hi, i see you like mlp, so do i just not as much as makeing a fanpage, any ways im Jade4Life and by my name you tell Jade the killer is my fav creepypasta so if you wanna talk mesage me back please thank you Jade4Life (talk) 20:35, September 17, 2014 (UTC)


I'd like to consult something...

Listen, basically, there was this situation: somebody came and spammed comments here in the wikia, leading to that person being blocked. However, the IP used by that person also affected an innocent user.

I have undone the IP block, and the innocent user is able to log in again, but I'd like to know...

How does the IP unban affect the block I gave to the spammer? Would that person be able to create a new account? Is tehre a way to avoid this to happen again?

"You know why he's here? Why he's investigating the broken rules? He's not paid or anything. He likes it. He gets off on it" (talk) 19:08, September 25, 2014 (UTC)

If they spam from a school or a library there is nothing you can do to stop just that one person. You have two options either you lose the innocent user and the spammer or you keep the innocent user and the spammer. Shining-Armor (talk) 19:15, September 25, 2014 (UTC) -- Shining.gifƽƕ¡ƞǀɴʛ˗ȺʁɱʘɌ talk 


Hey, gonna be leaving, gonna get my pastas off the wiki. Once I have the manuscripts copied, I'm going to request their removal from the site. (no I don't need assistance xD) Actually, the reason for sending this message is because I enjoy your company and conversation, and would enjoy speaking to you again, if elsewhere. My e-mail is "Jackkrauser1140@yahoo.com", facebook is "www.facebook.com/YourCompanionCube", if you use a facebook. I'm afraid I don't have a cellular phone, although I'm going to acquire one shortly. Anyways, tidings, and I hope to hear from you sometime.

Kuchisake Onna 21 by Alzheimer13.jpgThe Cthulhu Cultist - Scorch933 03:15, October 6, 2014 (UTC)


Ok, so, I just got up, came on chat, and there were no mods there. I try to use the bot to figure out when the logs were last updated, or even LOOK at the logs, and I can't.

Long story short, chat mods don't seem to be able to use any bot command. Which is incredibly detrimental to me doing my job. So if you could fix that, that would be great.

Sorry if I seem a little blunt, I just woke up. Nihilus Nix Naught (talk) 09:28, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

No, wait, hang on... you set it to ignore me that time when I jokingly insulted it and forgot to undo it. Fuck...

Nihilus Nix Naught (talk) 09:35, October 19, 2014 (UTC)

Banned From Chat

You have been banned from chat for causing drama in main. The alotted ban time is 2 weeks. If you are still banned after the alotted ban time, please leave a message on my or any admin/moderators talk page. Thank you. _ChaoZStrider • TalkContributionsEdit CountAssassinLogo.png 06:49, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Reading over the log Maria left on my page, the ban seemed pointless, Chaoz. You seemed to ban out of emotion. Sure, Maria could've been more tactful too, but toward the end of the log there, it seemed to be dwindling down anyway.
Mystreve (talk) 11:24, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Mys. This definitely wasn't grounds for a ban. Although what Maria said was out of the blue and relatively uncalled for, the thing about the newbie's name, Chaoz instantly jumped on it as if Maria had damned to hell all of the newbie's ancestors. This was blown out of proportion.

Since Mys already removed the ban, I have nothing else to do on this end. However I'll talk with Chaoz about the matter. Thank you for informing, Maria--"You know why he's here? Why he's investigating the broken rules? He's not paid or anything. He likes it. He gets off on it" (talk) 12:28, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

Banned from chat

You have been banned from chat. More information on your ban can be found here.

If you have an issue with your ban please contact one of our admins or chatmods.

Quality Control


It is nice to meet you. I apologize for the random message, but I noticed that you were a Brony, and I have to ask: Who is your favorite?

