely over-cut there -- in e.g. the first paragraph of "Overview", it's worth mentioning how you use it against melee armies or shooty armies, which the original didn't do a great job but your revision didn't do at all. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Duly noted. I'll try to be more mindful of that in the future. Thanks. --Cavgunner (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ban request for User:Venusay‎[edit]

He's adding pages that are just ads for websites. -- 13:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ban request for User:[edit]

He's be requested previously not to randomly blank large chunks of pages, and simply ignored those requests. Now he's back and continuing this poor behaviour. -- 11:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism on the Xeph page[edit]

User is continually erasing the actual game picture of a xeph from its page and replacing it with a picture of a Protoss templar. No, he's not commenting on the visual similarities between the two or otherwise making some kind of joke (which wouldn't require erasing the actual artwork anyway), he's just replacing the picture with a completely text-free picture. I'm getting really sick of undoing this change and scolding him for not putting the effort into actually making it a decent edit, so I finally put both pictures up. And then he erased everything I'd added to just leave the templar pic with no text again. Please, talk to him about his behavior.--QuietBrowser (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ban request for User:[edit]

Arguing on the main page. He's been told to stop multiple times. -- 04:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd say a suspension would do just fine, I don't think that one's a troll or anyone malicious, it seems to me that they just don't know what they're doing wrong and refuse to read the edit summaries to figure it out. They also have made some good edits in the past, so I'm not in favour of banning them. -- Triacom (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I agree with Triacom. Something to make them think about why they got blocked, at least. -- 05:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Problems With Signing Up[edit]

Hey, sorry. New user here. Attempting to sign up for an account on three different occasions, but it denies all with the statement "Incorrect or missing CAPTCHA." I tried to see if it had something to do with word count or something up with the script in the part of the sign up, but still not sure. Perhaps it's an error on my end, but a look on your part would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for the read and sorry to bother you! -- 03:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if you're still having the issue, but the captcha is the final blank space directly above the Create your account button. It will ask you a question, and the answer is on the wiki, all you need to do is find it and type it in. -- Triacom (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Only War CAPTCHA[edit]

Every time I try to add a link to the wiki (most recently Codex - Adeptus Ministorum /tg/ Edition) I try random capitalizations and cuts of "there is only war", "Only War!", etc. until I get a different CAPTCHA question. It's quite frustrating, since I know the answer; I just don't know how to phrase it right. Is it possible to make that question permit more answers? --Auroch (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove "only" from your answer. -- Triacom (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a perma-ban for user[edit]

Same idiot who always deletes any mention of women on the Imperial Guard pages, particularly the Catachan, Cadia and Mordian Iron Guard pages. As I've done several times before I'm requesting a perma-ban for the user doing the edits as they're nothing more than a troll, and I'm also requesting the pages be permanently protected. -- Triacom (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As expected, the anon's editing your page and Root's page to remove the request. -- Triacom (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Disregard what I wrote earlier, he cool tho'.

Hey anon, you realize that we can see which edits are yours and that it's obvious you're not me? I for one don't have your IP address which the admins can easily check despite the username. -- Triacom (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Further, anon, you do realize that revert warring on another user's talk page is a fairly quick way to get yourself banned from any wiki? No, you don't because you're either a troll or really really stupid? Okay than. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Fanon Enforcer on Traitor Legion Loyalists[edit]

