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

User talk:Darkelf77

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

Welcome to Lexicanum! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun! Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 17:14, 17 December 2012 (CET)


Please pay careful attention to the format of other articles, as your first article had several errors in it. Also, remember that all articles and uploaded images must be Categorized.--Proteus77 16:35, 28 December 2012 (CET)

Thank you. Sorry for errors and general style of my article. I'm from Ukraine and my English not very good. I will endeavour in my future work for Lexicanum. There will be less and less mistakes. 20:47, 28 December 2012


Could you PLEASE check that your source citations actually link to the appropriate pages? Otherwise you just create a collection of un-linked articles.--Proteus77 07:34, 24 July 2014 (CEST)

Yes I check all of the sources. Where did I go wrong? I took the information about 'Dataslate: Space Marines Strike Force Ultra (Background Book)' from the epub format - there are such pages as I stated. There is NO printed version of that book. 9:09 GMT+3

You created three pages that cited Waaagh! Ghazghkull - A Codex: Orks Supplement (7th Edition) as a source, but because you did not type the source name correctly, the citation did not link to any page). I had to create a redirect page.--Proteus77 19:16, 24 July 2014 (CEST)
OK :( I didn't found a page with a book about Ghazghkull, because even in the page Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka, there was no source on this - Waaagh! Ghazghkull - A Codex: Orks Supplement (7th Edition) - page. I thought that there is no such a page on Lexicanum at all. That's why I don't link it properly. Then it is truly my mistake, sorry. I will be more careful. 20:57 24 July 2014 GMT+3

Image Uploads

Please categorize any images you upload.--Proteus77

Sorry. I don't understand where to put the categorizing information - in the Summary of the image? Please look at the "Power Scourge" image - is it all right ? 13:52 05 Feb 2015 GMT+3
It should go at the very tail end of the page, however, if it is anywhere in the page, it should show up in the right place. Take a closer look at my edit to your Power Scourge image and you should be able to see what I did. -- Proteus77 10:10 06 Feb 2015 GMT-8

Dead URLs

You can use the Wayback Machine to find web pages that are no longer active, meaning you can still link to the original source rather than just deactivating the link. If you need an example look at the Minervan Tank Legion page. Tdf4638 03:56, 22 March 2015 (MDT)

  • Thank you. Affirmative. Darkelf77 12:22 (GMT +02:00), 22 March 2015

Miral II

Undid your Miral II edit to Imperial Fists as that was already listed in the dated portion of "Notable events." :-) --augustmanifesto (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2015 (MDT)

  • No problem. Thank you for your attention :) Darkelf77 18:07 (GMT +02:00), 26 June 2015


Notwithstanding the huge discussion below, I'd like to thank you for noting I was missing the Novella chapters while I worked on Zahndrekh. After adding so much needed detail, I was forgetting to add the chapter numbers! Thanks! Makvel (talk)

You're welcome. Just doing my job.--Darkelf77 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Why are you adding "needs citation" to citations themselves? This doesn't seem correct. Midnight Sun (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2015 (MST)

  • It's not me - it's just the rules of this site.
  • It’s necessarily to put a Chapter to ANY paragraph’s source for Novel and Novella (Exception – only for Short Stories)---

"Citation from the rules: In the case of Codices, a page number is needed, whereas with novels a Chapter number can suffice if you are extracting a large amount of information from said chapter. However if the information is only on a precise few pages then they must be sourced precisely, similar to the codex style. Short Stories may be sourced by only their title."

It matter not – if it named exactly “Chapter 2” or, say, “Descent on the Planet” though, because some books have Names instead of Chapter Numbers.

The matter is that the Novel can have many editions and the pages of source can vary, while the Chapter(s) is not changed.


There is no rules for new products, which included Audio-Dramas, E-book Codexes and E-book Background Books and so on. But through the working Adepts of the Lexicanum developed the new rules themselves.

For example – in the case of E-book Codexes, where there is no sense to put a page of the book, Adept must state the Name of the Chapter, similarly to the case with the Novels – for example “Haemonculus Covens - A Codex: Dark Eldar Supplement” - The Chronicle of Endless Woe, where “The Chronicle of Endless Woe” – is a “Chapter”.

