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

Difference between revisions of "User talk:Genestealer"

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search
(Fluff for the Patriarchs of Ulixis?: new section)
Line 190: Line 190:
== Please Use The Preview Function ==
== Please Use The Preview Function ==
Will do, sorry for the flood.--[[User:1000one000|[[1000one000]]]] 18:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Will do, sorry for the flood.--[[User:1000one000|[[1000one000]]]] 18:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
== Fluff for the Patriarchs of Ulixis? ==
I am curious.  The Patriarchs of Ulixis have no fluff, color scheme, etc..., but the chapter is an official second founding chapter as named by GW.  I am building a Patriarchs Army and interested in posting my backgroud, colorscheme to the Lexicanum. Will the Lexicanum not allow users to add their original fluff to the page. 
I ound this is my initial message. "Please note that the wiki is for official canon only. If you want to put your own armies up we suggest you log in and use your user page. Anything found outside of user pages will be subject to deletion"
I guess I need to find my user page.  Thanks for any advice

Revision as of 23:01, 13 December 2010

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)


We need more people. My german is almost nonexistent, but try to make up whatever you want to put in the article, maybe discuss it in the talk page and let's see if we can fix it.--Madness 11:57, 28 April 2008 (CEST)

I am very willing to help out there. I am new, but speak, read, and write German fluently. Let me know how I can help. jeffzimm1 12:24, 8 May 2009

Which template?

Please vote

Hy Genestealer. We have to decide which template we are going to use for the loyalist chapters (go to Template talk:LFSM for all the details and story). Then please go to the Lexicanum:Immaterium and choose the template you like the best. If you have any further improvements requests, now would be the best time to place them. Thanks Irulan 16:08, 3 May 2008 (CEST)

You gotta believe!

Standard approaches to the web media DO exist, and we DO tend to search for the same things in the same places. We search for the logo on the upper left part of the screen, for the search box on the upper right, and whatnot. But don't take my word for it, instead if you have time and are intrested on the matter, get this fascinating book and amuse yourself, it's used in universities here in Italy, and it's surprisingly short and easy to read. 2 hours and you'll be wiser. :) --Madness 18:23, 4 May 2008 (CEST)


Thanks for the help you gave on fixing the Inter-wikis. It made the job go faster and it was one heck of a job. Thanks again and let's look forward to a brighter future of inter-communications!--Jonru 00:31, 12 May 2008 (CEST)

Hey, the Lex is OUR (english, german and well-hidden french users) project :) - if there are any questions/problems (translations to German), contact me.--Genestealer 01:32, 12 May 2008 (CEST)

That article change by Misterpointment made no sense to me whatsoever, and I was hesitent to do more then correct his spelling and grammar. Thanks for stepping in and just removing it, because I'm reluctant to undo anyone's work. --Lygris 19:13, 5 September 2008 (CEST)

hi Genestealer

will i have to ask him auf deutsch? also i noticed your quite active on the German Lex do you mainly do translations? --Endeavour 22:54, 22 July 2008 (CEST)


sorry didn't read the guidlines i follow them now :)


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)

Fantasy Category

Done :)--Jonru 14:59, 12 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)


Click and discuss. --09:08, 28 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)

Why the deletion of hive guard

I used the codex for it and everything.


"Please note the changes I made in the Skyclaws article."--Lexstealer, Magus 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

citations, of course. thanks --quozzo 19 August 2010, at 00:09 (UTC)

The rules for uploading images seems to have been lost, where can i find them? --Quozzo 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here.--Lexstealer, Magus 22:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Use The Preview Function

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

Fluff for the Patriarchs of Ulixis?

Genestealer, I am curious. The Patriarchs of Ulixis have no fluff, color scheme, etc..., but the chapter is an official second founding chapter as named by GW. I am building a Patriarchs Army and interested in posting my backgroud, colorscheme to the Lexicanum. Will the Lexicanum not allow users to add their original fluff to the page.

I ound this is my initial message. "Please note that the wiki is for official canon only. If you want to put your own armies up we suggest you log in and use your user page. Anything found outside of user pages will be subject to deletion"

I guess I need to find my user page. Thanks for any advice