User talk:AssistantWikifag/2013

Old conversations from the year 2013.

In Which Jaimas Fucks Up

I posted a heads-up bulletin to you, but then realized that you're the guy who handles spam, not that sort of things. I am an idiot. That said, respect for what you've been doing to help ratchet the spam to a managable level, Assistant Wikifag. Props. -- Jaimas

It's that time again

Apparently, I'm being harassed by that troll again. Could I get my userpage and talk page semi-protected for a few weeks or maybe a month until he gets bored? -- SFH 00:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --AssistantWikifag 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. -- SFH 23:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Just wanted to say thank you on behalf of the /tg/heim community - many of them aren't super wiki-savvy and probably don't notice you cleaning up the messes, so I wanted to just say thanks on all our behalf - we appreciate all the hard work! --Quinze (talk)

You can thank us by being better editors; please, read the friendly Help pages; we have them so that we don't have to explain features of the wiki software to every new user. Some suggestions in particular:

1. Use the "Show preview" button next to the "Save page" button to proofread your pages before committing your edits, and when you do have to make corrective edits (I realize that even the most meticulous editor will make mistakes and only recognize them after committing them), indicate that they are minor edits.
2. Use the "move" function if you mis-title pages, rather than creating a new page with the correct title and leaving the old one lying around.

In a way, these problem are good problems to have -- after all, 1d4chan is meant to host /tg/-related pages, and an open Mordheim league is nothing if not /tg/-related; I also understand that experienced editors start out as new editors. That said, please be aware that your campaign is sharing the wiki with other /tg/-related projects (I'm actually a little worried that you're going to push other editors away -- seeing the list of recent changes filled to the brim with nothing but /tg/heim was certainly intimidating to me the first time I saw it); I second Wikifag's suggestion that you move your pages to the Campaign: namespace (though, judging from a brief entry in the recent changes -- which will no doubt be buried by /tg/heimers in a few hours -- he might be working on making /TG/heim a namespace of its own, so don't make any drastic changes just yet), and further suggest that it might be good etiquette for your players to keep track of results on their own, and then update their warbands' pages once, carefully (so as not to require additional edits to fix mistakes), at the end of the day, rather than making a bunch of edits after every skirmish. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Another Defacing Idiot

Looks like your banning of 198.228.200.145 didn't hold. He's back as 198.228.201.151 and vandalizing pages again. Typical JerseyFag --ELH (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Noted. I've kicked up the ban on the IPs in question to two weeks for ban evasion and sockpuppetry. If Mr. 198 really believes that every article is "written like crap", he can make them better instead of replacing large chunks with Lorem Ipsum. Hopefully, two weeks in the iso-cubes will exhaust whatever drove him to vandalize in the first place. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems unlikely -- 198.228.201.146

We'll see. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we will -- 198.228.201.171

Looks to be back as 198.228.201.170. --Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

And now as 198.228.201.146. You may just have to ban that subnet at this rate. --ELH (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Halo: Is it really necessary?

While Derpysaurus's zeal in working on his custom codex is commendable, that does not justify making the Halo article as long or as unnecessarily detailed as it currently is. Even with most of the fluff added onto it culled, it is still far too long for an article dealing with something only marginally /tg/ related. I would advise you to speak with Derpy about moving the article into the Setting namespace if he wishes to keep it as it is- for everyone else, a quick description of the games followed by a link to the Halo wiki should suffice. Otherwise, it just makes the article increasingly bloated.--Newerfag (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

There's something to be said for avoiding page bloat, but if we omitted information just because it was present on another wiki, we'd cut out all discussion of Warhammer 40,000 fluff and replace it with links to Lexicanum. Based on less than a minute of examination, it seems that a lot of the bloat consists of excessive use of strikethroughs and the *BLAM* template, which can be pruned without losing any actual content.

Given that there is an official Halo board game, a WIP 40K fan-dex, and a WIP Halo wargame (I think Vorked Grimlock is the main person behind that, but Vorked has talked it over and revised it with /tg/'s input, so that's related), including at least some background on the Halo universe (and the inevitable commentary on its quality and of the quality of the games) is justifiable. Maybe articles on the individual weapon types (I think I saw some of those getting made) is overdoing it and that information is better reserved for the codex page, but that's not really my place to decide.

In any case, I am certainly not going to tell Derpysaurus what your opinion is. If you feel that the Halo page should be shorter, or split into an overview page and detail pages, it's on you to make that case.

Whatever the outcome, the Setting: namespace is reserved for /tg/-made settings. Official settings stay in the main article space.