In case of the Audio-Drama there is no strict system, but the better variant may be – state the “AudioTrack #”. Also when this book will be printed, the source may be altered in appropriated manner. Darkelf77 (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2015 (+2 GMT)

If you read the page, these are about books, and it is clear that the articles are dealing with the whole of the book. You have even put the cite template on areas that clearly are subheadings for the book. If you are going to persist, I will have to take it up with an admin to block you. Midnight Sun (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2015 (MST)
I've started the topic on the forum about that. If I am right and you are going to persist, I will have to take it up with an admin to block you. Darkelf77 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2015 (MST)
Please do not ever falsely sign my name to a statement that I did not write. Midnight Sun (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2015 (MST)
OK, sorry. It is "Copy-past" old mistakes :) And emotions. Darkelf77 (talk) 8:43, 20 December 2015 (MST)

Every paragraph has to be correctly cited to a chapter or similar in a book. As long as an article is not a "XX (novel)" (or similar) article, every paragraph has to be correctly referenced. --Pack_master, Großinquisitor des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2015 (MST)

Except that in one situation, the chapters were there, and in the other situations they cited a one sentence character summary from a whole book. The chapters are only necessary when it is a chapter specific piece of information. The character summaries don't even need foot notes because they would represent the lede of the article anyway. Midnight Sun (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2015 (MST)
Not exactly sure what you mean, but I try to explain: EVERY piece of information has to becited. No, making out a whole novel as the sorce for, say, a paragraph of information does not suffice. I know it is sometimes very difficult to do this, but we decided this because roaming through 260 pages of a novel to find a prticular piece of information just won't do. So, if you have two important pieces of information that herald from different chapters in a book compressed into one sentence here, than you even have to make a reference note in the middle of the sentence. So, if you say there as a one-sentence-character-summary from a whole book then this one sentence may need to be adressed (what kind of "character summary do you mean anyway? Can I get an example/link?). This happens. It is sometimes agonising, but it is the lesser of two evils as we learned the hard way on the team. --Pack_master, Großinquisitor des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2015 (MST)
A lede is a introductory summary that begins an article. They are rarely cited and contain generalized information. I have made contact with Larry Vela about various issues on and off wiki. I have a lot of experience with Wikis and I am an academic. There are example links provided already at Larry's talk page [1]. Midnight Sun (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2015 (MST)
Ah, that. No, the opening sentence of an article normally isn't referenced, you are correct there. Of course we must be cautious - bigger articles normally get such an introductionary lede, where very small articles with only few informations sometimes only have one or two sentences, where those of course must be referenced (see the linked Volquan Sark - only two sentences overall, needs proper citation. In this case mostly correct, just missing the chapter(s). Knights-Errant on the other hand of course does not need citation in the opening sentence. The "Molech" paragraph on the other hand is very well done, quite exemplary).
I hope that settles it, or have I missed something else? --Pack_master, Großinquisitor des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2015 (MST)
So I was right about the Volquan Sark? I will not be blocked for that? Because If I would made this article - I'd added a chapter, where Volquan Sark was mentioned first time. As I understand - the matter is to make it easier for the reader to found, where is exactly in the Novel said about this or that character, and where is said about some details. So, I don't "doing this at a mass level and crowding the Lexicanum with unnecessary citations" and "does not seem to produce much else", as said Midnight Sun? Because I do a lot of things, beginning with the right page citation (if I have appropriate Codex and Novel/Novella), adding small details that could be missed by other Lexicanum Adepts, adding photo of the miniatures and ending with finalizing some details of the Codexes (as, for example, 7 ed Codex Tau), complementing the Harriticus great work; etc. So it was very hurt for me to get such a characteristic from Midnight Sun. I just hope that we can forgot about this skirmish and continue to work for the Lexicanum. Darkelf77 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2015 (GMT+2)
