Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

User talk:Genestealer

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

citation style

Hey Genestealer, Sorry about that, didn't know. I'll change it back right away. the affected pages were termagaunt and squig

LOL, I think we almost need to get a vandalism bot to patrol for people who put more than 10 links at a time. :) SanchiTachi 17:31, 15 July 2007 (CEST)


I'm ambivalent to whether or not to add details on a few articles, for fear of inadvertantly spoiling them. I've been adding details surrounding Red Fury (Novel) and even using the name in other sources runs the risk of spoiling the surprise. What's a good rule of thumb regarding holding off on adding these details to be decent to others? Wait a month or two before adding the spoiler template and then the details to that article?

Thanks, Genestealer. --Lygris 15:41, 8 September 2008 (CEST)

Hey Genestealer. Ran into a slight snag with my work. This morning I helped Tonicquill add some Sisters of Battle updates and tons of new articles. He got them from the Wikipedia, taken from the codex, and White Dwarf issue 128... German edition. I added the sources on a for-now basis, but can you confirm that WD128 German Ed. actually references the founding sisters? Thanks in advance man. --Lygris 16:37, 11 September 2008 (CEST)

See, this is why Wkipedia (or any other Wiki) is not a source for the Lexicanum. It's not WD 128, it's 101, and the informations are in the main part of the magazine and not under Neuerscheinungen/New Releases. And the Interwikies are all wrong (there're seperate articles in the German lex).--Genestealer, Magus 17:21, 11 September 2008 (CEST)
Thanks Gene. I'll make the appropriate corrections sometime today and won't make this mistake again. --Lygris 17:31, 11 September 2008 (CEST)
Btw, your account here also works in the other Lexicani (German and French, 40k and Fantasy - though you must log in), so when creating interwikis please don't forget to set them vice versa.--Genestealer, Magus 17:44, 11 September 2008 (CEST)
So if I set the articles for the Sisters and WD101 in the german section to interwiki, I can link to that source reference? The way I see it, valid sources override cultural barriers and language.--Lygris 19:20, 11 September 2008 (CEST)
You can create an Interlexicanum link (no english version of the help page yet) to the source (White Dwarf, deutsch, 101), although it seems unlikely that this text from Andy Hoare was not published in the english WD (around May 04, I don't own the issue). For informations about the interwiki links, read this.--Genestealer, Magus 20:53, 11 September 2008 (CEST)
Alright, got it working. I'm updating the remaining sister articles now. Looking over the White Dwarf situation, it seems that it needs to be added into the english version of the wiki, there are too many "blank" issues. I will consider a method to do this. Thanks again. --Lygris 21:28, 11 September 2008 (CEST)

Pictures Question

We sometimes use pictures of figurines and so forth for our articles. What about fan based art? The image is technically the IP of GW (even the artist admits this), thus can it be used for the Lexicanum? I ask because of this: http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f284/kingcomrade/Warhammer/sob/Canoness_Friedric_03.jpg --Lygris 16:55, 12 September 2008 (CEST)

There's a discussion according to this in the German Lex. Results so far: official artwork should be always preferred - in this case (your picture) I suppose there're enough official images (you could also search the other... er... okay, only the German Lex for pictures). Inofficial Artwork/Conversions etc. must be tagged (if existent with a template, if not it must appear in the description). For further questions contact Inquisitor S..--Genestealer, Magus 17:33, 12 September 2008 (CEST)
I will. Thank you. --Lygris 17:36, 12 September 2008 (CEST)

Fan Fluff sign on main page

Better?--Jonru 14:08, 6 October 2008 (CEST)

Maybe increase the size of official canon only in the text (and/or a link to Lexicanum:Canon - official canon only)? The page could also include some negative examples (Wikipedia or inofficial websites as sources/fan fluff).--Genestealer, Magus 14:19, 6 October 2008 (CEST)
Nice work on policing the fan-fiction. Thanks for the help (from another non-sysop). --Rlyehable 02:38, 15 November 2008 (CET)


Hiermit hast du bis auf weiteres die notwendigen Rechte, um die Spammer selber zu sperren. Bin gerade mit anderen Dingen beschäftigt und wir wollen das ja nicht einreißen lassen ;) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 00:26, 7 January 2009 (CET)


Who are all these spammers? They can't be real people right? Is it some kind of hacker sending bots and viruses?--Vindicta 17:47, 8 January 2009 (CET)

