User talk:Root

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search


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)