We have a guy over on the page for Traitor Legion Loyalists trying to force his own fanon. I've pointed out in the source materials where he is wrong in the canon on several issues. I have even went so far as to contact one of the developers of the Badab War campaign books for clarifications and uploaded the conversation. But still he denies deletes any info that contradicts his own fan theories. The guy is Triacom, btw. This has been going on for a while and it needs to stop.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I've pointed out where you're wrong in the canon on several issues, and I'm not trying to enforce fanon, I'm trying to ensure your fanon does not get enforced on the main page. You had a conversation with a playtester who outright told you that what you're putting on the main page was never anything more than a passing hint in the lore, yet you're treating that as if it's something factual and fully fleshed out. You're also taking a single novel and assuming that it's the only possible correct version of the lore, even though the guy who wrote it says otherwise: "An author can say Character X was on World Y in Year Z, and another author might contradict it in something else written several years later if he or she has a different idea. Choose which you prefer? Assume both are false sightings and Character X was nowhere near either world? It's your call. That's the point. There is no canon. There are several hundred creators all adding to the melting pot of the IP." Also this: This has been going on for a while and it needs to stop. We've been talking for a few hours, if you want an example of something that's been going on for a while then look up the anon who keeps trying to delete any mention of women from Imperial Guard pages, and who's been at it for roughly half a year. -- Triacom (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You've been making false claims over there the whole time. Like trying to say there is no evidence of there having been two Minotaurs chapters, despite even an inuniverse Inquisitor pointing out that there appears to be more than one and there being records of their actions long before their supposed founding.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The in-universe Inquisitor says finds discrepancies between their behaviour across millenia and is confused over an event that even the book tells you nobody's really sure if it happened the way it's written or not. That is not evidence of there being more than one Chapter, and it's a hell of an assumption for anyone to make. -- Triacom (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking if that kind of thing was enough to declare something fact, then that would mean the Sons of Anteaus are irrefutably Death Guard. Also if what you're saying is fact and we know that they're actually Iron Warriors, please tell us why Lexicanum isn't accepting it. -- Triacom (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I am so glad you are doing this here where the admin can see it.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd never hide it, not accepting theories and conjecture as fact is the opposite of fanon. When you have something that's theory and conjecture, or when you're trying to use something as canon when its own author is outright arguing against that, then you need to take a step back and look at what your sources are. Ignoring what the author says, and ignoring something that in-universe is nothing more than theory and conjecture and assuming all of those to be fact is fanon, and it's what you've been doing this whole time. -- Triacom (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of doing this where the admin can see it though, why don't you write here why Lexicanum isn't your "facts"? I'm sure we'd love to see it posted here. -- Triacom (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Because I get my facts from the damned source books. TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Since you're not going to say it, I'll say it: Lexicanum does not accept theory as fact, and they do not accept conjecture as fact. Your argument was rejected from Lexicanum because there's no source you can cite that isn't speculation, and there's no reason why we should treat speculation as fact. -- Triacom (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I wrote much of the article on the Lexicanum.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Then why do I have to be the one to say that your assumption of them being different Chapters was rejected because there's no in-universe source for it? -- Triacom (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The IA books point out that the two chapters fight differently, act differently, have different liveries, one was founded during the Cursed Founded, one predates that, the only thing they have in common is their name, and Eadwin Brown who helped develop the campaign said they are two different chapters. So we have people in universe pointing out they are different and we have a developer stating they are different. This is 1d4chan, you can bring in out of universe confirmations from the people who worked on the damned games.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The battle you are referring to even states that its events are little more than conjecture and both Angron and Mortarion are vastly different before and after their Horus Heresy books were written, that doesn't mean new people replaced them. The Emperor was also very different before Black Library and ADB started writing him, that also doesn't make him or his works any more or less factual than anyone else's and ADB even says as much. The Chapters in CS Goto's works also look and operate vastly different than outside of them and he says Dark Eldar worship Slaanesh, that doesn't make his claims any more factual. As such out of universe events are not taken as factual because any author can literally say anything they want, unless it's in-universe, a person is not a source for something unless they wrote it happening in-universe. -- Triacom (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The statements on conjecture are part of the inuniverse coverup the High Lords have in place to keep the Minotaurs safe from the Ordo Hereticus. You dont need a sentence that reads "The High Lords are covering the origins of the Minotaurs to keep the Minotaurs safe from the Ordo Hereticus." to tell you that. Everything written has a purpose. If their weren't two Minotaurs chapters, then there wouldn't have been any writing of stark and striking discrepancies between them. Writing its "conjecture" in universe followed immediately by pointing out the vast differences between them. This is 40k. If you are looking for something being written A-B-C out and out in plain language, then this is the wrong franchise.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The statements on conjecture are the book itself telling you it might not be accurate. You're assuming that's what the conjecture is about even though the book itself tells you otherwise. If their weren't two Minotaurs chapters, then there wouldn't have been any writing of stark and striking discrepancies between them. Of course there would be, they hadn't been seen for millennia and were different than when they were last sighted, why wouldn't that have been recorded? Also you do not need to have the entire Chapter be replaced for it to have changed over millennia. Also they didn't write that it was conjecture before pointing out vast differences, those were separate entries and we know nothing of how they fought that particular battle, if they were even there. -- Triacom (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, must I point out how you have continued to claim the Grey Knights dont use the Emperor's geneseed, even after posting citations and excepts that directly states they do?TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, the Emperor does not have gene-seed. Secondly, the Emperor was unable to leave the Golden Throne at all for nearly the entirety of the Horus Heresy. He only left it to fight Horus, and afterwards he was too crippled to do anything but go back on the chair. The Grey Knights might say they used gene-seed derived from the Emperor, but the fact of the matter is there was no point in time he'd have been free to create it. You seem to be having a hard time understanding that 40k runs off of unreliable narration, and that just because one group believes something, that doesn't make it true. That's why the mantra GW runs on is "everything is canon, not everything is true". -- Triacom (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting ban of user Triacom for repeatedly posting false information[edit]

