User talk:Root

From 1d4chan


Category problems[edit]

I have added Categories to some pages and its not showing up on the appropriate category's page. For example Dungeons & Dragons and Duergar. Seeing that when I look at a category page's edit page and it being almost entirely blank, I assume that once I add a category to a page, it should automatically show up on the appropriate category page. Am I mistaken, or is this a bug?

This is probably a result of page caching. The site is set up to cache computed html in order to reduce load and improve response times. Caches are invalidated when you edit a page, but this behaviour makes it seem likely that the associated category pages don't have their caches invalidated when their contents are changed. After a while, the cache will be refreshed and the updated list will be shown. I'll have a look at what I can do to make this behave better, but it might take a while. --Wikifag (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Campaigns listing[edit]

So, I have one of those weird ideas of mine again. See, we already provide space for campaign info pages, and charsheets and shitte, right?

Now, why don't we tell /tg/ to publish info about the campaigns they run on a specially designed page on 1d4chan, as well? I could make a template for campaign info and everything. The only problem I don't know how to work around is tracking which campaigns are active. We could ask the GMs to mark the last time they had a session, and once a campaign is not running for a month, move it to frozen; once it's frozen for two months, move it to dead. But is there a way to make those moves automatic? Fatum 00:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


Any chance you could install PageCSS, or something like that? Page-specific CSS would make some of my new attempts at automagical sections for character sheets much easier to set up. Leviathan 02:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Witchcraft, sorcery and character sheet creation! Fatum 03:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll look into it. --Wikifag 08:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
So hey, is this every happenings. :< Leviathan 08:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Image uploads not workin' for me.--Seventhseal 07:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The permissions weren't set up properly for the webserver to write to the directories it needed to, image uploads should work fine now. --Wikifag 04:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

>inserting false information

Haha, what, you don't find Louisville, Kentucky, to be a trendy place? Fatum 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I run an alternate wiki that's in part taken over being the repository for the nine million often-abandoned Exalted campaign pages and character sheets, so I decided to move the Overgame to there. Someone is apparently dedicated to not letting this happen. If you could lock the page or something so people know where to go now, I'd appreciate it. (ty ty~) Ashel 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

4e Edit War Resolution[edit]

So, there's been a pretty gnarly edit war going on between me and someone else over the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition page for several weeks now. It started when I added counter-criticisms to the criticisms section, and was instructed to instead make a "Benefits" section. I did, but ever since it's been under attack. Admittedly I've been in a very ruthless war with this guy, just for the last couple of hours I've been going back and forth with him. I decided to consult the main page for advice and was told to come here. This edit war won't resolve itself, the guy I'm up against is just pissed, and I'm definitely exceedingly stubborn myself. Think you could have a look and say something? Thanks in advance. I'll open up a discussion about it on the 4e talk page, so you can get a general idea of who stands where on it. --Zabasaz 05:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

p.s buttes

Thank you for the lock; in fairness, the benefits section really should go back up. --Doom

Thanks for stepping in. I don't recommend either section, they'll just cause a shitstorm. They can make pages for criticisms/benefits and link them over, but the page is about the edition, not about what Doom and I think of it. --Zabasaz 21:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, I suppose that works. Mind restoring the Kalashtar, Changelings, and so on to the playable race list? The addition got lost in the edit warring [1] -- 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not what I and most other thing, or what Zabasaz thinks either. Although, curiously, the shitstorm only happens for Zabasaz and this mysterious sockpuppet. --Doom

I've got no interest in adjudicating your argument and all the section is doing is causing constant edit-warring. Nobody wants constant edit-warring, and the section made the page damn ugly besides; the section never needed to be that long. Since we don't seem to be able to come a consensus on the specifics, for now that page is going to be one of generalities. Everyone involved should simply drop the issue for now; if the next time I check Recent Edits it's full of constant back and forth and reversion over some new page or pages, I'm going to start temporarily banning users.
That's all for now. Try to keep things civil, and if you two really must continue to have a go at each other, take it somewhere else. --Wikifag 21:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I saw no reason to run to Mamma over something like this, you need not 'adjudicate' between me and Z and his sockpuppets. If the place can't handle it, the place can't handle it, no argument from me. Thanks for your time.--Doom

Spammers galore[edit]

Getting some sort of spam/vandalism from, you need to ban that IP. It's made a few comments that are markedly familiar in tone, but I wouldn't presume to jump to conclusions. --Sanity

Do something already, bro. Also, template:promotions is broken now thanks to css not working. Also, mail user function is not working. Fatum 13:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For fighting the spambots, you have my axe., 'undo' button. I'll always put the words 'spam', 'SPAM' or 'FUCKING SPAM' in my edit comments. I fear the bots will outpace the volunteer fire-fighters before Christmas. (Anyone know why the bots love Talk:Furry so much?) --NotBrandX 22:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a consequence of the ReCaptcha extension being disabled; it had stopped working so I had to turn it off. I shall attempt to make it work properly again as soon as possible. --Wikifag 09:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Test test test. --Wikifag 13:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, ReCaptcha works again (I'm still not sure why it failed in the first place, but oh well). I have noticed the AddScript extension seems to have stopped working and shall look into it. I shall also investigate the e-mailing thing. --Wikifag 13:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
e-mail still doesn't work. Fatum 00:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"This is the weirdest spam I've ever seen..." In case you were wondering, it's software doing a spam probe. The robots (usually pwned workstations turned into zombies) are given a URL and told to make an "innocent" edit, to check if it's possible to make changes to the wiki. If the probe is successful, it notifies the other zombies in the horde that this URL is a valid target for spam attempts. The reason why you keep seeing it over and over again is because there are different zombie hordes that don't talk to each other, but the zombie horde owners all bought the same URL list. --NotBrandX 14:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose it would be possible to disable posting by new accounts for like half an hour after their creation? I hardly understand the nature of the spam, but it seems as though the process is for the bots to create an account then post within the next fifteen minutes. Might this screw up the procedure or help in any way? Or ReCaptcha? Thanks. --FatherDuke 04:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Back in the summer of 2012, we had a big wave of spammers for several weeks. Their procedure was to create an account, wait for about two days, and then start spamming. I basically had to come in every day and clear out the new spam registrations (often a dozen or more -- so don't complain too hard about the spam levels, because it has been worse before), because I knew that if I let them stick around for too long, they would make pages. Wikifag implemented a DNS blocklist that stopped them from editing, but we still get spambots that wait a while before spamming, or who make multiple pages spaced a few hours apart. We also get spam from IP addresses who do not bother to register before making spam pages, or inserting spam into existing pages.
In summary, your suggested strategy would inconvenience legitimate users (because most people who register accounts with us want to use them immediately) while spammers would still spam anyway. Not a bad attempt (MediaWiki does provide functionality to restrict privileges to users with a certain number of edits under their belt -- ten edits or four days is the default, I think), but not likely to be implemented. --AssistantWikifag 21:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Touhou Power Cards[edit]

Say, what happened to the Touhou Power Cards page? Could it be that it didnt survive the server moving? I liked the cards and wanted to update them soon, as i'm actually playing 4E. Zarathustra01 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. I'm not sure what's happened to the page - the article might have gotten corrupted or something - but fortunately for you all the images should still be alright, you'll just have to search through the lists for them manually for now. --Wikifag 10:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

4E Edit War - REDUX[edit]

Yep, the same people going at it on the 4E page are now, again, going at it on the Tarrasque page.

Entailing the section on how to kill a Tarrasque with a fighter, someone made another section with a wizard in order to criticize the balance issues between the classes in a humorous way. His tactic involved using a shade to bypass the tarrasque's abysmal touch defenses to damage its mental stats and then suffocate it while its unconscious so it can't regenerate.

The 4E-attacker from the 4E page has assumed a couple of new IPs (all the while accusing any other editor of being a sockpuppet of User:Zabasaz) and, as revenge for the ATROCITY of insulting the 3.5e tarrasque, began vandalizing the before-mentioned section and added a new, long-winded section about how to kill a Tarrasque in 4E. Other people (SOCKPUPPETS HERRDURR) criticized the section and so it became a sort of pile-up, but that's not really the issue.

The issue is, someone who I SUSPECT is just a registered version of the 4E vandal blanked the Wizard-killing-Tarrasque section entirely, claiming it was "plagiarized." He failed to provide links but I checked google and found out there is indeed a page where someone explains how to use an allip to kill a Tarrasque. What he fails to mention is that not only are there notable differences in the tactic, but its not copy and pasted at all - the wording is entirely different and there's no way to tell it isn't just a coincidence. And if it was used as a reference, it isn't plagiarism anyways, two players are entitled to use the same tactics in an RPG, there is no ownership. If you actually care to settle a plagiarism issue, though I don't think its worth anyone's time much less yours, here are the links:

[2] - Page from which I think he says it was plagiarized. Tarrasque "How to Defeat a Tarrasque in 3 Easy Levels" is the "plagiarized content."

That said, I issued a warning that I would e-mail the admin if he continues to blank the pages or add unorthodox commentary into the sections he doesn't like, so I doubt this problem will persist, but if he is who I think he is, he is legendary for moronic persistence.

That said, thanks for your time and I love you.

TL;DR version: 4E edit war is now taking place on the Tarrasque page, but this time it's not as bad and you should probably keep your eye open or lock the page.

-- 00:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the previous post is from one of Zabasaz's sockpuppets (he just edited his own user page from the IP given), as the logs show.

Note also, Zabasaz has written the previous post as though he were not sockpuppeting, even as he denies his plagiarism, taking pride in it, no less.

Note also, the "long winded section is written primarily by NotBrandX, as the logs show.

In short, this person is blatantly trying to play you for a fool. Sanity

Everyone knows this is my laptop IP. I see you blanked the section again.-- 07:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, Zab not only passes off other's work as his own, he tries to pass of his work as others. You not mad, bro, you crazy! -- Doom

Wikifag, you should probably also have a look at this. --Zabasaz 00:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Wikifag, sorry to bother you, but the guy you banned for 30 days is back, and flipping the fuck out over that Tarrasque page again. Have a look at these links and you'll get the general gist of the situation. - His revisions - His talk page, in which NotBrandX tries to reach out to him, and Doom proceeds to go apeshit, himself. - Where NotBrandX brought the issue up in the talk page.

Doom seems to have made some blanket e-mail so that he can privately exchange insults about me, and plan on how to bring me down or something. I'm not particularly bothered nor intimidated so it's not an issue, but I thought it might help you make sense of some of his posts. I'm going to send you an e-mail to alert you to the situation, since I don't know how consistently you check back here. --Zabasaz

I had no idea the crap I was stepping into when I decided to have some fun with what I (and others) thought was just another 4chan joke; I've enjoyed much of the humor of the site, didn't know I needed permission to contribute. Now that I know the truth about Zabasaz (or whoever the hell he is), I want nothing to do with that fucker. I see he's sending you e-mails, probably the better to hide his lies; you might want to read NotBrandX's discussion page (among too many other sites to list here) to get a better idea of what you're dealing with, in case you don't already know. Anyway, I know it sucks to be a moderator, but it sure looks like you're banning the wrong guy, IMO, at least consider banning the one that keeps bugging you, is all I'm saying. --BobtheMighty

Hey, is at it, again. This makes, what 100% of the time this guy has been a source of drama, relative to his posts? --BobtheMighty

Hey, is at it, again. Just how thin did you say that ice was? --BobtheMighty

Zabasaz is at it, again. I really don't think you realize what a menace this guy is. A year ago, you said he was on thin many transgressions has it been since you said that? How many more does he get? I really think you need to read up on this guy: --Sanity

Zabasaz is still at it, again. I really don't think you realize what a menace this guy is, so I figure an extra reminder. A year ago, you said he was on thin many transgressions has it been since you said that? How many more does he get? I really think you need to read up on this guy: --Sanity

This tool is still at it. Get rid of him already. Check his user log and see with your own eyes what he has been doing.

OCDfag here[edit]

Three trivial corrections to the D&D 4e page, in order: "time consuming" -> "time-consuming", "huck" -> "chuck", and "weaboo" -> "weeaboo". If someone who has admin access and a few spare seconds could change these, I'd appreciate it.

Edit conflict[edit]

Mr. Spooky and I are looking to be engaging in an edit war on /tg, and I'm asking for your help in preempting it. His edits are basically that /tg/ is useless and abandoned, which is obviously wrong. I settled for a compromise and rewrote the paragraphs we were arguing about, and he reverted it, with the comment "Let the trolling...BEGIN!". Obviously the two of us aren't going to resolve this, since he rejected my compromise. Can you step in? Someone else. 17:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Please nor revert deleting of a heresy. This denigrates the honor of Ultramarine Chapter. And the honor of 40k. --Matt.


What the fuck in Special:RecentChanges? 21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus christ are we still doing this? Is it possible to just SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING. for a few days? At least editing? --Petro 15:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I did that overnight since I obviously wouldn't be able to fix anything while I'm asleep. While I can simply prevent editing I'd really rather not unless I absolutely have to. Some people will want to make legitimate edits, after all. --Wikifag 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe just new account creation then. Sucks for new people but its better than a mass block. --Petro 15:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd also have to disable anonymous editing (which is also something I really don't want to do) for that to have much effect. Boy this sure is mildly annoying. --Wikifag 15:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think our friend the vandal made a critical error by not making a new account for a few edits. Try banning this IP: --Not LongPoster Again 18:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Link help[edit]

hey, can anyone do me a favor and link a page properly for me? the original was deleted in the purge/vandalism. i happened to have it open and was able to copy paste what i believe is all of it. here is the link, you should be able to figure out where it goes.

Done. Here's how to make a wiki link: [[Aeric_Dalia/Vol_2_Chapter_5|Chapter 5]] --NotBrandX 15:40, 20 September 2011 (BST)
thanks, didn't want a good writefags work go to waste.
i have now created a new account and would love for someone to give me some pointers so i can actually get some shit done also, why won't my signature show up? user page is havoc. someone please taech me how to use the site properly. thanks!

Wikifag, please add [[Help:Editing|How to write wikitext]] to the front page in the quick links section for Contributors. --NotBrandX 03:09, 21 September 2011 (BST)

Just an idea, but a page for new userers so that they can figure out thier user pages might also be a good idea. --Havoc

Hi Wikifag, I just wanted to say thanks for keeping this place going. It's pretty great. Since I'm here, is there anyway you can jiggle the site so it understands lower-case page names and redirects them? The way it is now, if you don't capitalize all the proper letters it can't find the page. Thanks for being awesome! --Oinoloth 05:11, 6 June 2012 (BST)

Galleries Seem To Be Not Working[edit]

Hey. I've been getting some weird output on the pages with galleries. While the galleries are normally supposed to look like a grid of thumbnails, as of lately, they've been looking like a tall column of thumbnails.

I've took a screenshot of what I've been seeing lately:

Is this related to the vandalism spree that's been taking place lately? Also, what can be done to rectify things?

Please let me know.

MercWithMouth 06:02, 19 September 2011 (BST)

He said on the main page talk before that got lost due to rollback that it's probably due to updating mediawiki and keeping the skins from the old installation, and that he'd fix it soon. Probably. -- 13:52, 19 September 2011 (BST)

  • Still no change... The galleries are still totally messed up. Has The Emperor wikifag abandoned us? MercWithMouth 03:12, 24 September 2011 (BST)

  • Galleries are back! THE EMPEROR BE PRAISED!!! MercWithMouth 02:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Partnership with Sturmkrieg[edit]

Hello, one of my friends sent me a link to one of your articles recently. I've read several articles here and it seems really good. I started a 40k wiki for user created stuff, including, fanfiction, custom rules, and player written codexes. I'm looking for like minded websites to partner with, mostly to at least share links on the main page or something like that. Since your website has a large 40k focus, I thought you might be interested. I like a lot of the 40k humor and was wondering if I could fit it into Sturmkrieg, but now I don't need to since I've already found this website that specializes in that. You can see where I've provided links for supporting websites here. I also plan to rotate links for all the supporters on that main banner there.

Sascha Krieger, Imperator des Sturmkrieg Sektor (Kaisar) 21:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Special Thanks[edit]

Wikifag, you do a shitload around here. I just want you to know how much we fucking appreciate it. -- Jaimas 00:14, 06 November 2011 (EST)

It cannot be denied. Wikifag is a bro. -- 06:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
(ny) -- 13:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
[[Image:brofist.jpg|how I feel about Wikifag]] -NotBrandX 22:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


you're a pretty cool dude, I like you.-- 07:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


Not entirely sure if you're the person to talk to about this but is it possible to upload a .pdf file similar to the one on the Angry Marines page (the 4E one, I'm not going to bother to thread it on /tg/)? I've been working on a revised fan codex for the Angry Marines for a long while here, play tested over and over again, and gave it to a couple of fellow war gamers who've given their approval on my work so far, so I would like to get it on 1d4chan and link it to the bottom of the corresponding article page. I'm also planning on doing a similar thing for the Knights Inductor in the future. -- User:Remoon101 17:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why you wouldn't want to put up a thread on /tg/ for it, but I have no qualms about hosting such a file. E-mail it to me or link me to wherever it is you've stashed it and I'll upload a local copy. --Wikifag 18:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is there so much spamming?[edit]

I think... a lot of us have noticed that there's a tremendous of spam showing up on the site lately. Do you know why or how? Or even by whom? Some sort of public comment might be cool because I'm sure a lot of us are curious at this point. --MercWithMouth 04:54, 6 May 2012 (BST)

(responded to User_Talk:MercWithMouth --NotBrandX )

Speaking of which, it may be time to consider throwing up some protection / lock for Monopoly/OccupyBoardwalk
FourierSeries 12:00, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Done, and what's really sad is that this is not the first time we've protected that page. Since it seems to get spammed every few days when it's not protected, and the rules aren't changing any, I've put a longer protection period on it. --AssistantWikifag 18:42, 14 September 2012 (BST)

Another spambot has been targeting Talk:Furry and Talk:Dwarf Fortress, by the "name" of (this one is rather persistent) --Not LongPoster Again 17:54, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Did you miss someone? This user's on a spam rampage: "019shabnormassamronbash193"
--FourierSeries 01:44, 11 October 2012 (BST)

More spammers:,, and --Not LongPoster Again 16:45, 22 October 2012 (BST)

It's mad. I've been undoing/deleting spam every time I've been on this site today. Is there nothing we can do other than locking pages? Moonsaves 16:49, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Sadly not much other than the nuclear option of prescreening registrations. Spambots are a huge problem for wikis. --Petro 23:26, 22 October 2012 (BST)

Talk:Angry Marines and Talk:Lawful Stupid seem to be spambot magnets (attracting the likes of,,, and also monkeyed around on Talk:End Times, but that page doesn't seem to be attracting other spammers so much. --Not LongPoster Again 18:47, 26 October 2012 (BST)

More spambots for the spambot throne:,,,, and (basically anyone whose edit summaries include the words "jersey" or "gawaychoccata"). keeps putting up "test, just a test" sections, which aren't spam but are definitely suspicious. Talk:Angry Marines, Talk:HS40K, and Talk:Love Can Bloom seem to be the main targets. A temporary protection might dissuade them. --Not LongPoster Again 17:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Spambots a go-go -
--FourierSeries 12:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Nominating Board-tans/a for anonymous edit protection, spam edit drive by rate's a bit high. Also, if there's a better way to go about this, email etc., let me know. I understand that both you and AWF monitor this page. --FourierSeries 23:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit War: Death Korps[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but we got an edit war on the Death Korps of Krieg page. There's another anon who keeps putting in the Zapp pic, while I keep deleting it.

Why was I blocked?[edit]

And why was my account deleted? My contributions were worthwhile, so what is the justification? There seems to be a certain lack of due process... Signed: Formerly Urhixidur

As you can see from the logs Wikifag blocked you for being a spambot. If you would like to appeal this action please submit notarized Turing test results along with a 2000 word essay about this thing called love. --Petro 04:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Misidentification. See your talk page for clarification. Sorry about the inconvenience. --Wikifag 15:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Need some more help?[edit]

I've had a bit of experience with wikis in the past and have served as an administrator before in several of them. If you need someone else to keep the spam levels low, just tell me and I'll do what I can. I'm online most of the time, so it should bring it down to a manageable level.--Newerfag 22:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible Trouble Brewing[edit]

Heya, Wikifag, Jaimas here. The reason for my writing you here is that we appear to be having a burgeoning potential SkubWar going on in the talk page of the DoWpro article. Some unregistered dude has been complaining about the article itself, calling it blatant advertisement, so in the interest of equal time, I made a page dedicated to Some of the best mods for Dawn of War, and re-wrote the DoWpro article to seem less like passive-aggressive THIS IS AWESOME wankery, getting down some of the history of the mod, and its pros and cons. This did nothing to stem the tide of the recent non-regged posters and appears to have angered them even more. Considering that posters in question have literally no contributions to the Wiki outside of complaints on the talk page, I thought it a good idea to let you know and keep you abreast of things as they happen. --Jaimas 14:18, 12 January 2013 (EST)


The favicon is tough to test due to long-term caching, but at this point I've believe the situation is that it's working fine on the mainpage, and nowhere else. The reason it's often visible on other pages is because it's retained by your browser as you travel from the mainpage to other pages which don't send favicon data, but this doesn't apply when linked directly to a page from an external site (such as /tg/) nor if you have a page open for a long time and then refresh it. Cruxador (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Unbanning request[edit]

Hello, I was registerred under the name EspejoHumeante, and was a regular contributor for some time before that. I was banned on March 10 for being a spam account. If this was an error, please unban me, and if not, I would like to know what it was that I did wrong. Thank you for your time, sorry for the inconvenience. -EspejoHumeante.

False positive. I was blocking a lot of spammy accounts at the time and at first glance your account name fits one of the general patterns used by spam accounts. I can see from the logs that you've made legitimate contributions before; the account and IP should be unblocked now. Sorry about that. --Wikifag (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing Conflict[edit]

I'm having a problem with Ahriman's Aide: he's editing the story I posted over at [Bound Fate] with inflammatory personal rhetoric. It's a repeated issue, and I'm not the first person it's happened to; I'll warn you he has access to a college campus with a few different IP addresses. Could you head this off before it becomes a real problem? --ILikeCommas 15:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: He's started reverting under an IP address rather than his name, and continues to do so periodically. UPDATE: It's been resolved.


Just wanted to pop by and say thank you on behalf of the /tg/heim community for hosting us. Originally we thought we'd just be a handful of players, but we're suddenly at 30+ warbands, with no signs of abatement!

I don't know if you've been following the discussion on the talk page; but one of the issues we're thinking about is long-term footprint; at the current rate we're going will be outputting hundreds of battle reports in a month. We're thinking of perhaps purging the Open League and starting from scratch every month or so to keep down the bloat, but there are worries about the logistics of this - this would require the currently existing warband pages for the Open League to be deleted (or moved to personal pages for posterity) and new ones to be created in their place. I figured I'd just go ahead and ask if you had any input or advice on the best way to go about this. --Quinze (talk)

Massive Thanks For Everything So Far and a Special Gift[edit]

Hey Wikifag. I saw your post on the frontpage where you were talking about your recent 'news & updates' thread on 4chan, and all of your years of hard work on the wiki! (Incidentally, you might want to change the frontpage link. It goes to 4chan where the original thread has already been pruned. It's archived here though: )

I've really enjoyed, and respect the work you've put into it. I've really liked the 'humor' sections like the ANGRY MARINES and the SISTERS OF CLEANING.

Anyway, in contemplation of your work to date, I wanted to do something in the way of contributing something significant to the site. The Shape of the Nightmare to Come was written and posted by LordLucan, of the forums, from 2009 to 2010. The story was his imagining of how the universe of Warhammer 40,000 would change by the year 50,000. The writing represented some of the finest Warhammer 40k fanfiction that has ever been posted to the Internet. So, I've compiled its various sections, wikified the works (and this took a LOT of time energy, I can assure you!) and have posted them on . I went a couple steps ahead of what's typical too, and also added extra formatting in some places, a title banner, and a dynamic navigation section.

The shape of the nightmare to come MYOC BANNER.png

The Shape of the Nightmare to Come

Thanks again for everything and I hope you like the new additions!

Sister Brofist.png

--MercWithMouth (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with Archival[edit]

Greetings, Wikifag, I am an envoy from /tg/heim. With a league reset currently in the works, we were wondering if you could provide a text dump of the warband pages listed in the Participating Warbands section of /tg/heim, with formatting of the pages intact. If there isn't a tool for this we'll be happy to do it on our own, though I figured I'd ask to save some time if you can do it with a few clicks. --Kislev Stronk (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no trivial way to do this that I'm aware of.--Wikifag (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Guess we're manually archiving things then. Thanks for the timely response! --Kislev Stronk (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File Renaming[edit]

Hey, Wikifag. I was wondering if you could do some file-renaming? Specifically... take, [[File:Niggermander.jpg]] and rename it to say... "Marneus Calgar Warhammer 40k Ultramarines Ghetto Fab Chapter Master.jpg"

It becomes hard to show people not from 4chan the Ultramarines page with stuff like that laying about. --MercWithMouth (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

RPS throwing us traffic[edit]

Holy shit. Reading a highly-regarded vidya gaem blog, and what do I see? A motherfucking link to 1d4chan in the text above the fold. Have we arrived? Are we famous now? --NotBrandX (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Over the last two days RPS has sent us just over a thousand visitors and caused almost five thousand extra pageviews, a statistical anomaly which is actually completely absorbed by the random variance in traffic from day to day anyway. Last Monday (the 19th) saw more traffic than the 23rd did. It's kind of a shame that one can be linked by RPS and barely get a blip in traffic as a result, but oh well! It's cool that Ben dropped us a link anyhow, although I'd be curious to know if he's a general 1d4chan user or he just stumbled across an interesting page on the internets by random happenstance.
Regarding our famousness, though - well, we might not be widely discussed, but it's getting difficult to find a Warhammer-related search term that google doesn't tell me we place in the top ten results (by average) for. Apparently we're very popular. --Wikifag (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Strikethrough Edits[edit]

Can we please get an official policy against these? Most of the strikethroughs I see are pointless edit-warring or similar. Strikethroughs are good for jokes and links that are temporarily down, otherwise they are eyesores that clutter up pages. I think it would be good to have an official set of guidelines for using strikethroughs. --Bjorn (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. I know Petro links to a nice, humorous description of when strikethrough is appropriate, and most of what I see is in blatant disregard of good editing sense and readability.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Offer of assistance[edit]

It is becoming increasingly clear that AssistantWikifag alone cannot handle all the workload that comes with supervising 1d4chan. As I have had considerable previous experience acting as a wiki administrator, I would like to offer my services to 1d4chan as a second assistant for you. I have several ideas as to cleaning up the wiki and plan to strengthen 1d4chan policies, which should lead to an overall increase in quality.--Newerfag (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what basis you use for saying that I can't handle the workload. Is it because I haven't deleted the pages that you flagged? When I accepted Wikifag's offer of adminship, I understood the position as not so much about content enforcement as behavior monitoring. Honestly, if I had been on the wiki at the instant you tried to wipe Halo from the wiki, I'd have given you a three-day ban for it (not so much as punishment but to enforce a cool-down period and give you some time to think about the situation). I'm feeling inclined to do so now that you've harassed another user -- the only reason I've not is that the argument's already pretty much blown over, but every time I see your name next to a negative number in the list of recent changes, my ban-finger itches.
I didn't weigh in on your proposal for a content policy because other users laid out the arguments against them that I would have used.
tl;dr If you want me to delete pages, I need to have confidence that they don't just offend your sense of what 1d4chan ought to be. Some of the pages in the deletion category probably are objectively pointless ("HURR" and "DURR" come to mind) and will likely be deleted before too long, but I would much rather commit errors of omission rather than act heavy-handedly. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Very well. I suppose we simply have different ideas about what it means to be an admin, then. While I do not completely agree with you, I am willing to accept your judgment in this matter.--Newerfag (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles under attack[edit]

Hello wikifag, I hope I am writing this in the right place. A couple of articles on the wiki are being vandalised (Games Workshop and Minorities in the Imperium of Mankind) by someone who is being a bit racially motivated it seems. I reversed his deleting of the articles' content but he seems to be ready to make an edit war of it, which of course I don't want to it devolve into. I wonder if you can advise what to do in this matter? - Alorend 23:58, 27 January 2014

Protecting your user page?[edit]

I've noticed that your userpage has been repeatedly vandalized over the past couple of days. Maybe it might help if you put it under protection?--Newerfag (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit War/Article under Attack[edit]

For the past few days there has been a constant edit war over the article "The Glassing of Djangoris Alpha IV" and it's talk page. Would you consider locking the page for a few days until the participants have had time to cool down. Thank you very much for your assistance and attention in the matter

  • Apparently this bot and his style of editing is just blatant trolling. Derpysaurus

File size limit[edit]

I just tried to upload 3.14 Mb file on the 1d4, but get this message:

This file is bigger than the server is configured to allow.

No longer than a week ago I uploaded 7 MB Pdf, and faced no such limitations. So is it a bug, or should I upload my fandex on some filehoster?

No, I need to track down the settings to up the filesize limit again. I think it will be 2MB by default based on what I remember of nginx settings. Try again later. --Wikifag (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
So, this later is going to be next few days or weeks or months? Just to know, should I keep trying.
You should be able to upload anything up to 15MB now. Let me know if you encounter any other problems.--Wikifag (talk) 16:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, figured out I actually encountered them. Here is the file, and it hadn't being converted into set of images like PDFs on 1d4 tend to. Would it be that from now on, of would you restore the old functional? Mezmerro (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw your upload. It ought to be thumbnailing; I'm trying to work out where it's going wrong. Hopefully won't take too long to fix. --Wikifag (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it just went wonky on your upload there - everything else still seems to be working alright, and reuploading it made it start working. Should all be fine now, enjoy. --Wikifag (talk) 17:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Mezmerro (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been getting a similar problem for the past couple of weeks. Every time I try to upload a file I get '413 Request Entity Too Large'. Am I doing something wrong or is it a problem with the wiki? --Chronicler (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Auto watching[edit]

Aand its again me. Could you please turn off watch flag, auto turned on at each edit? It's just annoying.Mezmerro (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll second Mezmerro on this one. It's not crippling, but it can be a bit of a pain.--Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
You can set this yourself -- under "Preferences" -> "Watchlist" tab -> "Advanced Options" section, you can choose whether pages you edit or move are set to your watchlist by default. (I'm sure Wikifag could also set the default value for new users.) --AssistantWikifag (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think I can change the defaults. I'll look into it later. --Wikifag (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Much obliged, Assistant Wikifag. Missed that one somehow. --Boss Ballkrusha (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Images disappearing?[edit]

Many images seem to be disappearing, most recently the header image for the C.S. Goto article, but there's a bunch, all returning "Error creating thumbnail, missing file" 02:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Permaband Pacman0129 & Adderx11?[edit]

Hey Wikifag! It seems that the bots/trolls have evolved and started creating accounts to continue with their bullshit, here we see Pacman0129 and his sock puppet Adderx11 creating a massive clusterfuck within multiple pages. Is it possible to permaband them? Derpysaurus

Need assistance with an edit war[edit]

An edit war has been started on Knights_inductor_rewrite, your assistance is required

No assistance anymore. Resolved. - Ben (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a Permaban for[edit]

Looking through the logs for all recent changes, I have noted that has been changing a huge amount of content, and causing EXTENSIVE vandalism. He's also notable for starting the edit war earlier. I'm requesting a Permanent IP-Ban for this IPAddress.Evilexecutive (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a Permaban for Libedrat0r and‎‎ (dunno if the two are the friggin same)[edit] and

These two are clogging the site with their stuff without talking about it with the people on /tg/. Not only that, but he/they even use stolen pics from others as Newerfag looked into them. He/they not only didn't bother to talk about this stuff on /tg/, he/they outright stole stuff. - Ben (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded; attempts to explain why this is not allowed met with him accusing us of "getting in his way" and showing no knowledge of what /tg/ even was. I doubt he's even heard of the place until we told him of it.--Newerfag (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you're both jumping on the banwagon a little early, I think we should try talking to them a bit more and get the artwork removed. -- Triacom (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
That will pain my sanity. OK. Gonna do it later. - Ben (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
What was stolen exactly? --Thannak (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Basically it was artwork assets from two different sources MSPainted together without giving credit to either one of them. Just look at the Artwork on the Order of Anarchy page. -- Triacom (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The obvious art style inconsistency within the indvidual pictures for the gallery in the "Lord Commissar Aveline" page got me suspicious. Further reverse-image searching concluded that the entirety of the gallery's artwork was copied and had gas masks poorly added to them. Even if he is simply new, he has no excuse for claiming the art of others as his own. The delete tags on the offending files have links to their original sources for comparison. --Newerfag (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The thread where he tried to introduce his regiment was negatively received, and he re-added the stolen artwork when he recreated the pages. After re-applying the delete tag, he attacked me on my talk page and refused to listen to me when I explained he was violating the CCA. As he obviously has no intent to contribute positively, I again request he be banned for no less than a few months.

Requesting a permaban for[edit]

The IPAddress is vandalizing a large number of random pages, I am now requesting a permaban for him.