Probably. Most of "them" have a name in the XxxxxXxxxx schema and insert a pointless sequence of letters - the last one with the links seems to be an exception. But we're not the only Wiki with this problems (and unfortunately there's not much we can do).--Genestealer, Magus 18:07, 8 January 2009 (CET)
I've noticed the registration lacks a CAPTCHA tool. If this is implemented then this would make your lives way easier. By looking at media-wiki, which I'm assuming this wiki is based on, don't they have downloads/patches to install this?--Vindicta 18:35, 8 January 2009 (CET)
User Odysseus is responsible for technical things. The tool may help - although it's not inexpugnable. I'm going to ask him in the Lexicanum forum.--Genestealer, Magus 20:01, 8 January 2009 (CET)


I get it now! Thanks.--Vindicta 07:23, 10 January 2009 (CET)

Hiya, I'm going round to collect feedback on whether we should establish a new forum for the Lexicanum Wiki. The current forum is in english apparently, but the buttons are all in German. So I propose that a new forum be set up to help perhaps start up a new Lexi community, or at the very least help pool resources and efforts together as a combined group to make collective decisions for the Lexi. Also this can be a place to store fan fiction, non canon materials, or debate about topical discussions over what is canon or not. There's no set plan, but as said, just going round to see what everyone else thinks.--Vindicta 15:30, 13 January 2009 (CET)

Still in a drunken stupor

I'm back. Sad that Tonicquill is gone, but I'm here none the less. Gearing up for Dawn of War 2. Are there any articles that you want me to take a crack at? --Lygris 23:51, 15 January 2009 (CET)

Dunno if he's gone - some users take breaks up to several months. And you had a drinking session from december till now? Respect! ;) --Genestealer, Magus 00:26, 16 January 2009 (CET)
Nah. Tonicquill told me straight up he's gone. He's required to serve in his country's military for some time. I think at least a year. Throw our boy a toast next time you hammer a frothy one. What have you been up to? --Lygris 21:45, 16 January 2009 (CET)


Hey, I'm not sure if this is correct area to contact you (still very new to this). I cited one source in regards to the differentiation (i.e. It would be extremely counter-productive for the Laughing God, whose arch-enemy is Chaos itself, to go around and give his worst enemy extremely powerful weaponry. I believe it is stated pretty clearly in the Codex: Eye of Terror that it was the Deceiver who saw the Blackstone Fortresses fall into Chaos's hands). I cited common sense as a bad joke, but well... all seriousness, if there was some kind of relationship like the rumor mongering in regards to them being the same entity, I don't think that GW would have taken steps to ensure that there was a clear differentiation.

Would appreciate it if you at least kept the part about the Blackstone Fortresses in there. - Baron

Ah, thank you Genestealer. Also, what was wrong with the part about Khaine? They make it pretty clear in Xenology, the most recent sourcebook that he was a physical being and all that...

And as for Chaos I'm citing a combination of the Torturer's tale and Realms of Chaos... seems like I'm batting a thousand today.

Also, as for the Lee Lighnter thing: If you want I can pull up for you the exact post in Black Library where it's revealed that Mike Lee was in fact the author of Wolf's Honor.

In case of Khaine: as you said: assumed In case of the harlequin god - yes, I suppose GW had some weird plans, but they thankfully dropped it (that's what I hope...). But it's not a fact that the Laughing God has the same intentions as the craftworld eldar (sounds weird, is weird, it's GW, but we're the lexicanum ;)) In case of LL - please include the source. In case of Chaos: avoid somethig like "we, mankind" and stuff. And the Star Child - it's old background. Yes, I liked it, too, but it shouldn't be part of the background part of the article. Oh, and please sign your comments with --~~~~ --Genestealer, Magus 03:18, 17 January 2009 (CET)

I actually just got scolded by a friend of mine on a forum for my posts. He pointed out that this is an encyclopedia, it's not a place like the Black Library forums where we're free to speculate and dig into what's written. I apologize.

In the case of Khaine: I'm going to give up fighting this. Even though they're very blunt about the Old Ones being Gods in Xenology (and to a lesser degree they hint at it in Mechanicum). As said, this is an encyclopedia, it's not a reveal-all Black Library forum spoiler zone thread that does in-depth analyses.

In the case of the Laughing God: I would like to request that the whole section suggesting a relationship between the Deceiver and Laughing God be dropped seeing as how it's speculation as opposed to hard fact (along with the tremendous amount of citations missing). Done not only for those reasons, but the fact that other newbies like myself might stumble onto it and get the wrong impression as to what this site is about. It's a fact though that the Laughing God has the same intentions as the Harlequins (his servant) who seek to destroy Chaos above all else by any means necessary (stated as far back as Citadel Journal #10 where they first appeared and as recent as Codex: Daemons). Of course, if you're going to remove the speculation part regarding a relationship between the Deceiver/Laughing God, then me thinks that I just wasted a few seconds of my life typing that :P.