The user Triacom has continuously edited pages to include false information, deletes / undoes any corrections to these pages, and has refused to stop even after being shown excerpts with citation with the correct information. The pages I'm aware of are the Grey Knights and the Traitor Legion Loyalist pages.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Cite me one time when I did any of that, was it when I refused to accept theory and conjecture (which is even stated in-universe to be conjecture) as fact, or was it when I pointed out the plothole with the Grey Knights gene-seed, that there was no moment where the Emperor was free to get off the throne to create it? Maybe it was when I told you that the books are not always reliable narrators by design, and that just because one faction believes something, that doesn't make it true? Also please cite your sources with in-universe facts, for example if you want to factually state there are two Space Marine chapters with the same name, please point out to me where they state this in-universe and don't merely guess that it's the case. If you want to state the Emperor made unique gene-seed for the Grey Knights, please point out to me where it says he was free to do that and where it says he was fine to leave the Golden Throne. Furthermore, please show me where this unique gene-seed isn't just a belief from the Grey Knights that it's unique using an unbiased source.
Those are my kind of standards for people who want to declare old lore is wrong and new lore is 100% accurate and factual. -- Triacom (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
For the record if everything in every 40k book was true then we'd also have to rewrite pages to say that Eldar cannot fully grasp or speak human languages, that Terminators can backflip, and that both Tyranids and Necrons Bray like goats. You cannot trust everything in GW's books and like the quotes I've given you from the authors, designers and editors, it was designed to be this way. -- Triacom (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Your personal standards are irrelevant. On the Grey Knights page, the 8e Codex states the use geneseed made from the Emperor's genecode in multiple places, as does the novel The Emperor's Gift. Not even older lore contradicts this. You are posting false information based on your own disregard for the lore.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Older lore and current lore both state the Emperor was confined to the Golden Throne until he went to fight Horus. You can assume that somebody else made the Grey Knights gene-seed, but that would just be an assumption. As such, writing that it's a fact they use a unique gene-seed is wrong because it's only supported by assumption, and it's just as like the Grey Knights only assume/believe their gene-seed is special. For the record, the lore in the codices is not infallible, and as I've already said (and quoted directly) several times, the designers, editors and writers have stated this is by design. -- Triacom (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