Edit war on Space marines 7th edition/ Iron Hands Chapter tactics[edit]

Need admin help over here to settle this. One side keeps deleting the other opposing viewpoint, it is getting silly. Thanks.

It's really people from both sides annoyingly enough, and an issue of RAW vs. RAI, whereby BOTH are highly questionable. Not all posts are getting Sigg'd, and that's making things worse. Evilexecutive (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd argue that it's a case of RAW vs. RAPW (rules as previously written), given that only one chapter tactics (Iron hands) gets treated this way. --NewPhyrexian (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to be arguing it anymore, I'm done with it, I put my views on the pan, and left them there. This isn't the place to be arguing it either. Look, let wikifag decide what to do about the issue, though if I was him I'd have it locked. Evilexecutive (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Art Shilling[edit]

Yo, User:Brother Orkraper is spamming their DeviantArt work on and being pretty rude, could you tell them to stop? ValkyrieSkies (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Requesting Anonymous Editing Blocks[edit]

Alright, so the Knights Inductor Codex right now is the most edited Fandex on the wiki, and unfortunately it isn't exactly popular at all with /tg/. Over a month ago, I headed up an effort between me and the other two primary editors for Codex - Knights Inductor to start a Lore Rewriting project over at Knights Inductor (Rewrite). Unfortunately it was overwhelmingly attacked by vandals from TG with pretty much nothing better to do.

Right now I'm trying to get the Rewrite finished up so the Knights Inductor could fit better with the setting again, but I'd like to be sure that it isn't going to be harassed again. So here I'd like to request an Anonymous Edit Block for the following Pages:

Now, I know that blocking anonymous edits for these pages won't stop vandals entirely, but it would help a little in keeping them secure if people have to risk permabans for vandalizing our hard work.

Thumbnailing problems[edit]

I dunno where to report server software/configuration bugs, but: It looks like uploading a PNG larger than 1024 kilobytes results in mediawiki being unable to produce thumbnails of it. (Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters) And big images are the ones that need thumbnails most of all, really. --LotusEater (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a 1d4chan newfag, and I have questions[edit]

If I have questions about the site and what's okay to add as content. Is there a better place to ask than here, like a more general forum/talk page, etc.?

If not, my main question is this: I play a lot of oWoD. I noticed that the articles for most of the games are already pretty damn good, but would there be any problem if I started adding more specific pages for things like individual vampire clans, werewolf tribes, etc.?

Thanks. MoarExterminatus (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello MoarExterminatus, welcome to 1d4chan! (Hopefully Wikifag doesn't mind me taking this one.)
More content is almost always welcome. The main rule is that it has to be "/tg/ related", and oWoD is certainly that. Please, feel free to create articles (and templates and categories and anything else) for those topics you've brought up -- it's been pointed out before that our wiki is lacking attention to non-Warhammer-40K topics, and that's only going to change if users like you get in here and add more content.
Going forward, if you'd like to ask a question to 1d4chan in general, your best bet is to bring it up on Talk:Main Page. Thanks!
--AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that's what I call rapid response. Thanks again! MoarExterminatus (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Popular Pages gone[edit]

Hail, mighty Wikifag. As you request, I shall report about broken functionalities. The Special:PopularPages is gone, as it is linked on the Mainpage under Quickstart/Noobs. With best regards, --2A02:2028:563:2C01:6D98:BB05:BE27:1701 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at that delicious IPv6. As mediawiki no longer supports view-counting in the app, Popular Pages has no metric to work with. The link just needs to go from the front page. --Wikifag (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary ban/suspension of Asorel[edit]

Asorel is a user who for some reason thinks the only things that should exist on this wiki are the pages they like, and they refuse to listen to anyone who disputes them on this matter, slapping delete tags onto any page they dislike without first using the discussion page, and then continuously deleting the content while people are trying to talk to them in the discussion page. This has resulted in many editwars, one of which you had to personally intervene to edit. As such I'd like to request a temporary ban/suspension of them to give them a chance to cool off, hopefully they'll learn what they've done wrong (which has been told to them multiple times by multiple users) in the meantime. -- Triacom (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you presume to claim moral superiority to me? What an excellent way to validate your arguments. I won't bother contesting your accusation, as the written evidence of my actions more than contradicts them.--Asorel (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You know, looking at your User Contributions Page pretty much confirms exactly what Triacom is saying about you. All you really ever seem to do on this wiki is delete things that you don't like. Nearly everything you've got is a 3 or 4 digit red edit, and the only positive edits you've made are to start shit on discussions. Look, you really should start listening and talking to people more. Evilexecutive (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Evilexecutive, and thank you Asorel for asking for people to look at your contribution page as it confirms everything I've mentioned. I don't have to "claim" moral superiority, I have it already since I've asked you to tone it down multiple times in multiple discussion pages, I've tried talking to you about it on your talk page, and I've tried to talk to you about it in the summary pages, yet you refuse to listen and think the only things that can be up are the things you like. Personally I think this is best shown on your talk page, where you tried deleting every negative discussion purely because you didn't like it, in fact when I told you that it fall to you to decide what belongs on the your talk page and the wiki you replied with this: "Actually, it does. A wiki is by definition something anyone can edit, and I would like to keep your autism out of my talk page unless absolutely necessary". Making this topic on Wikifag's page was a last resort since you refuse to listen to anyone lower than an Admin since the only times you actually stopped were when an admin shut you down, or you got your way. Quite literally the only thing stopping me from asking for a perma-ban is because once in a blue moon you make an actual edit that isn't slapping a delete tag on a page, or talking shit in a talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this scenario oddly familiar?. Also, TBH, considering most of the things he just does is forcibly blank pages and fuck everyone else that says otherwise to it until we match his hard-headedness, I really don't see any loss if he gets forcibly taken off to cool down for a week or something like that.Tactical Mehren (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There have been several occasions on which I have withdrawn a delete request when shown a valid reason why a page should stay. All of the current lively debates are the result of a single user countering the delete request without articulating a valid reason as to why.--Asorel (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Without a reason as to why the page should exist? If you're saying that a page needs to be deleted, it doesn't fall to anybody except you to give a reason why it should be deleted, if you can't think of one, or don't have a valid one (not personally finding something funny or interesting are certainly not valid reasons) then the page shouldn't be deleted. Let's look at why your deletion tags have no rhyme or reason: You blanked the tubes page and put it up for deletion because you thought it wasn't funny, or informative, then you blanked and put up the Overcosted page for deletion for being too informative. When I undid your edits on the Overcosted page saying that it's perfectly fine for somebody to explain something in depth you called me retarded while undoing my edits, and when Evilexecutive undid your edits while making the same argument (that there's no reason to delete it) you listened, and called me autistic. Please just listen to what Wikifag suggested, stick to revision and addition work instead of putting delete tags on the pages you don't like. -- Triacom (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You are mischaracterizing my actions, and once more failing to keep discussions contained to the pertinent talk pages, as well as making a number of other incorrect statements which I will not discuss here. Discussion of articles go in the talk pages of those articles, not here. Any personal grievances you have with me go in my talk page, not the article talk page, and vice versa.--Asorel (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh please enlighten me, how exactly am I mischaracterizing your actions? I'm simply repeating what you stated, as everyone can see if they look at the history for those articles and their talk pages. Incidentally I'm not talking about those pages, I'm talking about your actions. -- Triacom (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Take it to the article talk pages. You made statements regarding the edition of Overcosted that are objectively and demonstrably false. I'm not going to discuss it here further, because articles should be discussed in that article's talk pages.--Asorel (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm replying here because you never posted in the articles you want to talk in, but while we're here let's look at my arguments, when I first undid your deletion I said: "This is even more /tg/ related then many things you've marked for deletion." How is that objectively and demonstrably false? You deleted the page again, asking if I was retarded for wanting to keep the page, then I said "Of course not, however there's no reason deleting an article written by somebody else if they wanted to explain something." How is that objectively and demonstrably false? You responded by deleting it again, and saying "Yes, it is. I don't give a shit if they 'thought' it was necessary, that doesn't make it so. Is that the entire pretense of your white knighting? Protecting the fee-fees of the poor, innocent contributors?" So you are deleting it because it's too informative. I responded with "Of course not, however it's a very common term here, so if they thought they should be informative, then let them." How is that objectively and demonstrably false? You responded by deleting the page yet again, and saying "Again, defending the honor of page creators is not grounds for keeping a useless page active. What they think is irrelevant if it is not reflective of reality." So according to your statements here, you don't care whatsoever about what other users think/write. In short, none of the statements I said there are objectively and demonstrably false, and I did not mean to discuss the articles, I was talking about your actions, and your actions only, because I made this article specifically to talk about your actions. I'm still talking about your actions, pretending I'm not is just childish. -- Triacom (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Does my not initially using the discussion page prevent you from doing so now? Almost none of those statements are ones you made in your previous post, so it's obvious I was not referring to them. You claimed, erroneously, that another editor made the same arguments you did, and I accepted the arguments when that editor made them. This editor made substantially different arguments.
"So according to your statements here, you don't care whatsoever about what other users think/write." Don't twist my words. I was pointing out that a creator 'thinking a page is useful' is not grounds for keeping a page that otherwise does not serve a purpose. If I create a page describing the various ways in which a marsupial may undress a Barbie, me thinking that page is useful has no bearing on how useful the page actually is to the wiki. You know what, let's just use this hypothetical page as an example, as abstract reasoning appears to be failing you.
Little Jimmy creates the page, "How the wombat declothes Barbie." Johnny flags the page for deletion, because wombats and Barbie aren't what teejee's all about. Tommy comes along and undoes Johnny's edit. Tommy says he did this because Jimmy thought Barbie and Warhammer went hand in hand, and that's good enough for him. Then Danny comes along, and explains to Johnny how Wombats and Barbie is actually a very popular teejee inside joke, and that a lot of other pages wouldn't work quite right if the page was deleted. Johnny tells Danny that he has a point, and withdraws the deletion.
Tommy made an appeal to emotion and didn't have any argument of substance. Danny made a concrete argument that proved why the page was useful. Do you see how what Tommy said and what Danny said are just a teensy bit different?--Asorel (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't prevent me from making a page there, however you've made no effort to move there and this is already a discussion about your behaviour so it's fitting to talk about what you've done here, and not on the page since this argument isn't about the page, it's about you. Evilexecutive said that the page has no reason to be deleted, just as I did. Let's look at something you said now, how is saying "What they think is irrelevant if it is not reflective of reality." Your argument at the time was not that the page was useless, it was that it was unnecessary because the entire definition was summed up in the name. Also your analogy is terrible, Overcosting is one of the main gripes everyone has with Warhammer, and your Barbie example has nothing in common with it. Your analogy is better suited to discussing the Rebecca Black page, which if you remember, I actually sided with you on, which is why I folded that page away into another, causing the old page to have no reason to exist besides a redirect, though funnily enough when told it was an outside joke that other people link to you refused to stop attacking the Rebecca Black page, so you don't even follow your own analogy. By the way, no page is damaged by losing a link to another page. It doesn't stop them from working right in any way shape or form, and I'm very certain it was written like that by Evilexecutive to get you to stop because it certainly wasn't helpful in any way. -- Triacom (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I give up. I have quite literally resorted to explanations reserved for children, and you have failed to grasp their meaning. Reasoning fails, examples fail, analogies not only fail, you don't seem to know how they work.--Asorel (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not fail to grasp their meaning, you tried an analogy that had nothing to do with what happened. You attempted to delete a page that explained what a word meant (and the page provided examples for that word). It should be obvious to any person of any age why a definition page is useful. You also can't claim that I'm ignoring what you say, when you're ignoring the stuff I post and react to what you've said. All of the suggestions I've given you just did not register for some reason. At the very least please listen to Wikifag, and stick do Additions and Revisions. -- Triacom (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Legal ramifications of posting stats.[edit]

Yo, there's a discussion on the Home page talk about the possible legal repercussions or lack thereof for posting stat's using GW's format. Discussion isn't going anywhere so I'd like a final call from the referee (that being you) about it. Care to take a look? Josman (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a permaban for The Forgefather.[edit]

I'm requesting for Forgefather (who is probably Asorel) to be permanently banned because they have shown very little besides destructive behaviour and that compromise is an alien concept to them. All attempts to reason with them from any user end with the ultimatum that they have to get their way, and they've shown they care nothing for the other users on the wiki. They are also most likely Asorel because the account was created right after you asked Asorel to stop slapping delete tags on everything, and immediately after its creation the Forgefather account started slapping delete tags on everything (the Asorel account has also not been used since Forgefathers creation) not to mention they both talk the same, have the same arguments and mindsets, and Forgefather has never denied they're the same when accused of it. If you look at their contributions page you can see a long list of arguments between them and the other users (including me) because they think that not liking a section is more than enough evidence to delete it. They have not once ever started a discussion by asking whether something should or should not be on the wiki (and as earlier mentioned they ignore all evidence that proves them wrong) and I've no doubt that if they are allowed to stay they'll continue their destructive behaviour. I know that I've asked them to stop, I know several others have asked them to stop, and yet they continue as if nobody has ever tried to contact them about it, so I've come here as a last resort. -- Triacom (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I know it's not democracy, but I second it. Saw this comming months ago, yet others tried to reason with him. Mezmerro (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Seconding as well. I'm tired off cleaning up deletions all the time, and I don't see how he alone should be allowed to censor like he does. TheWiseDane (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Third. Tired of seeing him do this shit all the time. He feels like he's the top dog when in reality he's a little chickenshit with a superiority complex. --Hellsing612 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Upload limits[edit]

I haven't been able to upload any images recently - I keep getting '413 Request Entity Too Large'. I assume this is something to do with the recent site overhaul; can someone fix it plz? --Chronicler (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, after config shuffling to stick varnish in the loop it turns out the allowed upload size was no longer being set correctly everywhere it needed to be. It should be happy now. --Wikifag (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, problem solved. Thank you. --Chronicler (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for 2600:1003:B01C:BBC0:2BD1:AD3B:F25B:2C42[edit]

I was working on the codex for the Knights Inductor when I got notice of two edits from this account, solely on pages related to it. While I understand the sentiment, the edits were entirely unnecessary and damaging to current pages. Creating an account or making edits solely for that purpose I find to be entirely unacceptable. Remoon101 (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone for making a couple of edits that aren't universally liked. I realize you didn't ask me, but I don't see 2600's behavior as fitting any reasonable definition of disruption or edit warring. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Understood, I'll just keep an eye out then and let you know if there's any further trouble. Thank you for your fast response. Remoon101 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

requesting a ban for[edit] seems to be a particularly horny spambot, who has rewritten the entirety of all of the 'board' pages, and has now started going after user pages. He's been at this for 2 days straight. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Ollanius Pius Edit War[edit]

Right now Ollanius Pius is in the midst of a shitfest over a bunch of things and the way its being handeled is through people deleting everything and writing a new article, then getting reverting, then reverting that back to their edit. At this point its lost all productivity and become people getting frustrated with each other. Saladofstones (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting Ban for Sasuji and Bobatwork[edit]

Guy just now spammed in a lot of bullshit and is spamming faster than I can blank. Also thinking that the latter (Bobatwork) is either another arse or the same man/spambot. Requesting help. - Ben (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Holy mother of balls! We are being flooded with spambots we need the banhammer ASAP! Here are more spambots/puppets called Kabart211, Romy1922 and Special:Contributions/ Hurry up guys, there's a war here! Derpysaurus
Dealt with. I've changed the edit/register question set again. We'll see how that goes. --Wikifag (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Phew. They disappeared. And it was one hell of a nightmare at first. - Ben (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for Donalju[edit]

Donalju seems to be the name of the latest bot/troll, and even though they've only made one page I'm sure we've all seen what happens if they're left alone, as such I'd like to request a ban for them before they make more hotmail spam pages or whatever they're interested in doing. -- Triacom (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for some guy blanking 40k related pages[edit] this dude has been vandalizing shit all over the wiki related to 40k. Saladofstones (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC) He appears to have returned Saladofstones (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a ban on a bot called:[edit]

Derpysaurus here, found a bot vandalizing some pages. Here is his IP, Special:Contributions/

Yet another ban request:[edit] Has wiped at least two pages. Unsure if this is the proper avenue of requesting a banning, for I am rather new here. An Inquest will be appreciated. Thanks, Naeondaemon (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This is as good a place to request a block as any. I've given him a couple weeks to cool off. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Some Goofs Defacing Ork property[edit] Has repeatedly defaced the Ork page without adding actual content. Did one act of defacement around the same time, but hasn't done anything after the undo. If the first perp just gave up, I would not have mentioned this but I rather nip the problem at the bud than waste time undoing asinine acts of peevishness. -- Naeondaemon (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ban request for[edit]

Has been blanking the Riptides Aren't OP in 7th page because he's upset that he got copypasta'd

I've temporarily blocked the user in question and protected the page. I'll check back in a few days to see what the consensus is on the page's existence, but unilaterally blanking a page is not the way here. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[edit] has been on a destructive blanking tear--Naeondaemon (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, let's get them banned, their changes reversed and promptly forget that they came here like all the ones before them. -- Triacom (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I've given 83 a week to cool off -- next time I'll block it for good. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


User:Inquisitor Helix made a charming series of edits as a personal attack. --Lumey (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Stopping an Edit War, also fanmade codices[edit]

  • Users 2600:1005:B063:97BC:4D38:1C9C:FEB4:4B95 and 2600:1005:b063:97bc:4d38:1c9c:feb4:4b95‎ (whom I assume are the same person) have been ignoring me asking them to move to the talk page of the Codex - Necron Angry Robot page. I asked them to not edit the page in question between the third day of each month and second last day of each to allow some semblance of a stable usable codex.
I also want to ask whether or not you want me to move the angry initiative off 1d4chan. A number of unit entries are nearly identical to the official unit entries. While I greatly enjoy the assistance of the other editors I think I'll be able to continue without their help if the existence of these articles on 1d4chan is a liability.

Last note, if you do decide to let me stay I would appreciate if the page hit counter could be re-implemented, it's quite an ego boost. Angry Pirate (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Ban request:[edit]

Vandalizing this page.. Like how fucking stupid does someone have to be to try and vandalize the very page that ban requests are made on? Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thumbnailing problem again[edit]

Codex Thousand Sons v 1.75.pdf

Apparently something broke with PDF thumbnailing again.

Actually it's all hte PDFs that broke, and many of the pictures went 404 too. Mezmerro (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what's going wrong with the PDFs, PdfHandler extension is installed and ought to be working. Trying to debug.
The duff images were the result of symlink failure after I did a minor site upgrade just now, those should all be working correctly at this point. --Wikifag (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, mystery solved; the pdfinfo info utility provided by poppler-utils from debian/testing just doesn't work with the PdfHandler extension. I suppose this is what I get for running testing. Downgraded to the much older version still in jessie repos and now it's fine. I'm attempting an image refresh/rebuild which will hopefully fix in place current PDFs but they might need a revert/restore cycle to force things back into life. --Wikifag (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Everything seems to be in order, looking at the uploaded PDF list. Ticket closed. --Wikifag (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ban Request[edit]

User "" does nothing but blank articles and subsequently vandalize them. Tactical Mehren (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Seconded, they have also done this before.--Naeondaemon (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary suspension for user Blackcap/[edit]

I'm requesting a temporary suspension for Blackcap/ as their main contribution to the wiki recently is to repeatedly delete the exact same paragraph on the 30k tactics page. They've refused to have a discussion about it, and according to them their main reason for removing a tactic is because the page isn't a tactics page. It does not seem as if they're going to stop anytime soon either and when I told them they could discuss it or I'd request their suspension, they told me to go ahead and request their suspension. I'm hoping a suspension will help them clear their head, and if not then I'll have to ask to ban them, though I'd much rather not. -- Triacom (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

YouTube Embeds[edit]

Not something that comes up a lot, but it sometimes looks better than just listing links. There are a few extensions that add this in. Negrohotep (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added the EmbedVideo extension if you're still looking to use this. --Wikifag (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Captcha/Skathach Wraithknight (Eldar Tactics) contribution issue[edit]

Hello, the Captcha system is preventing me from contributing an errata update on Skathach wraithknights in the Eldar tactics section due to my linking to proof of the errata. The modified section of the paragraph should read as follows: The Warp Shunt Generator, allows you to leave the table in the movement phase, allowing you to get out of a sticky situation, or to move in any direction 18"(*), and then scatter 1d6. You can also use it to disengage from a fight (*).

The stars should indicate a link to the following image which I can't copy-paste intact here for the same reason. h t t p :/ /i . img ur . com / y8qrvPm . png

How exactly is it stopping you? The captcha is triggered if you add a link to another site, which is by design, because that trips spammers. Are you having a problem solving the captcha? --Wikifag (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's asking me what the opposite of Crunch or Fluff is to which there is none that make sense. I tried them regardless and it still doesn't accept the answer
Are you a bot? You mentioned the answers to both questions in your post. The first question is the answer to the second question and the second question is the answer to the first question, I guess wikifag can provide the answer in a less cryptic way but I'm not sure if I'm allowed. Note that there are sometimes a question both at the top and at the bottom of the page, although I think that only comes up when you are creating pages. I've added what you requested, if you want to change the name it appears as like if you wanted it to read "errata" you should do [[link|errata]] Angry Pirate (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't thinking of the two words in context with each other. Certainly I thought "fluff" might be referring to game fluff or the noun "fluff" as opposed to the verb. Might make more sense to say "the opposite of To Fluff/To Crunch" than simply "fluff/crunch"
The questions are all written such that you should be able to find the answer by looking up the subject on the site itself. The articles for Fluff and Crunch both mention that they are opposite to each other in their first paragraphs. --Wikifag (talk) 23:23, 26 March 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. Here is the contribution logs (Special:Contributions/Lucy). I request an immediate permaban on this bot and immediate deletion on the pages. Derpysaurus

Stub articles[edit]

There are many "stub" templates on short pages. Are they necessary if the page's already to the point? ex. Campaign_setting, Magical_realm, Shield

This is something better discussed on those pages as the stub tag is something any user can add, and while I mean no disrespect to Wikifag, you don't need their permission to remove it if you feel the article's long enough. -- Triacom (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. Mostly, the problem is that people don't remove the stub template after they've expanded an article. If you think an article provides decent coverage of its subject, it's not a stub anymore and the template should be removed. --Wikifag (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


I know it is irredeemable but i believe it was deleted due to my bad wording or you happen to be a Lifeweb player wich is unlikely since i have no idea about a pedophile culture within Lifeweb and so i ask you to a new chance at making a Lifeweb page with appropriate fate descriptions and if your answer is the likely no where can i find advice so that this does not happen again other than common sense wich i already have plenty of.

First, Wikifag had nothing to do with this. Second, Lifeweb isn't relevant to /tg/ in the first place so it has no reason to be here. If you really had common sense, you would know that already. --Newerfag (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
You're overreacting. Your article hasn't been deleted yet and everything you wrote on there is still there. If you really want Lifeweb to be on the wiki however (I'm honestly not too sure why), you could just add it to the MMORPG page as a new topic as that is what it is in a purely technical sense. -- Triacom (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


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

They're back, still not nearly as bad as the last time tho. Tactical Mehren (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Really? More than half the recent changes page seems to consist of spambot edits. That's pretty bad if you ask me. --Newerfag (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"Not nearly as bad" is a fucking understatement. This shit is covering 3/4 of the recent changes at its maximum count limit. We need a fucking purge, unfortunately I am overwhelmed with the amount of shit these bots seem to carry. We need immediate action right now. Derpysaurus

They're all gone now; I think it should be safe to remove the restrictive permissions at this point. --Newerfag (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Bold textThis is F'inbg ridiculous. All I want to do is create a wiki account and in order to do this I have to answer questions that are not only stupid, but not even searchable on wiki. What normal f'ing person knows the species of a punpun or what the f'ing capital of some sci fi empire in the milky way. I mean FCUK, I have an F'ing master's degree and this sh&t is above and beyond abnormal. how do I create an account, as a legit user without having to hire a geek to answer these stupid - a%% questions?

We apologize for the inconvenience, but the alternative to the trivia questions is getting swamped by spam, unfortunately. It used to be really, really bad (see the image to the right). "Conventional" CAPTCHA wasn't helping to stem the tide.
As for your question, Punpun is definitely searchable on this wiki. Try one of the linked keywords from the opening paragraph. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Article Vandalism/Edit Warring[edit]

Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't bother getting you involved over something this minor, but one of the pages regarding Dawn of War mods (specifically DoWpro) has seen repeated vandalism and attempts at deletion from one anonymous user that thus far has operated from several IP addresses, including [Special:Contributions/|], and [Special:Contributions/|]. More recently, under another IP, ( and they've decided, apropos of nothing, four years later, to attempt to remove the article in its entirety with a long-winded deletion post and claiming there was some kind of mandate for its removal when the discussion page shows quite the opposite (I.E. a desire for articles on other good DOW mods). I completely rewrote the article from scratch to be less openly fanboy-ish (ironic considering this is /tg/ and gushing over the 41st millenium is kind of the point) and stick to keeping it informative, but the dude clearly has an axe to grind, and immediately deleted it again. Since he's on a dynamic IP I don't know if he can be actually banned effectively, but I wanted you to be aware of the situation and what's been going on there. He hasn't gone after any of the other mod pages, to the best of my knowledge, so this may be a case where it's just one jackass with a bug up his ass taking shots at a mod he doesn't like. Any help you could give would be appreciated. -- Jaimas (talk) 10:13 AM, 11 January 2018 (EST)

Welp, here I am, that anonymous user (I never made an account back in the old days (I mostly made random minor edits for grammatical or factual errors and the like) and not now, originally, either - but heck, best to have one when I make larger/longer edits, I suppose. Welp, I'm that guy, and yeah - I haven't actively been trying to avoid a ban (and as far as I know, no-one has attempted to ban me, either), just have a dynamic IP. However, it's not a case of vandalism - I barely even know where to start, but let's start with what is a rather obvious, blatant lie.
When the page was restored, an old version was restored - and this must've been deliberate, of course; one does not accidentally just click on an old revision, and then also accidentally entirely ignore restoring the most recent version - where more than half of the discussion (I'd say it's about two thirds that are missing) was held. Heck, I've got personal backups of all of my old "posts" in that discussion (unfortunately not the others, however), that I could easily upload and prove it with, should there be a need for that. Anyways, in that - deliberately excluded - part, it 'was' (by majority) agreed upon to remove the article, and have the general page for DoW mods. So, that the discussion page shows "quite the opposite" is true in the sense that the one that was restored, does - the full one, where discussions where actually held, however, is quite the opposite of the opposite, so to speak (i.e. what is claimed in the above message is patently false, except for the specific revision (or earlier revisions) that was restored. As a side-note, I'd very much claim - just personally, mind - that the point of /tg/ is most certainly 'not' to just be a W40K fan-board (or wiki); I'm a /tg/ graybeard, and I for one have never even so much as held a W40K mini, and I still very much enjoy the board (and, primarily, the wiki).
Further, as me and Newerfag both pointed out in the current discussion being held over on that article, these "other mod pages" amount to... One other mod page. So, yeah, that's... Yeah. And I'll add that personal insults and the like - since I like to prefer to think that we're all elegan/tg/entlemen and ca/tg/girls, here - is something I've never indulged in, but which has been a repeated "tactic" of the previous poster, here.
So, no, it's not a "jackass taking shots", or anything of the sort; just me, and I'm... Me. And I do all but apologize for chiming in here, wikifag, as I wouldn't think this would be needed, but I at the very least had to clarify the outright lies being told, as... Well, being lies, and presenting the other side. The discussion is currently ongoing on the relevant page, and I think that is working fine, as it is, and no particular intervention is needed - just my two coppers and Ludi'Drizzt, however. incassum (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspension/ban request[edit]

The guy keeps undoing one paragraph on Space Marine Legion List page, probably because he's butthurt Bligh said RG assault squads are lesser cheese he wants them to be. Tried to convince him he's behaving inappropriate (Discussion on my page) - no luck. Maybe something can be done to pacify him?

I second a ban for the IP address as well. The LA:AOAL books also disagrees with his interpretation as Infantry and Jump Infantry are considered different unit types. -- User:Valvatorez 23:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really, Valvatorez, the rulebook states all rules affecting infantry affect Jump Infantry as well (p.66 of HH Rulebook): "Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry". However, this particular case is an exeption, and a link is provided to confirm. --Flutist (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Banning anons from uploading images[edit]

Hey! It seems that for the past few months, certain anons have been uploading and spamming images on pages with little or no rime or reason. The images are just there to make the page look trashy and bloated. So far the attacks have been conducted by a very particular persistent anon called Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A0B:B100:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1. His ass was banned a few times as can be seen here:Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A1B:2300:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1, Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A16:C100:E088:4BA2:4059:3AB1 and Special:Contributions/2A02:587:3A0A:6B00:4099:5D97:9196:C893. I was just wondering if it is possible for you to prevent anons from uploading anymore images like before as it is being abused by certain little shits. Derpysaurus

Hi, forgive me for asking this, but could you add my story to Stories/Warhammer 40:000. I'm too retarded to do it myself. It's here

Thank you before hand and sorry for the trouble.

-HudVel [[Category: Stories/Warhammer_40,000]]

- Angry Pirate (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting ban[edit]

Someone with the IP is blanking the article Burning Blades. I reverted his changes a couple of times, posted about it in the article's discussion, and posted a brief message attempting to direct him there, along with marking the article for deletion, as he argued that the "creator of the page requested it." Subsequently he deleted my section on the talk page, replacing it with "no u" and blanked the article again. Blanking an article is one thing, but trying to blank discussion on it is another entirely. Thusly, I'm requesting that he be banned and any changes made because of this shit reverted. --Dornfag (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ban request[edit]

I'd like to put forward to ban the user with IP: ( out. From his edit notes, its either they're an obvious troll just out here to generally inconvenience everyone involved, or someone who really needs to get a barbed stick dislodged from their anal cavity. And all he does is BaW about and delete SJW topics, never actually contributing anything worthwhile to the article.

Tactical Mehren (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit History Purge Request[edit]

Summary : someone had a very wrong idea of what the common wa******* *** player/fan is about. This is me.

Now, after being exposed to some real /tg/, 1d4chan and editors, I do not want to be associated with any of you any longer.

These are the articles in question :

I would like for all the edits done by me to be purged from the edit history.

It causes me severe embarrassment to be associated with people from this website, as the reason for the request.

We are clearly polar opposites in ways that make it impossible for me to frequent this website any longer.

So please, I would like them to be removed in any way possible.

If not, I would like my username to be made anonymous forever or changed altogether. Whichever it is at your reach, please.

As others have stated, you are considerably overreacting and you'd be a much happier person if you just forgot about it and moved on with your life. Nonetheless, if you really want your account mangled, email me at root[at] --Wikifag (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I've sent you an e-mail as asked. Why aren't the damn edits deleted? It cannot be something over your capacity as an admin.

Holy shit Heir of Sigma, I guarantee people had already forgotten about you until you brought this back up. The longer you cling to it the worse it's going to get, just move on. -- Triacom (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
And if you don't want to come back, just set your password to gibberish, log out, and leave already. You could have already done so by now if you weren't being a drama queen. --Newerfag (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I've already done that for him. --Wikifag (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Writefaggotry and A: tLA[edit]

I'm planning on posting my writefaggotry (40k, Eberron, Old World, Elder Scrolls) here. It's all /tg/ related, none of it is super long, but it also has never been and never will be posted to any board on 4chan (I'm a namefagging piece of egotistical shit, so that's my price). Would this be a problem?

I'm sure it's been expressed somewhere historically, but the intention is that the site archives stories which are notable for being published elsewhere without persistence (e.g. on 4chan). Realistically I don't care if you keep it confined to subpages of your User:Page, but the wiki isn't meant to be an original source of fiction. (I have no real idea how firmly that ideal has been kept to over the years.) --Root (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, on a sidenote, there was an intense edit war this past Monday and yesterday on the Avatar: The Last Airbender page. Both sides are well meaning, but the edit is entirely inconsequential and is quite the nuisance both to me and, more than likely, more than a few Anons. If you could pull up with an Admin decision if shit keeps going, I'd appreciate it.

