- Never post something without proper sourcing.
- Never-ever slip foreign information into a sourced sentence or section without properly marking which information is from which source.
Did you ever bother to check if it was from the same source?
- As you added unsourced info and massively added info to an already sourced section, I figured that the info you added to the sourced section was unsourced as well.
- The stuff in the sourced sections can stay. I don't have these sources, so I can't check. Let's trust you on this. I don't know what happens to users who fake sources, as we never had that case, but it will be Inquisition-level horrible.
- And the unsourced stuff you added definitely has to go. NOW. --DetlefK (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2016 (MDT)
|Attention Adept of the LEXICANUM!|
Tempest Blades article
Only War: Hammer of the Emperor
- In some of your edits you state the source as 'Only War: Hammer of the Emperor cp.2'. Is 'cp.2' means "Chapter 2"?--Darkelf77 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (MST)
Savlar Chem Dogs
Hello there. I noticed you did not format "Chem-Beasts" and "Chem-Riders" as internal links. In the latter case I think that is okay as Chem-Riders are really just a specialist troop of the Chem Dogs (in this case creating a redirect from "Chem-Riders" to the article "Savlar Chem Dogs" would be advisable). In the case of "Chem-Beasts" however I think a separate article describing these animals (as fauna) would be justified, therefore I think setting this as an internal link would make sense. What do you think? -- Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2018 (MST)
I think a redirect is fine, i'll also take a look at the Chapter Approved article again because there was a picture of the Chem-Beast that I can add. I don't know if there is much info on them tbh, but the article mentions them being mentioned in the old Armageddon Codex. So i'll have to dig it up :) Hyberius (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2018 (MST)
- Many articles are short as GW loves throwaway lines but for example for the purpose of listing flora and fauna in specific articles I think having separate articles for animals (plants, food, drinks, weapons, etc.) always makes sense. Also because like this we could for example add multiple, different images of animals that would really not help the Savlar Chem-Dogs article because it would go somewhat beyond the actual main topic of the article. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2018 (MST)
- Also don't forget to add reference to source like  because if somebody else will add later some information in article and will not add his adherence there would be complications.--Darkelf77 (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2018 (MST)
- Would you mind if I change you source about Flora of Catachan from the WD (Aus) to appropriate similar WD Uk (# and pages)? Because we have all the Uk WD articles and the WD (Aus) and other variants unlikely will be added.--Darkelf77 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2018 (MST)
- I would suggest just adding the corresponding WD UK under that source. At first position, as WD UK is (normally) the "mother publication" from which other WDs translate/ take their articles. I would however not remove the AUS/NZ WD details, as different people use different sources and I can not really see any harm done by leaving this info included. So for example "White Dwarf nnn (UK), month year, pg. xx-xx / White Dwarf 243 (AUS/NZ), March 2000, pg. 81-85".--Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2018 (MST)
Please, when you add image, properly specify the source, category and Copyright Status of image (see how I changed info for your image, for example for this image. Also there is no such thing as a 'Public Domain' in Lexicanum! It is not a sufficient source!--Darkelf77 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2018 (MST)
- Yes, the same rules to sources apply to images apply as to text information. There are many images out there that people think are official but which are in fact simply well-made fan work. Also as Darkeld said: The disclaimer clearly stating that GW owns the copyright is indispensable. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2018 (MST)
You copy information about Harker from the Codex Astra Militarum 8 ed. - word-for-word. It is not allowed and prohibited by the Copyright laws of Lexicanum!--Darkelf77 (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2018 (MST)