AssisstWriteFag, feel free to go look at the pages, their talk pages, and revision history yourself. The ones on the Grey Knights are particularly blatant.TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd recommend that too, several times, most notably on the Traitor Legion Loyalist talk page I've quoted Andy Hoare, Aaron Dembski-Bowden and Marc Gascogne, who all talk about the same point: none of the lore in the game is supposed to be 100% accurate. TheNuclearSoldier refuses to accept this however, and keeps insisting that the lore they like is the only correct lore, even if they can't back that up as being an exception to the aforementioned rule. -- Triacom (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to comment that, regardless as to whoever is right or wrong, requesting someone be banned over differing opinion is an incredible scummy move, even for 4chan standards. -- 08:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that. It's crass, and a ban should not be used as a tool to remove someone who is disagreeing with you, no matter how intense that disagreement may be. I'd also point out that 40k lore is, by its very nature, fluid and open to interpretation. All too often, statements that are presented as fact must be taken with a grain of salt, perhaps more so in the case of some of 40k's more poorly-written works. On the other hand, neither should such statements be immediately disregarded. If the 8e Codex states that the Grey Knights were created using geneseed that was derived from the Emperor directly (I don't have the book), then that should not be disregarded. *How* this was accomplished after the Emperor's internment is rather beside the point- clearly, it was accomplished, somehow. Or... was it? I hope you see my point. --Cavgunner (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The statement from the Grey Knights Codex says that the Grey Knights consider the Emperor to be their maker, which as I pointed out was odd seeing as how he was confined to the Golden Throne and unable to make them directly at the time. If you check the talk page though you'll see I'm not disregarding the statement, I'm saying we cannot assume it to be true because it's at odds with the lore on the Horus Heresy, and I proposed putting this on the main page (what the Codex says and the inconsistency). -- Triacom (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The only thing it's against is your fan theory you keep trying to forceTheNuclearSoldier (talk)
I don't have a fan theory about their lore, I'm pointing out an inconsistency that we've both agreed on: the Emperor was unable to personally work on their gene-seed because he needed to remain on the throne. -- Triacom (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's it. I'm getting the Grey Knights codex and checking this. Expect judgement within the next 48 hours. However I am very pissed that this is a thread. TheNuclearSoldier, you need to explain shit without resorting to Ad hominem. Triacom is usually a reasonable fellow and the fact he hasn't thrown down on you speaks much to his patience. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

To help you out, I'm going to directly quote TheNuclearSoldier here (from the Traitor Legion Loyalists talk page): "They say the Grey Knights use geneseed made from the Emperor's genecode. In no uncertain terms. And as we know the Emperor was on the golden throne, so couldn't have made it himself." Now I'm going to quote TheNuclearSoldier quoting the Grey Knights Codex talking about their gene-seed in comparison to other Marines: "Even the Space Marines of the Adeptus Astartes are too far removed from their creator to embody such purity, their genetic integrity faded by hundreds of generations and thousands of years, given to varying degrees of imperfection. Not so the Grey Knights, whose unblemished line reaches back to their maker in an unbroken chain." In other words, the Grey Knights believe the Emperor made them, and both TheNuclearSoldier and I have stated he could not because he was confined to the throne at the time. That is not a fan theory, and it is not false info. It is something we both agree on, even if TheNuclearSoldier is mad about it. -- Triacom (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Depending on the edition of the codex, I'll give you the citations. Read them for yourself: 5e - pg7 7e - "In the Emperor's Image" 8e - pages 7, 27, and 37TheNuclearSoldier (talk)

"'Where the other Space Marine Chapters were built upon existing stock, the Grey Knights were born of a new gene-seed, one without the flaws of those that had gone before, and which carried the gift of the Emperor’s own flesh and soul." So was each Grey Knight a doughty warrior, his strength and endurance increased well beyond human limitations by the Emperor’s gift and then honed further by rigorous training." - Codex: Grey Knights (5e), pg7 "The Return" This is literally the first reference written on who their progenitor is. TheNuclearSoldier (talk)