Wookieepedia refugees[edit]

Hello Root, Between the Mouse and its cronies driving out old guard editors, and wikia being rebranded as FANDOM, Wookieepedia has become an increasingly hostile place for editors that prefer the EU to nu-canon. Because of this, myself and a group of anons are looking for a suitable alternative wiki to which we may port Legends-era articles. Would 1d4chan be able to provide hosting for us?--The Forgefather 18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh hey, it's you again. I was honestly wondering what had happened to you recently since I knew you hadn't been banned, and if you plan to come and bring people with you then I'm going to give you two bits of advice:
  • After the two dashes when you want to add your signature, use a space and then four tilde strokes, it'll automatically sign and link your posts for you.
  • Don't assume that you're the one and only person who knows which direction the wiki should be taken in. That was the biggest problem people, including myself, had with you before you left, since you blanked pages left and right and refused to listen to anyone. I honestly think you might've gotten banned if you didn't leave.
Now that being said, if you open up dialogues in the talk pages before blanking large sections and if you don't go back into this habit, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing you or new users come in and while I can't speak for everyone, I doubt you'll find anyone who would actively oppose you or the new anons. -- Triacom (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Triacom, I think he's asking for help starting up an entirely new wiki. I don't know much about hosting, but a friend of mine has had good experiences with Miraheze ( they're free, too. Try it out and see if it works for you. --Newerfag (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I thought he was asking to make a bunch of new Star Wars related pages and port the old articles into those, and I can't see any reason for why people would be against that. My mistake if that's what he did mean. -- Triacom (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Age of Sigmar page spamming[edit]

Sadly we need an admin resolution on the Age of Sigmar page. 40k/Fantasy fans are trying once again to edit in anti-AoS content that was pruned from the article several months ago, multiple times by multiple people. The content was deemed useless, uninformative and only serves to try to further the divide between Fantasy and Age of Sigmar players, a dispute that benefits no one. The edits are now claimed to be "neutral" despite the edit listing 27 disparaging nicknames (that aren't used by anyone) for Age of Sigmar and only three for Fantasy, amongst other anti-AoS content... yeah, makes sense. The 40k and Fantasy pages have nothing similar to what they are trying to add to the Age of Sigmar page.

Despite the addition of an edit war tab saying to use the discussion section, continues to spam edit. Refer to 12:14 December 3 to 14:45 December 3 for the bulk of the edits. --Shoot_gun 14:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we clearly need an admin as Shoot Gun's not allowing any mention of the initial reaction of AoS's launch, as Shoot Gun's lying about what happened. The edits are not anti-AoS, they're as neutral as possible while all of the names are being mentioned in the past tense, while being in a collapsible section so you don't have to see them if you don't want to (all of these names were also used on the page itself and I've seen them on /tg/ as well when the game was first released). Trying to pretend that the game didn't have a controversial launch by removing any mention of it on the main page is just a bitch move, and the reason there aren't similar mentions on the main Fantasy and 40k pages are because Fantasy and 40k are not sequels to a different series that was ended, while starting out with a very controversial launch themselves. -- Triacom (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
A compromise was already reached on the discussion page, I guess Triacom is not willing to accept it. Controversy will be moved to a first edition AoS article (AoS is on its 2nd edition), where it is actually relevant to the current state and opinion of the game and isn't shitting up the article. Triacom can put even more funny and epic nicknames he pretends to have seen before on there ("SPACE MARINES OOOOON THEEEE GROUUUUUUUUND!" is something he has apparently seen used as a nickname for Age of Sigmar before). I had actually edited this request for resolution out of this page as the edit war was concluded already, but Triacom felt the need to restore it to "call out lies" (a bit cringy but I don't mind him trying.) --Shoot_gun 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You want to know something neat? I'm not the anon trying to put the edits back, I'm not Thannak who made the neutral edits, and I'm not Kracked Mynd who was the only one willing to accept this non-compromise. You didn't reach a compromise at all and like I said before, it's a bitch move to remove any mention of anything bad happening at the start of the game's launch just because you want to pretend it didn't exist (it's about as cringy as calling neutral edits anti-AoS edits just because you don't like them). -- Triacom (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a good compromise, a page dedicated to the first edition of the game where the criticisms derive from, ones that aren't relevant to the current state of the game. People want to read details about the game system and the setting when they first open the article, not things like an opinion piece on the animosity between two communities waged by a minority from both playerbases with a massive dropdown list of names. There is a reason this content was edited out many times by others before me. That's all there is to it. --Shoot_gun 16:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Getting 1 out of the 4 people against you to agree is not a compromise, even if it were, trying to divorce the first edition from AoS as a whole like that wouldn't be a good compromise. A neutral edit also isn't an opinion piece and it certainly wasn't a minority of players who participated in it, trying to pretend it was is just revisionism. "There is a reason this content was edited out many times by others before me." That's a lie, the neutral edit was only edited out by you. -- Triacom (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Quick 30 second skim (there are more) shows that the huge nickname list was deleted on these dates: 13:18, 8 June 2018; 03:47, 13 June 2018; 19:53, 4 July 2018; 17:56, 17 September 2018‎; 03:24, 19 September 2018. The nickname list compromises half of the edit in disputes total text. If no one wanted it then, why do they want it now? --Shoot_gun 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
A quick 30 second skim shows that the huge nickname list was deleted when it was a part of the main page and trying to mock it, whereas now it's mentioned because of how it was used both here and on /tg/ (which this happens to be a wiki for). Also I like how you couldn't find anyone else deleting the neutral edit, further proving my point. -- Triacom (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a perma-ban for user[edit]

So user has done nothing but vandalize Imperial Guard pages and as such I'm requesting that they be perma-banned for it. For some reason they get scared whenever they see any mention of women. -- Triacom (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Either the anon is back, or a different has picked up their slack. Anonymous user is vandalizing the IG pages. It would be great if he was permabanned since this is all he's done. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC) edit: He has now taken to vandalizing this page as well.

It seems he also has no quarrel with changing other people's posts to say the opposite of what was originally written. Please ignore his own topic trying to use the "NO U" defense as if it actually worked. --Newerfag (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


I don’t know the questions it’s giving me to edit, can I have some help?

Everything that is asked for verification is found somewhere on this wiki. That said, it's all common /tg/ knowledge, so consider remembering it when you learn it for future edits. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Hello Root, I am not sure if you're familiar with us, but I am one of the lads from the Star Wars imageboard of /sw/ that are currently trying to start up a new Star Wars wiki for Wookieepedia refugees. I was told by a friend that you could give us some sagely advice on the matter. You see, our last two attempts at starting a wiki have met mostly with difficulty. Our first attempt with Shoutwiki proved fruitless due to a lack of activity from the staff there and the import function being locked out to us. Our second attempt was with Miraheze, but their servers are unable to handle the kind of import we need since they require "donations" to handle an import of our size. So, I've come to ask if there are any alternatives that you could suggest? And if there are no better options, what would it take for us to find a host for a second wiki, free or otherwise? Would such a thing be within the capabilities of yourself or anyone you might know? I hope my questions are not too much of a bother and I'll be grateful for any time you could spare us. -- Givin Wizard (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested in hosting another wiki myself at the moment, and I'm afraid I don't have any familiarity with wiki-hosting services in general to advise you there. What I will say though is that 1d4chan exists in the first place because the original wikichan fell over and died and I wanted there to be something else for /tg/ to use. I just got a cheap VPS (like $10/mo) and a domain name, looked up some guides to getting started with linux/LAMP stack/mediawiki and slapped this shit together. If you can afford a few bucks a month and a bit of time and effort to learn what you're doing, it's not that difficult to run something yourself - I did it as a kid who liked computers and games but had no proper comp sci education or systems admin experience at the time. --Root (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


Filling you in on Talk:Main_Page#Math_extension since you seem to be the administrator who would be able to fulfil the request. --Derp commander (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

World of Warcraft vandals[edit]

An Anonymous editor using a wide variety of IP adresses keeps Vandalizing the World Of Warcraft to bitch about the Horde, claiming the writers are biased towards them, using words like "The creator's pet faction" and inserting giant rants. With this in mind, could there be some sort of solution, maybe editing the World Of Warcraft page so anonymous users cannot edit it? Admiral Apathy (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You like throwing around the word 'vandal' a lot, but all I've been doing so far is reverting back your own deletions as you display a great deal of horde fanboyism. That said, I'm not interested in a pissing match with you, so I'll leave it to other users to decide if they want to continue reverting your editorial 'contributions'.
Oh, and sorry if having multiple devices offends you.
Agreeing with the other anon, you can't just blanket remove shit and then reee about how the other people are vandals. -- 10:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the anons, what was done to the WoW page was not vandalism. Ranting about a character being a creator's pet when two of them have practically said exactly this is accurate, and all you've been doing to those pages is removing a mass amount of info with no reason to why, leaving me to conclude that you're just a fanboy of the characters and too deluded to take a step back and see where the anons are coming from on it. -- Triacom (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I’d have reverted the edits myself were I less lazy. --Thannak (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
You blatantly whine with stuff like "Creator's pet faction", put massive rants about Sylvanas, make unsubstantiated accusations about the developers of the game, plenty on the talk page like Spectral time have pointed your fanboyism. Your edits are not constructive and they aren't even funny. And how do I know that second anon here isn't you as well? Admiral Apathy (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Everything they've said you can easily look up, and I'd say you're much worse, just a fanboy coming from the opposite direction. The only difference is they can back up their claims, and you have no reason for your edits aside from blind fanboyism. -- Triacom (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Everyone has hated the Faction war storyline, no side is favored by WoW's writers. They have no source for the Horde being creator's pet faction, nor do you. I'm not the one whining in my edits about "Blizzard favors the other faction, BAAW" all the time without any kind of source. Admiral Apathy (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Right, because interviews don't exist right? You are the one who's obsessively deleting anything that badmouths your waifu though. -- Triacom (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no interview saying such a thing, there are plenty where they state they always try to appeal to players of both factions though. Now you're adding a personal attack, I've already said Sylvanas is a poorly written character, that doesn't mean 20 paragraphs long sections on whining abou Sylvanas are necessary. Admiral Apathy (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If you think they don't exist then you're either lying, or you're not looking. It took me 5 seconds to find one on Eurogamer. You're also doing a terrible job at making it look like you don't consider her your waifu, if you really feel she's a bad character then none of your edits reflect this. -- Triacom (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Then link this so called interview saying the writers favor the Forsaken, if it existed it would cause a huge uproar in the fandom and be talked about constantly in the WoW fandom, yet this hasn't happened because there is no interview saying such thing. I already noted in my edit Sylvanas was over-used because she was an easy way for the writers to create conflict. You're doing nothing but hurting your credibility with these audacious claims and accusations. Admiral Apathy (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm on a mobile device right now, why don't you try fucking googling it? You haven't done that yet or you'd have found those kinds of things pretty fucking quickly. -- Triacom (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I did, I got nothing. You need to prove the interviews where Blizzard admits they favor the Forsaken over the alliance exist and you've given absolutely nothing. Admiral Apathy (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Bullshit, what did you even google? -- Triacom (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
"Blizzard" "favors" "forsaken" "favorite" "Sylvanas" got nothing. Again there are no interviews of the sort. Admiral Apathy (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you just tell him what to google? I wouldn't know what to google.-- 22:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
It didn't occur for you to google a direct fucking quote that was used in the page itself and referenced to be an interview you claim doesn't exist? Try this: "world of warcraft there is more to sylvanas story". -- Triacom (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
NOTHING in there says the developers favor the forsaken and the Horde as those rants in the WoW article were claiming. So yeah, you could just easily claim Anduin and the Alliance are creator's pets due to articles like "exclusive-first-look-at-christie-goldens-new-novel-war-crimes" on EnGadget. Admiral Apathy (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That article was against your point that she isn't a creator's pet (it proves she is) and it was an example of what to search for. As for which faction is favoured over the others you'd need to discuss Blizzard's actions for that and look up other interviews, don't try to claim they don't exist when I've proven they do. -- Triacom (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
It proves nothing, the writers have said they like DOZENS of characters, Anduin is mentioned as Golden's favorite in that interview I just linked. And it doesn't even mention the Horde being the developers favored faction as those edits kept inserting in their rants. Admiral Apathy (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you find me a single interview where they said Anduin was a character beloved not just by their fanbase, but by their developer base, that they feel they have a connection with him? Oh right, you think interviews don't exist, except when it's convenient and even then you fuck it up, nowhere in that interview did they say anything like what you described. -- Triacom (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
There's tons of stuff with Golden saying he's her favorite including a twitter post where she says more men should be like Anduin. Where's your interview saying the developers favor Horde over Alliance? Admiral Apathy (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
It's in the same place as your claims that they don't favour them over the others, where's that interview? I told you before that if you want to discuss that sort of thing, you'd be better off doing it with the anons, and even then you'd need to look at Blizzard's actions, as it isn't a hard claim to make. -- Triacom (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
[Here you go], I've given links. You have nothing saying the developers favor the Horde over Alliance, which those edits claim over and over again as fact. Admiral Apathy (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I've already told you to discuss it with the anons over the actions of the dev team, now you're just ignoring that. You keep acting as if I'm the one writing it when I'm only calling you out on your bullshit. That tweet also says none of what you claim it does. -- Triacom (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Its exactly what I claimed which was "Golden saying he's her favorite including a twitter post where she says more men should be like Anduin." You're one of the ones insisting on the "Horde is a creator's pet" rants, which again have no zero source and you have given nothing to facilitate that rant, only thrown accusations at me while getting excited. Admiral Apathy (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
But she doesn't say either of those, she says she says: "This is why characters like Peeta, Newt Scamander, and Anduin Wrynn are so important." Then she says in a following tweet: "Too often men and boys who gravitate to the gentler side are automatically perceived as being gay, whether they are or not. ALL men/boys should be able to display these qualities, just like all girls/women can be tough and fearless and athletic if that's who they are." Neither of these say anything close to what you claim. As for me "insisting" on the horde = creator's pet, how about you read what I wrote? I said you should talk it over with the people who made those parts. -- Triacom (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)'s shit like this that makes me think the best solution would be to delete the WoW page completely. Apart from these jokers, who will miss it? --Newerfag (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I imagine the anons who don't think a character is a waifu they need to white knight for would miss it, but you wouldn't hear me complaining. -- Triacom (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Half the anons in this wiki are imbeciles anyway. Besides, the only reasons it has to exist here are a couple of spinoff tabletop games which already have separate pages; nothing would be lost by converting the whole damn thing into a simple disambiguation page. --Newerfag (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
That would be fine as World of Warcraft the roleplaying game is relevant to the wiki as a tabletop game. Admiral Apathy (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

(stares in disappoint) Come on, guys.

Anyway, there's a lot of pages you'd have to pare down if we were to go through with that - not that I'd be necessarily opposed, just that this isn't exactly a new problem. --LGX-000 (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

One which I have pointed out many times before. Honestly, I'm amazed there's still so much reluctance on the admins' part to just do what's needed. It's not like they can't restore deleted pages should they be mistaken in deleting them. --Newerfag (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
On that note, should nobody object I plan to completely redo the WoW page as a redirect to World of Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game. IMO, it is the simplest solution to this horseshit and leaving it as a redirect will allow the neckbeards to see the old version of the article through the page history. --Newerfag (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Don't do that. There's like 6 Warcraft board games with a fuckton of expansions, two trading card games, two miniatures games, typical shit like monopoly games, and who knows what else. We need a hub page for them, especially since Warcraft is one of the biggest fantasy settings in fiction and the direct successor to Warhammer inn the mainstream. Why not instead just remove the blurbs about the characters? They don't have much importance beyond their place in the story directly tied to important events while summing up the setting, and it saves me the time I'd eventually spend on the characters from 1, 2, and 3. --Thannak (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Mm, Thannak's method sounds just a bit more reasonable to me, Newer. Can shorten blurbs (if not remove them) and maybe find ways to integrate them in to save further space, maybe? Hell, if by some longshot off chance people went for it, could go for a character subpage. --LGX-000 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
My sentiments still lean very strongly towards a purge. If all those board games were really relevant, they would have already gotten pages of their own by now. --Newerfag (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
All games are relevant. I’ve just been burned out on making new pages lately or doing research for the ones I’ve started like Blood Bowl tactics, and most folks prefer to quibble about the same tacticas or obscure 40k lore. I’ll try and get to them after my current To Do list, which has Elfquest and more White Wolf Games stuff at the top. --Thannak (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair. In that case, I believe the WoW page proper would be better served as a disambiguation page linking to the different games, although I now notice we don't really have disambiguation pages like most wikis I have seen. Should anyone have any advice on how to establish one, I would be appreciative. That said, for the time being a removal of the blurbs for all the characters would be sufficient- and by that I mean for both the Alliance and Horde.
For what it's worth (as a person who has only had limited exposure to WoW and has no intention of getting more deeply involved), it seems to me that nearly all the complaints mentioned in this rants can be explained away as being the product of bad writing (exacerbated further by the need to keep the status quo relatively similar to how it was in vanilla despite the setting having changed massively since then). And we should be very familiar with that sort of thing by now. --Newerfag (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it would be very hard to make a page that gives a broad view of the universe the games take place in as a whole, only doing a minimalist timeline of events, it would just be time consuming. The plus side to this would be that you wouldn't need to go for any in-depth explanation for the characters or events and can write most of that off as not wanting to talk about shitty writing. At least that way you can get the world detail out of the way and then move right to talking about the individual game systems below it, consolidating them to that page if they're not too large themselves. -- Triacom (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but given how strongly people feel about it I'd like there to be some way of making sure the neckbeards don't just add all of that in depth crap back in again. Feel free to get started on that if you like, though - knowing me I'd probably cut out too much by accident. --Newerfag (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
For now, I've settled for reverting the whole article back to its pre-shitstorm state, with a few pointed reminders that anyone here to bitch about the writing can fuck off. Should that be insufficient, I will be more than happy to nuke it all. --Newerfag (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
That's your solution to everything. --Thannak (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
And I find it is a very effective one, too. --Newerfag (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete Avatar Page[edit]

Some people have requested the Avatar page be deleted. A debate was held on the talk page, and it was recommended to contact you to delete the page. I am just relaying the message. --Lord Of The Lemmings 10:25 , 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why[edit]

But I think this might have something to do with the person you recently banned. Noooooooot quite sure how, though.

Honestly, I'm not even sure if it actually IS him, this legitimately seems too easy. --LGX-000 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a temporary suspension for user TheBadageBoys[edit]

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

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

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

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


How big is 1d4chan?

Spammer sighted[edit]

Tried to disguise their porn ads in a giant textwall of copypasta that might've passed for a fifth-rate story on some fetish site elsewhere, which is naturally the very first thing they did. --LGX-000 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catchin' em. --LGX-000 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There's another one though[edit]

Right here, though at least advertising engineering services instead of porn of questionable quality. --LGX-000 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Noticed a vandal[edit]

2001:56A:F829:9000:713A:7860:7385:D10D just deleted a ton of stuff off of the Ad-mech page for no reason. I undid the changes. --2602:306:B88B:FB60:9870:C665:3B5E:149A 00:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Blatant Sexual Fetishes Pages[edit]

Started with this particular thing. I see no reason for it to have an article of its own. Nor any other similar thing that is so blatant and having VERY FLIMSY REASONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS (seriously my eyes hurt me after reading said justifications) to have an existence on this wiki. Seriously why is this a thing? Would've blanked the page myself, but I'd rather ask User:Wikifag about this first since I have zero authority on this. - Ben (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool, just ask him to remove a bunch of the monstergirl pages and other PROMOTIONS-based material while we're at it, can't have blatant sexual fetishes on a wiki about /tg/-- oh wait.
Seriously, never mind that you need far more consensus than just one person asking, you're allowing your justifiable disgust at the subject material to blind you to the fact that your argument for removal is similarly flimsy - this is a wiki about a 4chan board, specifcally one that's pretty open to mixing in fetish material, as you'll notice by browsing through the wiki for... I dunno, 5 minutes? --LGX-000 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it would not make sense to remove the fetish pages. They are absolutely relevant to the topic of /tg/ which is what this wiki is about. Removing it for not being well written would make more sense.--2602:306:B88B:FB60:25C5:BB25:DBDE:195F 22:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Bomb Threat[edit]

Where to start with this. Knowing that it's banworthy as all fuck, my question is just how seriously should this be taken? --LGX-000 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the FBI should be contacted, I'm not American but that seems like it is the right agency. 4chan is all fun and games and nothing on there should be taken seriously, but at the same time a lot of fucked up people go to chan sites and the threat could be real. Angry Pirate (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

More mundane problem[edit]

Yet another fifth-rate pornbot spammer. E: Newerfag blanked the page, rightfully so, but that means I gotta change the link to illustrate what was there previously. --LGX-000 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

An here's yet another one. --The Hat That Was (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

GTA ad spammer[edit]

This anon here, I already marked the page for deletion. --LGX-000 (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Beastfolk page vandal[edit]

We got a complete newfag named User:Lolidorf in the Beastfolk page throwing around heresy/anti-fur memes like they're on special, just generally shitting the place up and edit-warring with User:LGX-000, who is trying to try and moderate the worst of his crap. Having seen an anon on /tg/ in the last 12 hours open multiple threads trying to get anons to shit on any races that aren't human, only to get mocked and chased off in all of them, I think we're dealing with a butthurt troll.--QuietBrowser (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Another "hiding links in textwall" spammer[edit]

Right here. --LGX-000 (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

More mundane spammer here. --LGX-000 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandal on ADB Article[edit]

User:LGX-000 has tried to compromise with Anon. The only thing Anon has done is push views onto article. Inserted himself into two /tg/ threads, both died off, nothing proved his point, continues spamming edits (although reasonably with only 1 edit/set, so it can be undone). --Kracked Mynd (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC) edit: Although the way he's handled the situation has been purposefully stand-offish and has been problematic and potentially temp-ban worthy, I doubt he needs a permaban, as he is at least somewhat willing to compromise. Sorry to bother you about this, it's pretty petty stuff.

I can vouch for both the stand-offishness and the willingness to compromise, though in trying to get his way he did also attempt to derail a couple of /tg/ threads. Even if that's in itself not banworthy here (and I'm not necessarily asking for it to be), it's a definite show of bad faith, I'd say. --LGX-000 (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
To play Devil's advocate for a second, you both could've tried to take it to the talk page, and the anon's edits aren't wrong. If they didn't go to the talk page despite repeated requests and attempted to re-add incorrect info, despite being told how it was wrong, then I'd agree a temporary suspension is necessary. To use an example, I'm on the verge of asking for a temporary suspension for EndlessSerpent because they keep doing this to the Bretonnia page. -- Triacom (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the thing regarding the talk page, but the reasons I gave in my edit summary were, from all appearances, either read selectively or ignored altogether, and I'd made a point of noting as much in said summaries that I was open to compromising and incorporating parts of what they were adding into the article, just not in as blatantly assblasted a form. --LGX-000 (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It's still better to use the talk pages than a summary, not doing so makes it seem like you don't want to communicate and if you post it directly to their talk page the get messaged about it until they read it. This way if they keep ignoring you, you know for sure they have no interest in talking and it's more justifiable to ask for moderation. -- Triacom (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Correct enough. Still, the page in itself is a flamewar magnet, even if it's not a consistent one, and protecting it from unregistered accounts and such might still be on the table. --LGX-000 (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but like I said the anon's edits aren't wrong, there's definitely a middle ground that can be reached there without resorting to an editwar. -- Triacom (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Imma take credit for not going to the talk page, that's a problem, and it's on me.
However, Anon's edits most definitely are wrong. He's purposefully presenting ADB as worse than he is perceived on /tg/, even on the threads he derailed. That said, I think both I and LGX tried to reach a reasonable middle ground, using both the talk pages and by careful editing. Every time, Anon gives in for a bit, fixes our edits and cleans up, then goes straight back to reverting. I'm not an expert on this subject (neither ADB, as I've only read a few of his books and not a single series of his) or fixing pages (like suspensions and edit blocking pages), so I don't know what to expect, other than this is worthy of attention. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll disagree there in that I have seen people turn on ADB for his more recent works (granted they're more noticeable in the comments for reviews of his books or discussions about said books) and his criticisms of him are correct, his uploads to the gallery are also accurate criticisms of him, if combative. I will agree they don't seem very willing to compromise however. -- Triacom (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent ban for[edit]

I'd like to request a permanent for anon, they seem to be the same as that other anon a while back who just kept deleting any mention of women (and tried deleting part of AssistantWikifag's talk page) and since it's a new IP, and they've done this before under a different IP I'd also like to ask for the pages to be protected, so that the anon can't continue to edit it. It might be possible that they're all different people who just happen to make the exact same edits, but I highly doubt it. -- Triacom (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as how they're once again trying to delete topics I'm definitely saying they're all the same person. -- Triacom (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I can now say with 100% certainty that they're the same, since they make the exact same mistake with undoing punctuation that they did when they were under the other IP's... -- Triacom (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent ban for[edit]

The same guy that kept deleting any mention of women in some Imperial Guard pages. What is the problem with this guy, dammit!?--Gilten (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Also the same guy who was deleting parts of this talk page, don't be surprised if they do it again. Because of this I'd like to ask that the Cadia page, the Catachan page and the Median Iron Guard page all be protected, so that anon's can't edit them. -- Triacom (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent ban for[edit]

Same anti-woman IG anon. I think Triacom is right in edit locking the pages. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe we can protect them so that anon's can't edit them, but yeah I'm sure it's the same person. Again I have to ask that the pages be protected. -- Triacom (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Thirded. --LGX-000 (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Fourthed --2602:306:B88B:FB60:A4CE:DEE8:E524:61E9 01:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for user[edit]

This one's just a vandal, nothing special. -- Triacom (talk) 07:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Requesting some form of warning for[edit]

Both Triacom and I have approached him asking for him to stop treating pages like a forum and using strikethroughs and he's just ignored us and continues. I don't feel it's ban-worthy, though. -- 09:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Correction, it's starting to seem ban-worthy, he's been told to stop by almost everyone at this point. -- 03:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I feel like they're genuinely trying to help out the wiki, they just don't know how to go about doing that and they're not listening when people correct them on it. -- Triacom (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
The issue is they've either purposefully ignored or haven't noticed our requests that they stop. So is there a way to force them to read some sort of warning before they edit again? -- 05:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for 12345combination[edit]

This user has been obstinate in pursuing an edit war against the [[3]] page and talk page, and appears to believe that his being a user for longer than others somehow allows him to ignore the consensus of other users. As he has explicitly refused to cease his bad behavior, I would like to request he be banned for no less than three months. --Newerfag (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Lock the SJW page[edit]

A massive influx of anonymous editors have been vandalizing the SJW page. Would it be possible to lock the page or at least prevent it from being edited by anonymous users? If not, please delete the page and take any necessary steps to ensure it cannot be recreated. --Newerfag (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Shit posters and /pol/tards seem to want to edit the pages in order to fit their narrative. I am not alone in this and frankly, most of the other editors are growing--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC) tired of seeing and having to repair the pages after anons and grandoise idiots shit all over them.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I really don't think we need to delete the pages, I'd rather have them permanently protected since that would solve nearly all of our problems. -- Triacom (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree- if possible it should be restricted only to users who have been active for a sufficiently long time, because otherwise people will just make throwaway accounts to get past it. --Newerfag (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Instead of having them there accomplishing little to nothing for the site, and drawing in accusations of either /pol/ or SJW shitposting on either, just remove them. Nothing will be lost, and people will get less angry at each other. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete them or make them stubs that only link to /pol/ and Twitter. Sicarius (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for user TheBadageBoys[edit]

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

I don't believe TheBadageBoys can be reasoned with at this point, and not just because they've said they refuse to discuss it further and that they'll continue to force in their own edits. Even if they claim that they'll talk with other users and are fine with the edits as is, they'll just go back on their word sometime later, as they've already done twice before. As such, I'm requesting the user be banned. -- Triacom (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's your opinion, man. The Talk page over there is proof enough I'm not arguing in bad faith or doing anything bannable. I'll happily defend my position, but think what you wanna think Triacom. I didn't start an edit war, even if I did unfortunately keep it going. I apologize that I got so caught up in defending my own views that I didn't go for moderator assistance first. Edit war takes two to tango and all that shit. But still, I'm going to continue defending my edits at this point. It's hardly fair that one edit can make it in with no dispute, but another edit isn't allowed and can't even be discussed because it's one a particular user doesn't like. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You've made many false statements about what I've said and tried to misrepresent my arguments several times over, taking such small points such as "his racism was key in writing Shadow Over Innsmouth" and then claiming that I said all of his writings thanks to his racism only. Even the anon talking there can see you're arguing in bad faith, and going back on your word twice over, refusing discussion and ignoring what everyone has said to you while forcing your own edit in is the kind of thing that can only be solved by a ban. We can also see from the page's history that you absolutely started an edit war, and it's one you've insisted on carrying through dispite twice saying you wouldn't. The reason the one edit wasn't disputed and yours was from several users is because the other edit didn't try to hide facts or lie to the other users. -- Triacom (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You literally said the Mythos began because of his views on interracial marriage. That's a lie, you know it's a lie, and you know you have no argument, and you can't hide behind some anon and claim you have an army on your side just because months and months ago a user or two agreed a mention of racism should be in the article. Maybe we should both stop arguing like children and let Wikifag handle it. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I said without his views on interracial marriage we wouldn't have the mythos in the form it exists today, and I linked an essay that breaks down his story and supports this fact. That's a different argument than what you're claiming and as the anon is also pointing out, paraphrasing like that is arguing in bad faith because you're trying to misrepresent what I said. Months and months ago I and other users argued against you and you claimed you understood why it was important to keep a small mention of Lovecraft's racism in the article. Just because the same users didn't show up again to argue against you doesn't mean their points months back are no longer valid. -- Triacom (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You linked something an internet user wrote on a site called That isn't historical fact. You really just don't get it, do you Triacom? You really, really don't. If you're not trolling, I highly recommend reading Lovecraft, and not from some random internet essay or from an article from some internet newsblog. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
We're on 1d4chan, at this point a site's name is irrelevant. The only thing important is the content of the essay, and you didn't address any of it or its citations, which are definitely historical fact. Another thing you didn't do is cite any facts of your own, which is why I've been pointing out that you've only had your opinion to back up anything you say. -- Triacom (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Throwing in my support here. He's acting in extreme bad faith. -- 00:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Same here, he's been doing the same thing on the SJW talk page. --Newerfag (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm in bad faith there now too? Here I thought everybody was civil about that. You not liking what I say doesn't mean I'm in bad faith. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
My opinion doesn't need to count for anything when your actions have spoken for yourself. Your civility proves itself to be nothing but deceit every single time you continue to defy the consensus.--Newerfag (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you one who'd consider themselves an "SJW" in the non-perjorative sense? If you think defending my opinion against one or two people is "defying consensus" and that I'm acting in bad faith and need to shut up or get banned, that's something you see a lot among them. At this point, I really can't tell how much your bias is playing into things. I've made clear, consistent arguments on both pages. It doesn't make me right, but it doesn't make you right either when you counter them. So far, in the Lovecraft discussion Triacom hasn't provided any argument for his position, beyond one that is literally false. You haven't made any argument on the SJW page. Why am I in bad faith for arguing things when both of you just keep telling me to stop or else you'll try to have me banned? Am I really the one in bad faith? TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If you define the non-pejorative sense as "wanting to actually take the time to explain what their beef is as opposed to screaming about the blue haired boogeyman", then yes I am. And your arguments so far amount to nothing more than "I can't understand nuance" rephrased a dozen different ways. --Newerfag (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a bold claim, not understanding nuance, when you just said SJWs have grievances and it's fair to address them, but to say the same for the other side is a "sealioning" "balance fallacy". TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Claiming you are being civil while also calling other people virtue-signallers or soapboxers, and then claiming you asked for cooperation when you never did is sealioning, and then you just assumed it was successful and wrote that you were personally attacked for it when you never were. It's not at all the same thing as admitting that there are genuine grievances in another social field. -- Triacom (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, subjectively admitting you have the opinion that there are genuine grievances in a field, therefore it should be reflected on the article "for fairness" but not on the opposing article. The goose isn't good enough for the gander, just as someone you agree with can make an edit you'll never touch, but when one makes an edit you don't like you'll spend hours and days trying to get them banned so you can have your way. Throw me those fish, Triacom. Arf arf. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So why haven't you added those grievances to the /pol/ page yourself? Pretty weak of you to force others do all of the work for you. Even if they get reverted they'll still be in the page history for all to see.--Newerfag (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Because I'm not interested in soapboxing my beliefs, unlike you obviously are at this point. Arf arf. More fish. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Bullshit. If you weren't then you wouldn't have gone back on your word twice on what's acceptable on the Lovecraft page, and you'd have more backing you up than just opinion. -- Triacom (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, subjectively admitting you have the opinion that there are genuine grievances in a field, therefore it should be reflected on the article "for fairness" but not on the opposing article. That's exactly what you've been doing. The genuine grievance with Lovecraft is that he's a racist, which is why it's included on the article. I didn't spend hours and days trying to get you banned, I've only ever come here when you've refused to have further discussions and have left me with no other options. -- Triacom (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
A genuine grievance by someone who's never read Lovecraft and is relying on an uncredible essay someone wrote on a Swedish website is ultimate proof of anything and everything about Lovecraft. Arf arf. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I've read Lovecraft, and clearly you haven't read the essay. Quite frankly it doesn't matter where the essay was posted, all that matters is what's inside of it. If you did then you'd know the sources it cites and you'd have to address those, so I see why you're not. It's also not the only online essay about the same subject. -- Triacom (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Arbitration - Lovecraft Edit War[edit]