Pkslider725 (talk) 06:46, November 29, 2014 (UTC)



Mystreve (talk) 15:31, December 28, 2014 (UTC)


Linking the logout page as a deceptive link is interference with the functionality of chat and the site as a whole. It's not allowed and never has been. It's not in the rules because it's not something someone should normally do. ClericofMadness (talk) 06:48, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

what is this

Whenever I go into the wikia skin, I get this message:

"MediaWiki:Rewrite.js" was not found (requested by user-supplied javascript)

Any way to fix this?

LOLSKELETONS (talk) 06:48, January 1, 2015 (UTC)


I saw the category thread. As for deleting your comment, I didn't want it to get moved down the thread and missed so I removed it. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 21:57, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

Abuse Filter

Hey, recently filter 2 has been incorrectly tagging pages, as the word "mario" is contained within "marionette". I assume this could be fixed by adding a space to the end of "mario" in the rule, but I'm pretty new to the abuse-filter, and I know you did the majority of the work on that filter, so I wanted to ask you if that's the correct way of going about stopping it falsely tagging pages because of that, just so I don't accidentally break the whole thing.

« UnderScorre » 16:51, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work.
Shining-Armor (talk) 01:32, May 31, 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. « UnderScorre » 05:30, May 31, 2015 (UTC)

Re: Yo

There you go I assume that is what you were looking for? EmpyrealInvective (talk) 03:06, June 5, 2015 (UTC)


Do you mind if I move the ReaderMode.js page from a subpage of your userpage to the MediaWiki namespace, or at least protect it? I've just noticed that it's unprotected and loaded in Wikia.js, meaning anyone could execute any code for all users of the default skin if they put it in there.

« UnderScorre » 10:50, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Please do not move it, also it is in my User Space meaning that someone that isn't either me or an admin cannot edit it. Shining-Armor (talk) 11:29, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I thought people could edit in other people's user spaces. Ok then, thanks. « UnderScorre » 14:28, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
Ah wait, of course, I'm an idiot, I forgot Javascript pages were treated differently. Thanks for reassuring me that it's safe :) « UnderScorre » 14:36, July 7, 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've read it and will have to think on it a bit.

Jay Ten (talk) 23:46, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Message

Stop flooding the recent changes. We have a bot that can do what you're doing. This is also something that bcrats and admins should've at least been made aware of.

Jay Ten (talk) 21:43, January 16, 2016 (UTC)

These are super minor edits that help keep the wiki tidy and optimized for Google. The more of these redirects that are categorized the easier it is to point people using search engines to the right place. An added benefit to doing this is that it improves page ranks by some degree thanks to good SEO (Search Engine Optimization).
I fail to see why this would need to be discussed with an Admin as it is no different than categorizing uncategorized pages which is exactly what I am doing. Maybe if I were to be making large-scale template changes or something that effects content pages directly then it would definitely need to be discussed with admins. But adding categories to redirect pages is most certainly not harming or even having a visible effect on content pages.
As for the flooding of the RC I have marked all of these edits as minor so you can just hide minor edits from the RC with the click of a button. Alternatively, if it bothers you that much I can log in as Quality Control and use their bot flag to make the rest of the edits.
ᐃᓐᓂᕈᖅᑐᖅ 22:00, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that we can't guarantee that everyone knows how to hide minor edits, and on top of that there are a lot of other people marking edits as minor. Vandalism could easily slip in by someone clicking the minor edit box. You also created a category without consent from Cleric which is in direct violation of the site rules.
Jay Ten (talk) 22:08, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Other than the fact that minor edits are hidden by default coupled with the easy to see "Hide minor" link you'd think that people could hide minor edits easily. But you do bring up one good point which is vandalism, though I somehow doubt people are vandalizing pages using minor edits. But I digress, I could just use QC to do it.
As for the category thing, that is such an antiquated rule. Seriously, you must go through one person to create a category. That might stop superfluous categories from being created but really? For a category that is not only made with an important and practical purpose but one that is also properly categorized and hidden it seems like an overkill.
But if you simply must have this one person's backing before something beneficial can be done then you can go ahead and delete the category and I will uncategorize all of these redirects.
ᐃᓐᓂᕈᖅᑐᖅ 22:30, January 16, 2016 (UTC)

I don't even care about whether the category is on there, it's simply the way you went about it. I'm sitting here watching the feed and it just starts blowing up. A simple message to Cleric or any of the bcrats would've probably made things go a lot smoother. I think it needs to at least be mentioned to one of them before going any further to decide if they want it and how to go about it. If it's something they want then a bot seems to be the best way to go about it.

