User talk:AssistantWikifag

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Archive of stuff from 2012

Archive of stuff from 2013

Archive of stuff from 2014

Archive of stuff from 2015

Archive of stuff from 2016

81.142.193.230 , Randumb edits[edit]

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

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

Requesting a ban for user Blackcap/82.14.182.146[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Requesting a suspension for user 108.206.81.39[edit]

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

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

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

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

72.231.192.169[edit]

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

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

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

A request for arbitration[edit]

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

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

Transformers whining[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Ambitious D&D related project[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submitting Personal Work[edit]

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

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

Requesting a temporary suspension for Inquisitor Owl.[edit]

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

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

Writefaggetry[edit]

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

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

Help needed[edit]

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

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

Requesting a temporary suspension for SergeshD123.[edit]

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

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 118.211.110.97[edit]

  • This anon (Special:Contributions/118.211.110.97) 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 98.111.203.123[edit]

  • This little fucker (Special:Contributions/98.111.203.123) 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)

XToverdrive[edit]

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 212.178.230.147[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. http://www.pandius.com/ka.html 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/4.16.8.50 Vandalism of 8th Edition Space Marines Tactics[edit]

We've got someone who is currently trying to editwar a vandalizing set of edits on https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/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. https://1d4chan.org/wiki/User_talk:Spider https://1d4chan.org/wiki/User_talk:4.16.8.50

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 62.254.185.162[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 62.254.185.162 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)

213.167.58.35 is a potential spambot[edit]

User:213.167.58.35 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)