Hi. I'd like you to please mediate the dispute on the HP Lovecraft article, involving Triacom and myself, when you get the time. Thank you. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You're leaving a few other users out there aren't you? I wasn't the only one undoing your edits, I wasn't the only one pointing out that you were wrong, and you're the only one trying to force in this change. -- Triacom (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you and an anon. Meanwhile, another person's agreed it's not relevant as well. Seems like an even split. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Except that they're not agreeing with you, they're asking because it doesn't seem like they read the other points on the talk page and saying that somebody who doesn't know what's going on is agreeing with you before they've had it explained is a bad-faith argument. -- Triacom (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
"They don't agree with you, they just don't understand the discussion!" This is actually funny at this point. How desperate are you to call Lovecraft a racist, my guy? You clearly don't know much if anything about him besides some freelance "essays" worth jack, you've clearly read little to none of his works to say that the Mythos is at its baseline a message about interracial marriage, and you clearly don't want to go back to any pre-existing agreements when you insist a new edit must stay and if I don't like it then it doesn't matter, but if you don't like something, you somehow have more authority. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Again you're arguing in bad faith. Not knowing what's going on is very different to not understanding what's happening. Agiletek's question was answered already on the talk page multiple times, and if they knew what was going on and didn't understand it then they wouldn't have asked why it was important, they would've instead addressed the reasons given for why it was important. Also, just because you seem to keep forgetting it, I wasn't the one who wrote that he was a racist on his page, I wasn't the one who expanded upon it, I wasn't the one who later formatted it, I'm just the one who's preventing somebody else from removing it because they like to pretend that his racism had no influence on his work. Can you cite me a single source or fact to back up literally anything you've ever said on the talk page or edit summaries? So many times you'll make a claim about something I said, I'll ask you to quote me where I said what you claimed I said, and then you'll drop it because it did not happen and you've just been trying to misrepresent the issue. -- Triacom (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It goes something like this: "The Mythos wouldn't exist without racism." "That's wrong though." "No it isn't, you don't know Lovecraft!" "But racism literally isn't the framework of the Mythos, it would exist without it." "Where did I say it wouldn't exist without racism? Show me examples." I'm still convinced you're taking the piss and throwing out bait, because your argument not only is dense, ignorant of the subject, and straight wrong, but also you keep pretending it's not there. The Talk page is there. Anyone and everyone can see the evidence. You know it's there too, you keep saying it even. At this point you're basically spamming this page, but hey, I could always stop responding to your whining/trolling myself. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If you could actually quote statements instead of making up what happened then we wouldn't be pointing out how you're arguing in bad faith. Here's what actually happened: Me: "his racism was integral to his character, it impacted and inspired his writing so it's important the reader is given knowledge of that to understand him as a person." You: "That's your opinion, but it's not fact, and either way it's not for us to talk about." Me: "Lovecraft being a racist isn't opinion, neither is saying that his racism was incorporated into his works." Also me: "without [racism], his mythos would not exist, at least not in the form it exists today." You: "it's factually untrue that racism made up the entirety, or even majority, of his writings." Also you: "Your sentence is still incorrect though..." Also you: "Until there's arbitration, I will not discuss this further with you and will maintain my edits." Me: it's a fact that Lovecraft was a racist, and it's a fact that the Shadow over Innsmouth would not exist in its current form if he wasn't a racist. You can even find essays people have written on this subject... You: *silence* That's the rundown of what happened and your feelings on the matter using what we actually wrote on the page. You insist that his racism is unimportant, and you refuse to do any research into the area, you refuse to back up anything you say beyond opinion, and you constantly misrepresent what had happened.
My bad, I forgot a essay someone wrote is 100% proof that your arguments are correct. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You should read it, though I doubt you will, it's rooted in facts after all and I know how much you like to avoid those. -- Triacom (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
[4] I'll just leave this here. --Newerfag (talk) 01:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't see how you fit the bill for that, do you? What a fucking bizarre thing to use as your "evidence" man, seriously. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Your feigned outrage fools nobody. You wouldn't be carrying on as long as you have if you were really being civil. --Newerfag (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
And you wouldn't be acting like a spoiled child if you really cared about the quality of articles rather than one-upping other users, as you've done to me and many more in the past. I was civil. You weren't civil. Now I'm not civil. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Faking stupidity and failing to read sources isn't being civil. But I thank you for revealing your true colors.--Newerfag (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't submit to the all-mighty wisdom of Triacom and a journalist. Forgive my gross transgressions and please don't ban me, Master Triacom, perish the thought. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If you were capable of backing up anything you say then we wouldn't be here right now. How many times have I asked you to quote me when you claimed I said something I never did? How many times did you make a claim with nothing to back it up? How many times did you accuse me of virtue-signalling or soapboxing, or putting the mention of racism on Lovecraft's page? That's not being civil, and neither is ignoring sources and refusing to listen to anyone but yourself. -- Triacom (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you get it. Many times you've claimed you've been civil while calling me a virtue-signalling spoapboxer who added into the article that Lovecraft was a racist and who's only keeping it there to condemn him, and you've also claimed that you've asked for cooperation many times when we can see from the edit history I didn't add it to the main page, and we can also see you not once asked for cooperation in your most recent topic. Eventually you claimed that I was using personal attacks against you, and when I asked you to present a single one of those you had nothing, because I didn't fall for your sealioning. -- Triacom (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Arf arf, throw me a fish Triacom, arf arf. If all you can do is call me a sealion, I think you've lost. You lost the minute you said something as genuinely misinformed and unfamiliar with Lovecraft as "The Mythos is built on Lovecraft disliking interracial marriage." TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
As Newerfag said, you don't understand nuance, and we can put that alongside Lovecraft and irony in a growing collection of things you don't get. I wasn't calling you a sealion, I was pointing out the tactics you were using. You lost the minute you said something as genuinely misinformed and unfamiliar with Lovecraft as "The Mythos is built on Lovecraft disliking interracial marriage." Still arguing in bad faith I see, care to disagree with the essay I linked or its sources, or are you still insisting that my arguments aren't what I've quoted? -- Triacom (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Did you write that essay yourself? You sure like pushing it, if it was just written by some random internet user. Arf arf. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Got anything else you'd like to falsely accuse me of? You've gone over pretty much everything else. If you're out of ideas then you should try reading the essay, it goes over The Shadow Over Innsmouth pretty well and gives a very good breakdown on Lovecraft's influences in writing it, including his racism. -- Triacom (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You know what? Sure, ban me and undo all my edits. If this is the kind of content to be expected from "the higher ups", the main editors, if Triacom and Newerfag not only have said they're SJWs and want to make their content unfair to opposing views because of "balance fallacies", if you want to come at me calling arguments against whining "bad faith", if you want to use an actual buzzword, "sealioning", against me, the same one used by actual SJWs against their opposition, and if you two make up so much content on this site, it's not even worth trying to salvage. I'm pissing in the wind against people who never intended to actually argue or discuss things in the first place, just get their way, kick neutral POVs to the curb, and curtail anyone who would even dare argue against their eminence and such enlightened facts, such as the Cthulhu Mythos relying solely on racism for its existence. I gave it a go, and at least the Talk pages will stay up as proof of what direction content's heading in if those users keep forcing their way onto others. Can't argue, that's sealioning. Can't dispute, that's disingenuous. Can't be neutral, that's false balance. Can't try to defend your side, they'll flail around until you're banned. Either way, who gives a fuck? If I'm a sealion, then I'm jumping ship. It isn't worth it anymore. Adios. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

All this whining, and you could have just walked away like an adult. Go and tell your /pol/ack friends not to waste our time any further, will you?--Newerfag (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Once again, you're making up a lot of shit here, and just in case you're still around, please post a quote, just a single quote from either myself or Newerfag that shows you're not spewing bullshit. Post a quote from either of us where we said we're SJW's. Post a quote from either of us where you can point to it and say "that's just whining". Tell us how sealioning is just a buzzword and not the argument strategy you've been using, and explain to us how calling other people virtue-signalling soapboxers and saying you're trying to be civil at the same time isn't sealioning. I've reached compromise with you in the past, only this time you've refused to listen to anyone but yourself and when confronted with a genuine article that proves my point, the best you can do is mock the site it was posted on, as if "1d4chan" all of a sudden cares about ridiculous site names. You can argue all you want, claiming that you're being civil while name-calling is sealioning, quoting arguments that were never made or pretending that a user said something they didn't is being disingenuous, and claiming you were being personally attacked when you never were is lying. If you actually had anything backing you up besides your opinion and if you didn't say you were no longer interested in discussion when sources were cited then we wouldn't be here right now. -- Triacom (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I give him a week before he slinks back on hoping that we forgot his freakout here. --Newerfag (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. It's happened every single time he claimed he was fine with the changes made to Lovecraft's page. He waits a while, then comes back and changes it again while hoping nobody notices. -- Triacom (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, don't you worry. I've left a little reminder for him to make good on his little temper tantrum here if he doesn't want us to rub his nose in it. --Newerfag (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


I know the site has been burdened with waves of spam, election tourists, whingeing children, and assholes lately. Thanks for staying on top of things, and for not giving up on the site. We really appreciate it. Someone else. (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I too would like to thank you for your bravery in encountering the cursedness of this site. You truly are an unspoken hero. YAboi Matt.

Requesting a perma-ban for user[edit]

Same idiot who always deletes any mention of women on the Imperial Guard pages, particularly the Catachan, Cadia and Mordian Iron Guard pages. As I've done several times before I'm requesting a perma-ban for the user doing the edits as they're nothing more than a troll, and I'm also requesting the pages be permanently protected. -- Triacom (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As expected, the anon's again editing your talk page to remove the request. -- Triacom (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

permaban for[edit]

This idiot has been trashing pages and being a useless moron that should be culled from the genepool


Oh no, yet another incoherent fountain of memes whose vandalism can each be undone in less than a minute, whatever shall we do. -- 20:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


Jesus loves you my friend.--2601:203:480:4C60:B909:A93B:6A2B:B07C 20:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I've put a request on AssistantWikifag's talk page for this anon's ban a few days ago, it would be nice if we could just ban them and be done with it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

         U SUK DIKS  --

I'm seriously inclined to think they're a little wet behind the ears. As in this actual wiki might be older than them. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:8CA8:7BD8:AFBA:F7B4 21:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


We get it, you discovered Encyclopedia Dramatica yesterday and think you're funny. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:8CA8:7BD8:AFBA:F7B4 21:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


Requesting a ban for user GIRUNDE[edit]

Another vandal, one who's deleting stuff and adding nonsense to both your and AssistantWikifag's talk pages. -- Triacom (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • It's the same kid as before, he just made an account.


For what?--2600:1010:B154:ECD:558D:F3C7:ACBF:98DD 06:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Any kind of "revenge" involving easily reverted vandalism is generally devoid of actual worth.

Requesting Arbitration Gav Thorpe Edit War[edit]

Getting an undo Edit War on Gav Thorpe. Can someone take a look please?


Requesting ban for[edit]

Keeps springing out and deleting large chunks of page. When reverted, proceeds to unrevert to restore content that is outdated and/or objectively factually inaccurate. Previously requested on AssistantWikifag's page (with 3 users in support), but he hasn't been seen all year. --Agiletek (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for[edit]

He's been blatantly plagiarizing the Codex descriptions of the factions for their tactics 'why to play X' pages. -- 12:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

He's back and still doing it. -- 08:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of an incredibly racist and /pol/-like page[edit]

Please delete this. It also has no content and reasons to not be on 1d4chan, in addition to a lack of reasons for being on this wiki. It is this: NIGGERDOM AND FAGGOTRY Grand Admiral Altair (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Captcha broken[edit]

There is no captcha on the create account page. I think this is because of the stylesheet change.

Yes, captcha question is also broken when adding external links. Lamenters page was going to have the new song by StringStorm linked but then this happens. MrPhantom (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Wanted to make an account to go back the the old style, can't because the CAPTCHA is to answer a question but there is no question. I'd include a screenshot or a link to a screenshot, but that requires passing another CAPTCHA which is also broken.
Any estimate on when that will be working again?
Thanks for pointing that out, I had neglected to check captchas were working. Due to a slight syntax change in how the array of questions was defined when I copied that config over, it wasn't reading the questions properly. It looks like it should be okay now. --Root (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's broken again. I tried "only war" "war" "War" and "there is only war" when trying to make an account and had no luck. Send me a message at if you can help. 06:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


We appreciate you disembuggering the server after the old system crashed. Someone else. (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

+1. If you set up a donation box I think you'll get a fair amount of cash. --Auroch (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I've vaguely considered setting up a Patreon or something in the past, but it feels like it would be exploitative given the content is all user-contributed and I honestly put very little time into the operation and administration of the site. --Root (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I caved and added a donation link to the sidebar. Seems the most honest way of doing it. (For the curious, the site currently runs on hosting costs of about $50/month, not including the admittedly trivial value of the time I spend maintaining it.) --Root (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


Check main page, left there. Death Korps of Krieg Soldier (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting the issue, but please use the talk/discussion pages for this kind of thing, not the main page. It should now be fixed. --Root (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by Special:Contributions/Dinner[edit]

This guy is making pointless pages and randomly vandalizing others. --2601:203:480:4C60:29B3:D653:8FE:B416 04:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious amount of Special:Log/newusers[edit]

Ever since the site came back up a really huge number of new users have been made and most of them have no contributions. Do you think that they might be all being made by the same person so that they can evade bans, or for some other nefarious purpose? --2601:203:480:4C60:29B3:D653:8FE:B416 04:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry until they start actually doing any suspicious activity. It is a pattern of some spam attacks that they register accounts that sit dormant for a while so they get past any new-user based monitoring, but I'm guessing it is more likely that the registrations are users who used to browse anon and have only registered so they can change the site skin back to Vector. --Root (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually one of these new users - account creation was disabled before the crash so I jumped at the opportunity of contributing. Root, thanks for your efforts. --Raton-Laveur (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There's also the fact that you need to have a login to change the layout of the Wiki. A lot of these are just people who are browsing who don't like the current default layout (I wouldn't mind it, if it didn't have that stupid top-bar). Saarlacfunkel (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


Is there any way to display the whole wiki in MonoBook WITHOUT being logged in? I do like anonymity. I don't like name-faggotry. And I can't stand the eye-sore that's Timeless.

Yes, if you append the query parameter "useskin=monobook" to a page URL (e.g., that will force mediawiki to render the page using the specified skin. After a bunch of faffing with php I also figured out how to make the wiki persist the param by adding it to internal links on pages accessed that way, so you should be able to browse around without losing the skin rendering. It's a bit of a bodgy way to do it though and it'd probably be better if I could make it depend on a cookie you could set so it genuinely remembers and would be a bit more transparent. I will look into that later. --Root (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for even a short-term solution and trying to make it work better!
Sorry, I had to disable this function as it was causing the wiki file cache to pollute with pages rendered with alternative skins. I'll try and figure out a better way to do it this weekend. --Root (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Using references[edit]

I can't seem to make work. Am I dumb or is there a problem with this ref tag? --Raton-Laveur (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Cite extension is bundled by default with current mediawiki versions but not enabled by default. I have enabled it; hopefully your citations work properly now. --Root (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. This also means I can use real footnotes now. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

i created 2 pages one is misspelled, the other is fine please help![edit]

Can you help me with deleting a page where i misspelled the title? i created the proper page and i need the other one deleted the page i want deleted is called hr giger's dark world campagn setting the real page is called hr giger's dark world campaign setting, thank you for your time.

You can make one page a redirect to the other by replacing the page content with #REDIRECT [[pagename]]. See this mediawiki help page. Page deletion can instead be requested by adding the {{deletion}} template to the page. Also, as per the rules outlined on the [Main Page], you should be using the Setting: namespace if you're using the wiki as hosting for a homebrew campaign setting, not making articles in the main namespace. --Root (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, if i have trouble with anything i will ask.

Email Notifications?[edit]

So before the update I'd been receiving email notifications whenever a page I had been watching was changed, and they were really useful in keeping track of various changes across the wiki. Since the update however I haven't received a single notification, is there a feature I can turn on to get those back, or is the only way to keep up to pay attention to the Watched Pages section on my user page? -- Triacom (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, enabling email notifications was a config setting that went walkies in the rebuild. I've re-enabled it - you might need to check your profile settings for email and make sure that your opt-in is still toggled correctly. --Root (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I am getting them now. -- Triacom (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of monobook[edit]

The wiki seems to be defaulting to monobook; but I have it saved as vector. While I understand a lot of people perfer monobook, I would rather have it as vector, is there any way to lock it to vector?

The wiki's default skin is Timeless, but there doesn't seem to be any issue with the appearance preferences not persisting if I change my own settings. Is anyone else having this issue? --Root (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean; but it appears that a lot of pages have this new ?useskin attached to them and that keeps switching the skin and is frankly annoying, pointless and seems to be switching between timeless and monobook on my end.
Okay, sorry about that. The awful hack I did to persist the useskin param for anons is unfortunately causing the wiki file cache to be polluted by pages being rendered in alternative skins with the altered links. I'm rebuilding the cache now so that should go away. --Root (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated; sorry for any inconvience caused. I blame MediaWiki for this personally as they had a perfectly fine skin in vector and just had to barf on it.
Blame Google. Or, at least, the rise of mobile devices as internet browsers. I could make the default skin Vector again, but the fact is it's not well-designed for phones and tablets (as Google's search index algorithms kept telling me), and mobile devices represent more than half the site traffic now. --Root (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Different guy (obviously), but does it mean the MonoBook is not coming back as default and/or possible to use consistently without being logged? I know about adding the command to the link, but that's just for display. Monobook really was the best thing.

Also an different guy, is there any way to change the default skin without having to make an account? Like, I feel like there should be a button for that, somewhere. Also Timeless is apparently incompatible with a night-mode browser plugin, which is obviously not a good thing. Me no likey the lasers in my eyes, big ouch.

Requesting a temporary suspension for user Auroch[edit]

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

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

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

Auroch is now deleting what I've written on their talk page and trying to ignore it while still reposting the argumentative paragraph. These kinds of paragraphs were all over the tactics pages in the past and made them a chore to read, and I do think it would be a terrible idea to bring them back. -- Triacom (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

No. I refuse to read anything added to the page you're vandalizing. If you would stop vandalizing it, I would read anything written there. But you insist on behaving like a spoiled toddler, so that may not happen any time soon. --Auroch (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Vandilising? Preventing a user from deleting what other people say is not vandalising, deleting what other people say and pretending they never say them is A) not the picture of maturity and B) vandalising. -- Triacom (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought I'd just add that Auroch has confirmed that he lacks any kind of citation or proof for his version on his own talk page. I'm otherwise remaining studiously neutral, but that alone would be a deciding factor on Wikipedia (and TVTropes and All The Tropes, for that matter). Saarlacfunkel (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I said that I don't have it, since I am not the person who first added this information. I am protecting an edit made by someone else rather than adding a new one. Additionally, if lack of citation was significant on this wiki we might as well delete the whole site; nothing's cited adequately. --Auroch (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
That's what Saarlacfunkel has said, you don't have any proof for the claim you're putting up. If you want to "protect an edit", then you need to back it up with proof when it's called into question because now it's your edit too. Furthermore fan theory on this wiki is always presented as fan theory, not fact like what you're doing. There's also a difference between having no citation but being able to provide one when asked, and having no proof at all. -- Triacom (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
a) "fan theory on this wiki is always presented as fan theory" Would you like to purchase this fine bridge to Manhattan? I can give you an excellent price. As a prominent example, literally the entirety of Traitor_Legion_Loyalists#List_of_suspected_chapters is presented as fact while actually being harebrained speculation which is in several cases outright stated by the authors to not be true. b) I'm not putting it up, Bear Eater put it up. You reverted it for reasons unrelated to it being accurate and in fact implicitly admitted it was accurate in the ensuing argument. Your given reasons are bullshit, hence the reverts. Don't break out the Gish Gallop when you refuse to argue the actual point. --Auroch (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Dude, read the title. Do you not get that they're fan theories from the title called "List of suspected chapters"? All the text present there explains why fans suspect them, and none of it is presented as fact that the chapters are outright stated to be from traitor legions, unless an in-universe source has given it which can be easily cited when asked for. "b) I'm not putting it up," Yes you are, if you're putting it up on the page now, then you're the one who's putting it up. I didn't implicitly admit it was accurate, I undid it because it was a bad edit, regardless of its accuracy, and now we know it wasn't accurate at all. -- Triacom (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind also adding this on AssisstantWikifag's page? I usually put these sorts of requests to both just on the off chance that one is present and the other isn't. -- Triacom (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I request instead a temporary or permanent suspension of Triacom, who is basically just a vandal here. --Auroch (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
That's rich coming from the user whose primary contribution has been to vandalize Josef Bugman's page with an argument that isn't even true. -- Triacom (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Variable logos[edit]

You wouldn’t mind pointing me to instructions on how I, too, can get my wiki to have variable logos that vary on a page by page basis, would you?01:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)$wgLogo#Random_Logo --Root (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit war on my talk page[edit]

My talk page got messy in a protracted argument with User:Triacom and I cleared out its content leaving only the last few entries. He is repeatedly reverting it even after I included an explicit link to the previous version with the full argument. Can he be blocked from editing my talk page (and preferably my User: pages) somehow? It's making it impossible to carry on a conversation.

The argument started as an edit war (over Josef Bugman), which has also gotten out of hand; Triacom seems to believe that any use of strikethrough for a correction to a page's contents is an argument and against 'unwritten rules' of the wiki, and refuses to listen to a word I say about why this is misguided. That aspect doesn't need any action from you but it would be appreciated. --Auroch (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

First of all, you're deleting stuff I wrote and pretending I never said it. I offered twice to move everything to Josef Bugman's talk page if you didn't want it on your page and you ignored the offers. Not only that, but your edit clearly is an argument because it's writing that the main page is wrong, before presenting a counterpoint. Finally the edit you keep putting up says that there's evidence Bugman's alive and has remade his brewery, and as you admitted in your own talk page, you have no citation for this. For days you've been forcing an edit onto the main page and claiming a fan theory is fact. -- Triacom (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The only one here who thinks deleting stuff means that you "never said it" is you. I blanked my talk page, as is my right, and you insist on reverting that repeatedly instead of, like a mature adult who can conduct an argument in good faith, continuing the debate on the cleaned-up page. You ignored my explicit invitation to link to parts of the old revision if they proved relevant. Until you stop throwing a tantrum on my talk page I am not going to engage with anything you write there, as I told you in advance. You escalated from "asshole who doesn't consider other points of view", which I was perfectly happy to continue arguing with, to "slighted toddler", and until you manage to resume the basic minimum standard of maturity you were previously meeting I am not going to humor any of your bullshit. I have given you a number of explicit, clearly-stated ways to continue the debate like a civilized person, including concessions to your downright Skavenly perception of being silenced, and you have ignored them and continued to vandalize my talk page. I am trying to give you an opening to cut it out without admitting weakness or losing or whatever it is you feel you'd be giving up by letting me discard the history. You have instead kept reverting it and adding text to the version I've told you I'm going to discard unread. Basically all the content discarded was arguments for my side, covering a number of points, comparisons, and explicit statements of terms; there was also a dozen copies of the single argument you have made over and over. Discarding all that makes my side of the debate look weaker, but it makes my talk page small enough to read and edit, so I did it anyway. --Auroch (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
First off, why do you think it's your "right" to delete what other people say? Secondly, you're pretending I never said stuff because you outright stated you're deleting it without reading it, not to mention you've deleted stuff I said after you write a reply to it, then you delete my reply to that and act as if I never said it. If you were arguing in good faith you would not be deleting what I and other users have said and pretending it never happened. You also keep accusing me of acting like a child despite plugging your ears and telling me you're no longer listening, which I'm sorry to tell you, isn't the mature thing to do. Your standards of maturity are literally "do what I say" while promoting a fan theory and without a source of your own to back any of your arguments up, not to mention you keep insisting that arguing the main page is wrong isn't arguing. If you wanted to give an opening for a discussion you'd stop deleting what other people write and then pretending they didn't write them, and you've been doing this since before you started deleting large chunks of your talk page, as we can see in your edit history. It is nice you admit here though that you're discarding points without reading them, maybe you shouldn't be doing that. -- Triacom (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Every wiki using this software has the standard policy that a user's `User:` and `User talk:` namespaces are theirs to do with as they like. Unless it's otherwise specified for 1d4chan, which would be way out of character, that applies here. --Auroch (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Where's your citation? Where are you getting that from? -- Triacom (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, now we're treating this as kindergarten? I can't assume you've edited any wiki before? Sure, whatever. and Everything else in the Wikipedia family redirects to those for their default policies; even the ones which have other policies usually have stray links to w:Wikipedia:BLANKING left over. --Auroch (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Asking for proof is not a childish thing to do, and that's a nice statement from Wikipedia, so where's the proof that it applies to all wiki pages and especially 1d4chan? You say that every wiki using this software has the same standard policy, so where is it? -- Triacom (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
And again, if you put your comments on the actual page rather than your vandalized version, then you can engage in a civilized discussion and be treated like an adult. As long as you insist on vandalizing my talk page, I will treat you as what you are acting like: a spoiled child who thinks yelling will get them something they want. By all means, take everything you've written on the stupidly long page and put it on the clean version. There's probably a couple thousand words by now so I probably won't respond to all of it, but I will respond. In other words, if you really want to say something to me, say it like a grown-ass adult. It will stay there until the next time I blank the page, which probably won't be soon. --Auroch (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Preventing you from deleting what I and others say isn't vandalism. If you think it is then you have no clue what the word means. -- Triacom (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The additions you'd made last time I accidentally glanced at the contents were utter spam, so it absolutely is vandalism. And, again: it's in my User: space, therefore it's my decision what to do with it. As long as I don't do shit that endangers the site like link to child porn, it's mine. --Auroch (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If you think they're spam then you have not read them. Also where's your citation for that argument? The citation from Wikipedia is a citation that applies only to Wikipedia, because it's specifically talking about Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Triacom (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This page got a lot of stuff wiped[edit],000/Tactics/Grey_Knights(9E)&curid=58797&diff=663496&oldid=658603

While I'm not the one who erased all of that, the new edition isn't even out yet, how do you know that anything there was accurate? -- Triacom (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, Stephen Lucas is planning ahead of the edition by preparing the pages as templates for the new edition. I was confused at first as well, but that seems to be what he is doing. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/HussarZwei is turning pol and SJW into propaganda[edit]

This guy needs to be blocked and the pages reverted to where they were before he went berserk.

Agreed. -- 11:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way I am sorry for overwriting the /pol/ page. I probably shouldn't have done that but I was hoping it would get him to stop. I am not going to edit war any further and will let other people deal with this.--2601:203:480:4C60:E1A9:A662:2241:2D64 11:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well it looks like both of the pages have been restored.--2601:203:480:4C60:E1A9:A662:2241:2D64 12:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

>is turning pol and SJW into propaganda

You guys have been doing that ever since the scope of the article stopped being "What is /pol/ and SJWs about" to "here's why /pol/ sucks but why SJWs have a point". Honestly both pages should just be what both entities are about, all of us agree with those definitions, and locked down for eternity. There wasn't a need for the long list of essays on both. Tactical Mehren (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You may be right. This website is supposed to be either funny or about /tg/. Those pages are too long and serious to be funny and are not about /tg/. They should probably be cut down to 1/4 or less of their current sizes.--2601:203:480:4C60:E1A9:A662:2241:2D64 11:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Tactical Mahren, you're absolutely right. Both articles should be basically "these people are nuts, don't do this". -- 15:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

They are also trying to erase this section.--2601:203:480:4C60:8A1:B1F6:D53A:1F6E 21:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

He's been blocked, even if it's just for 1 day. Hope it knocks some sense into his murderous "anyone in political/religious groups I don't like rightfully deserves death" head. Also, he needs to realize the erasure/censorship of information does not make the deleter or his "side" any more "right". -- 15:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

So let me go over something, specifically why the SJW section has that bit about whether or not they have a point. If you're going to have an article about them then you're going to explain what they're trying to do, and once you start doing that you're going to have to get into why. As soon as you get into that you're going to raise the question of whether or not they have a point, and that's how the article became what it is. If you're going to try and cut parts like that out you're going to knee-cap the article because obvious questions (like why they want to do what they do) aren't going to be answered, and I can guarantee that content's going to be re-written by somebody else later on. If you want to remove the politics from an article, like changing "conservatives" to "people" I'm not going to stop you, but you should really think twice before deciding large sections of the page shouldn't be there. -- Triacom (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be doing a little bit of pearl-clutching now that you can't cover Mr. "Rightfully"'s butt nor justify his "rightfully" subjective alterations (or are you saying the addition of "rightfully" in every other sentence involving ridicule/harm to people one doesn't like doesn't reek of subjective bias?). He was actively downplaying SJW negativity (by deleting a lot from that article) while dumping all conservatives and Christians into /pol/ and repeatedly wishing death on them (I bet he's too much of a coward to actually harm any IRL, anyway), and you yourself sound pretty coercive with your "I also wonder if there's a word for those who do not support anti-racist causes..." shenanigans. A vaguely condescending and threatening "You're with us or you're a nazi, amirite? HMMMM"-tier line is a pretty shitty way to end your first bit of dialogue, especially when there's a lot of non-whites and LGBTs and so on that aren't on board with your "join us in disparaging anyone we don't like or you're one of them and we'll do it to you too" tier of politics. mirrored my sentiments anyway in that discussion that he had with you on /pol/'s talk page. Anyways, regarding said concerns of yours: Write articles to be neutral, point out both sides are bad and lock. Done. -- 15:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
If I was pearl-clutching then I would stand in the way of deleting the more political parts of those pages. For the record I never was defending the alterations he made to the page, I was originally poking fun at somebody who was pearl-clutching about how conservatives were portrayed, since they tried to use the defense of "they're not racists or fascists, they just usually don't work to combat racism or fascism." Check the edit history of the page, if I really wanted to take HussarZwei's side you'd see me undoing the changes to the conservative passages. Believe me, if I wanted to make a threat I'd just do it straight to your face, but I wouldn't do it without attempting to make an honest dialogue first, and the defense used for the conservatives was so laughably bad it was impossible to take seriously. Anyways, regarding said concerns of yours: Write articles to be neutral, point out both sides are bad and lock. Done. None of this runs contrary to anything I wrote here. You can explain why people do what they do while remaining neutral, and the article already does that by explaining how some people have good intentions but then go way too far, or get co-opted by others who don't have good intentions. -- Triacom (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I can also guarantee that if I noticed HussarZwei deleting parts of the talk page that I'd be among the first to undo his edits immediately and put in a request on this page for a temporary suspension. I'm against removing edits made on the talk pages, you can see that just by searching up and down both this page and AssisstantWikifag's talk page, but I'm very glad you lot and Root noticed and dealt with it as quick as you did. -- Triacom (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Cool, let's write "do they have a point" on /pol article and say that yes, while both their (suggested) methods and extreme views are bad, the core philosophy of having a self-sustained economy is pretty solid, or something along those lines, and the term has lost its' meaning, because everyone who doesn't agree with the opponent nowadays is quick to use it, of which, by the way, HussarZwei is an example. -- 22:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
/pol/ users rarely are doing something they think is genuinely good for everyone. If that section did exist on the /pol/ page it would be pretty easy to point out in an unbiased manner why literal neo-nazi's and conspiracy theorists do not have a point and are almost always just shit-flinging. -- Triacom (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

He has started trying to do it again. His new edits are not as offensive as they were before but keep an eye on him.-- 22:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

He has once again started doing it. Please either ban him or lock the pages. --2601:203:480:4C60:2453:882A:641A:6040 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This should not be acceptable. He is trying to push the idea that all conservatives are the same as /pol/acks and at the same time calling for violence against /pol/acks. I do not understand why he has not been banned already. This is basically hate speech. --2601:203:480:4C60:2453:882A:641A:6040 07:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