which carried the gift of the Emperor’s own flesh and like literally all geneseed, then? -- 05:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
No. All other Astartes use geneseed of the Emperor's primarchs. That line flatly states the geneseed is derived from the Emperor.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
I have read the lore cited. My conclusion is as follows: 5E Codex: states they are a boon, not flat out said to be directly descended from him. 7E Codex: Jumps more into the idea that they are descendants of the Emperor in geneseed. 8E Codex: Lightly brushes on the codex, but leaves it ambiguous as to whether they were created directly from him. Triacom is also correct, because newer lore (i.e. the Horus Heresy series) states that The Emperor could not have left the golden Throne due to Magnus, and as such, how would he have time to then do gene science to create the Grey Knights? Therefore, I believe this should be classified as a GW lore fuckup as usual, and should be resolved similarly to the T'au page and how we handled their whole psychic defenses bs. Simply write it in comically. We'll have to wait for either 9th edition or Siege of Terra books to better outline this. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The Emperor didn't need to be the one to do it. His Biotechnical Division were the ones who developed the Astartes project.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
Bullshit. Find me any lore that supports this assertion- oh wait you can't because the we've been here before several times. There is no lore that supports the idea that his team could make unique gene-seed, especially without a Primarch to work off of and especially not in the under 55 days timeframe they had to work with. This is a step further than your usual claims though, since now you're claiming the project was developed without the Emperor's involvement, and that is a lie. -- Triacom (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
By the way, what you've just written is the definition of fanon, it's a theory that you insist is true despite nothing backing it up. -- Triacom (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Just seeing how you like your own games.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
>Unironically using 'I was only pretending' as an excuse -- 08:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want to do what I do then you would not have a fan theory about their origin, and you would not be pushing that as canon and asking for me to be banned just because I disagree with your fan theory. -- Triacom (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
>That line flatly states the geneseed is derived from the Emperor.
No, it flatly states that they have 'the gift of the the Emperor's own flesh and soul', which makes them just like all the other geneseed, as the Primarchs are made from Emp's own flesh and soul. Your interpretation is not fact. -- 08:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Read Belisarius Cawl the Great Work. Also. If this is all into question. How did the fortress monastery get built and stocked at all? Lore says the Emperor prepared it. But your logic is that the only way he can do anything is by being there in person. Since he was stuck on the throne, is an entire well stocked monastery on Titan impossible now too?TheNuclearSoldier (talk)

>Lore says the Emperor prepared it
This has since been retconned to Malcador 'preparing it'. -- 08:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Oohh now you are using your brain. Not retconned, just explained how the Emperor prepared it: he ordered someone to do it.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
Which is irrelevant, because Emps can't have 'ordered someone' to make geneseed based on himself when he was the only one who could actually make the stuff (admittedly with help from his assistants like proto-Cawl, but there's a reason he had to devote himself to the project). -- 08:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Better than trying to say that the Grey Knights don't use geneseed made of the Emperor's genecode just because we haven't explicitly seen how it was made. The Grey Knight codecs and fluff novels all make it clear that it is made from Big Daddy E's unmodified genecode. I agree with Leming that it's abit of a lore fuckup if they never do show exactly how he pulled it off.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
No it is not better because you're making an assumption predicated on nothing. You're literally pulling it out of your ass, and the only source we have that the Grey Knights use a unique gene-seed is from the Grey Knights. Why do they think this? We don't know. -- Triacom (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The Grey Knights are the only ones who have commented on it at all. Noone has ever contradicted them. And the Codex: Grey Knights are written from a 3rd person perspective, as are all the Codexes. The only thing we don't know is how the geneseed was made. Whose genecode it uses has never been in question in universe.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
The Horus Heresy contradicts them (unless you care to explain how the Emperor could've made them, which is what they claim), both of us are well aware of it so knock it off with this lie that nothing contradicts them. -- Triacom (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, how he did it has not been explained, as is much of 40k lore. But saying he didn't because we don't know how isn't a valid excuse when nothing even questions the geneseed of the Grey Knights.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
Oh, so now you're saying we don't know how it could've happened, even though this is the first time you've said so. In all previous times you had a fan theory you stuck to and said I was a list because I didn't agree with it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a slap on the face with a fish for User:TheNuclearSoldier for being an argumentative asshole[edit]