In the case of LL: I'll get that citation for you my good sir ASAP (by ASAP I mean it might take bit seeing as how I'm going to have to do an insane amount of digging through useless posts :X). Just wondering, how are you guys about citing a review of Wolf's Honor? Just because it happened to slip out during that review, much to the embarrassment of Mike Lee (that's a long story in and of itself. Suffice to say considering what I'd be quoting, if you want me to just drop it I'll honor that).

In the case of Chaos: Fair enough. Truth be known, I think it's best the mechanics of God/Daemon Spawning shouldn't be gone into too much. This is an encyclopedia after all.

As for the Star Child, you'll find that it's still valid. Simon Spurrier brought it back in Xenology. The top fifth of the tablet, which is supposed to represent the last step of a future shows a child, waiting to be born, contained within a star. Said child is linked by winds of causality (Black Library Forum name for them)to the shape of a man's outline around the outline of another man (Emperor, a man who is beyond/above man). I know it's not flat out saying "ITS A STAR CHILD!" in big, bold, red letters, but I think that said big, bold, red letters are the only way that he could have made it anymore obvious :P. There's also talk of the Star Child in Barrington Bayley's Eye of Terror novel, which has never been officially retconned in any sense. In addition, Gav Thrope didn't kill it in the 3rd Rulebook seeing as how the "Cult of the Star Child" presented there appears in one of the Jaq Draco books, a series which was centered 30% on the Star Child. The most damning piece of evidence in all this being Xenology, seeing as how it's a *VERY* recent publication and what have you.

--TheBaron 9:59, 16 January 2009 (EST)

Cegorach You wrote: It is extremely obvious, when closely examined, (sounds too harsh) that even if they have a relationship the Deceiver and the Laughing God are two totally separate entities. The Deceiver was the one who saw the Blackstone Fortresses end up in the hands of Chaos, so that they would be out of the Eldar's hands; the Eldar being able to utilize their full potential. (it's an indication, yes, but on the one hand the Deciever isn't some kind of chaos ally and on the other hand Eldar often do some seemingly irrational things) In addition, Gamesworkshop has made repeated efforts to make a clear distinction between the two, even going so far as to retcon their older published works.

What about this:
It seems that Games Workshop intended to create a relationship between the Laughing God and the Deciever.

  • Examples

In more recent publications this connection was apparently dropped.

  • Examples
Chaos/Star Child The Inquisition War Trilogy is far older than the 3rd Edt. rule book, so the text with the Tzeentch cult was the revision, not the novel(s) (they were republished with the purpose to earn some money - Mission accomplished ;) - so BL even ignored the Squat). If the star child has a comeback (the background has some similarities with these guys from 3rd Edt.), it should be noted - with the appropriate source and without It is also very possible.

Btw, it's good to have someone here who is interested in such old/reborn? background, so have a nice time here in the lex.--Genestealer, Magus 18:01, 17 January 2009 (CET)


Thanks for fixing all the bits of my articles --cuchallain 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deep Linking

Argh ok thanks for that. That's a bit of a pain, but i'll deal with it later.--Jonru 08:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Yep, soz was going to do it at the end, have been meaning to have a bash at the large number of unassigned images too. Duffs101 21:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thats much easier! Duffs101 21:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Spielverderber ;) Aber ein Depp weniger, ist einer weniger, die Reaktion hatte ich ohnehin schon trigger-happy erwartet :D --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 18:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, okay, ich hätte dir wenigstens seine Präsenz im Fantasy-Lex zum Löschen überlassen können :). Aber ich schätze mal vage, daß es auch in Zukunft noch genug Möglichkeiten zum genußvollen Blocken geben wird :D.--Genestealer, Magus 19:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ich werde mir irgendwann so ein Icon für Killmarks/ Abschüsse à la WWII machen müssen für meine Benutzerseite ;) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 21:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the preview function

Hi Genestealer. Yeah, I do try to use the preview function, but I'm a bit new to this, and I'm still learning the intricacies of the system, and what looks good and what doesn't :) Also, more often than not, when I'm done, I see something which could look better :) Ergo, many small edits, but IMO the end results aren't too shabby ;)

Yes, it's just that you "flood" the "Recent changes" page with many small edits which makes it harder to patrol. Also please do sign your talk page contributions with --~~~~ or the fifth button from the right in the the edit bar above, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 18:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Use The Preview Function

Will do, sorry for the flood.--[[1000one000]] 18:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you change one of the links on the supported by section on the mainpage?

In this discussion, Inquisitor S agreed to add a link to Sturmkreig, then at sturmkreig.wikkii.com in exchange for a similar link on Sturmkreig. I've since moved the website to its own site, and I'd like to have the link changed to en.sturmkreig.com. sturmkreig.com also redirects to the English site, though I'll probably set up a language selection page, similar to the one at wikipedia.org once I create Spanish and German sites; you can set the link to en.sturmkreig.com or sturmkreig.com. en might be better since this is the English site.