But /pol/acks are bad people, Triacom knows this. Besides, shouldn't the joy of punching a /pol/ack be something we can all agree on. Let's put aside our differences and punch /pol/acks together. -- HussarZwei (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
As I said on the talk page, you need to draw a line here. They're not good people but there's a huge difference between Conservatives and the actual Nazis. You're taking a joke so far that it's stopped being a joke and is looking like you're putting what you actually believe on the page instead. -- Triacom (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
What gave you the idea that he is just joking? -- 08:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The fact that he was making jokes did that. -- Triacom (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's put aside our differences and talk about how conservatives are one extreme and /pol/acks are the other extreme. SJWs are in the political center, thus moderate. -- HussarZwei (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Let's put aside our differences and talk about how once you start comparing Conservatives and Nazis, and especially once you start equating the two, you've lost the plot. -- Triacom (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
What is so extreme about conservatism? Normal conservatives don't go around calling for violence against people they disagree with and the revocation of people's human rights.-- 09:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
First of all, it is morally wrong to take pleasure in the suffering of a human being (except for fiction ones) without their consent. Punishments for evil must be delivered coldly, not cruelly. And second of all, leave the violence and punishments for the military and justice system to deliver. Normal people are far too disorganized and so violence is rarely the solution they should use and they should not be responsible for punishment. Disorganized violence and attempts to bring punishment harm innocent people far more. Third, you are in complete denial of what conservatives are actually like. Most conservatives oppose /pol/acks too.--2601:203:480:4C60:2453:882A:641A:6040 08:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
"leave the violence and punishments for the military and justice system to deliver." I agree, the military should be killing /pol/acks. -- HussarZwei (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
How very fascist of you. Also, fourth point, evil ideas don't warrant punishment on their own. Evil actions do. Policing thoughts is a dangerous road and people with evil ideas need to be taught that their ideas are evil and they need new ones. -- 08:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Did you forget all the mass shootings committed by /pol/acks? -- HussarZwei (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
And? Unless you're trying to claim all those mass shootings were done by Conservatives, why are you still equating the two? -- Triacom (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Not all conservatives are /pol/acks, but all /pol/acks are conservative. Also we both recognize that conservatives are bad. -- HussarZwei (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit. Mass shootings are not conducive to Conservative beliefs, the same goes for any type of mass killings. If you're going to claim they are then that makes you ignorant, a liar, or both. -- Triacom (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Except that isn't true. /pol/acks include fascists. Conservatives cannot be fascists and fascist cannot be conservatives. They are incompatible on many levels. People think that they have more in common than they actually do because it's easier to lure conservatives into turning into fascists than it is for liberals and because conservatives are more likely to be racist.--2601:203:480:4C60:2453:882A:641A:6040 09:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that conservatives are bad? -- HussarZwei (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If it means that you're going to keep forcing it into the page, then no, we cannot agree on that. -- Triacom (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that more conservatives have died fighting against slavery than liberals. Do you want to say that those conservatives were bad too?--2601:203:480:4C60:2453:882A:641A:6040 10:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't you try to strawman me. Of course those warrant punishment, because they committed an evil action.-- 09:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Lemming already tell Zwei he was on dodeca-tuple secret probation? Shouldn't it just be automatic at this point? He touched the page again. Commissar him already. --Piroko (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What I'm trying to figure out sifting through all the above bullshit is where Zwei got the idea there wasn't enough conservative-bashing on here. 1) We really don't need to reinforce that much because 2) we're not a political dossier, and the effort to make sure the article actually covers the subject even half accurately is a gigantic grey area in and of itself. Besides that, 3) the /pol/ article has enough implicit condemnations of conservatism as is, and in that or any case, focusing on "conservatives bad" misses the forest for the trees. -- 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Now we have another on the other side doing the same thing[edit]

special:Contributions/Bigboiphrogface has been editing pages into right wing propaganda and he has made some racist statements. He currently is edit warring with Zwei. I suspect that he is actually a fake conservative. Please kick both of these people.-- 03:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Bad enough dealing with SJW and /pol/ shit elsewhere on the internet, I don't need it shitting up 1d4chan too.--QuietBrowser (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, someone who unironically calls for "race wars" should be restrained from editing. -- 15:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, same goes for anyone who unironically claims the Nazis weren't bad in hindsight. At least they're gone now. -- Triacom (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Good, bad; morality is subjective. But damn did they have snazzy uniforms. --Piroko (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't have minded if they'd been talking about their dress code and not their cause, I'd highly disagree with the idea that the things they did were subjective and not evil. -- Triacom (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Virtually every empire has the blood of millions of innocent on its hands, including ours. I grant that the Nazis actions were subjective, so that I can say that it was subjective that we nuked Japan and took North America from its previous inhabitants. Reducing history to a "how full is your blood bucket" contest isn't a productive exercise.--Piroko (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
"Virtually every empire has the blood of millions of innocent on its hands-" Doesn't matter, the actions of other people and nations are not justification to do horrific acts to your own people. "Reducing history to a "how full is your blood bucket" contest isn't a productive exercise." Then why are you doing it? -- Triacom (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you comprehended my point at all. But I don't think it's worth the effort to try to explain it further.--Piroko (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I could say the same about you, my point is that there are morally reprehensible acts that are plain evil, regardless of who's doing them or how many times they were done in the past. I was not "Reducing history to a "how full is your blood bucket" contest" like you seem to think I was. You were the only one drawing a comparison between Nazis and other nations, that's why I asked why you were doing something you said wasn't productive. -- Triacom (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a Permanent Ban for user[edit]

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

I've repeatedly asked them to go to the talk page, Saarlacfunkel has asked them to go to the talk page, and anons are also reverting their edits yet keeps on deleting nearly half the page anyway. Since they're unreasonable and refuse to stop I'm asking for their permanent ban. -- Triacom (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

As of typing this, the changes made to the Imperium of Man page take up a large section of the Recent Changes tab, there's currently been 118 changes made today alone, the majority of which are by 2601:197:B7F:E0C0:F443:ECBA:2C10:6478 (same anon as before) who has occasionally started blanking the entire page. Can we please IP ban them and then protect the page so we don't have to put up with these vandals? -- Triacom (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please protect the page soon. I have stuff to do today.--2601:203:480:4C60:752D:8E42:E21:AD30 18:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

At this point, just block 'im. He's nothing but a vandal. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please ban this idiot. I mean, I think that the Imperium's page goes too far in trying to defend a faction that was set up from the beginning to be as bad as the foes it fights, and I still think this asshole is both taking it too far and making a damn nuisance of themselves.--QuietBrowser (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above, if they won't even defend their actions or try to improve it or even get the hint that their change isn't appreciated either ban them or lock the page. --Because (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve got to agree with all of the above too. It’s been going on for about 3 days now, its clogging up Recent Changes, and the amount of Users defending it makes it very clear that these changes aren’t seen as necessary or wanted. —-CoolGuy99 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2020 (BST)

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

I think most of those are me. My IP address randomly changes for some reason even when I am using the same device.--2601:203:480:4C60:2190:A86E:19E1:EC73 00:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless you're the one deleting the page, then most of the changes to it aren't you. Even if we assume you're every anon, including the one who doesn't have a protected IP, we still have half a dozen unique users trying to protect the page. -- Triacom (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I meant I think I am most of the anons reverting the page, or a large number of them. -- 00:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't worry, I believe we still have half a dozen unique users trying to defend the page even if you are every anon. -- Triacom (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

In the alternate, requesting Semi-Protection for Imperium of Man[edit]

As a slightly lower-effort alternate to the above, semi-protect the article. Not full protection, semi-protection. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Also ban the user vandalizing the page. I don't get why it's taking so long to do that, if you look at the page history we are a handful of edits away from the having 500 changes just be this editwar. The sooner we can get rid of this anon the better. -- Triacom (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's Happened.[edit]

[All the previous conversation has been moved to Talk:The Imperium of Man (which anons can edit, unlike the main page). Please go there instead.]

Hey guys, I think you all should move this discussion off of Root's talk page since he is not involving himself in this discussion and what you are currently talking about is not about him.-- 03:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


Linked above, get this motherfucker out of here. -- 01:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly. We must do something immediately. --Piroko (talk) 03:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I checked their edit history too, how exactly is a user with only one edit a spammer? -- Triacom (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It is spam as in unwanted, possibly scam, advertising, not spam as in sending the same thing over and over again.-- 04:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Dude, it's a userpage, the user can put whatever they want on there. I could start advertising for Raid Shadow Legends on my own user page right now and it would not be spam because that space is there to do with as you please. Until they start forcing that sort of thing into other pages it is not spam. -- Triacom (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ban User:HussarZwei[edit]

This unfortunate person is continuing to edit pages to fit political narratives that they support personally and are a detriment to our operation of our wikis, with people having to run dedicated surveillance on them just to ensure that his edits don't get through, because he keeps trying. I suggest a permaban, as it is obvious his behavior will not improve, despite several warnings. He is beyond the point of good faith, and either a troll or genuinely as messed up as he sounds, and in either instance not someone we need editting this wiki. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand why he hasn't been banned already with his calling for violence against people of religions and political factions he doesn't like. While he doesn't edit war as much as he did before his temporary ban, his edits haven't gotten any less hateful.--2601:203:480:4C60:9CE5:3EE1:2DD4:83BF 07:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Going to have to agree, HussarZwei has been asked by a lot of people to stop, including myself, and I know they've been suspended in the past for deleting other people's arguments from talk pages as well, so since they don't seem interested in changing I'm afraid they'll continue doing what they're doing. Best get rid of them now and save us all the headache we'll get later. -- Triacom (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I support this course of action. He's repeatedly made noises about backing down, and then gone right back to it days later. If he was going to make a turn for the better, he would have. I think things have reached the point where it should be assumed that any remorse or desire to reform on his part is in bad faith. --Piroko (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm confused, why hasn't he been banned yet? He's still up to roughly the same stuff, only pretending to be a good editor while in reality policing the two pages he wants to: /pol/ and SJW's. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree, he's eluded the commissar far too long. This situation calls for Fuklaw, not Cain. --Piroko (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

permission for translation/reposting content[edit]

Hello, I sort of represent the trpg community in China, and we as a community are plagued with retards who don't actually play TRPGs or have any knowledge about trpgs but talk frequently about them as if they know their shit. Some of our members want to educate the crowd by translating some of the pages from 1d4chan, and I would like to get permission to translate and repost content here to a non-commercial fan wiki like this one (but has way more weebs).

Requesting protection for both the Video Games and Recommended Web Video Channels pages.[edit]

As the title says, the video games and Recommended Web Video Channels pages have been barrages by anon's for some time now and the anon's are not interested in talking or listening to reason, so I'm requesting they both be given protected status. This has gone on for several days despite the efforts of several other users on this site. -- Triacom (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ayup. Seconding what Triacom just said.Saarlacfunkel (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Ban User:I LOVE gardevoirs! quickly[edit]

He is vandalizing large numbers of pages and replacing their contents with spam.-- 16:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, it's just another vandal. -- Triacom (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

He is back[edit]

Now he is User:FORTHEEMPRAH. Instead of overwriting pages with spam he is now just making a ton of new pages for his spam.-- 18:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that IP needs a ban and all of those pages need to go. -- Triacom (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you please delete the spam pages he made?[edit]

He deliberately named those pages so that they are the first thing that pops up when you start typing stuff in the search bar. Seeing them is very annoying. Go through Category:Deletion and remove them. -- 17:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Install the Tabs Extension[edit]

Quality-of-life request, but could the Mediawiki Tabs extension be installed on 1d4chan, so to make it possible create 'tabview' data for stuff? The main area I am interested in using this would be to alter so that rather than each faction having a "(8th, 7th, 6th...) page in parentheses, that there would be a tabview 'by edition'. This would also 'clean up' the template for armies which only existed in certain game editions, like Kroot Mercenaries, or Lost & the Damned. MagicJuggler (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say armies not showing up in an edition because their codex was old at the time would be a bug rather than a feature in the system you want to implement because the rules were often usable in several editions. Angry Pirate (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree, as an example anything that came out in 3rd edition is still technically usable up until the end of 6th, and you can even use them in 7th with minor adjustments. -- Triacom (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Tabs installed, whatever you decide to do with it. --Root (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Contact info that doesn't rely on the site being up[edit]

In the downtime this week, I tried to reach out to your email to offer assistance, but it was down like the site. Consider getting a dedicated Gmail account as a backup? --Auroch (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I did the same, got the same result. -- Triacom (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
From inspecting the Paypal donation link, there is an "" address, probably. This appears to be synonymous with gmail. So actually the only thing to be done would be stating this in a place people might look in the Wayback Machine during an outage. --Auroch (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Third Party Update/News Area?[edit]

Hello Root. Thanks for getting 1d4chan back up, you're the bomb. You've probably been bombarded with requests for this already, but I didn't see any in your talk page when I ran a ctrl+f. Frankly, a lot of people were shitting their pants, myself included, when the site went down. There were a bunch of rumors that you'd sold the site to some madfag who deleted it, that data had been lost, etc. If you made some sort of blog or a twitter or something that you could clarify the situation on if this ever happens again in the future, that would be super cool. For my part I'm going to start saving backups of everything I care about, because I was pretty worried. Based on the news and how the server went up/down, it sounds you had a bitch of a time - thanks for everything you do. --AnotherAnonFinishingLCB (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Another guy actually made a full replica of the site that was apparently made just yesterday or so. It's at It was meant to be an outright replacement, but perhaps we could use it as a backup? (Its admin is a user here, but I don't know who since none of the login credentials carried over.) --Newerfag (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the VPS is paid for one month and it's 10 euro a month. The domain is paid for one year. I've no use for these things atm and if they can be useful for I will gladly provide them to Root Phas (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

IMO 1d4chan needs an official Twitter account or something. To get the word out just in case the site goes down or needs to migrate again. Though I'm not one to talk because I'm too lazy to log into my own accounts.--Valvatorez (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

your doing your best mate[edit]

The kreigerstine (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an immediate and permanent ban for user[edit]

It's another vandal whose only edits are blanking pages. -- Triacom (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Seconding and asking for protection from editing by anonymous/unconfirmed accounts. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:1CB4:A950:E9A2:2C75 20:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

lefties mad lol 23:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, they're just another vandal. -- Triacom (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting an immediate and permanent ban for user Gooberelion[edit]

Another vandal, this one is just spamming new pages featuring beastiality, can we get rid of them? -- Triacom (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

On reflection it seems that they're the same as the anon featured just above this topic who was blanking all the pages. They're both posting about screwing pokemon and are rewriting pages with copy pasted versions of it. -- Triacom (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Sex with Pokémon is not bestiality but it sometimes is pedophilia.--2600:1010:B163:9EDA:44AB:99F4:8E8D:3CE 16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
They're literally animals, the name of the show is a shortened version of pocket monsters, it's undeniably beastiality. -- Triacom (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Pokémon are not animals. They are people. It's just that most of them can't speak human. This means that it wouldn't be bestiality but it still would probably be wrong because they cannot clearly give consent.--2600:1010:B12A:D2CE:24B3:E72:5450:10E7 17:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
They're animals, doesn't matter if they're people in animal bodies, that still makes them animals. -- Triacom (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


LOOK UP AIRALIN COMICS 4 PR00F FAGGOTAiralinluv (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems like the anon/Gooberelin is determined to replace their name with mine in the topic, so can we get rid of them already? Do we need more moderators? Why is it vandals are allowed to stay on the site for days even after admitting they're vandals? -- Triacom (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ban user:Airalinluv[edit]

Same guy again on another account--2600:1010:B12A:D2CE:24B3:E72:5450:10E7 17:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

LOL U WISH Airalinluv (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, at least he's signing his posts now. That's at least some sort of growth. - 17:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This needs to change, more mods or better comms[edit]

Root, the edit wars are becoming an intolerable nuisance. There is a sense from some of us that you and assistant are absent a lot and that it takes too long to get someone with powers to shut down an account hell bent on vandalism. Something needs to give. Maybe we need more moderators. Maybe we need a community discord so we can reach moderators real-time. But the status quo isn't working. --Piroko (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree.--2600:1010:B117:DE9D:85A8:2342:8091:62AA 19:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Same, I get that people are busy, but when a page can be vandalised for weeks and have 500 edits in a row just dealing with vandals and nothing is done then something needs to change. Relying on you and AssistantWikifag isn't working. -- Triacom (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Going to have to agree, for the reasons outlined above. If a troll decides to go around blanking pages, creating page after page of nothing but bestiality copypasta, or generally shitting up the site, someone needs to be able to drop the hammer on them without Administratum-tier wait times. That ain't happening at the moment. --2A02:C7D:6058:2600:3046:1B1C:E752:F2A8 09:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I concur as well. The situation is not reasonable. Perhaps some of the die-hards on your wiki IRC channel could do it? Someone else. (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Petition for this[edit]

Here is an idea, why don't you collect signatures from users who support this? Maybe that will get Root's attention.

Sign here if you agree that we either need some better way of communication, such a a discord channel, or more moderators. Try to get all the important users to sign this.

We're already signing above that we agree with the sentiment, Root clearly doesn't care. -- Triacom (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
For reasons, this is kind of complicated. Yes, there are clearly significant problems with the way the wiki is run, lack of active moderation being one of them. But, problem inception - fixing that problem in a way that I'm happy with probably won't make you happy. --Root (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for at least giving us a response finally.--2601:203:480:4C60:784C:6B6B:5C0A:2BDF 06:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes thank you for finally saying something about it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"fixing that problem in a way that I'm happy with probably won't make you happy" Have you tried though? Consider: how about you dump the IRC channel and set up a discord. Nobody uses IRC anymore. Then at least people can red phone you when there's a problem. Like, this is not unreasonable to say "stop using this hideously antiquated comms system that's been in decline for longer than some of your users have been alive". --Piroko (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Follow-up thought... User:Root, if it's too much to ask you to manage new comms yourself, if some of US took it on ourselves to set up a discord and manage it, would you at least get onto it and be responsive there? Cuz I'm sure Triacom or myself or any of a dozen other active users here could easily manage a discord for the site. But there's no point to doing it if there won't be buy in from the top to actually use it. --Piroko (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Retard is back[edit]

Everyone’s favourite spammer is back, now under the name of Eliasdong. Yay. CoolGuy99 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


P.S. I AM {{awesome}}

Hilarious. CoolGuy99 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Ban request[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a bannable, but User:BobbyBobberson keeps pressing randomly "Undo" on approved video games page. Not to achieve anything in particular except being "le funny troll", since his roll-backs tend to reintroduce errors and pointless duplications, along with removing versions of entries that were achieved by consensus, putting back his own shit. Cunt's annoying as hell and seems to be doing it solely to rill people up.

I have to agree with this, I have not participated in what was happening on that page but I have been watching it, and BobbyBobberson has been continuously making that page worse. I wouldn't request a ban though, just a suspension. -- Triacom (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Y'wanna maybe sign your posts? And create a verified account? I'm not sure what I see so far really meets the bar for what I'd call malicious.--Piroko (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
There was already a long discussion on that page's talk page, and Bobby is ignoring all of it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Seriously, can we ban him already? It's pretty clear at this point he's immune to any sort of argumentation and blanking the page solely out of some insanity-fueled spite against a non-existing conspiracy.

Ban BobbyBobberson, or ban the 217.96.XXX.XXX anon, or ban them both. Just ban someone already.

Ban request for 2600:6C58:637F:E506:EC22:A7EB:46BD:8FE3[edit]

An abusive anonymous user (who frequently changed ips) has finally made the mistake of using a user name. I guess it's time to ban him. His user name is User:2600:6C58:637F:E506:EC22:A7EB:46BD:8FE3. Basically if he does like your edit, he will constantly revert it edit war style while throwing verbal abuse at the other editor (telling them to "fuck off" calling them a "retard" that sort of thing). He even does this if you try and ask him to discus the edit on the talk page. I'm willing to find a middle ground and work on an edit that we can both agree with, but he seems more interested in insults and edit wars. Most of his abusive behavior has been on the Video Games page. Here's a list of his past ip addresses:,,,,,,

among others...

First of all your edits on the page, especially recently, have been nothing short of mocking in their summaries as you delete parts of the page and blank out entries for no reason. Secondly I highly doubt all of those are the same anon, and thirdly you say you're up for some form of compromise but I'm going to call bullshit on that, you wouldn't be blanking out entries if that was true. You seemed reasonable in the past, so I don't know what changed but clearly something did. -- Triacom (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
First of all, my "mocking" is a response to the way I'm being treated (I don't appreciate being referred to as "fucking retard"). Also, I very much have my reasons for reverting his edits. Secondly, ips are very much the same person. I know I can't 100% prove it, but it's pretty clear to me. Look at the edits and decide for yourself, don't just assume. Thirdly, I TALKED WITH YOU ABOUT THE EDIT TRIACOM. How can you say I'm not willing to change my edits to appease others, when I changed the very edit he keep reverting to appease you? "You seemed reasonable in the past, so I don't know what changed but clearly something did." Honestly, I can say the same about you...--BobbyBobberson (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
So what's your reason for blanking out videogame entries? You haven't said yet why you're doing that. Secondly, ips are very much the same person. I know I can't 100% prove it, but it's pretty clear to me. Not clear to me, two of those are undoubtedly different people because they're in entirely separate cities, and the third has a VPN. Look at the edits and decide for yourself, don't just assume. Take your own advice, there's nothing there that shows they're the same person. Even undoing edits isn't enough since they could just be trying to protect the page from somebody who's blanking out entries for no given reason. Thirdly, I TALKED WITH YOU ABOUT THE EDIT TRIACOM. How can you say I'm not willing to change my edits to appease others, when I changed the very edit he keep reverting to appease you? And as I said something obviously changed, because your undoing more than just the Skyrim entry and you're not even bothering to talk about those. Look at what I've posted about in response to you, it's entirely about everything else you're undoing on the page and you haven't justified any of it. Honestly, I can say the same about you... I'm not the one undoing edits while typing in no u into the summary, and I'm not involved in your editwar. I've been watching however, and that's how I know you haven't even offered to talk about why you're blanking entries. -- Triacom (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Splitting this argument into two separate area of the forum is going to get weird, but ok. So what's your reason for blanking out videogame entries? Isn't it obvious? Because he keeps reverting my edit (and being disrespectful about it), so I revert his (and have no respect for him while I do it). Not clear to me, two of those are undoubtedly different people because they're in entirely separate cities, and the third has a VPN. That's not how IPs work Triacom. Your IP address can change, not only that, but other people (across the world) can use IPs you used but don't anymore. Someone in Mexico can use IP A. They change their IP. The IP is available for anyone to use. Someone in France changes their IP and gets IP A. See what I mean? So unless you checked the location of each IP everyday for months, then they could still be the same person (even then they could still hide or change their location, but still) Take your own advice I did, I explained it in the other discussion, they're the same. And as I said something obviously changed, because your undoing more than just the Skyrim entry and you're not even bothering to talk about those. I'm only editing one person's edits. AND I ALREADY TRIED TALKING TO HIM. What more do you want from me? Maybe instead arguing with me when I call him out, maybe you should sit back and let the two of us try and talk it out first, before giving your input? I'm not the one undoing No, but you are jumping to a lot of conclusions, and making assumptions that are flat out untrue.
Oh, and he stopped using his username, good luck getting rid of him now.--BobbyBobberson (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You don't need to split it up if you want to, I did it to be specific about certain sections in your reply. Take this for example: he keeps reverting my edit (and being disrespectful about it), so I revert his (and have no respect for him while I do it). I single this bit out because you just admitted to spiteful vandalism, plain and simple. You're not going to win over anyone by doing that. That's not how IPs work Triacom. Your IP address can change, not only that, but other people (across the world) can use IPs you used but don't anymore. And you can backtrace IP's which is pretty simple to figure out where somebody is, and that's what I did. I'm not saying where they are, anyone can check that for themselves, but it's pretty obvious the reversions aren't coming from the same city. That person would also need to drive or fly between the cities in less time than it takes to get there for the edits to make sense, in other words, they're different people. I did, I explained it in the other discussion, they're the same. Except you just stated here you're blanking entries out of spite, that's not the same. What more do you want from me? Stop blanking edits and reverting what other users do out of spite, that's what I want. Doing what you do, looking at a user's contributions and removing everything they've done from the wiki, purely because you dislike them and regardless of the merit of what they've added, is something that will likely earn you a ban, and I don't think anyone here would speak up in your defense if that were to happen. No, but you are jumping to a lot of conclusions, and making assumptions that are flat out untrue. And which assumptions have I been making? That you were blanking entries for no reason? You admitted to that right here, blanking sections because you don't like who wrote them isn't a reason to blank them. Oh, and he stopped using his username, good luck getting rid of him now. That random string isn't a username. -- Triacom (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Of course I'm reverting his edits out of spite, he's reverting my edits out of spite. That's what makes an edit war an edit war. He does it to me, I do it right back to him. He gets what he gives, and that's what he gets.
Answer honestly Tiacom. Have you been backtracing his IPs the DAY OF him making any post and keeping a log of locations for the last few months? I doubt you have. I think you just searched the ones I listed today.--BobbyBobberson (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can see they're undoing your edits because you're blanking entries, they added stuff to the page and you're removing it, that's not an editwar that's an editor vs a vandal. Have you been backtracing his IPs the DAY OF him making any post and keeping a log of locations for the last few months? When I saw the new IP start editing I backtraced it out of curiosity, their locations have not changed. -- Triacom (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Ban BobbyBobberson, or ban the 217.96.XXX.XXX anon, or ban them both. Just ban someone already.

I love how this whole thread has devolved into "c'mon, do something".--Piroko (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Ban Request for Special:Contributions/2A02:1811:5180:A200:F9DE:4C2A:97C5:A039[edit]

Not very complex, he's edit warring by removing stuff from the Commissar page despite being requested to take it to the talk page. -- 03:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Their only real "offense" was conflating a weak-ass "lolRussia" edit with /pol/. Besides that, they stopped edit warring and actually bothered to use said talk page. --2600:1700:19C0:2760:19C8:AA6:12F0:9EEF 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Another ban needed[edit]

Special:Contributions/2A0B:F4C2:2:0:0:0:0:1 and Special:Contributions/2001:67C:2660:425:23:0:0:170 Reason? Adding pedo shit. -- 11:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: Add Special:Contributions/2001:67C:2628:647:8:0:0:170 to the list. -- 12:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, we should get rid of them ASAP and I think we should also get rid of any and all loli pages as well, they're a magnet for the worst sorts of people. -- Triacom (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "delete these pages", just "semi-protect them". If the problem persists with actual accounts, only then delete them. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Then we should move them all to a single page and collapse them if needed to make them all easier to watch over. -- Triacom (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You misbegotten scum are the real vandals here. Do not think this will just go unanswered. --2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 18:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a funny accusation, seeing as you're trying to upload underage porn. -- Triacom (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm restoring what has been around for proverbial centuries. Until vandal scum like you showed up.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 19:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a reason why child porn went away. Human sacrifice also used to be a thing, yet for some reason I don't see you volunteering for the part-time role in that tradition. -- Triacom (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The reason is fashion and your justifications are irrelevant since this was never an issue here before. You are merely a vandal.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 19:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing fashionable about being against pedophiles, being for them is fashionable though, it means you get to wear a bright orange jumpsuit in any reasonable country. -- Triacom (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Your opinion is irrelevant virtue signalling and you are mentally ill if jailtime for drawing doodles seems reasonable in yor head. That much is the same with most of you.-- 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
There's only one type of person who wants to draw child porn, I'll leave it to you to figure out what we call them. -- Triacom (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm just waiting for him to try and claim he's a 'Hebephile' (aka a Pedo with a Thesaurus) instead. -- 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, those images were uploaded years ago and were part of the articles until Kracked Mynd went on his NSFW purging spree. They are, for good or ill, part of /tg/'s history, and I'd advocate your suggestion of keeping them all on a separate page rather than try to censor them. --2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 19:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Kracked Mynd was right to do that, and that shit's also banned on /tg/ and earns your IP a perma-ban if you try posting it there. I'm also censoring the porn-specific ones, the ones that aren't NSFW I'm leaving alone. -- Triacom (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. I disagreed with Kracked Mynd on a lot of his weird purges, but in this case I think it's a broken clock. Loli images are pedo and have no place on /tg/ or this wiki. -- 19:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, I urge you to actually keep them contained in one (locked) page rather than deleting them outright. This wiki is the deposit of the /tg/ that was before Nazimod's purge, warts and all. On a parallel, I don't see anyone purge quests despite them being banned from /tg/ those days either. --2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 19:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The Quest page also isn't illegal in every first world country and isn't objectively wrong. -- Triacom (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case, then be consistent and also get rid of Dranon's Delight, any of the /WST/ stories tagged with loli/shota/rape; and any description of murder, dismemberment, rape and other such niceties. Those are illegal in every first world country and objectively wrong as well.--2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 19:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll gladly get rid of the loli/shota NSFW stories, I don't think the wiki should be a place people can be arrested for visiting. The difference between those and a story with those other acts you describe is it's not illegal to read/write stories containing those, unlike those other stories with minors. -- Triacom (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Last I checked depictions of imaginary characters, even engaged in sexual activities, aren't illegal either. Genuine child pornography is, but there is none to be found on this wiki.--2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 19:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Last I checked drawn child porn was treated as real child porn, especially since they're made by the same people. -- Triacom (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
No it's not, but okay, you've made your position and double standards clear. Peace out, and we'll let Root decide.--2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 19:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh really? Try pulling some out and showing an officer then, see what happens. -- Triacom (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Look, I don't know where you live, but unless it's Canada, if you pull a loli doujin out, worst that will happen is said officer telling you to move along. REAL child porn (i.e. pictures/movies/tracings of real children) will get you arrested. But not fictional depiction of fictional characters.--2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 20:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Where's the video of you trying that? -- Triacom (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What would such a video prove/disprove? One individual cop's standing on the matter? Get off your high horse, man, people like what you don't like. Always has been, always will be! --2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 21:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Try it and you'll see what it proves. -- Triacom (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It won't prove anything, considering the direct immediate outcome will largely depend on the individual's stand on the matter, which might or might not be in line with the law as written. WHich is the exact point me and others have been trying to hammer into your thick skull from the very beginning: you not liking something doesn't make it illegal!--2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 21:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Funny how you say this and refuse to try it. It being illegal is what makes it illegal, even beyond that, why should we tolerate it when /tg/ does not? -- Triacom (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Why would I? An individual's preferences have no bearing on the law as written, something you should try to get into your head.--2A02:1811:5180:A200:85AE:2E4E:6F04:49E 21:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If you're so sure, then try it. -- Triacom (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Glad to see you actually admit your true intention of vandalising everything unconforming with the current politik.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 19:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Child porn is not a political issue. -- Triacom (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Special:Contributions/2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 should also be banned straight away, just look at their uploads, they tried uploading child porn and spend the rest of the time being vandals. -- Triacom (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandal calling others vandals and trying to abuse authority to silence dissent so he can get on vandalising stuff. Classic SJW. As usual, there's no arguing with the insane.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 19:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Well if you want to split the world into "pedophiles vs SJW's" go right ahead, I'm not going to stop you from dying on that hill. There's nothing sane about drawing child porn. -- Triacom (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm also pretty sure that is the same person as these other anons, judging by their other edit and their defense, and should also be banned. -- Triacom (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with drawings of underage characters. That is not a problem. But I think this guy should be banned anyway. If this anon is just vandalizing pages with porn then it is a bannable offense no matter what kind of porn it is. Although definitely kick immediately if he is uploading anything that used real children. By the ridiculous arguments he is making it sounds to me like he is a just troll or just that stupid, so probably go ahead and kick him. -- 19:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You can draw underage characters, that's not the issue, the issue is NSFW underage characters. There's no reason to host that, even the people arguing it's from /tg/'s past wouldn't be able to find a /tg/ thread with an underage NSFW pic as the OP. -- Triacom (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not. They are. I was adding back what was deleted for no reason, that's it. Not to mention what they call "child porn" are the drawings and in half the cases, the characters drawn aren't even naked to qualify as porn to begin with. And before you ask, this thread illustrates handily why talking is pointless and Root is always not around here anyway. --2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 20:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Well either way you are not doing a good job of making your arguments. I could do a better job than you but I don't feel like it because I'm not much of a fan of underage art.--2601:203:480:4C60:91CB:6DFF:A4FA:F3A9 20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It was deleted because it's illegal, immoral and not tolerated by /tg/ (the NSFW stuff). Every pic that was naked was nude, having sex, masturbating or some combination of those. -- Triacom (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that that isn't true. NSFW art of underage characters is legal in most countries as long as no real children were involved in making it.--2601:203:480:4C60:91CB:6DFF:A4FA:F3A9 20:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Please record yourself giving some to an officer and see what happens. -- Triacom (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You know, it's been way too long since I last had a migraine, so why are they also vandalizing Examples of Play with unfunny nonsense?--Newerfag (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Because those were also vandalizing edits by Kracked Mynd. This "unfunny nonsense" to you was in there from the very creation of the page.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 20:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Big words for someone who hadn't made a single edit on this site until today. And news flash- it wasn't funny back then either.--Newerfag (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I did. You don't get to judge that either. This page received it's award long before you joined in too.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:321 20:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
We can see your edit history anon, you only started editing today, and Newerfag's right, it was never funny. -- Triacom (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Anon, if you want to lie you need to be less obvious about it. -- Triacom (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure that confirms they are either stupid or just trolling.--2601:203:480:4C60:91CB:6DFF:A4FA:F3A9 20:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Why not both? I can guarantee they run in the same social circles. -- Triacom (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to request a ban for Nubnuber for the same reason: re-uploading underage porn. -- Triacom (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to request a ban for Triacom for being a butthurt moron and vandalizing several pages/images--Nubnuber (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
You mean for censoring images that never should've been uploaded? Not sure what you're talking about with "vandalizing pages" though, I wasn't doing much to the page besides removing the images that were agreed to be bad years ago. Also you're one to talk, you tried to delete a part of my talk page. -- Triacom (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, that edit to your talk page was made in error. I thought you had simply deleted my comment instead of moving it to the bottom--Nubnuber (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. -- Triacom (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
NSFW images are allowed on this wiki. /d/ related images are allowed on this wiki. Loli is just another fetish.--Nubnuber (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Children are not a fetish. -- Triacom (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes they are. That's why people make loli porn. Because they are sexually attracted to childlike bodies. Because its a sexual fetish.--Nubnuber (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
No, that's a mental illness that they need help and counseling for. Also why should we be trying to attract those people? -- Triacom (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Something can be both a sexual fetish and a mental illness. If it is true that the majority of editors reached an agreement to remove loli "years ago", please link me to this discussion and I will stop reverting your edits.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
One of those discussions is linked on my talk page, and how about this: if you can give me a good reason we should attract the people the pictures appeal to then I'll stop arguing against you. -- Triacom (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Because there is no good reason try to keep those people out. If they are good editors then what does it matter what they fap to? I'll be honest, when I saw this shitshow suddenly pop up I thought it was another instance of you being stubborn and arguing for stuff that nobody agreed with like on the SCP Foundation page. But if a majority of the active editors are in agreement that loli is too much trouble for advertisers and drama, then I'm okay with removing the images.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Those people are not our target audience, that's a good enough reason to keep them out. If they're uploading material that's barely related and does not appeal to the wiki's theme or target audience, then they're not good editors. I also made it clear my stance on the SCP page was because nobody had brought in any backing for it through /tg/, and it was irrelevant to the wiki on its own. As soon as somebody brought in an archived thread I thanked them and relented, since that made it relevant. This on the other hand is just something people agreed on as a majority should not be on the wiki, I don't even recall being a part of the initial removals (aside from agreeing they should go), but I'll certainly be a part in keeping it that way. -- Triacom (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