Just to be clear: I'm not entirely certain if I'm joking here. I am certain that that, if trout is unavailable, we should use a mackerel or salmon. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I might be an asshole, but I'm right. Also I prefer salmon. Smoked if possible.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
If you're right, then prove it. Show me where in the Grey Knights Codex it says anyone besides the Emperor made the Grey Knights gene-seed, and show me where in any lore it says the Emperor was not needed to make unique gene-seed. All you've been doing is claim you're right with no proof at all. -- Triacom (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just give everyone involved a week-long time out and be done with it. --Newerfag (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Only one person arguing has been insisting they're right while the book they're using as proof actually argues against their own point. -- Triacom (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
That is the false information I was originally talking about. Every Codex: Grey Knights has stated the geneseed is made from the Emperor unaltered genecode. Then there are the novels that have also stated it. Trying to say they don't is an outright lie. I'm argumentative because I'm telling the truth.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
"Numerous novels" AKA the one you've cited whose own author has stated there's no such thing as canon? Every source you have is the Grey Knights stating the Emperor made them when we know that he was too busy being on the Golden Throne to do it, so unless you have an actual source about how that happened you're just repeating the same argument and hoping that your fanon is taken as canon. -- Triacom (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on you to give me a source where anyone calls the Grey Knights' geneseed into question. Just because we don't know how Big E made the geneseed does not invalidate the lore that states that he did.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
We've been over this, the Horus Heresy calls it into question, which even you've pointed out. "Just because we don't know how Big E made the geneseed does not invalidate the lore that states that he did." How strange, I seem to remember a user called TheNuclearSoldier who said this: "They say the Grey Knights use geneseed made from the Emperor's genecode. In no uncertain terms. And as we know the Emperor was on the golden throne, so couldn't have made it himself." So there you go, you're literally arguing against yourself now. We both know and have stated that it's impossible for him to have made the gene-seed. -- Triacom (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Reiterating my earlier request. I don't care in the slightest who's right in this nitpicky argument, only that they shut the fuck up. --Newerfag (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry. We kissed and made up.TheNuclearSoldier (talk)
Yeah, the argument's finished. -- Triacom (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for user[edit]

They're another troll who keeps trying to vandalize the SJW page. After their edits were repeatedly removed by myself, One Snek, A Walrus, Newerfag, an anon, and after being told three separate times by me to go to the talk page, they finally respond with: "I POWDERED MY COCKATIEL FOR THE RIBCAGE SLAUGHTER!" and "STRIP THE FLESH!"

I think it's fairly obvious they have nothing to offer and are just a vandal doing it for kicks, and we'd all be happy to see them gone. -- Triacom (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to think the guy is literally retarded or something. Obviously he is a /pol/tard from his demented rants. So I second the request for a ban. Valvatorez (talk)

He did mention that he had brain problems in response to a sarcastic note I left in the summary of an edit of his that I undid, so a ban might be doing him a favor.--Newerfag (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for[edit]

Another vandal, not only are they spamming multiple pages, they're also targetting user pages with their gibberish. -- Triacom (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Case in point, I wouldn't be surprised if they started deleting this topic. -- Triacom (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As of now, their list of vandalised pages include your talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


Incidentally they're still trashing user pages and calling Root a pedophile (see Root's talk page). Any chance we can ban them now? -- Triacom (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting permaban for GIRUNDE[edit]

Requesting to bring out the banhammer to block this vandalizing spamming faggot. He has been replacing/adding spam on random 40k pages and even user pages. His 'contributions' can be seen here: Special:Contributions/GIRUNDE. Derpysaurus (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Seconding.--QuietBrowser (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Thirding.Saarlacfunkel (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Forthing.--2600:1010:B154:ECD:558D:F3C7:ACBF:98DD 06:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Fifthing. -- Triacom (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Sixthing because I despise pedos. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting to ban anon user Special:Contributions/[edit]

Just recently found this vandaliser called Special:Contributions/ Requesting to permaban this idiot asap before he makes a gigantic mess. Derpysaurus (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Seconding --Taufag (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
What a dreadfully boring troll. Thirding.--Cavgunner (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit late, but I'll join too, they're another vandal that needs to be banned ASAP. -- Triacom (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

== Requesting a ban for user Derpysaurus

Requesting a ban for this no fun allowed faggot Will continue to post furry smut until this goes through or until I get bored

lrn2wiki you fucking newposting cumstain. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:7850:A14B:31:4D45 13:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If you want to actually troll, at least put in the effort dipshit. Derpysaurus (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Request some disciplinary action for[edit]