It wasn't about blocking but you making mass edits to add citation templates without looking. When an article is a handful of sentences about a character found in a book, then it doesn't even need citations because those sentences would form the lede of an article. In particular, the Mark of the Beast characters aren't fully fleshed out--the series will probably have multiple books regarding them, and those pages are Stubs. Midnight Sun (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2015 (MST)
But Pack master just said that Volquan Sark must be cited with Chapter. Or not? Now I am confused. Darkelf77 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2015 (GMT+2)
For example as I have just done by opening the Novel and found the appropriate Chapter, see - Volquan Sark. Is it was so hard? Darkelf77 (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2015 (GMT+2)
Yes, it MUST be cited with chapter.
When an article is a handful of sentences about a character found in a book, then it doesn't even need citations because those sentences would form the lede of an article. -> if these handful sentences are the whole of the article, then yes, they must be properly cited. An article with only 2 sentences normally doesn't need a lede. An articles with severeal paragraphs can have a lede.
Normally, a lede is just a sentence like "Brother XY is a Space Marine of chapter Z." -> lede, no need for citation if the following paragraphs clear everything up. But if it is "Brother XY is a Space Marine of chapter Z. He fought in the battle for A." and that is all, it has to be cited completely. If later books flesh out his story, THEN it can be reworked with a lede, but until then, there has to be pinpoint citation. --Pack_master, Großinquisitor des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2015 (MST)
A whole article can be just a lede. The reason why the citations exist is to pinpoint where information is. The lede summaries saying x is a y do not even necessary qualify for any citation. Saying they must be in there for temporary reasons is not what the rules say and is just over legalism without reason. If he wants to have a problem with it, mark it as a stub and move on or flesh out an article. But adding "citation needed" is not how the policy is written and is contrary to actually writing an encyclopedia. Midnight Sun (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2015 (MST)
Putting it this way, if someone were to require the citation that Fulgrim is a Primarch, they are most likely not acting in the best interest of this place. If they put a citation template when the novel Fulgrim is used as a citation because it didn't specify a chapter, when every chapter says it, then they should probably be shown the door. That isn't how the policy is written and it is disruptive. Midnight Sun (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (MST)
Then, simply, the policy has to be rewritten because that it is how we intended it. RAW and RAI mean anything to you? A novel citation has to include the chapter. Period. A complete article cannot be a lede/lead - or rather per the correct meaning here - an Opening Sentence. An Opening Sentence cannot stand alone, per definition.
No, Fulgrim being a Primarch does not need a citation, because it is the lead to a big article. Normally, single sentences aren't cited, but paragraphs as a whole are. Single sentences are only cited when several facts that belong together are from different sources (and different chapters in a book are counted as different sources by us). --Pack_master, Großinquisitor des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2015 (MST)
I doubt that is what is intended, which is why I contacted the owner Larry Vela. He did not intend to run this Wiki into the ground because people want to template for the sake of templating while making silly claims about the policy that is not true. If Fulgrim's article was only him being a Primarch because it wasn't filled out, it wouldn't require a citation then. It is that simple. I have emailed him about this because it is clear that you crossed the line beyond reason. Midnight Sun (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2015 (MST)
I have to correct another error: "different chapters in a book are counted as different sources by us" No. Looking back at the history, the discussion, and changes, chapters are only used because various editions of books have different page numbers. They are not "different sources" but are used to isolate particular bits of information in the best way that can be done. If something crosses over multiple chapters, those two chapters are still one source because the page numbers before were not bound within the chapters. Midnight Sun (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2015 (MST)