While Triacom is wrong about underage cartoon porn being illegal, I think that he does have a point. This website should have some restrictions on what fetishes are permitted to be shown. I don't think scat porn is allowed on this website even if it is only drawings. And underage is considered too extreme even for a lot of people who like the weirder things like Demon-Man's art.-- 22:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that is a sensible argument. Much better than just screaming "PEDO!!!" at everyone who disagrees with you. Alright, you've swayed me.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It's completely sensible to call a duck a duck. -- 22:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That was the same argument made on the page I linked Nubnuber, if that was all it took you could've just read that and saved us some time. -- Triacom (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting official warning for Triacom[edit]

I'm pretty sure nobody but the admins should be deciding policy on loli images. He didn't even bother to discuss removing several images that have existed on the wiki for over half a decade unquestion, and instead decided to replace random files that have been on the wiki for over half a decade (X6eb14.jpg, 2nhnnlh.jpg, 2nhnnlh.jpg, Loli-daemonette (10).jpg) with irrelevant images on his own prerogative. That is textbook wiki vandalism plain and simple, no matter what goal or morality Triacom claims to be motivated by or whatever any other user is doing in response to this vandalism. --Agiletek (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I second this. This is part of a pattern of behavior for Triacom. These images are all on pages that clearly have loli in the title. If someone doesn't like loli, they're not going to go to that page and then scroll all the way down to the gallery by accident. The fact that everyone is arguing with him shows that there is no consensus among the editors, as he claims. His motivation boils down to "loli should be deleted cus its gross". This is some kind of holy crusade for him. He is even removing SFW loli images. Shit that doesn't even qualify as ecchi.--Nubnuber (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
We seriously just talked about this and you agreed the lewd stuff should go. I'm also not doing a thing to the loli images (barring two that, as explained several times already, were done to stop an editwar), I'm putting delete tags on the lewd loli images which, to remind you again, you agreed should go. You can argue against me without misrepresenting my arguments, but if you did that everyone could see you went back on what you said. "The fact that everyone is arguing with him shows that there is no consensus among the editors, as he claims-" Agiletek is arguing, that's it. You agreed that the NSFW images should be removed, as did the others in the discussion over a year ago, as did everyone who removed the links from their pages. "He is even removing SFW loli images. Shit that doesn't even qualify as ecchi." That's a bullshit lie and you know it. Just try finding one SFW image I put the delete tag on. -- Triacom (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't forget the dozens of IP addresses you've been arguing with above. Agiletek changed my mind, I know longer support removing the images. I meant "remove" as in "removing it from the page", which you did for both 2nhnnlh.jpg and X6eb14.jpg, which are both nonsexual. In the talk pages of those images, you even admitted to me that you just did it to spite the person you were edit warring against, not because you thought they should actually be removed.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
First of all, don't delete what I wrote. I know that one isn't an accident this time because you did it nearly three hours after I wrote it, and you deleted it to make an argument that part already addresses. Secondly, dozens of IP addresses? I must be missing them, where are these "dozens" who advocate for keeping the images? "Agiletek changed my mind, I know longer support removing the images." Ah yes, with their convincing argument of... asking not to remove them? I'd like to point out Agiletek bitched at me on this very page for not putting the delete tag on the images, and then bitched at me when I did put the delete tag on the images, so I doubt anything would satisfy them. As for both those images you linked, I it was already posted at least four times that was to stop an editwar, one of which you deleted from this page. What don't you get about that? I also wasn't the one editwarring against them, I simply did that to cut an end to other users editwarring over the images. -- Triacom (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I have not deleted any of your comments. Link me to a page revision where I deleted your comments--Nubnuber (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Right here, you deleted part of my comment and then replied to it as if I never said that part. -- Triacom (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry about that. I genuinely don't know how that happened. I was typing on my phone so I may have accidentally pressed something, or it may be the case that we were both editing the page at the same time. Did you add that parenthesis in a separate edit?--Nubnuber (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I added that nearly 3 hours before you replied. If it was a few minutes, fine, maybe we were editing the page at the same time, but nearly 3 hours? And you just happened to reply to that paragraph as if I didn't say what was removed? Even you have to admit that looks iffy. -- Triacom (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't care if it looks "iffy", it was an accident and that's the truth. I didn't see what was removed so it must have got deleted before I started typing my response. Even with that included, "ending an editwar" is not a valid reason to vandalize images.--Nubnuber (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It was removed at the same time your edit appeared, so it was on the page before you added what you did. Also it was already agreed the images should've been removed, changing them to stop an editwar isn't vandalism at that point, it's waiting for the trash to be taken out and preventing an anon from going against the actual users who agreed with the decision. -- Triacom (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
This was discussed February of last year Agiletek, and it was agreed to remove them both by people in the discussion, and the people who participated in removing them. Just because you missed it doesn't mean it didn't happen. -- Triacom (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Where? And if so, why did you wait over a year and not reference this policy when acting? --Agiletek (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
On the Lofn talk page and the summaries of the various pages after it was agreed. I also did link it on my talk page, where I was also talking to Nubnuber. After that, I referenced it on this page but you seemed to have missed that. I also didn't wait a year, the images were gone from the pages. -- Triacom (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC) the fuck did he wait over a year when this is only happening due to an IP adding it all back? -- 23:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Look at the logs of the images. X6eb14.jpg was last edited in 2013 (an automated edit) before Triacom altered it recently. Same with 2nhnnlh.jpg and all the others I listed. --Agiletek (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
And? They were gone from the pages for over a year and a half until today, I didn't alter them before because everyone else deleted the links after agreeing they should be removed, and there was no dissent until an anon came along. -- Triacom (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
They were left behind but gone from the page, he edited them now to stop them from being added back. And the reason they were still on the wiki is because Root barely ever deletes shit. -- 23:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, that's exactly what happened. -- Triacom (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Again: Where was this discussion? --Agiletek (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
>Again: Where was this discussion?
>On the Lofn talk page
Read what we are telling you, for fucks sakes -- 23:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
From that page: "it seems kinda sacrilegious to include promotions on this page" (emphasis added). This "discussion" was two users who were barely active and only talking about that one page. That's not the place you set wiki policy. --Agiletek (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
And it was in the summaries on the other pages, and wasn't opposed, what don't you get? -- Triacom (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, guess what, that's how wiki policy has been set for ages now, regardless of how you think it should be done. So, in the standard 4chan way, I'll tell you to either deal with it or kindly gtfo. -- 23:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Not on the summaries of the images you vandalized. Not in any summary of the pages Loli. The summary of Lolicron is the only thing to reference it and shows it absolutely was disputed. --Agiletek (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The images were left untouched at the time because nobody thought they'd get re-added by an anon more than a year later, and as soon as it was mentioned why they were getting removed they stopped putting them back in, that's why I say it was without dissent. Removing them went so smoothly the mods didn't need to get involved. -- Triacom (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Given this wiki practical runs on the 1d4 equivalent of /tg/ gets shit done, I see no issue with what Triacom did, given it wasn't malicious vandalism and instead an attempt to deal with edit warring. -- 23:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That is the reason, and this has happened before. When you have an anon who won't stop editing an image into a page, regardless of the resistance they get, an easy way to stop them is to change the image. It also saves us from having to wait the two weeks or so before Root finally acts. -- Triacom (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. The logs on the images I referenced clearly show you were the first to alter them. --Agiletek (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
He altered them because an anon was constantly adding them to pages where they were unneeded. Read the damn discussion before trying to clamber in halfway. -- 23:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Because an anon was adding them in, as I said. -- Triacom (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
But that's not what you said. You said it was a policy to remove loli images that "was discussed February of last year" (clearly not on this page or assistantwikifag's, making me question where else wiki policy is decided). Was it a policy change to remove loli images, or because existing images were used in vandalism? --Agiletek (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
It was decided to remove all NSFW loli images, as I've already gone over above. -- Triacom (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
And as I told you, wiki 'policy' is a mire of unwritten rules and the various users having a consensus on the pages talk page. Root barely gets involved unless it's a serious issue, as I have told you three times now. -- 23:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Untrue. From the main page "Root prefers to get input from as many people as possible before he has to make some sort of administrative decision about a given issue." does not mean "Wikipolicy is whatever a few users agree on". --Agiletek (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
What that page claims happens and what actually happens in practice are two almost unrelated things -- 23:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Admin not being very active also doesn't mean the rules suddenly get changed on an obscure talk page by a couple of normal users collaborating simply because the admin is nowhere to be seen. --Agiletek (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but yes. Here it does -- 23:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah it does, the rules were never set in the first place and were always what the majority decided, this is why Kracked Mynd asked before they started removing them. -- Triacom (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Except it is, the only reason people involve Root is if one person isn't listening to the majority, or a vandal/bot is around. -- Triacom (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
You and two other users is not a "majority" of users. --Agiletek (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If it's us on a page vs one anon, then we are the majority. -- Triacom (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I was actually talking about the Lofn talk page you claimed set policy, but if you want to make your official statement that policy is decided by whoever can bring more men to an edit war, be my guest. --Agiletek (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
This is a 4chan wiki. Unless the almighty Moot Root gets involved, it is indeed decided by whoever can bring more men to the discussion (not an edit war though, those are fruitless). Regardless, I don't think any of us will budge on this, so it might be best to bow out until Root gets involved. -- 00:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
You're the only one claiming policy was set anywhere, I've claimed and still claim users discussed this, agreed it should go, and it has been gone until an anon turned up and tried to add it back in. -- Triacom (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm pointing out your "agreed" was really just you and two other users on an obscure talk page. The edit history of the Lolicron page clearly shows no such agreement existed beyond you and those two users, while your failure to act on this supposed agreement for over a year shows you're just a control freak with excuses. --Agiletek (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
And? Nobody disagreed once they were told why, and nobody complained about it after the fact either. I didn't do anything at the time because I didn't need to, everyone else was already acting. "your failure to act on this supposed agreement for over a year shows you're just a control freak with excuses." The agreement was to get rid of the links, and it was done by other people, the "act" was already done and finished. How does not doing anything other than agreeing with them make me a control freak? -- Triacom (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
But the "agreement" wasn't to get rid of the links, it was to get rid of them from one particular page. "it was done by other people" is false, you were clearly the second person to comment there. --Agiletek (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The agreement was to get rid of them in general. At the time everyone was satisfied by getting rid of the links, and I did what I did when an anon made it clear that wasn't enough. ""it was done by other people" is false, you were clearly the second person to comment there." What? I said the links were removed by other people and that I don't remember needing to remove them myself, pay attention. -- Triacom (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Could one just put the more lewd images in a collapse section like I see on a few other pages? --2601:602:C900:68F8:45FB:85BD:CFBC:94ED 06:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you upload them to some site like rule34 and then go there to look at them instead? -- Triacom (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
We don't care about lewd images (except handholding, that shit is sick and you should be ashamed). The issue here is they're pedo shit and /tg/ (and most humans) dislike that. -- 07:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Rule34's site is vile to try and use by-and-large. Also, I'm not fond of the more lewd images myself, I'm simply trying to help come up with a solution that placates the largest number of people. A collapse section with large warnings should theoretically deter most people who would not like to see the images in question (though one would wonder why someone was looking up "Lolicron" in the first place) while also maintaining bits and pieces of /tg/ history. I mean, if we're going to have a page dedicated to things such as Brundlepenis and such, I think we can all have a little bit of thick skin about loli content so long as it pertains to the pages in question. But I am willing to let Root have the final decision on the matter as they are the admin for the site. --2601:602:C900:68F8:F5E2:7E57:F66C:DF06 08:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
All right anon, I'll ask you the question I asked Nubnuber: why do you want to attract the people the images are meant to appeal to? Keeping the images does not give us context for /tg/'s history that A) cannot be brought about via text, B) cannot be mentioned on the /tg/ page where it is actually relevant, and C) actually existed. At the time those images were made and uploaded here they were already not allowed on /tg/, so if you want the page to accurately reflect the image board's history you'd be trying to get them deleted. With that all in mind the only reason we'd have to add them would be to attract the people they appeal to, and I want to know why you would do that. Don't try to weasel out of it like Nubnuber either, not gatekeeping is very different from actively inviting them. -- Triacom (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Like I said, there no use arguing with these deranged cultists. Just fetch Root. They'll just bitch and moan until you conform to their want or kick them out. It's nothing more than pushing the narrative. Evidence of this is not just loli(used be widely accepted on 4chan), but other various little bits. Like changing the mention of jews in the ancient copypaste(copypastes are inviolable), pronouns(fags, gendershit, etc), nearest bitchfit are mentions of "Wuhan Flu", etc. The pattern is clear here.--2001:67C:2660:425:24:0:0:FF 08:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh no, the cult got me! That must be how everyone... came to the conclusion that underage porn is bad... right. Do you really wonder why 4chan became a place where posting clips from Cuties could get you perma-banned and why people stopped finding gay and Jew jokes funny? Times change, people grow up, sites become more conscious of who they're appealing to either directly or indirectly, and they all decide to do something about it. There isn't some cult going around changing people, there's just a minority who still insist that "bad word" (pick whichever you like) is funny because it's a bad word, and then they're offended when nobody else wants to hear the 500th "bad word" joke. They're kids who are wondering why nobody is laughing at their knock-knock jokes, only these jokes have an edge that's been dulling for the past two decades. -- Triacom (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Unlike the poster above, I'm not advocating pushing jew jokes, changing mentions of COVID to "Wuhan Flu" or calling people fags based on gender or sexual identity. Hell, I was helping revert pages back a while ago to saying COVID vs "Wuhan Flu" since it's incredibly disrespectful and does not adhere to current naming conventions for diseases among a whole list of other issues. As for the loli images, again I am not for the lewd images but even though those images are not really allowed on /tg/ they are part of /tg/ history. It's why I was saying we could keep them but have them in a collapse section with warnings. As for "attracting them here" I think that it's safe to say they are already here due to the very fact there are pages such as Lolicron and others. Heck, I even reverted parts of a page just to see what was deleted and once I saw what they were I removed them again. But I am still saying this issue, now that it has come to Root's page, should be determined by them. --2601:602:C900:68F8:F5E2:7E57:F66C:DF06 08:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I can tell you two apart, and staying relevant to the topic, the only thing relevant with the loli lewd images is the time it takes for them to be posted, and the time it takes for the thread to get shut down. People don't have an issue with the loli characters, so long as they're not fucking. The general parody is why the pages were made in the first place, not the lewd images, and that's why nobody's removing the regular images from those pages. They're focusing on the lewd images, which if you check the dates were made after /tg/ started cracking down on them. You also still didn't answer the question: why do you want to attract the people the images are meant to appeal to? Saying they're already here doesn't answer anything, more can always come, so why do you want to attract them? -- Triacom (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think having them will attract them any more than they are already here in the first place. I doubt having a lewd image of a loli related to /tg/ stuff will draw them when they could go elsewhere for that shit (like /b/ or something). As for time those images get posted and get deleted hasn't changed much. Dear god the amount of times I'm in a thread on /tg/ and someone posts lewd shit and it stays up the entire thread until it gets archived is far far far more often than actually getting deleted. As the old saying goes "you don't even need the other boards" basically. And considering the only time anyone ever tends to mention 1d4chan is fairly rare (occasionally gets mentioned in an OP but almost never actually is) so it's not like people are going to go trolling around. Hell, I didn't even know of 1d4chan until a while ago anyway (earlier this year when the site went down, like April or something? I think? It's fucking late, I can't really remember that stuff right now). And I'll end by saying again, leave it up to Root at the end of the day. If Root says to remove them then purge them, and if Root says to keep them, keep them but preferably in a collapse section with warnings. --2601:602:C900:68F8:F5E2:7E57:F66C:DF06 09:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
"I don't think having them will attract them any more than they are already here in the first place." This isn't an answer, you're trying to say why they can stay, you're not answering why you want them here. Why do you want them here? "the amount of times I'm in a thread on /tg/ and someone posts lewd shit and it stays up the entire thread until it gets archived is far far far more often than actually getting deleted." And I've seen that as well, however I've also seen threads be shut down when lewd loli shit gets posted.
I said already, it's /tg/ history whether you like it or not. And that's the thing, I've seen lewd loli get spammed on /tg/ before and threads not get shut down and other times they do, but those times are far rarer. And again, I prefer the lewd images not being here but that if Root says they can remain then I would prefer them being in a collapse section with a warning like it is on some other pages. Leave the decision up to Root, no amount of arguing about this with me (someone who would prefer the lewd stuff not be here but willing to at least compromise in the event that Root says it remains) will change much in the long run I think. --2601:602:C900:68F8:F5E2:7E57:F66C:DF06 09:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
And I've said it before, the only history between lewd loli images and /tg/ is when they get shut down. Sure a post here and there can slip under the radar, but that's not exactly what I'd call /tg/ history. Even if it was then it should be covered under the /tg/ page where it's relevant. You're also still not saying why you'd want to attract the audience those images appeal to. -- Triacom (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
And I think you're misunderstanding. 1) I'm not saying I want to attract that audience here. 2)It's way more than a "post here and there". 3) I'm merely suggesting a compromise in the event that Root says the material can stay. I think you're thinking that I'm thinking of one thing when I'm not and I find it rather rude of you to be inferring that. Again, I would prefer that material not be here but if Root says it stays, AGAIN, I suggest it should be contained to a collapse on the relevant page with a warning so that people like you and I don't have to look at it if we don't want to. --2601:602:C900:68F8:F5E2:7E57:F66C:DF06 09:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Then I don't think you're understanding what you're asking for. 1) You will be attracting that audience here by having those images, 2) despite being based on an image board, this isn't an image board, it's a wiki. We can get across what happened and what gets posted without needing to repost the material. What you're asking for would be for people in Germany to fly Swastikas outside their homes because that was a part of their history. Nobody's going to forget what happened just because what happened is recorded in a book and not still used around the country. 3) There's no reason to have a compromise, and remember when I said earlier that websites started thinking more of who they're attracting, either intenttionally or inadvertently? You need to think of the consequence of having that compromise before you have it, you might not intend to attract those people, yet as I've pointed out, you will be attracting them, like it or not. "AGAIN, I suggest it should be contained to a collapse on the relevant page with a warning so that people like you and I don't have to look at it if we don't want to." Or you can just write in text what was posted so that you don't have to host it at all. -- Triacom (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll sum up the offences, if I may. Repeteably vandalising pages and images with "problematic" content without further notice or discussion. Something went into this degenerate user's head, so he now considers this wiki to be his personal soapbox, seeing as he often found policing sections of what he specifically doesn't like (jokes, statements, references, anything) turning himself into a self-appointed nofun police. He continues replacing or deleting images even after it being brought here, appealing to some long passed nonexistent concensus(i.e. he himself and one other retard), all the while calling to ban anyone disagreeing. He also fully admitted he doesn't care about any compromise and only seeks to further his personal agenda at the expense of this wiki. So I too suggest summarily ban to get the message across. After all, having an account isn't neccessary for editing this wiki and this will deprive him of distruptive power, giving him some time to realise this is not facebook, twitter or tumblr.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:1BF 06:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You say I can be "often found policing sections of what he specifically doesn't like (jokes, statements, references, anything)" but where is that exactly? I notice you don't provide any examples, or else we'd be able to see your repeated attempts to vandalise the Examples of Play page, and we'd also see that I am not alone in trying to revert your edits to it. Hell, I wasn't even the person who requested your ban, and I wasn't the first to undo your edits either, you pissed off other people here. "He continues replacing or deleting images even after it being brought here, appealing to some long passed nonexistent concensus(i.e. he himself and one other retard)" First of all I'm not "continuing" to do that, secondly I suppose I can't expect you to count, there were three users including me who agreed the images should go on the original page, then other people joined in removing them once the others started removing them, so your claim about there being a nonexistent consensus isn't true. "all the while calling to ban anyone disagreeing." Actually your ban was called by somebody else, I just agreed with it since you're doing what you claim I'm doing, trying to turn the wiki into your personal soapbox and policing sections you specifically don't like. "He also fully admitted he doesn't care about any compromise-" Is that why I asked why you or anyone else who wants to keep the images doesn't upload them elsewhere and post a link? Sounds like a compromise to me. "and only seeks to further his personal agenda at the expense of this wiki." That's rich coming from you, just look at your own edit history. -- Triacom (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I can bring Commissar and Khorne for the nearest two examples without delving too deep into your history of edit warring. We already establised that it was Kracked Mynd who started vandalising it first, and so are you complicit in vandalising what you specifically don't like. He's (jokingly or not) admitted being a fag on his page, which highlights his biased interest in correcting the record. Additionally, it was also Kracked Mynd who first started the deleting spree of loli images, and he's one of the "three users including you". You were the one to actually start vandalising the images themselves when faced with attempts to fix the page back. You then called to ban Nubnuber because he has fixing the images back. Even tho it's you deserve a bolt to the face. You are continuing to do this now to, going from page to page and gutting new ones. Removing images from the wiki is not compromise, the collapsible section is. However, since literally nobody but you imbecile and one(two) idiot(s) ever had a problem with it, I vote against that.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:1BF 08:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
>Commissar and Khorne
You mean the two pages with an edit history that clearly explains in the summary that he was cutting down sections that had become bloated as the result of jokes that were extended well past their initial punchline into being horrendously unfunny at minimum or else shoehorning in current year commentary where there was no real benefit to it. Yeah. Okay. --LGX-000 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The Commissar page had no editwar, I also explained why I deleted what I deleted on the talk page and as of yet there has been no complaint from its regular users. Everything I removed from that page was with the intent of making the page better and not to appeal to my personal tastes, if I was to make the page what I personally wanted it to be it would look a lot different and be a lot longer. As for the Khorne page, I legitimately have no clue what you're talking about, there was no editwar or even any complaints there. "We already establised that it was Kracked Mynd who started vandalising it first, and so are you complicit in vandalising what you specifically don't like." Kracked Mynd asked others what they thought in regards to removing the images, and when they received support they removed them, that's not vandalism. "You were the one to actually start vandalising the images themselves when faced with attempts to fix the page back." You mean when you started an editwar more than a year after the fact because you didn't like how most of those users were against the images? Can't imagine why I'd help in getting rid of images a majority agreed shouldn't be on the wiki. "You are continuing to do this now to, going from page to page and gutting new ones.*" *Citation needed. Funny how you keep making these claims without backing them up, and the two pages you've cited had no pushback from the users who frequent them. "Removing images from the wiki is not compromise, the collapsible section is." The problem was that they were on the wiki, putting them in a collapsible section keeps them on the wiki, that's not a compromise. "However, since literally nobody but you imbecile and one(two) idiot(s) ever had a problem with it, I vote against that." Let me know when you've figured out how many other users were involved, because you can't seem to decide if it was two or three when it was actually more when you look at the edit histories of the pages. -- Triacom (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
And if there would be, you'd start edit warring and calling to ban them too for wanting topquotes back. You then removed a joke about Trump because you didn't like it. Previous users seemed fine. I'll wait for resolution about you before fixing it back. You "forgot" to mention you were the one of "others" and the first to jump up to the deletion spree and encouraging him, so it's safe to say you are complicit here too. There's no majority, imbecile, there's only you two(three), you should stop lying about it. Oh, and anons can see upload logs too, squig brain. Nice pretending there.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:30E 08:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
No, I'd talk to them about why that many topquotes are unnecessary, and this wiki has already gone over why six topquotes are excessive in the past. I removed the Trump "joke" because it had devolved into a bunch of anons who were using it almost as a discussion, and there was no way of salvaging it. "You "forgot" to mention you were the one of "others" and the first to jump up to the deletion spree and encouraging him-" Where did I forget to mention that? I've posted that several times on this page already. "There's no majority, imbecile, there's only you two(three), you should stop lying about it." Plus whoever else joined in, and that still adds up to more than you. "Oh, and anons can see upload logs too, squig brain. Nice pretending there." I legitimately have no clue what you're referring to here. -- Triacom (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a warning for user User:Nubnuber[edit]

The reason I am asking for this is because Nubnuber has left the the talk page of the Lofn article and has been repeatedly editing the main article to include links that were agreed should be removed over a year and a half ago by three separate users, and because neither you or AssistantWikifag are doing anything to stop them from re-adding the links, they claim they're doing what you want them to be doing, because they say that by not stopping them you're supporting them. You can see this in the summaries of their edit history, and they've also said that they will not stop re-adding the links until either you or AssistantWikifag tell them to stop. -- Triacom (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also on top of this they've removed what I've said on talk pages twice and pretended I didn't say it. I gave them the benefit of the doubt the first time, however the second time the edits were hours apart and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened a third time. -- Triacom (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I already told you both times were accidents and I mean it. Do you really think I'd be so stupid to think you wouldn't notice me deleting your stuff?
I'm saying what happened that I found off. Had it only happened once I wouldn't bring it up here, happening accidentally twice and the edits being hours apart I find iffy. -- Triacom (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't care if it sounds "iffy", it was an accident and that's the truth. Do you really think I'm so stupid to think you wouldn't notice me deleting your stuff?--Nubnuber (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Who knows, you not only legitimately claimed that children were a fetish, you also claim that because the mods haven't done anything while you're making an edit, that they actually approve of your edit. -- Triacom (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I figured out what happened. I got to editor from looking at your most recent edit. I must have hit "undo" instead of "edit". Both bring you to the editor.--Nubnuber (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please ban Nubnuber[edit]

Nubnuber has spent today trying to re-add the loli NSFW images you deleted, even though they're just adding dead links to missing images, and they admitted that this was vandalism on the Short-flatchested Daemonette page they redirected the loli daemonette page to for no reason. I undid the redirect and moved over the conversation, but since they're now admitting to vandalism, and have said they are not going to stop until you stop them, can we finally get rid of them? -- Triacom (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I never admitted to any vandalism. YOU are the one vandalizing pages. Grow the fuck up, man. Stop trying to ban everyone the moment they disagree with you. --Nubnuber (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Except you did, as seen here:
"You'll stop vandalizing the page if I let you vandalize the page? -- Triacom (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)"
"Yes. Do we have a deal?--Nubnuber (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)"
"Why would anyone be happy with vandalism on the main page? -- Triacom (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)"
"Do we have a deal or not? Yes or no?--Nubnuber (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)"
That's taken straight from that short flat chested page, and you admitted it yourself when I asked if you'd stop vandalizing the page if I let you vandalize the page, and you said "YES". -- Triacom (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
You also tell me to grow up, but I only came here because you said you were leaving the talk page and ignoring everyone except Root. I tried talking with you for a while, but when you refuse to answer and admit to vandalism, what choice do you leave me? -- Triacom (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
That is not an admission of vandalism. That is you calling my edits vandalism. I guess every edit I've ever done on the wiki is actually vandalism as long as someone says it is! You are literally the only person on the wiki who cares enough about banning gross fetishes to argue with me on EVERY. SINGLE. PAGE.--Nubnuber (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe because he doesn't want a faggot running around throwing child porn on the wiki? We try to include as many people as possible and not be illegal in certain countries, cope. Go take your creepy fetish back to /d/, we're not interested in having them here. Also second the ban, he's probably a troll. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
If somebody asks you if you're doing it to vandalize and you say yes, then that's an admission of vandalism. Adding in links to deleted images, especially ones the admin just deleted, is also very obviously vandalism. Also if I'm the only person who cares, why can I find half a dozen users who've spoken up about wanting that content off the wiki? -- Triacom (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
It is. Stop trying to back out.
"You'll stop vandalizing the page if I let you vandalize the page? -- Triacom (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)"
"Yes. [The implication being you are agreeing you vandalised the page] Do we have a deal? [To let you continue vanalising the page]--Nubnuber (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)"
That's the admittance, right there. And Tria is the only one with stamina to keep trying to make you stop, the rest of us just got fed up with beating our heads against the wall. So thirding the ban, please get rid of this fuckwit pedo. -- 03:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Nubnuber, I asked you if you were going to vandalize the page and you said yes, you can't read that as anything but admission. -- Triacom (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
No, You did not ask me if i was going to vandalize the page.--Nubnuber (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I asked you: "You'll stop vandalizing the page if I let you vandalize the page?" Then you said YES. -- Triacom (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Funny that you're acting awfully like a troll who's accidentally given himself up and is trying to find a way to bullshit out of it then, Nubnuber. -- 03:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
I feel the same way. Ban him.--Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Are the images that he is adding actually NSFW or are you just calling it that because they say Loli on them? Just labeling something Loli does not make it pornography automatically. There should not be any problem with images of cute underage children on this wiki if nothing inappropriate is shown. If the images actually show dirty stuff then it is acceptable to remove them for the sake of people who find them too disturbing.--2600:1010:B12D:659D:B1BC:EBDE:CA09:3169 03:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

We got past that point when Root deleted the NSFW images. Now he's just vandalising by adding dead links to the deleted images. -- 03:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
They are NSFW, they're one of the following: masturbation, a child-like character getting fucked, or nude images (or a combination of the above). Nobody has an issue with the loli images, only the NSFW images. -- Triacom (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Request to ban Chumbledoor[edit]

In what I can only describe as a mirror to the case of the user above, Chumbledoor has been maliciously renaming and vandalizing the contested pages mentioned above and has also vandalized Nubnuber's user page. While I agree that the pages should be reworked to acknowledge the negative stigma on underage-appearing characters since their original conception, outright vandalizing them is not the way to do it. The fact that this user was created only yesterday and has made no other edits besides what I have mentioned above makes me even more suspicious of it. --Newerfag (talk)

But what about lolis?[edit]

Root just blinked in and out without saying anything on the matter. It's been a few weeks already. Can you just say yes or no ffs?