Jay Ten (talk) 23:02, January 16, 2016 (UTC)

I went about it in a pretty normal way.
I created a category with a description of its purpose, I took steps to make sure that it was properly categorized and hidden, I compiled a list of redirects, I marked all edits as minor, and I began making categorization edits a-la copy-paste editing. It's no different than going through the list of uncategorized pages other than me creating a new category as one did not yet exist for it.
Other than not tapping someone and saying, "Hey, I am making these edits for X" I don't really see the issue. Especially if it is to boost the SEO of the wiki. And if it's an issue then I have already suggested an action that can be taken until some conditions are met. Currently I have added 147 pages to the category. All you have to do is simply delete the category, allow me to remove the categories, and then I guess go from there.
EDIT: You could also point a bureaucrat towards this exchange and ask them for their opinion. You should have some channel of communication with them so it would be better if you were to do it.
ᐃᓐᓂᕈᖅᑐᖅ 23:12, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Are you a robot? If you can't see why it would've been better to let someone know and to avoid inundating the recent changes then I'm afraid you have bigger problems than I can address, and I'm not gonna keep going round and round with you. I'll let them know this is here.
Jay Ten (talk) 23:22, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Normally the RC would not be inundated, it just so happens that you have minor edits shown. The same could be said had I used a bot account and you complained because you had bot edits showing. Sure, I understand your complaints and I offered up two different solutions to them.
One being that I use a bot account so as to not have everything marked as minor (even though they are minor edits) and the other being the reversal of all of my edits that I made to categorize the redirects.
You seem to not be in favor of either solution yet you have not exactly proposed an alternative. If I didn't know any better I'd say that you want me to just leave the work half-finished. So please, instead of pretending that it is so difficult holding this discussion you should perhaps try to add something to it.
ᐃᓐᓂᕈᖅᑐᖅ 23:31, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Just stop, Maria. We don't need pointless SEO optimizations on pages that should be deleted anyway. Redirects on here serve no purpose. They almost always left from page moves. As for the asking me to create categories, that was from back when I was the only bcrat. Still, it keeps the category requests in one place. Also, this was discussed in the Slack channel, so all the bcrats have weighed in. Please refrain from making pointless category additions. Thank you. ClericofMadness (talk) 00:04, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
It's not "pointless" and redirects most definitely shouldn't be deleted but if that's the way you want to go that's fine. And that's not entirely true, redirects are used to help direct people to the proper places. So unless you want to correct all of the links pointing to this wiki's 1,500 redirects the only remaining options are to leave them uncategorized or to categorize them.
Personally, I can't see why keeping roughly 1,500 pages uncategorized is appealing but if you have all really taken this into consideration and have come to that conclusion then that's that I suppose.
Can I at the very least undo the already 147 categorized redirects or do you just want those to remain as is?
EDIT: I forgot to mention that the SEO optimizations don't apply to the redirect pages themselves but instead to the pages they point to and the wiki as a whole. The fewer dead-ends you have the more Google likes the site.
ᐃᓐᓂᕈᖅᑐᖅ 01:09, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Your edits have already been undone. EmpyrealInvective (talk) 01:13, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that I suppose.
Doesn't really deal with 1,500 uncategorized pages but whatever I suppose.
ᐃᓐᓂᕈᖅᑐᖅ 01:15, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Most of the redirects are leftovers from title changes and serve no purpose. We are looking for the few that are namespace redirects and will find some sort of categorization for them. Thank you for your concern. ClericofMadness (talk) 02:54, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.