This user has repeatedly deleting large segments of pages with no given reason, sperging out about radnom things, and insists on restoring to their state even after multiple users have instructed to stop. A lot of the things insistest upon are objectively wrong, like saying people who think Ghostwalk is a campaign setting are stupid even though the book calls itself that multiple times ("This book contains a full campaign setting", "Some spells have special aspects or properties in the Ghostwalk campaign setting", "Some magic items have special aspects or properties in the Ghostwalk campaign setting", "Some traits and special abilities of monsters have special aspects or properties in the Ghostwalk campaign setting", "A number of new domains, spells, and magic items exist in the Ghostwalk campaign setting."). --Agiletek (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll second this, because this anon has been doing it for a while. -- Triacom (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thirding. They do occasionally do useful things, but they mostly just seem to randomly sperg out and vandalize shit.--QuietBrowser (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Foruthing this notion. --Fortunade (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
He's back and at it again. Can we just permaban the autistic little fucker already?--QuietBrowser (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting ban for[edit]

Requesting a ban on the insecure faggot who keep deleting chunks out of the -4 Str‎‎ page.--Chicken (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary suspension for user Auroch[edit]

Instead of correcting information on the Josef Bugman page, this user has decided to post arguments instead, and has refused to correct the information despite my requests, even when I'd explained on their talk page how the wiki had a problem with Strikethroughs in the past and how it's much better just to fix a page than to argue on it. Here's the paragraph that they claim isn't an argument:

While not shown up in person, there are rumours in the lore that he is still alive and he may have remade his brewery but these are just rumours, right? Wrong!! Across the various sky ports of the Kharadron Overlords, Bugman's Ale is a highly sought after product, in heavy competition with the coveted Barak Thryng dark ale.

I'm only coming here because they flatly stated on their talk page that they'll continue to make the edit. In case you're wondering why I'm not fixing it for them, I've found that doing that doesn't stop users in the past from doing the same kind of edits on other pages, while asking them to stop and getting them to correct it properly usually does. -- Triacom (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Auroch is now deleting what I've written on their talk page and trying to ignore it while still reposting the argumentative paragraph. These kinds of paragraphs were all over the tactics pages in the past and made them a chore to read, and I do think it would be a terrible idea to bring them back. -- Triacom (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Once again I'd like to request a temporary suspension for Auroch, not only are they deleting what I've said and pretending I've never said it, but they're also doing the same for other users as well, and have announced that they are refusing to read anything anyone says to them. -- Triacom (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As Auroch has now admitted this on their talk page and Root's talk page, they have no proof of the claim they're putting up, and having looked into it myself, it's a fan theory, not a fact. Despite this they're still trying to force it into the Josef Bugman page. -- Triacom (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like a tempest in a teapot. --Cavgunner (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Auroch is upset that strikethroughs are not acceptable edits for correcting information... and that's it. Even though they know the argument is wrong (by which I mean it's literally wrong, the point they're arguing in favour of isn't supported by the lore) and even though they have no source at all, they keep making the same edit and insisting they won't read what was put up on their talk page unless they delete all of it first without reading it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a warning against user Triacom AND a suspension against user HussarZwei (no longer a warning since he's actively watching and deleting my messages now)[edit]

The latter is actively deleting and revising "SJW" to downplay their past examples of bad behavior while actively inserting trump voters, conservatives and Christians into "/pol/" and insinuating them all to be the same as bona-fide 1940s Nazis, and repeatedly states how they deserve to be killed. The former is defending his actions in the discussion page and reverted a change made against HussarZwei's vandalism, and has implied a "you're with us or you're a nazi" message in the talk page. I'm against this sort of coercive BS, does that make me a white and blonde male now?

HussarZwei is aware of my messages and may attempt to delete this just like he did on another user's page. (calls me a "/pol/lack" here)

I am NOT conservative, christian, American (let alone a Trump voter). I'm just sick of seeing this self-righteous display of shit-slinging. I would like to see this wiki kept as apolitical as possible, and going all "<insert group I don't like> should be shot" isn't a way to go about it.