He gave a warning to Nubnuber to stop replacing links to images that don't exist anymore and a warning to the people he was fighting with to chill out.--2600:1010:B129:743C:47F:9A00:1ADC:D1C2 21:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
That person would be me, but in short, no loli seems to be the accepted policy. Triacom says, long story shrot, that he and other users came to a consensus about loli and that it was not something they would be bringing in, particularly because certain countries forbid it and we want to not get banned in other countries, unlike 8chan. You can talk to him more on the specifics. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
If it's already that bad, that should at least be a stated policy. You're ought to give warnings to the people who do not yet know if this place turned into a circlejerk cesspit just like pedowikia or not. Caring about muh feels or countries' laws was never an original goal of this place, we didn't gave it a shit like we should, evidenced by the PROMOTIONS tag. You look at it at your own volition, not blame it on the place, since it is legal to host. Root must state the unspoken rules crisp and clear, since it's his site. As well as if that rules are now governed by a bunch of active "users" which was what killed wikipedia.
To give a slight clarification, the thing people were against was NSFW loli images, aka pedo shit. I also notice anon 2600 neglects to mention that Root deleted the NSFW loli images. -- Triacom (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This is not hard: There's a difference between at most mildly suggestive imagery and porn. There's also a difference between objective discussion of fetishes and wallowing in it. There's some stuff that blurs that line, but for the most part, if it's just "cute", not "horny", it's okay. Further, even within "horny" stuff, there's a line between "clothed" and "nekkid", and we seem to usually only go after the latter. Again: It's only the overlap between "NSFW" and "Loli" that cause problems. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Protection for the Examples of Play page[edit]

This has already been talked about, however since the anon doing it has a variable IP and would be hard to ban, I'm asking for it here. There's an anon with a variable IP address who continues to vandalize the Examples of Play page, regardless of how many users undo their efforts (checking the history you'll see myself, OmegaEclipse and Newerfag, as well as a different anon) and I suspect this anon is one who was previously banned from the wiki, they're trying to redo edits that were removed over a year and a half ago, and have targeted more than just that page in their efforts. Here are some of their "contributions", and I suspect 2A0B:F4C2:2:0:0:0:0:1 to be the same person since they made the same edits at the same time. -- Triacom (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I support protecting this page, as soon as it's brought back to it's original shape. I stress that this is a copypaste archive and as such is inviolable to the changes. In some cases, it even includes typos, but we can pass on that. Since nobody added to it since 2014, it can be left as it was.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:1BF 08:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
If you can cite a thread from which it is taken then I'll drop my argument against it. If it is not taken from a /tg/ thread then it is not a copy-paste archive. -- Triacom (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It's on the same talk page you moron. If you'd ever bothered to look.--2001:67C:2660:425:D:0:0:30E 08:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, if you cited that instead of making an editwar I wouldn't have joined the other users against you. I'll also add the link to the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm agreeing here, you should have explained instead of blindly edit warring. But otherwise yeah, they should remain as they originally were. -- 09:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Something is going on with the /d/ links[edit]

So I notice something was with pages linked to /d/. In pages like the Nurgle Plague Tower and Lion El'Jonson, the sentences with a link to /d/ suddenly change to a page that yet exists. It's hard to explain, but on the Nurgle Plague Tower for example, it links to a page called Nurgle Plague Tower/d. Do you know what's going on and why that is happening? All, alternatively, here is the 'link' to d, notice how it ain't linking properly? Derpysaurus (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It's likely because wikis use / as a way to make a sub-page. Eg: Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Space Marine Legion List (30k) -- 17:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
That probably explains why the main page namespace wasn't set up to use subpages already. Sorry, I changed that earlier and forgot it would break things. Reverted. --Root (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Reddit Page[edit]

A number of users on this wiki believe that the Reddit should be deleted. What are your thoughts on the matter? I've provided an argument in favor of the article. -- HussarZwei (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I wanted to draw attention to 40k related sub Reddits like r/40klore and r/forgeworld, much like how the page for Tumblr lists a number of /tg/ related threads. I also wanted to highlight the rivalry between Reddit and 4Chan. Triacom himself said that 4chan and Reddit dislike one another, which seems a least somewhat relevant to a wiki about 4chan. Also I asked the question on Newerfag’s page because when he undid my first attempt to flesh out the article, the summary for his edit described Reddit as left-wing as /pol/. I wanted some more clarification on the statement he made. To his credit, he provided a detailed explanation. -- HussarZwei (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
As the supreme leader of 1d4chan, the choice is up to you. -- HussarZwei (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Root this person is an unrepentant SJW troll. There have been MULTIPLE petitions to ban this user over the last year, he's shown to be absolutely incapable of leaving politics off the site even after being confronted by multiple users. --Piroko (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Calm the fuck down, Piroko. As to Reddit: I can see an article, although it'd have to be microfocused on /tg/ related subreddits and the general theory of the site. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
But that's the thing Saar, it won't stop there. --Piroko (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
It will if you're willing to keep an eye on it. That's the way of all wikis. That being said, I've added Template:Skubby to the page, which says more or less, "take this with a big ol' grain of salt, because the subject of this page is argument bait to the point even apathetic neutrals frequently get pissed off when trying to summarize." Saarlacfunkel (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
If we're putting it to another vote I'd vote to get rid of it. There's so little that's related that I fail to see why it needs to get its own page, as opposed to getting a brief mention on a more relevant page. -- Triacom (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Naturally, I vote the same. --Piroko (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Anybody mind if I move most of this page to an archive?[edit]

It's getting a wee bit large, yanno? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably just put all the stuff that hasn't recently been talked about into one or more collapsibles for now. Moving stuff off the page is probably up to Root.--2601:203:480:4C60:80:4859:5A80:3E2E 04:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for User[edit]

Special:Contributions/ Was productive a long time ago, but now they spend all their time on the wiki vandalizing Magic: The Gathering pages. Their ban has been requesting many times, mostly on AssistantWikifag's page, however nothing was done. -- Triacom (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Requesting to drop the Banhammer on User[edit]

Special:Contributions/ Came out of nowhere and started to vandalize pages. Especially that of Taldeer and later a bunch of random ones. - Ben (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, they're a vandal and are even vandalizing talk pages. -- Triacom (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
And THAT'S TERRIBLE! - Ben (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I support this motion as well. We keep undoing the erasure of the pages over and over again. --Alumno Alumno (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New uptick in people trying to wreck the wiki?[edit]

I've had to undo a fair bit of changes in the last few days, all of which seem to be done by people who are not registered with the wiki. I suggest everyone keep an eye out for sudden mass deletions or major changes to articles and, if need be, be ready for the banhammer. --Konrad13 (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Lord of the Lemmings Vandalizing Random Pages Just to Spite Me[edit]

Lord of the Lemmings told me in no uncertain terms that he has made it his personal mission to undo every edit of mine on the wiki, regardless of the content of the edit. He has undone edits where I'm simply adding images of a D&D race to a gallery and correcting typos. He's doing this because of an completely unrelated argument over Loli Porn taking place on my talk page. Regardless of whether you think Loli/Shota content should or should not be allowed on the wiki, this vandalous behavior is completely juvenile and petty, and does not help the wiki. Root, I would appreciate it if you would kindly tell him to knock it off.--Nubnuber (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I gave you the choice, lest you be too deceptive about it, that if you dropped the subject, I wouldn't have to do this. You chose to cause yourself this grief. I gave you the option of not trying to shill putting child porn on the wiki, and you decided "lol nah". I don't make threats; I make statements. Since you willingly chose to continue arguing about this, I no longer trust you to make edits on this wiki. I do the same for Zwei, who is entirely incompetent at writing an article without eventually shilling his own personal politics, and I am not about to let someone who is "doing simple edits" to lay low until they try their nonsense again. Besides, I can point out several pages where you show clear illiteracy in your edits: The use of Paradigm as opposed to paradox on the Chimera page is merely one of said examples. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I was the one who said Paradox. I changed it from Paradigm to Paradox. You changed it back to Paradigm! Check the edit logs!--Nubnuber (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Going to have to agree with Nubnuber here. It is not appropriate to just undo all of his edits ignoring whether they are good edits or "bad" ones. --2601:203:480:4C60:3504:2E21:B011:CDA5 23:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I spoke with Triacom. For the full context you can see his talk page, but in essence he said it would probably be fine to keep an eye on Nubnuber, but I need to knock it off with reversing everything he does bit. I shall follow through with this immediately. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"I just wanna tell you both good luck, we're all counting on you." --Piroko (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Ha-ha. Just like I told that would happen. First degenerates come for lolis, then they come for you. With no reason whatsoever. Too bad Root is still busy hiding instead of managing shit. Hope he does add crisp clarity to the ToS next time. And hopefully permaban both of you.--2001:67C:2660:425:8:0:0:2E2 10:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Same here. Teach that Pro-Lolicon Pedophile Nubnuber a thing or two. HussarZwei (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Stay out of this Hitler.--2601:203:480:4C60:30A8:E354:9545:7496 06:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh so condemning the actions of a Lolicon apologist makes me Hitler now. Godwin's law much. HussarZwei (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Ban User:Nubnuber[edit]

He's clearly a pedophile. Only a pedophile would defend Lolis. HussarZwei (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally feel safer and less dirty hanging out with lolicons than with genocidal people like you. I still don't understand why root hasn't banned you.--2601:203:480:4C60:30A8:E354:9545:7496 06:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll admit I've done some dumb nonsense in the past (credit to Lord of the Lemmings for knocking some sense into me), but at least I'm against both lolicons and genocidal Nazis at the same time. HussarZwei (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Nubnuber constantly uploads child porn. He's a literal criminal. Banning him from this wiki would be generous. -- HussarZwei (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Pornographic drawings of underage characters are not illegal in the United States. If they were they would not be easily accessible on the Internet.--2600:1010:B143:C0DA:DDA3:7CCC:F2BE:2155 00:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
It is illegal in Canada and the UK. So he's still a criminal. -- HussarZwei (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Not if he doesn't live in those countries. I have been checking the loli images and so far I've only found one image that is uncomfortable. All of the really pornographic ones that I agree with removing have already been taken down. Underage porn drawing should be kept off this wiki not because they are illegal, but because they may attract the wrong kind of attention to this wiki and because they are simply too disturbing.--2600:1010:B11D:BD28:1144:F8E8:C75A:C3E 23:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
"They are simply too disturbing." Allow me to direct your attention to this snuff porn erotica we have on the wiki:
Squad Broken
And whatever the fuck this body horror stuff is:
"they may attract the wrong kind of attention to this wiki." Do you mean attention from pedophiles or attention from the authorities?--Nubnuber (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair's fair, we can delete those as well. As for attracting attention, the answer's both. -- Triacom (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I was asking 2600, not you.--Nubnuber (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
You realize how dumb it is to ask an IPv6 address anything, right? Like, he'll probably never see your mention. Ever. --Piroko (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Careful, apparently this is a private Admin's talk page topic. -- Triacom (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
None of those things involve children. Even Squad Broken is fine. It is acceptable to ban porn involving underage characters while allowing other kinds of porn, because it is a special kind of disturbing to many people who are not bothered even by snuff porn. I don't think it is likely that this website will attract the attention of the authorities but there are other kinks of people we do not want paying attention to this site. Mostly the morality police, (we already have one bothering us, we don't need more of them) and actual pedophiles (we don't want anything on this website to make them think they are welcome).--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 02:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Why should they not be welcome here? As long as they keep it in their pants, what does it matter what fetishes a user or editor has? Pedophiles are not mindless rape machines attracted to underage genitals like sharks attracted to chum. Do you think they are going to go into a horny frenzy and start posting loli porn on every page?--Nubnuber (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that the two of us have the same definition of the word pedophile. I do not count people who only look at pornographic drawings of children as pedophiles. I trust those people to keep it in their pants. I do not trust actual pedophiles with that. But now that I have thought about it more I don't think that attracting pedophiles is some thing we actually have to worry about, so forget I said that.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 03:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Because they're pedophiles, why the fuck would we want pedophiles to feel welcome? If they feel welcome, then it'll only happen because they're not keeping it in their pants, since the only way to make a pedophile feel welcome is to post CP. If they feel welcome then they absolutely will start (or in your case, keep) posting CP. -- Triacom (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Loli art is not child porn, stop calling it that.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 03:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes it is, Triacom said so, and I trust him more than you. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Depending on the country, yes it is. In both the UK and Canada for example it is still considered CP and is illegal to have or even browse. -- Triacom (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
What we put on here kinda dictates who we attract. I can't tell you how many Warhammer fans I've talked to who have laughed at our articles and loved what we do here. What we put on here matters for who comes here, images included. Loli/child porn is bound to attract the wrong type of people to certain pages, and adding more and more of it doesn't help the situation, especially stuff where an individual is holding a banana like a penis as two lolis look at it hungrily, or where a female loli is covered in semen. (Nubnuber argued both would be ok just because they were on in a /tg/ thread, but he's wrong on that too because /tg/ doesn't allow such images in the first place.) I'd also like to thank him for pointing out Loli-daemonette (8).png, which I find highly objectionable due to it having a female daemonette naked next to a scantily clothed girl (Think Ahsoka seasons 1-3 scantily clothed). Granted that it's censored, but that doesn't take the objectionable aspect of a grown daemonette in a sexual situation with another female that is clearly drawn to be a child. Even redditors have high enough standards sometimes to point out smut like this isn't ok. We are a wiki that follows /tg/ culture and stuff, but we are not 4chan: we have to have some manner of ethical standards. Granted we don't need to be Wikipedia boring, but Wikipedia's loli page is remarkably tame considering what loli can be like. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 06:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
To prevent confusion, please do not call it child porn. If possibly getting arrested for browsing this website really is a serious concern for some people then I guess that is another reason why I support taking down pornographic loli images. Plus this website can be accessed by anybody very easily and I don't think it's appropriate to put loli porn on a website this public.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 03:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
It literally is child porn. Triacom himself said it was child porn.
Nubnuber, you yourself are clearly the mindless rape machine attracted to underage genitals like sharks attracted to chum. Triacom and Root himself have called you out for going into a horny frenzy and posting loli porn on several pages. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Buzz off Nubnuber, you're just butthurt that Root, Triacom, and Lord of the Lemmings recognize you for the sick fuck you are. -- HussarZwei (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
You stay out of this.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 02:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually there are a few more pages with loli images that I haven't checked yet. I will pass my judgment on whether or not we should keep them or take them down later.--2600:1010:B11D:BD28:1144:F8E8:C75A:C3E 23:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should just ban Loli images altogether (and the people who upload them, eg: Nubnuber), they're basically child porn anyway. More so than even Cuties, and that's saying a lot.. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
"Why should they not be welcome here?" One of the more depressing things I've read here. I think Triacom summed it up perfectly with "Because they're pedophiles, why the fuck would we want pedophiles to feel welcome?" I'd just delete the even vaguely sexual Loli images and leave a page up explaining about and containing it, otherwise like Vore and some of the other random stuff it has nothing to do with gaming (or at least any version of it I'd want to know about) and could be pulled without impacting this sites purpose.--Because (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ban User:Flufflion[edit]

He's constantly defending /pol/acks. Send him back to /pol/ where he belongs. --HussarZwei (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

>Anyone who disagrees with me is a /pol/ack: HussarZwei's Guide to 1d4chan
-- 07:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I never said Nubnuber was a /pol/ack, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just paranoid. --HussarZwei (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
And what does this have to do with Nubnuber? -- 08:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
You said I called everyone I disagree with a /pol/ack, the point about Nubnuber was to disprove your strawman. --HussarZwei (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
>Not knowing a meme when you see one
For that alone you should get off this website, newfag. -- 10:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Using a meme to articulate a strawman is still a strawman. --HussarZwei (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Man, you really must want to be rid of your account, huh? Saarlacfunkel (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to Ban HussarZwei[edit]

Despite saying he'd put his edits on the /pol/ and SJW pages behind him, he's back at his old behaviour again. He's had his chance and wasted it. -- 07:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, time to nuke him from orbit. This is straight up trolling at this point. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with this as well.
I might be controversial to agree at the moment but I have to. I think he's a Troll who has no interest in actually contributing anything of value to the wiki. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Going to say I agree with this, especially after his sudden spate demanding the banning of others in rapid succession. --Konrad13 (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree. HZ's shown this pattern of 'Edits /pol/ and SJWs, gets criticised, calls everyone who doesn't agree Nazis and /pol/acks' repeatedly over time, and seems incapable of staying away from these pages despite the fact that his edits to these pages - both of which are already a lightning rod for shitposts and lunatics from both sides - almost invariably make things become even shittier. (Or, as Piroko aptly summarises it on a talk page: "No matter how many times you tell them to not touch the poop they can't not touch the poop, it's a compulsion.")
He quote-mines for the sake of painting dissenters as genocide advocates, racists, or similarly loathsome cretins, advocates violence/murder against anyone whose ideology is opposite to his (while that's more than likely ITG, it's still pretty bad form), and has generally displayed an inability (or unwillingness) to change his behaviour in any meaningful way while demanding that other users be banned on grounds that ultimately amount to 'He didn't agree with me - ergo he must be a Conservative, and therefore a Nazi!' and 'I quote-mined the posts of someone who I don't like to paint them as a genocidal shithead'.
Do we really want this wanker around any longer? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I get being anti-lolicon and being tired of people tilting at """dangerhaired""" windmills, but yanking something from three months ago - when they were also active, by the way - for the sake of reporting it just now? And while calling for multiple bans all on the same day? Even Piroko's self-important slippery-slope bullshit isn't this level of dishonest, come the fuck off it. --LGX-000 (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
At best he's an imbecile. Which as far as I'm concerned is in and of itself a valid reason for a permanent ban. --Newerfag (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Going to agree as well, he's disruptive, his actions make it impossible to take him seriously and you know he's not going to stop going back on his word. Even when he's right about something you still want to tell him to shut the fuck up because him being involved makes it (and everyone involved) look bad. -- Triacom (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing dishonest about it at all I'm just a really serious doomer. But thanks LGX.--Piroko (talk) 05:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Ban Piroko[edit]

"There can be no negotiation with these people. No quarter. The heretics must be found, and they must be burned, because that's what THEY are trying to do to the whole world. It's not us, it's all them, it would end the second they stop pushing and start living in peace but they won't." Talk:Post-Cold_War
This guy is calling for literal genocide. HussarZwei (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Really? You're going into page histories from months back and saying 'oh, ban this guy'? Fuck off, seriously. -- 08:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
The key difference is that I don't usually see Piroko shilling Nazism or attempting to subliminally suggest that his radical end of the political spectrum is good, and he can write decently without involving politics. He has flaws and we disagree on stuff, but he has proven that he is a decent editor and earned my trust.
I happen to think my pages are better than decent.--Piroko (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at you, who literally edited the /pol/ page to throw Conservatives and Christians (some of the latter which can be very left leaning too) into the same realm as that, and even higher up in this very thread, you advocated violence against your ideological opponents. Need I mention that you introduced the meme that suggests that SJW's are good gone too far? Or how about your absolute atrocious attempt to rewrite the reddit page, which was literally a cringy talk on the politics of it. I've said it before, I'll say it again: get off this wiki. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with left leaning Christian Conservatives (eg the European Union), it is the right leaning Christians that I consider evil. -- HussarZwei (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Tell it to some other fool. You should be banned. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Considering your constant trolling and refusal to change or compromise on political topics, this smacks of "I only hate some Christians and conservatives! Checkmate, wikifags!"-style bullshit. You've been rather vocal and clear that you consider Christians and conservatives in general part of the festering, piss-and-shit-smeared wound that is /pol/ in the past, so why the hell should anyone believe you here? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm okay with Christians that vote Biden, it is the Christians that vote Trump that I hate. -- HussarZwei (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Trump supporters are not the people who are trying to bring back segregation now.--2601:203:480:4C60:48A3:C234:8650:3902 01:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Piroko has consistently defended Nazi Germany and is inserting Right Wing Propaganda and other kinds of gibberish into articles and their Talk pages. Ban him as soon as possible. -- HussarZwei (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Will you quit it? Nobody listens to you anymore. We all know that you are a delusional and hateful fascist who is convinced they know better than everyone else because you think you are a progressive, which you are not.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 02:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? He defending Nubnuber, and by extension child porn. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
"Defending"... Where? Exactly? Where? --Piroko (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Barring that, there are plenty of other reasons to have you banned. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Admit it, I didn't defend him for shit, and you know it. Dumbfuck. --Piroko (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll admit it, you didn't defend Nubnuber. But that doesn't change the fact that you're a /pol/ack chud. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
"you didn't defend Nubnuber" Thank you. Now fuck off. --Piroko (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
And that doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrite, screaming about how everyone you don't like are Nazis while claiming anyone you don't like should be rounded up and killed - just like the Nazis did. You howl your beliefs from the rooftops while demanding anyone with a dissenting opinion be silenced, quote-mining and slinging fallacies like they're going out of style. You are literally nothing but a holier-than-thou /pol/ack with a thin, flaking coat of supposed moral superiority on top, you bloody hypocritical chud. Get off of this site. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
And your basis for coming to that conclusion is, what, one paragraph, that Zwei took out of context, that was actually about how we need to keep SJWs off the site? --Piroko (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, my bad, you were talking at Zwei. --Piroko (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, mea culpa, I should've indented that properly or addressed Zwei directly. You're okay in my books. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ban Anon:[edit]

Ban 2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 (redacted)[edit]

He's defending Lolicon and by extension Child Porn. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I am and always will be 100% against child porn. Any person who looks at actual child porn or sexually molests a child deserve to be punished by complete removal of their genitals, just like you.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 03:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh really, then how come you're against calling Lolicon child porn, you sick fuck. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Because if no real children were involved in its creation then it is not child porn.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 03:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
2d porn is still porn, especially in the legal sense. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
But it isn't child porn, and it is perfectly legal in plenty of countries including the United States.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 03:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
And besides that, I actually agree with removing loli porn from this website. If this was a different kind of website I wouldn't care because no actual children are harmed by loli drawings, but here I do not feel that these types of images are suitable to permit. The main reason why I am getting involved is because this is all very stupid and I am trying to get this dumb argument to end.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 03:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Then how come you're not calling for Nubnuber to be banned like I am? Triacom is also calling for Nubnuber to be banned.-- HussarZwei (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
What has he ever done to deserve being banned? He hasn't posted any images of actual children as far as I know.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 03:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you ask Triacom. -- HussarZwei (talk) 04:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Denying the obvious (redacted)[edit]

He thinks that Lolipope isn't Lolicon despite it having Loli in the name. -- HussarZwei (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I never said that. I said that there was nothing sexual on the page, which I was actually wrong about.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 05:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate your maturity. How about we put aside our differences and call for Nubnuber to be banned? Even Piriko wants Nubnuber banned. -- HussarZwei (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Your approval fills me with shame.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 05:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ban User:Nubnuber[edit]

Ban this sick fuck and get over with. -- HussarZwei (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Even Piroko wants Nubnuber banned. -- HussarZwei (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You confuse disapproval with malice, because you have no subtlety and no appreciation for the attention and patience of others. Nub is a nuisance who sometimes posts things I (and others) would prefer he not. But as long as he's not shitting up Armada and Alternity, I can't be bothered to act like a witch hunter. I have better shit to do... like, Armada. --Piroko (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Well said.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 05:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Malice? It was a compliment. Though to be fair my statement was short and vague, so I don't blame you. -- HussarZwei (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
What would you say you actually, do here? Like, look at your user contributions. When was the last time you actually posted something about an actual, y'know, game? --Piroko (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I have done /tg/ releated edits, but LOTL has reverted most of them. I think I got on his bad side. -- HussarZwei (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
How like you. You misunderstand what somebody else is saying and then think that they are misunderstanding you.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 05:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I no rite? It went straight over his fucking head. --Piroko (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Must be because I'm tired, good night. -- HussarZwei (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it's because your brain automatically censors information that does not fit into your black-and-white worldview.--2601:203:480:4C60:F057:D4B2:8F5D:8424 05:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm no fan of HussarZwei, but Nubnuber should be banned. -- 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Ban User:HussarZwei (part 2)[edit]

I think the last half a dozen entries on this talk page are evidence enough for why this asshole needs to go. But, for posterity and to rant a bit, because Root sure as fuck won't do anything about this:

  1. He has repeatedly demanded that other, far more productive users be banned on grounds that range from 'flimsy' to Tumblr-grade 'I disagree with him and therefore he needs to be banned' - see the last few entries on this page, where Zwei quote-mines, behaves like a complete prat (see his claim that Nubnumber is a 'mindless rape machine attracted to underage genitals like sharks attracted to chum', the demands for others to be banned, the past edit wars on /pol/itical pages), and generally contributes nothing to this wiki but the same close-minded BS, insults, and vitriol.
  2. Every politically-oriented page that HZ touches turns to shit or becomes even worse than it already is - refer to the SJW and /pol/ pages and his sordid history with them. Compare this to, say, Piroko, who (for all his flaws) can write decently without going full fuck force on the politics and indicating that his radical end of the political spectrum is the One True Way and that everything else is heresy.
  3. Leading on from the above, despite previously promising to back off from the political pages, he always, always ends up coming back to them and contributing the same flame-provoking BS as before. Just for emphasis, this is despite him being given multiple chances to back down and change his attitude, indicating that he either can't/won't change his editing practices (in which case he needs banning or topic-banning) or he's a troll (in which case he needs banning, simple as).
  4. HZ has little to no interest in actually discussing or behaving reasonably; most of his 'talks' that I've seen amount to insensate ranting about why something should be banned or soapboxing about politics, with the occasional implicit effort to frame any criticism of him and his edits as being racially-motivated.
  5. Zwei acts like literally everyone whose views don't line up with his are either Hitler or a pedo. Furthermore, he has straight-up called for the military to round up and kill groups he doesn't like because of their political beliefs - and he has the gall to call his detractors Nazis?

Also, Zwei? Before you start screaming about how I'm a pedo/Nazi/ /pol/tard - I'm not. I get being fed up with /pol/ and SJWs and all the politics. I get not liking Loli. I can sympathise somewhat with you on these points. But I am fed up with your constant disruptive behaviour, refusal to compromise on anything, and complete unwillingness to develop past the most inanely basic, black-and-white, with-me-or-against me view of topics. You've had far more chances than you quite frankly deserve, and you've wasted each and every one of them.

Your thoughts, elegan/tg/entlemen? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. Pedos are scum, Nazis are scum, SJWs are (sometimes) scum. But that doesn't excuse Zwei's behaviour one bit (or even explain it). -- 15:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, he does not contribute anything positive to the arguments he butts into and we do not want him involved in our discussions.--2600:1010:B10B:4BFF:F1C6:13BD:F1B1:D998 20:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Zwei has done a lot of judging. --Piroko (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to agree to this as well. --Konrad13 (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
This has gone on long enough, its time for him to find a new home. 07:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

HTML edit[edit]

Hey Root, there’s something up with the HTML of the site- assuming it can be edited. If it can’t, then please disregard this. There should be a line that designates links, should look something like <a href=“url of the link”>name of the link</a>. If it’s at all possible, can you add the term “target=“blank”” in the code, so that it looks like this; <a href=“url” target=“blank>link name</a>? This will force the site to open a new window when it redirects the user to a page outside 1d4chan, as opposed to the new page replacing it. Thanks a lot! -BigEIsBackBois, 21:00, Jan 26, 2021

Target=blank is cancer and you should feel bad. When a user wants a new page they'll right click and select new page. Also new sections go at the bottom. --Piroko (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly this, one of the first lessons you learn in web design is that if people want a new tab/window, they'll open one. -- Triacom (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


Found a anon called Special:Contributions/ It's that time of the year again. Just another vandal and spambot. We all know the protocols and what to do by this point. Get the bahammer. Derpysaurus (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

ban User:Flufflion[edit]

He's vandalizing the pol, SJW, and Satanic Panic pages. Don't believe me ask Triacom. -- ZeonPonyWolf (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

About the only really objectionable and recent thing I see on those pages was his edit on the /pol/ page (which has already been dealt with by Triacom). The edits on the Satanic Panic's page either aren't that bad or somewhat improve the quality, and the SJW edit he made today (04:10, for reference) is actually pretty damn accurate when referring to their focus on the socio-political side of things over religion and their relatively widespread nature. Compared to the kind of crap you have to pull to be reasonably put up for a ban of any length, I would argue this is mild misbehaviour on Flufflion's part at worst. And considering your 'he's vandalizing pages, I swear, but ask someone else to explain it'-style opening to this topic, it frankly reeks of bullshit to me.
In summary: please explain beyond a single sentence why you think Flufflion's deserving of a ban, or kindly cease this faggotry. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I can't recall any edit they did that I'd consider ban worthy, care to refresh my memory with specific edits? -- Triacom (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a warning for Special:Contributions/[edit]

Despite there being an ongoing discussion on the Araby talk page, they're refusing to relent with attempts to force their viewpoint on the main page. -- 11:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconded, they're shoehorning in their personal feelings on a subject in a way that's incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't read the discussion page and gotten it explained to them across three pages worth of text. -- Triacom (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Given they've now begun blanking attempts to communicate with them on their talk page, I think this needs to simply be a ban. They've revealed themselves as a smarter than average vandal. --2001:8000:1005:FA01:A9DD:2ECC:DFEB:8C7B 21:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:AE55:AFB9:1575:84E6:C5A2:23DC[edit]

The anon Special:Contributions/2607:FB90:AE55:AFB9:1575:84E6:C5A2:23DC has been repeatedly blanking the AoS page and filling it with barely coherent Nazi ramblings. It’s ultimately little more than annoyance, but a ban for the clown would be nice.

I'd 2nd that request--Because (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thirding that request. -- Triacom (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Fourthing(?) that request. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Final Fantasy edit war/vandalism[edit]

I won't lie if I said I am being a bit overzealous in maintaining, editing and adding content to the Final Fantasy page, but I have noticed a strange uptick of activity by individuals who are highly defensive of the homebrew system Final Fantasy d20 during the last two months. Some are anonymous, but one notable user is Archmagel, whose only contributions were to edit the Final Fantasy page and make a defense of it in the Talk section.

Whether it be to protect the Final Fantasy page since I did not expect to see the pushback on that page as I did or ban Archmagel (who has admitted to trolling the article as a response to a now deleted edit), I'm not sure what the best course of action is. --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I know it's still a nothingburger at this point, but Archmagel resumes to not give up their raw defensiveness and edit war. That being said, after some research (namely a google search of the username and FFd20), I have reason to believe that Archmagel is a member of the FFd20 community now under the name of Big Hat; particularly, he's part of Viladin's inner circle of "Kefkanites", the term for the administration team. The primary means of evidence I have is the credit given to the archetype, Sage, which is now accredited to Big Hat. Given that Archmagel's only contributions thus far have been to vandalize and start an edit war, I feel this may warrant some action being neccessary. --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Motion to ban User:Mw8124[edit]

It's a literal bot. --Konrad13 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Seconding. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Exalted Campaign pages mass deletion[edit]

The Exalted category is a bloated mess. I know that there is a deliberate allowance for users to make pages for their campaigns and their characters, but surely there must be a limit? There are a bit less than 400 pages in that category, and about 350 or more are someone's campaign or character sheet.

These pages are ancient, too. None have been edited in at least ten years. You'll find many of them on our list of oldest pages. People clearly created these pages when their campaigns began, and never got rid of them when their campaigns ended.

The category is nearly useless to browse now. Would it be alright to start deleting them, all of them? I wanted to ask, because this is a lot of pages, and marking them all for deletion would look like vandalism.

Is this any worse than any of the other RPG categories? --Konrad13 (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Come to think of it, there's tons of pages with the deletion tag up that have been basically untouched for years. If you aren't going to do anything about them, could you at least give AssistantWikifag the authorization to do so? --Newerfag (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Shoot, forgot to sign. To answer your question, Konrad13, it's immensely worse. Look at the category for DND and compare it to the Exalted one. Just look at the pages under the letter A. There are no campaign pages in the DND category under A, even though there are about a hundred pages there. There are 31 pages under A in Exalted, and 2 of them are types of Exalted, 28 of them are in the campaign namespace, and 1 is for a campaign but isn't in the namespace. Blowthemandown (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and start moving pages into the deletion category. I'll leave any page that's been updated in the last, say, two years? If anyone thinks that's vandalism, drop a message here or on my talk page, and we'll discuss it. Blowthemandown (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ban request for Special:Contributions/2600:8801:1903:2D00:58C7:147B:7972:701A[edit]

This anon’s been frequently blanking the Rape page without giving any reason for it, nor refusing to stop even when it’s clear that the majority of the wiki’s users would rather it stay. They refuse to elaborate or discuss as to why, simply citing it as “unneeded”. This is bordering on vandalism. CoolGuy99 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This twit has replaced the entirety of the above page with their shitty copy-pasting well over two dozen times, vandalised CoolGuy's page, and shows no sign of backing down or buggering off. Troll or not, Root, I request that you get your arse in gear and ban the vandal-BoN. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree, they're an obvious troll and I doubt they'll stop. -- Triacom (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

We need more mods or better comms[edit]

In light of the recent mess on the Rape page, I feel this needs to be said: we need more mods, or better communications. As it stands, it's damn near impossible to shut down an edit war driven by an account bent on vandalism or pushing their POV at the expense of everything else, to the point where compromising with a fucking troll proved necessary - which, frankly enough, is a state no wiki should be in. It doesn't help that there's a perception among some of us that you and AssistantWikifag are too slow to act or just absent a lot of the time. Hell, something as simple as joining the Discord set up a while ago would probably help, since it'd be a lot more efficient and more likely to get an actual response than the status quo of 'Post on your talk page, get ignored half the time'.

TL;DR: We need more people with the power to shut down vandals, or the mods need to be more communicative. Your thoughts, elegan/tg/entlemen? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Same, this is a problem that's come up a lot, and it's a problem that isn't being addressed. We need more and better mods, since waiting for the current ones to do anything isn't working. -- Triacom (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. There’s been several trolls and vandals that've showed up and half the time, they don’t even get banned and we have to just sit there and hope they don’t show up again. The inaction and lack of communication on yours and AssistantWikiFags part when it comes to things like this is frustrating and tiring. CoolGuy99 (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Fourthing this. I have dealt with vandalism on the Final Fantasy page for at least two months (vandalism I have reason to believe came from the Final Fantasy d20 administration team), and have reported it to both you (Root) and Assistant WikiFag, yet nothing happened. Also had to help with the Rape page. More mods are needed. --ArrogantMcElfpants (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of Minorities in the Imperium of Man[edit]

To summarize the reasons this article ought to be deleted:

  • It's literally nothing but a list of characters and their ethnicities. There is zero humour, insightful analysis of the fluff, or useful crunch to be found - all of which are pretty damn core to a 1d4chan page. Hell, it doesn't even function as a useful guide to modern demographics, making it doubly useless.
  • Ethnicity is pretty irrelevant to the 40K setting as a whole, considering the prevalence of the 'One man among countless hundreds of trillions' theme throughout the setting, and that's before you get into the fact that 40,000-odd years of change mean that most of today's ethnicities aren't going to be around in 40K (or the implication that literally the only thing that matters about these characters is that they are minorities).
  • It stinks of bait, potential and otherwise, for /pol/acks pissed at GW's choice to increase diversity and Tumblrtards pissed at GW not doing it fast enough (or right, or for not including infinitesimally small minorities, or whatever else they've cooked up as their latest boogeyman). We had that fiasco back on the Rape page a few weeks back thanks to one such Tumblartard-tier troll; we do not need any other such individuals stumbling across this page and deciding to have a go.