I hope you work out a solution that doesn't ruffle too many feathers, but while a bullet-by-bullet walkthrough of the games would not be appropriate for this wiki, delving into some of the deeper expanded universe lore is not a bad thing. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

new user question

hello i am a new user and i had a question i wanted to bring to an admin. hopefully this is the correct place to do so, if not i apologize. I have attempted to make a small edit to a small section of a page. Another user disagreed with my edit and reverted it. I thought he disagreed with it because of poor placement or formatting, so i redesigned it and placed in what i thought would be a more appropriate place. this too was remove by the user. I then tried to use the talk page to discuss the issue with the user and to put forward my arguement as the rules require (or so i think). My discussion section on the talk page was also removed by this user and i was accused of being a vandal and threatened. What can i do to resolve the issue?

Don't bullshit AssistantWikifag- your "small edit" was trolling and claimed that all fa/tg/uys were tumblr-visiting white knights. It doesn't take a genius to understand why it was removed. I quote "An alternative view point in the entire debate is that there is a significant number of beta white knights on /tg/ who will interpret any slight against women, real or imagined, as patriarchal hatred. Their motivation for this is to prove how progressive they are in a pathetic attempt to win female favor." Did you honestly think you could post that WITHOUT it being considered vandalism or trolling?--128.164.69.243 07:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed your edits because they were inflammatory statements in complete disregard of the site policy and repeatedly attempted to add it. The argument in question amounted to "Matt Ward isn't misogynist- everyone's just a white knight!" and only led me to believe that you were trolling the article and had no genuine interest in its improvement. I had no reason to believe that you were editing in good faith at the time- while I admit that I was mistaken, I STRONGLY recommend that you choose your words far more carefully in the future.

However, I have reviewed the situation and realized that perhaps I was too hasty with my condemnation. Nevertheless, I would hope this serves as a fair warning about how you should remember that there is a fine line between wit and trolling and that it is all too easy to cross that line without noticing. So long as you do not continue to violate the rules, I will have no problem with you. All I ask is that you be more considerate of your fellow users.

In any event, I consider the issue dropped now that the offending sections in the Matt Ward and Khornate Knights articles have been completely removed; they were increasingly turning into Social Justice Warrior bullshit that was causing the rest of the article to drop in quality.--Newerfag (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Summary removal of content from pages is one thing, but cutting an argument from a talk page is over the line. I'll look at those pages, and if I have anything to contribute I'll say it here. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the talk page edits and set up a counterargument.--Newerfag (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The argument's pretty much blown over on its own, and I don't have any complaints about the way the pages in question ended up, so I'm hesitant to possibly open up the wound again, but I also want to close that "if" two lines up.

Arguing ("X, but not X, but X, but not X,...") should happen on a talk page. Contrary to 64.85.224.41's opinion, I don't think it's funny to watch an article troll itself -- it's poor form. Since nobody restored the "Counterpoint", "Counter-counter-point", and "Counter-counter-counter-point". sections of Khornate Knights, I think there's consensus on this point. I'm not about to make or enforce a rule about this (I don't think it's my job to say what kind of content should be on this wiki, except that there should be some connection to /tg/), and sometimes it may be appropriate for an article to summarize the arguments in favor of "X" and "not X", but a long back-and-forth is just hard to read.

People will disagree about what pages should be on this wiki and what should be in them, and that's fine -- eventually, consensus will emerge and we'll all move on. That will happen more rapidly if we use the talk pages rather than the undo button to communicate. Argue about ideas, support them, refute them, call them stupid, whatever, but harassing users and cutting out conversation is absolutely not OK. I don't want to give the impression that I'm entirely against Newerfag here, since I understand where he's coming from (said "white-knighting" accusation is, in fact, used by trolls) and generally agree with him as far as the content of the pages is concerned. That said, I wish he had assumed or concluded that 72.222.206.245's intentions were good a little earlier. (I also wish 72.222.206.245 had used the edit summary or talk page to explain his reasoning sooner, for that matter.)

Finally, please sign your talk page "posts" (edits) with ~~~~ (optionally with two dashes ahead of it, as most contributors here do). Even if you're not logged in, the signature will put your IP address and the time at the end of it and make it easy to see where one person's talking ends and another begins.

I get that nobody's perfect, so don't take this as some lasting mark on the records of anyone involved, but I'll happily take this opportunity to stand on a soapbox and suggest some better patterns. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Duly acknowledged. I have come to the conclusion that my own behavior was far from faultless as well- I've been too quick to assume the worst from anonymous IP users and it's done more harm than good (although my inability to determine 72.222.206.245's intentions did not help in this respect). Hopefully all of us here have learned a valuable lesson and will let things go now. I shall attempt to do so myself and focus more on adding new content to the wiki.--Newerfag (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

New spambots

The spambots seem to be getting smarter now- I just saw one which was adding the spam links to its talk page. They seem to be using less obvious names too. Keep an eye out for them.--Newerfag (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, with my certain experience on locating dodgy users on their userpage (Hint: Spam) I will take on some of the duty on locating it, deleting the contents, replacing it with the delete category and notifying you guys. Derpysaurus

It's been a while, but spambots have used their talk pages before. Some of them would make spam pages and then move them around. Good catch on the username, though. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)