So you want me to be given a warning for... what exactly? Pointing out that conservatives do not lead and often oppose anti-racist and anti-fascist causes? Sorry if it upsets you, but I fail to see how that's deserving of anything. If you want to see the wiki stay apolitical, you can help keep it that way on every page except /pol/, which is meant to be political. -- Triacom (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


If you not a "conservative, christian, American (let alone a Trump voter)" as you claim why are you acting on their behalf. You have become the very thing you sought to destroy. -- HussarZwei (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You cannot undo your own words. They are eternal.
"You have become the very thing you sought to destroy.", says the coward who wishes death and oppression on others and attempts to censor and hide when called out on it. Fascist hypocrite, thy name is HussarZwei. You congratulate others on becoming the enemy, when you should be staring yourself in the mirror. Dragged out of your dark corner, all you have left are sarcastic remarks and 'LOL's? Let me mumble something about tearing tongues out and fearing something about what might be said. Have fun trying to cover your revision tracks.
Big words coming from an anon who wants to censor me because you didn't like what I said in a talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a Permanent Ban for user[edit]

These users make the same edits on the main page for the Imperium of Man page, and same arguments on its talk page so I'm certain they're the same person, and the reason why I'm jumping to a permanent ban instead of a suspension is because I honestly think the user is a vandal. Initially they went to the talk page, writing off the vast majority of the Imperium of Man page off as fanfiction, however when asked about it they defended their act by claiming what was true about the setting was the same as the stuff they were deleting from the page, and when they were confronted about this they refused to respond and now no longer go to the talk page at all.

I've repeatedly asked them to go to the talk page, Saarlacfunkel has asked them to go to the talk page, and anons are also reverting their edits yet keeps on deleting nearly half the page anyway. Since they're unreasonable and refuse to stop I'm asking for their permanent ban. -- Triacom (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Second this. I originally thought of maybe giving the anon a warning. But the fact that he is consistently deleting large segments of the IoM page reeks of bad faith and dishonesty. Derpysaurus (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

As of typing this, the changes made to the Imperium of Man page take up a large section of the Recent Changes tab, there's currently been 118 changes made today alone, the majority of which are by 2601:197:B7F:E0C0:F443:ECBA:2C10:6478 (same anon as before) who has occasionally started blanking the entire page. Can we please IP ban them and then protect the page so we don't have to put up with these vandals? -- Triacom (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please protect the page soon. I have stuff to do today.--2601:203:480:4C60:752D:8E42:E21:AD30 18:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

At time of writing, if you look at the Imperium of Man page history, this anon's vandalism (and restoring the page) makes up nearly 500 separate entries and we have at least half a dozen unique users acting to prevent most of the page from being blanked. Can we get rid of them and lock the page please? -- Triacom (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I think most of those are me. My IP address randomly changes for some reason even when I am using the same device.--2601:203:480:4C60:2190:A86E:19E1:EC73 00:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless you're the one deleting the page, then most of the changes to it aren't you. Even if we assume you're every anon, including the one who doesn't have a protected IP, we still have half a dozen unique users trying to protect the page. -- Triacom (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I meant I think I am most of the anons reverting the page, or a large number of them.-- 00:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Even if you are every anon, we would still have about half a dozen unique users trying to defend the page. -- Triacom (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Have to agree with the others and just ban the deleting anon. If they can't defend their actions they are just trolling.--Because (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's Happened.[edit]

Well we've now reached it, the Imperium of Man page's last 500 versions are all one editwar because of this one troll who keeps trying to delete half the page, and sometimes the entire page. Can we get the page protected so that this stops? -- Triacom (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a Warning for User:[edit]

I would like to request a warning for Special:Contributions/ So far he has been mass uploading images. Are these images a problem? no. The problem lies in the anon's atrocious editing skills which ended up fucking a few galleries. I have recently given him a heads up on his talk page, but I feel he may not be the talkative type. So I would appreciate if you also give him a warning to better proofread his shit. Otherwise, temporary suspensions may be necessary. Derpysaurus (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)