TL;DR: This page is bait-y as hell, irrelevant to the setting and game as a whole, and the community de facto gave it the Old Yeller treatment six fucking years ago, until someone decided that restoring blanked, shitty pages from years ago on the grounds of 'but muh authority' was a good idea. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I second this request. --Newerfag (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I third this request.--Nubnuber (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this stinks of Troll. I fourth this. Kirbanzo (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see you back[edit]

That is all. Thank you for your efforts on keeping this website up. --Raton-Laveur (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey Root, maybe join the discord?[edit] The numbers swelled while the site was down. --Piroko (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Give us an up to date wiki archive, please[edit]

what it say on the tin, and it'd be grand it you made them regularly Dicererer (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help?[edit]

Hi, I'm the guy brings up when the main site goes down. Do you need an help with system administration? It would be optimal to avoid doing it a thirdttime , if at all possible. Phas (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Input required[edit]

Requesting a permaban for users OuterHaven and, whom I suspect might be one user with two accounts. Both have been editwarring on the Resident Evil page solely because they disagree with opinions stated there, refusing to acknowledge the rules about discussing the topic on the article's discussion page and ignoring attempts to address their critiques because said attempts did not simply let their opinions stand. They began this behavior on the .NET version of the site, and now that the .ORG version is restored, have come here to freely indulge because they believe the mods will not stop them.--QuietBrowser (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoth these two: 'Hahahha fag. Little fag. Little quietbrowser sucked off a dick for a modship that he lost. Hahahahahah'/'Your opinion is dog shit, and is not the majority. You broke rules trying to represent yourself as the mainstream Resident Evil fandom; filing this page with bias against the titles people like. Your a troll. You are a vandal. You are a parsite[sic]'. Coupled with the large removals of content and blatant POV pushing on their part(s), they're pretty clearly trolls/vandals. I second a perma, or at least a temporary block. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

What happened to[edit]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to be back here, but there were a couple of stub articles from this site that I expanded over there and now I can't transplant the material here, so I've got to write them all over again.--QuietBrowser (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not Root's problem. If you're desperate, just look at the history of the .net articles; your edit may be in there. If it isn't, well, that's what you get for editing a mirror wiki, I guess. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Action on Potential Sockpuppet[edit]

I have reason to believe that Zeon Pony Wolf is a sockpuppet for HussarZwei:

  1. Both have edited certain pages (Communism, Always Chaotic Evil, That Guy, Detect Evil, etc. in ZPW's case) to insert random references to Nazis and in at least one revision of the first page, to claim that 'Nazis... are all the range [sic] for Conservatives'. This is both needlessly inflammatory (implying that all conservatives are Nazis or otherwise support them), arguably irrelevant, and considering Zwei's obsession with connecting /pol/ and Nazis to conservatives, is pretty suspicious.
  2. Both seem hell-bent on shoving their POV into an article at the cost of quality and strawmanning their ideological opponents (see: the obsession with implying conservatives are Nazis, the frequent political point-pushing by both, etc.)
  3. Both have tagged most, if not all of their edits (regardless of size) with the 'minor edit' tag - while not as substantial as the others in this list, I feel the extreme similarities between the two's editing habits should be brought up.
  4. Finally, ZPW has expressed support for and actively restored the Minorities in the Imperium of Man page - a page that, by his own admission, effectively exists solely to 'troll /pol/acks' and provoke edit wars (as the revision history may indicate) despite the general community concensus being that it is better off blanked/deleted. Consdering his earlier lumping together of /pol/, Nazis, and regular conservatives (a behavior also shown by HussarZwei), this attitude is highly questionable (even before the potential of provoking further editwars is considered) in addition to indicating that he is little more than a troll.

Due to these near-identical editing habits, I am requesting that some semblance of action (even as little as an IP check or suchlike) be looked into against ZPW. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for User:Draculus The Brave[edit]

Restarted an edit war and began to ignore the talk page once he was told to read edit summaries. --2001:8000:1005:FA01:E896:C285:66AB:F06A 08:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. DTB has shown flagrant disregard for site rules and wiki etiquette (repeatedly blanking their talkpage in the middle of a discussion, refusing to provide proof for claims, constant edit-warring), and is actively attempting to import offsite drama on the Recommended Channels page. We neither need nor want them around any longer. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, they've begun actively vandalising pages out of butthurt at being told off on their talkpage. If they weren't confirmed as a troll beforehand, they sure as hell are now. Not sure why I'm doing this, since you'll never take action, but I guess it's worth a try. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting deletion on a redirect[edit] redirects to a fan project rather than the actual 9th edition.

It does so because there is no "Warhammer 9th Edition". Also sign your posts. --2001:8000:1005:FA01:1547:5E73:846E:A488 15:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

1d4Chan not Appearing on Google Search[edit]

Hi, so it has been bugging me lately. But is it just me of is 1d4Chan not appearing in the search engine like Google for example? I want to know why that's the case. Would appreciate it if anyone could feel me in. Derpysaurus (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It hasn't been appearing since it went down last. My assumption is because it fell off when Google couldn't access it, it hasn't generated enough access since for Google to put it high up in the searches again. -- 15:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

this is due to the websites HTML header info

Someone had added this <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"> to every webpages html this code deliberatly instructs all Search engines not to index this site or its pages

<meta name="robots" contents="index,follow"> would allow the site to be indexed.

alternativly a robots.txt can be used to specificaly list which pages on the site need to be avaible to the search engine (or not avaible)

Could we do something about it? Or are we doomed to wait for the hypothetical return of Root?--Gilten (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I second this. It is just utterly bizarre not to see a 1d4chan article on any search engine for several months now. I get it may or may not be due to recent events regarding the website shutdown which fucked us in less than a year, but still...Derpysaurus (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thirded. We know what's up with the site (going by this, the anon's right) not showing up, now we just need Root to fix it (assuming he ever does). --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Fourthed. Can't see why it should be hidden so would be good to get the fixed and findable again.--Because (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Fifthed. If the admins are completely inactive and won't fix problems with this site we should probably all move to a fork.--2601:203:400:CE90:9DB9:BD97:72F:72E2 05:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Let's calm down a little. Yes, it would be great, but is it at least possible? It is clear that Root will not come back anytime soon. Does anyone else could actually fix it? And if it is not the case, is it worth it to move the entire website? I mean, it is not like we crave for newcomers attention. I am pretty sure we all come from 4chan, not from google search. However, I am not a big editor, and I could understand that some of you would like to be read widely.--Gilten (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you dead?[edit]

Please respond. There has been no activity from you since October and we are worried.--2601:203:480:A9A0:654D:7BCE:862F:F72F 23:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Intermittent site faults[edit]

Root, are you available for a prolonged discussion? These periodic site disappearances have us worried, and the site's robots.txt is missing, so we're no longer on search engines. If you are, please join the discord linked on the main page, and if not, please reply here. Someone else. (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye. User:Root, there is a concerted effort in motion to fork this site if certain problems of communication are not resolved. We would like to resolve this problem reasonably with you. Please join us on . --Piroko (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes please join the discord and talk to us. We are getting sick of you not communicating with us. A lot of people are talking about starting a new website if you don't start talking with us and fixing the problems with the website we have been asking you to fix.-- 22:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't let a vocal minority let you think people are all riled up at you, we are just wondering what's going on, and maybe if you'd be open to some help, GL root. --Gromril 23:51 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's a minority at this point. We've already got 250 users on the discord. It's not that people are angry, but they are concerned and reaching the limit of patience. --Piroko (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There is literally no reason for you to not join the discord and communicate with us.-- 22:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Root has joined the Discord, anon, a couple of days ago as a matter of fact. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Root and you guys are censoring the 1d4chan from google results[edit]

Is there any possible way I can convince Root and you guys to not censor the website from google. I feel ludicrous for even having to ask this question ;_; User: Tharphy

Root explained in the discord that he doesn't really like the tone of this website anymore and wants fewer people to see it.--2600:1010:B1EC:D912:1DF6:E3A1:CAFA:FD58 23:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I heard, I'm trying to talk him out of it User: Tharphy

I doubt he will answer. He does read this page but he doesn't usually respond to anything.--2600:1010:B1EC:D912:1DF6:E3A1:CAFA:FD58 23:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way to get a hold of him? User: Tharphy

He joined the discord. --Piroko (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, im on that but he never seems to use it User: Tharphy

Pick one of the veterans or King Lemming and share your concerns with them. The more regular users follow it enough that they occasionally see him. --Piroko (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. User: Tharphy

Restraint isn't censorship. Imposition is censorship. Root just deleted a file from his server because he felt like it. Nobody made him do it. He made a choice. Case closed. Someone else. (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I need to see if i can talk him out of this User: Tharphy

Person who doesn't even bother to put their signature on their posts calling someone who does a literal who. But anyway, sure, it's unfortunate you missed the conversations, but they did happen, and it was very clear that root is not proud of the direction the site has gone, and doesn't want it to be what people find when they search for the topics we cover. --Piroko (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I want to talk him out of that

Dozens tried. You're not special, you're not different. --Piroko (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well... if this is true... then I guess I'll have to look into making a fork. Either way I really would like to hear it from him himself

Perhaps, it's the tone of people like you, editing this wiki, that made root come to that decision. --AuRon (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I really dont know what you want from me, this thread is excusively for Root, im not trying to get in an argument with anyone. I really am just here to talk Root out of this very bizarre decision. My tone right now is of someone who is very concerned and I'm really just here to talk to one person.

I should apologize to all of you for being rude, I'm sorry, I'm really really attached to this wiki. But ya thats no excuse and ill do better how do you signature this anyways? User: Tharphy

You sign by hitting the ~ character four times. Typically people lead it with --, but it's the four ~ (all together, no spaces) that tells mediawiki to inject your name and the timestamp. --Piroko (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you! Ill get to work on maybe forking this place, thank you for your patience! -- Tharphy (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that the main problem that root has with the website is that he doesn't feel comfortable with the website's style of humor. He may have gone a little bit woke considering his refusal to ban a certain user, but I kind of agree that some of the site's humor is a little too offensive sometimes. He might bring the website back onto search engines if the website underwent a major overhaul to fix the tone. That would be a big project you would have to talk with other users and Root about though. --2601:203:480:BD90:9C0F:4E72:4C9B:8B5E 05:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
What “certain user” are you referring to? 05:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

TBH I kind of understand if Root just... outgrew the site and it's sense of humor. --2601:19B:B00:7990:98BB:484F:7C09:EDA4 22:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Atrocious news. So, eh, speaking of forks. Are there any usable ones free from woke faggotry out there? Or if Root is willing to just hand over the cite to someone less squeamish if he can't take the old spirit anymore. -- 01:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit war happening on Racial Holy War (...the irony)[edit]

(cc'd to AssistantWikifag's chat page too)

So, there's a bit of an edit war happening in Racial_Holy_War. Mind taking a look at laying down some instructions to those involved? Or banning. Banning always blood for the crowds. -2001:569:FC7C:7600:84CD:B7CC:2EBE:9D06 09:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit War on Paragon Warsuit and Warnings for Anon:, and[edit]

There is an edit war going on the Paragon Warsuit and Militarum Tempestus by anons. initially did massive deletions on the page for no reason. Asked him multiple times to put his edits on the discussion page to talk it out. Anon ignored it and continued to delete large sections of the page. Another anon came in to undo it and now it is just a cesspit of anons undoing each other's edits. also seemed to joined in and both of these anons has a history of undoing shit. There is also which may or may not be a sock puppet. Whatever is the case, this is getting ridiculous and I request a warning for all three. If not, ban them for a week at least. Derpysaurus (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting warning or tempban for anon for posting NSFW loli shit and editwarring[edit] is editwarring on Lofn and Loli Daemonette to add NSFW images to the page, despite agreement among the majority of editors (both now and in the past, cf. Nubnuber) that this should not fly due to the characters being underage. They've been at it for about a week now, and are showing no signs of backing down despite the best efforts of Triacom, Konrad13, and Since you haven't been responding on Discord: Could you please come in and lay down the law here? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Intervention for the Paragon Warsuit Page[edit]


Maybe it´s because I´m new to the site or just not used to whole humor of 1d4chan but I have the following problem:

I was trying to tone down the nerdrage on the Paragon Warsuit page, because even though I understand why people don´t like the design, I think the complains on the page are overexaggerated. The first time my edits got redone because I didn´t explain my changes (which baffled me a litte bit since a) after the second time, I added things and explained a little why the "controversie" is over the top and b) I looked at the history of the Paragon page and other pages, and user explaining their edits are uncommon. But hey, I´m new. Maybe that´s how things roll here) so I wrote in the summary my reasons for editing the page.

I wrote that I wanted to tone down the nerdrage on the Paragon and DIDN´T rewrote the page to praise the Paragon Warsuit. This is also why I didn´t put the arguments in the talk page, because my argument isn´t "The Paragon Warsuit is a good design and you are wrong!!!" it´s cutting down bits which are just raging and derping without being witty or funny.

And the only explanations I´m getting is " /tg/ consensus is it's dumb" or "nah, that is just you being an apologist for shitty design". Which aren´t arguments. And again: My goal is not to rewrite the Para Page to praise it, just to tone down the nerdrage and derp for something that isn´t that deserving of it.

So could there be some sort of intervention or decision regarding the Paragon? If it goes in favor of the rager and my edits are invalid I will accept this.

All I want is some decision on what can stay and what should be erased before this becomes an long edit war over something that ISN´T that controversal

kind regards

Solitude the faithful

Banning/Warning Anon:[edit]

Got a anon here called Special:Contributions/ who has been filling multiple pages in relation to Pixar DreamWorks films despite having no relations with the subject manner at all. Now anon is in an edit war with other users trying to unfuck his mess whilst not taking it to the talk page. I have a strong feeling anon might be a vandal and may require some warnings or even a ban on the account. Derpysaurus (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point, only a ban will work I think. --Konrad13 (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to third this, they're clearly a vandal. -- Triacom (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Fourthed. The edit war against Special:Contributions/'s vandalism has spread to no less than fifteen pages at minimum (Creed, Colonel-Commissar Ibram Gaunt, Rage, Toothless Dragon, Hunter: The Parenting, Racial Holy War, Slaanesh, Magnus the Red, Masters of the Universe, Ogre, Rogal Dorn, Love Can Bloom, Approved Cartoons, TTS, Exterminatus and Fulgrim; might have missed a couple) as of this edit with no signs of slowing down. Please deal with this before it devolves into a wide-scale repeat of the Bee Anon mess. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah this is out of hand. Gotta stop. --Panthera Awesome (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. --Panthera Awesome (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I fucked up, need some page deletions[edit]

Could these pages be deleted? I was going to rename Star Wars D20 to have proper capitalization in the name but I screwed up by creating Star Wars d20 instead of doing the move on the real page, and then compounded it by trying to move the page I mistakenly created into my user space as User:coldacid/Star Wars d20 (which lead to automatic creation of a redirect). --coldacid (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --coldacid (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't forget to throw a deletion tag on those pages too. That'll help. --Lord Of The Lemmings (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a warning for 2600:1700:91C1:A4E0's variations (Here, here, here and here)[edit]

Has decided to simply edit war and refused to engage on the talk page, even when specifically requested to. --2001:8003:1D0D:301:4872:1BE8:7C8A:5FCE 11:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for[edit]


For repeated revert warring, refusing to compromise, and general bad attitude on Approved literature. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Seconding - This edit war has dominated the page history since the 23rd May, and any attempt to negotiate a compromise has been met with vitriol, insults, and froth-mouthed rageposting about how anyone disagreeing should "get on the rope". It's doubtful that this will be going anywhere on its own, so could you please intervene? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

In the alternate, just semi-protect Approved literature, the focus of the IP's wraith. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a warning or block for Mezmerro[edit]

Engaged in an edit war with Triacom and from the talk page it's rather clear they've gotten salty during the discussion and are just trying to shove their edit on the main page. Either way it's shitting up recent changes. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:CD03:7179:1405:E0FD 21:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious why you're asking for a block me rather than Tri? I'm not a serial edit-war-criminal here after all. Mezmerro (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a ban for[edit]

Special:Contributions/ A blatant troll anon that keeps shitting up the Skaven page and deleting all the content on it. CoolGuy99 (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is another penny-a-dozen troll. I vote for the anon's banning. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
He seems to be using multiple IPs (Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/, and Special:Contributions/ at minimum), so that might not work. Semi-protecting the page might be a better deterrent so he can't just hide behind an IP address. --Newerfag (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking at things now, semi-protecting really is the way to go. He rarely if ever uses a given IP more than once or twice, so it's either that or a range ban. --Newerfag (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Requesting ban for IP 2001:8003:1C20:8C00:A930:A2FD:E3CE:98E9 & Middle Earth edit war resolution.[edit]

Special:Contributions/2001:8003:1C20:8C00:A930:A2FD:E3CE:98E9 I tire of dealing with this revert-warring troll, especially since they are a faggot who doesn't contribute anything and is basically a pseudo-vandal.

On the other subject, I would like to request a decision on the Middle Earth article, one other user kept reverting my grammatical edits (and often catching other edits in the crossfire) to British English rather than American English. That's all they really do as well, they don't actually contribute to the article.Tsabo7 (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

In return, I'd like Tsabo7 to be reminded of the etiquette regarding edit wars, in the sense of if one has their edits reverted, they should take it to the talk page, especially if multiple people are reverting them as in this case, and also that he learn what dynamic IPs are. Furthermore, he likewise needs to be reminded of etiquette regarding talk pages themselves, that he shouldn't revert peoples comments unless they are trolling and/or vandalism. --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:19C4:1874:E3C5:2651 10:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Three month long edit war - requesting action.[edit]

The edit war on Approved Literature has been going on since the 23rd of May almost non-stop. Several users and anons have already tried talking with and compromising with the anon, which has been met with flaming, refusal to compromise in any way, and the edit war continuing. Could you please semi-protect the page or otherwise take action to bring this mess to an end? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, the edit war died just fine for almost entire August, until you decided to restart it and now playing a fucking victim card, no less.
Yeah, because editor consensus before and after that break generally seems to be that the Principle version is better and that bending to the will of an editwarring jackass isn't the best idea. You started this war off in the first place and justified it with an incredibly flimsy reason, then spent the next few months shrieking insults at anyone who dared disagree with you while refusing to do literally anything beyond screaming further insults and editwarring, rather than deciding to talk with other editors (like we asked) to find a solution -- what did you expect, the red fucking carpet? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

They were probably waiting for you to disappear before reverting.

What fucking "edit consensus" you are talking about? You came in, added useless bullshit and ever since insist that it's something agreed upon. But hey, it's all my fault and you are an innocent victim of my monstrous edit-warring. It's not like you have jack and shit to contribute and all you care is pushing your retarded "rule" - even if it ALREADY FUCKING EXISTED BEFORE YOU CAME IN. And the exact same shit applies to everything you're readding ever since. Book covered in different entry? Doesn't matter, let's double it on the list. Book most definitely not applying to anything even remotely /tg/-related? Doesn't matter, let's put it back. What's your actual contribution to Approved Literature list? Come on, say what you are ACTUALLY doing for that list, other than trying to push useless and/or double entries. The best irony is the fucking contradiction of the whole act: you are in the same time reverting convoluted "rule" about only putting things /tg/ worthy, and in the same time re-adding a worthless piece of trash that has nothing to do with /tg/.

Namefags should get the rope, with no exceptions.

Are you even reading through the edit history, you shrieking fool? When several editors and a couple anons are pushing the Principle version over your one, that indicates that actually active people are generally in favour of it - i.e.: that they've achieved a consensus as to which one should be up. And I haven't even added any "double entries" or whatever "a worthless piece of trash that has nothing to do with /tg/" crawled up your ass and died, so I'd appreciate it if you could, y'know, actually fucking read or get on the Discord or even the goddamn talkpage to talk this shit out.
And really, I could ask the same of you. Most if not all of your edits have been part of this banal editwar, and before you start pulling out your "I'VE BEEN EDITING THIS WIKI FOPR YEARS REEEEE!" line, note that we can't even verify that and so it's almost certainly bullshit. So tell me, you shrieking windbag, what have you contributed to the page outside of pointless vitriol, ever-so-classy suggestions other editors get hanged or kill themselves, or the reversion of one example that you seem to have a bug up your ass about? --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

By your own logic, namefag, I have majority. After all, there are 3 namefags and a single IP putting this shit back... and entire swarm of people cutting it. Oh gee, you really didn't think the whole "you can't prove you've been here for years" non-argument. Or you gonna now insist that those "count", but only when I'm cutting the bullshit "rule" you are pushing since late May? Read the fucking top of the list, the ORIGINAL disclaimed. Then ask yourself if your cancerous "rule" is actually adding or explaining anything and if it serves any other purpose than your own fucking ego-stroking. After all, that's your ENTIRE contribution to that fucking list: a "rule" that nobody asked for and was already present without your "help".

Which you CONTINOUSLY refuse to accept and insist that you are right and everyone pointing the reality of the situation is just manchild, right?

Who else supports you? Because inaction does not equal support and only you seem to be the only one who's undoing this edit, no one else.
I call them as I see them. Someone who's spent months editwarring and going into paroxysms of rage whenever they're told "no" comes off as just a wee bit childish to me. As for your claim about a "entire swarm of people cutting it" -- how many of them are you and your little dynamic IP, I wonder, as you were so quick to start shrieking about last time? Because almost all of them have absolutely no edits outside that page (like you), have edit summaries that read very much like yours, and perhaps most importantly of all, the number of IPs don't mean shit when you can't prove they're different people. One obsessive anon with a changing IP address and an overinflated sense of their actions' importance does not exactly equal consensus, bucko. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So like I've said, when I'm undoing your retarded edits, I'm just a "lone wolf", but in the same time you "can't prove I've been around for years", because I'm not a namefag. Despite, you know, the page having fucking edit history. But those anons weren't me, obviously they had to be someone else, and I'm just here for edit war, right?

Besides, do you even know WHY you are adding this crap back? Let's do a short recap:

  • A retarded "rule", which duplicates pre-existing disclaimer, only making it needlessly complicated and explaining nothing, so it concludes... with the original disclaimed
  • An edit that contradicts BOTH the original disclaimed AND the "rule", for it is for a non-approved, non-applicable book - and one that isn't even properly alphabetised, but putting it in order requires from you an extra action beyond clicking "Undo"
  • A duplicate covering Stephen King for the 2nd time, despite the guy being covered already

So what are you actually doing? Clearly you are not making the list better, you are not adding anything meaningful and you probably don't know why you are adding all that crap back, beyond getting into an edit war for... what reason? You know, you HAVE some reason to put back useless shit and duplication... right? Other than spite, that is. You can't even fucking follow the rule you are adding, but insist on putting it back. And when the resulting shit entry gets cut... you put it back, "defending" the page.

You fucking clown

I got involved partly because I agreed with keeping the rule, and partly because of your behavior. You act all hostile and aggressive to anyone who disagrees with you like a child, and if you want me to stop then either A) start acting like an adult, or B) until someone else undoes it instead of you. And you still haven't answered my question: Who else supports you?
Why yes, yes I do think that those anons were other people. Because claims without evidence mean absolutely fucking nothing, as anyone with half a brain could tell you. Two of the three things you're claiming I'm doing, I haven't even done, and the third thing I'm doing because the disclaimer provides a bit more of a guideline than the vague KISS oneliner you keep pushing, as I've tried to explain to you before. You fucking donkey. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Uh, I'm not the guy who you are complaining to, I'm, and I'm on your side, unless you are talking to the other guy, then go ahead.
Yeah, I was talking to the other guy. Probably should've made that a little clearer. Sorry for the mixup there,; you're good in my books. --Ow, My Sanity. (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll also say that when you use an IP locator, all those IPs come from the same place; the Lesser Poland region of Poland.

First glance on the list - I'm not going for the egg-hunt for my own edits - gives me: Witcher, Foundation, Pump Six, Postman, all Doyle entries, Pirx, Canticle for Leibowitz, Missile Gap, Verne, Wells, entire fucking horror section, entire fucking adventure section, entire fucking mystery section, half of the historical fiction section (ACW and Napoleonic ones aren't mine, except for Aubrey–Maturin), Mahabharata, half of historical (and until quite recently, all of it was mine) If you want it so badly, you can always check the history and I guarantee each of those entries will come from my IP range. I'm not going to fork-lift something you can check on your own, given you are the one demanding proofs. Meanwhile, your name-faggotry allows me to positively identify that your entire fucking contribution to Approved Literature is as follow: edit-warring, two random edits in pre-existing entries.

As for the other cunt: there is something hilarious in a guy that demands to "act like an adult", but his entire line of action is spiteful edit warring wrong entries, just because. And then you wonder why I don't feel like talking to someone with IQ of a jar of mayo

Thing is, your attitude is sufficiently sour, and the article of such low importance, that we can entirely do without you. Further, you're fighting just about everybody you come in contact with; as the saying goes, "if you meet one asshole, you've met an asshole, but if everybody you meet is an asshole, you're the asshole". You're the only one removing the "Jane Austin Principle" section; you're the one fighting with everybody else. Maybe, and this might be hard to swallow, but the evidence is leaning this way, you're the problem. Learn to let go occasionally, it'll make your life infinitely better. Saarlacfunkel (talk)

I could say the exact reverse - it's three of you namefags pushing that crap over and over again, yet somehow in your fucked-up heads your "there are 3 of us and only 1 of you" makes you right. That rule is useless and pointless, for the exact same rule is ALREADY PRESENT. Not my fault you morons can't wrap your heads over the fact the pre-existing disclaimer covers in less words and in ironically more precise terms how to even handle this list. Instead, you are "helping" a - self-admitted - irrelevant list by cluttering it with natter and made-up rules, ignoring the fact it's already covered. Then either one of you is brain-damaged enough to log out and use his IP, or, even more likely, a third party joined in, and is doing purely spiteful re-edits, insiting that he "wants to talk". So I fail to see how I'm a bad guy when all you fuckers are doing is shitting up the list, yet insisting I should let you do so, because you have a "majority" on this. Nobody told you numbnuts that it doesn't work like that when you were still kids or something?

From what we can tell, your perspective is "only I get to decide what is true"; what anybody else think doesn't matter at all to you. You're unwilling to compromise, you're unwilling to let go, you engage in personal attacks, you're angry all the time. (That last is, in my experience, almost always a fairly good indicator of somebody who is the "bad guy", or at least somebody who the situation would be improved for everybody else by removing.) You can't just browbeat your way into victory in an edit war; you need to persuade others that you're right, or you're just going to be banging your head against the same wall forever.
To be clear: I don't care about the Jane Austin section. The only reason I revert you at this point is because your bad attitude convinces me you must be wrong, based on dealing with assholes just like you. You'd have an easier time if you didn't make so many enemies, is what I'm saying. TL;DR: YOU COULD HAVE WON, BUT ONLY IF YOU HAD CHILLED THE FUCK OUT. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Another edit-war starting[edit]

Hello, recently i came under attack from a particular individual who got it into their head that i am a muslim (now demoted to a mere apologist sadface) and started following me through the articles, vandalising them and doing the same to my page.

Examples of which include:

(My user and talk pages, respectively) -

"Complete and utter sack of Dawahgandist Pigshit. Lies, misleads, misdirects, and plays victim when called out on it, a proper wannabe Taliban."

"Tries to paint his own picture of events, then when someone calls them out on it, tries to play the victim. Deleted the Transhumanist page to make it the Transhumanism page after I called out his pigshit attempts at demonizing the content for his shitty religious beliefs on the talk section."

(Transhumanism page) -

"Fuck you, Blajbara, you stinking Mujahideen"

(Middle East page) -

"-I'm a different guy. But If you're not a Muslim yourself, you're an idiot Islamic apologist and overall douche who lies to spread your own shit-take pov,then lies about your opposition being /pol/ and claim my corrections are vandalism in a cheap attempt to discredit them, then when called out on THAT, try to pussy your way out with demands for neutrality which your original drafts lacked. Grow a scrote, bitch."

The only apologism was that i wrote was that Jews and Christians were treated "well" and since this is an open wiki anyone can and does amend prior errors. The person above then amended the page but went on on a tirade in the talk page that makes me think they were either an ISIS pov or have severe anger issues. The reviewing of prior versions is a mess but from comparison it is visible that the only comment i gave to the talk page was this:

"I make a page out of a desire to cover a significant cultural/civilizational bloc of humanity and of course it starts going skub 2 days after the fact (a wonder it lasted that long tbh). Yes Islam has it's share of issues just as any major social/religious/political movement will have by virtue of it being human-centric (and humans being flawed as fuck). I come from an area that was continuously assaulted by the Ottomans for centuries and had Janissaries recruited (basically forcefully taken) from and i am not hung up on Islam. As with any other skubby pages - if you can't say anything nice or neutral, don't say anything at all since it is not our job to explicitly criticise. --Blajbara (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)"

There was some discussion beforehand between this individual and MiaoKobayashisDragonMaid which then proceeded to insult one another while the anon apparently thought that i was me calling them a /pol/ack (it wasn't).

Next we have the Transhumanist page which had a MUCH less charitable description before my edits basically calling it a nerd fap-fantasy which i then rewrote to be more neutral while still pointing out the flaws in the Singularitan branch. Example:

(Old text) -

"The event of passing into a wholly transhumanist period is often referred to as the Singularity, where the technological advances become so fast we are unable to keep track of them and take on a "life" of their own. Also called the "Nerd Rapture", Singularity is often criticized as one of the proofs that transhumanism is just an irrational wish fulfillment fantasy, not unlike religion; whereas transhumanists harbor "contempt for flesh" and want to leave their bodies or their limitations by becoming robots or uploading their consciousness in a computer, ignoring any arguments about feasibility by insisting science will eventually find a way."

(New text, which is mine) -

"One thing of note is the arguable doctrinal difference between the Transhumanists and Singularitans. While there is a great deal of overlap, the two groups at their core can be differentiated by how much they put stock into the more...theological side of the issue. A transhumanist can basically be any person who simply belives in improving natural human characteristics via technology, a singularitan on the other hand is someone who (also) belives that a rapidly evolving AI will eventually result in an uncomprehensible posthuman civilization. Ordinarily, this would not be a problem, but Singularitans tend to be really preachy about their beliefs, probably enbdened by the perceived certainty that SCIENCE! gives to their metaphysical doctrine. A further point of irony is the fact that many traditional religions also have transhumanist and singularitan elements (divine intelligence removing all physical and mental flaws while creating a perfect world incomprehensible to those not "ascended"). To sum up - transhumanism = becoming a marvel superhero, singularitarianism = too cool for parents' religion."

Made on 26.10.2020 (pretty late in the page's history) and at (+466‎) this is the most substantial and only edit i made to the main corpus of the text and this can all be seen on the edit history regardless of the name change. The rest of my edits so far are game entries, a topquote and a quote for the cute cybergirl.

This whole thing is basically panning out to be a repeat of the Approved Literature and that chinese nationalist who axe-grinded every mention of Japan here. Thus i submit this for review and judgement here. --Blajbara (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

-I'm the guy this festering prolapse named Blajbarah is trying to frame as in the wrong, and i say he's the one who's rewriting shit. He didn't rewrite the old tramshumanist page to be more neutral, his version was blatantly anti-transhumanist and I rewrote it to be actually neutral! Not only that, but he's lying about me doing "vandalism" too! I wrote actual atrocities done by Muhammad in the name of his cult in the Middle East section, like the Banu Qurayza Massacre, and he deleted it, and then tried to frame me as being some retard /pol/esmoker for being critical of Islam! The stupid piece of shit Blajbarah acts like the Wojak image of a smiling Wojak mask over a crying Wojak, acting smug and accusing others who call him out on his bullshit of being the instigators.

No, sweetie, i have laid out my case clearly and anyone with two brain cells can read with comprehension and precisely see what i did and did not write. I did not touch the Banu-binu whatever, the only revisions concerning you being these:

There is no "old" transhumanist page except the talk page which is not relevant to the discussion either since this is about the edits, not the verbal jostling. Again, let's look over my edits, shall we?

Looking over the edits though it did dawn on me why you are raging so much - you likely got confused with these two:

"This disregard for realism is a major weakness. It doesn't take much observation to point out that around ninety percent of its followers are either 2edgy4u teenagers trawling 4chan or academics who haven't noticed that having a degree in one subject doesn't make you a master in another unrelated subject, along with an alarmingly high number of neonazis presumably tagging along on the off-chance it gets rid of that pesky untermensch. If transhumanists could sacrifice the rest of the planet to get their immortal robot bodies would they do so? Some of them, probably, because they are narcissistic, urban, technophiles who prefer an imaginary future to current reality. This makes them excellent baddies; rich, resourceful, tough, glamorous, unappealing, replaceable, and ambitious."

"While classic transhumanists are concerned with the alteration of the human condition, transhumanists that are not total faggots just want titanium endoskeletons/machinegun hands/heat vision/immortality."

This is stuff that was already on the page waaay before i gave my contributions, and my subsequent edits also don't show any adversity towards Transhumanism.

The fact of the matter is - you got a giga-axe to grind against Islam, and about this i do not care, my edits were minor i what i removed, you got into an argument with someone else and now thing that was me sockpuppeting (it isn't, too bad). You are now either starting to realise that your actions have made you look like a complete dingus or you can't get your bearings around the evidence presented and are simply lashing out.

Also are you intentionally mistyping my name as "Blajbarah" or do you think it's some arabic word? FYI - it's a south-slavic slang word for a bunt/joint you dummy! :3