"These articles are ruined == 

 I'd like to go to the article page links, yet I'm still trying to figure out why you FUCKING RETARDS deleted or merged half the Warhammer 40K pages. Now I can't find a fucking thing and half the article links are to articles that DON'T EXIST. 

 Seriously, who was the genius that did this? Lemme guess, some overzealous wiki admin ""made it so""? This is bullshit. Revert it. You've actually made things terribly worse.    —Preceding undated comment was added at   
 * Go check the AfD history, and you can see exactly who decided to whack the cruft, and why.  No need to guess.  Also, you can tell by the fact that people on both sides of the discussion write fairly grammatically that nobody (deletionist or inclusionist) is a fucking retard.  But I went ahead and removed those red links that were bothering you.  Hopefully you find the page more agreeable now.   
 ** Oh, no, they're still very much considered retards by myself (and others). And, checking the history means little when you don't know WHEN they were removed. The fact is, several well-written and detailed pages (like the WH40K timeline, weapons page, ect.) were all deleted. It doesn't make sense, and it was a damn stupid decision. Yet, it doesn't matter. Wikiadmins are the ultimate authority and do whatever the hell they want. If they say the page gets deleted or stays deleted, there's little use in bothering with trying to improve the situation. But, thanks to all those you ruined perfectly good articles with your particulars (wikipolitics for the win, huh?). I'll just be using the Lexicanum from now on, since shit doesn't mysteriously go missing in the dead of night (never to be seen again) over there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by   •   
 *** I'm sure you'll be missed here.      
 **** And I'll miss your sarcasm. In all seriousness, I have done edits to WH40K pages in the past and DID try to help improve them. I still don't think the pages deserved to be deleted and I still think it was a damn stupid decision to go ahead with it. But, like I said, I must bow to wikiadmins wish and will. I certainly can't challenge them.    
 ***** Who said I was being sarcastic?  Anybody who can usefully contribute to 40K articles, and keep them within the boundaries of WP:FICT (provide real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on the development and historical significance, not just a detailed summary of plot, and provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) and WP:SOURCES (not just using Games Workshop material (which includes codexes, the books printed under the Forge World banner like Imperial Armour or the fiction published by Black Library) is valued on Wikipedia.Computer game articles don't (or at least shouldn't) just consist of plot lines and information provided by the developers - they include sources such as reviews in reliable magazines, articles written about the impact the game had, and other information related to the way the games relate to the real world.  Film articles might list a summary of the plot, but will also include properly sourced information about how they were made, and why certain decisions were made... why should articles about 40K not be subject to those same rules?The ""meat"" of a 40K article should be ""This is such-and-such army/faction/character.  In the game they are represented by these models, which were designed by such-and-such person.  This army/faction/character has such-and-such special abilities in the game.  Such-and-such magazine praised the army/faction/character for this-and-that reason, but did not like this-and-that thing about it.  For the back story associated with the game, the writers drew inspiration from such-and-such book/myth/film/religious organisation."" and so on.  That way they adhere to the rules Wikipedia has in place for articles.      

 :::::* Of course, i