Also, once I set up the German site, would you add a similar link to the German Lexicanum? (de.sturmkreig.com) And would it be alright if I ask users with fanfiction on their user pages at the German Lexicanum if they'd be interested in contributing to the German Sturmkreig.

When you write the link, please remember that it's Sturmkreig. Languages are not the same 38,000 years in the future.

Sascha Kreiger 04:45, 27 July 2011 (CEST)
Done. But the links to the German and Spanish versions are dead.--Lexstealer, Magus 10:50, 27 July 2011 (CEST)
Thanks. I'll set up the other sites later.
Sascha Kreiger 15:09, 27 July 2011 (CEST)

German Exterminatus Article

Hello Genestealer,

I've noticed that the English Exterminatus article is not good at all(missing information, no sources, etc.). So here is my question: would you be able and willing to help me translate the much better German Exterminatus article into English? I don't speak nor read German, and Google Translate doesn't exactly translate correctly at times. Commisar Gegnillum 18:31, 27 July 2011 (CEST)

Hum, I'm not so pleased with the German article as it lacks footnotes and needs some improvements. I think the Forum is a suitable place for such things - there we could not only help each other with translations but also join forces in the matter of sources and avoiding speculations.--Lexstealer, Magus 22:21, 27 July 2011 (CEST)
I've made a section on the General Discussion section of the English forum. We can talk there. Take Care, Commisar Gegnillum 00:46, 28 July 2011 (CEST)
Anyway translations of existing Lexicanum articles (or any other non-official sources) are not allowed. The only thing you can do is to take the mentioned sources and write it new. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 10:13, 28 July 2011 (CEST)

Lamenters Revert

Hi, why did you revery the new lamenters image - is from an official GW source? Thelemur 02:24, 18 November 2011 (CET)

Uh... ninja'd.--Lexstealer, Magus 02:32, 18 November 2011 (CET)

Other images that may need to be "ninja'd"

File:PhDG.jpg - I could be wrong, but am fairly sure this also came from GW blog, it is certainly not an official product image - i'll forward more as I find them Thelemur 04:17, 18 November 2011 (CET)

File:Khorne Blood Slaughterer.jpg - fan image Thelemur 04:22, 18 November 2011 (CET)
File:Nazdreg Miniature.jpg - german site image, unofficial Thelemur 04:22, 18 November 2011 (CET)
With ninja'd I meant that you asked your question here while I was writing the reason for the revert in your discussions ;). I think we could keep some of the pictures published in WD or the Blog - but not in the main part of the articles and clearly marked as conversions/interpretations (and preferably by whom). There's a template for those pictures in the German Lex.--Lexstealer, Magus 16:49, 22 November 2011 (CET)


Schreib du bitte auch an Odysseus, ich krieg kein Feedback zu dem Spammerproblem. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 10:52, 6 December 2011 (CET)

A question about the new sourcing code.

Inq S. Sent me your way.

My question is about the new sourcing style we're using on the EN Lex


Fitrst off, I was wondering, why did you create this snippet of code? What benefits does it have over <sup>1</sup>? Is it simply quicker to type whilst on the fly than having to click the button and mess about with that?--Ytokes 09:38, 25 December 2011 (CET)

Sorry for the late answer. C has some benefits, for example if you mark specific passages/sentences as uncited ( {{C|}} - if someone knows the source it's fairly easy to include it: {{C|3, p. 123}}). It also saves some webspace.--Lexstealer, Magus 10:23, 30 December 2011 (CET)

Battle for Armageddon

  • A question: are you sure that this redirect is correct? this means that the Artbook is also a novel? --Ackheron 11:29, 3 January 2012 (CET)
Removed, not correct. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 12:04, 3 January 2012 (CET)

Email acount

  • Hallo, could you speak with inquisitor S? his PM account (lexi forums) is full. Thanks. --Ackheron 20:07, 11 July 2013 (CEST)

Redirection pages

May I inquire why you're deleting them? --Madness (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2015 (MDT)

It's standard to delete the redirects of discussion pages - they're useless as nobody searchs for them. Furthermore they thwart the discussion of the redirected page (for example if the redirect is wrong, need to be changed or the redirect becomes a new article).--Gene, Magus (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2015 (MDT)

main page spelling

Can you please edit the "Recent Occurances" part of the main page to the correct English spelling of Occurences? I can't dot it myself. Thanks.--Harriticus (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2015 (MDT)

You mean occurrences? ;) Done - thanks for the info.--Gene, Magus (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2015 (MDT)