One of our problems here is that english is not my first language, though I think my grasp of it is quite decent - so it seems I can't properly communicate my intentions well enough. Shit happens. Another thing is that BoLS took over the Lex quite recently, but we, the staff, are here a lot longer, sometimes from the beginning, and we made those rules a long time ago. Larry hasn't intervened once on our work yet, apart from the colour-stuff a few months ago, because he didn't want to change anything on how the Lex works. Maybe this will change in the future.
You're right on one thing: different from Codex books we cite novels with chapters, not pages, because of different page numbers in reprints. That was a rule I made, funnily. Every time a novel is used as reference, it has to include the chapter that information appeared in the first time.
And I'm very sorry..... but if an article would be just "Fulgrim is the Pricmarch of the EC." and done, and this isn't cited, the article has to be removed. Informations, edits, and anything that is added to the Lexicanum without the proper reference has to be removed, that is our policy for quite a while now. If this is not enforced here in the english Lex, then we need new staff here. --Pack_master, Großinquisitor des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2015 (MST)

I have had accounts here since 2007. I left twice, once because of fan related information filling the pages and the other because of admin from the German side trying to use the site to push a political attack on GW as a whole. I can tell Larry which accounts those were if he wants. I was the one who introduced sourcing as a standard to combat the fancruft from being intermixed. I was the one who pushed for the sourcing standards. No, we would not delete a one line page because they are for basic information and serve as filler. Otherwise, we would wipe out every stub. The chapters are there to help pinpoint information that would be difficult to find and in situations it might need to be double checked--let's say you wanted to claim that Erebus was doing an activity around the time of Angron's ascension. The book Betrayer does not have Erebus in most of it, so people might not realize he is there at all. Thus, you would put the chapter or -chapters- that he appears in to say he was there. If you are performing a one line summation of the whole of Betrayer for Angron's page, you would not need to put 16 citation with individual chapters listed--the whole book could be cited without chapters because that one sentence summarizes the whole book. Midnight Sun (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2015 (MST)
"You're right on one thing: different from Codex books we cite novels with chapters, not pages, because of different page numbers in reprints." That rule was also introduced because novels also started to get published as ebooks where the pagenumbers depend on the device (if they are displayed at all); codices and rulebooks back then did not exist as ebooks and therefore did not pose a problem. We did however also allow people to cite the paper versions of novels if the edition (print run year) was specified. This was done is order to not exclude non-ebook-sourcers.
"but if an article would be just "Fulgrim is the Pricmarch of the EC." and done, and this isn't cited, the article has to be removed. Informations, edits, and anything that is added to the Lexicanum without the proper reference has to be removed". This is also correct. Even if it is just supposed to be a summary. If there is neither a "proper footnote" to an external (= official) source nor an internal footnote jumping to the paragraph of the article with the proper citations (on the same page, NOT to another article page), then yes, it HAS to be removed. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2015 (MST)


It's redundant. All the information given there is in the Chapter Timeline above it.--Harriticus (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2016 (MST)

  • OK, you right. There is no information about the Bifrost Uprising though, but I will add it. I thought that the systematization of the information about Wars through the all Chapters must be the same, but let it be.--Darkelf77 (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2016 (MST)

Blood Angels

Re [2] -- Recommended Paint - Blood Angels. :) Midnight Sun (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2016 (MDT)

I mean on the cover of the box game - there it is - they are Blood Angels... How do you think? May be Blood Angels nevertheless? However, I do not insist.Darkelf77 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2016 (MDT)
I'm just providing more evidence. The miniature also has the blood angel tear drop on the shoulder. Midnight Sun (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2016 (MDT)
Ah, OK. Sorry. I did not understand at first. It is a hard day and I just little be slowpoke :( Thank you :)--Darkelf77 (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2016 (MDT)

Codex Space Marine 8th Edition

Do you have a copy? I need someone to check some things. Midnight Sun (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2017 (MDT)

Yes I have--Darkelf77 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2017 (MDT)
[3] There are spaces in the middle of lines suggesting that the text was copied and pasted from that codex. Can you check to see if it was? The page numbers given at the bottom are 20-21. Midnight Sun (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
Well. It is not strict word-by-word copy-past, some words were changed, though not very much. So in my opinion, it can be on Lexicanum. For better - this text of course may be altered if somebody will take the lead. As for me, English is not my language, so I doubtly can perfectly retell some information with other words (and it's pity).--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
Thanks for looking. I will put it on my to-do list. Midnight Sun (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2017 (MDT)
[4] Another with a gap (see the first paragraph). Can you check the against the Codex? Midnight Sun (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2017 (MDT)
No. The original text was re-worked and much better re-worked then in the previous example. The quote was copied (because it is a quote) that's why I think there is a gap.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2017 (MDT)
Okay, great. Midnight Sun (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (MDT)

Brother Damos, WD 256 UK

I suspect you failed to actually check your scan properly (we are probably working from the same one ^^ ); mine says issue 255 and gives a price in $US. Its cover art corresponds to WD256 UK and not WD 255 UK, and according to the general numbring system as indicated by this wiki, WD 255 US corresponds to WD 256 UK. I do not have access to a scan of WD255 UK, but according to the wiki WD255 ANZ corresponds to WD255 UK and I /do/ have a scan of that, and can cofirm that it contains no mentions of dreadnoughts whatsoever. Furthermore, checking the expected contents on the page White Dwarf 256 (UK) one can see that WD255 UK would not be expected to contain a section of stories about notable dreadnoughts. Basically your edit reason was inaccurate and I specifically delved looking for the information on Brother Damos for some time before realising the existing citation was incorrect. If you seriously dispute my correction I am happy to compare scans; email me at [email protected] rather than risk the content guidelines here at Lexicanum ^^

Thank you. Actually the UK and US WD may (or may not!) have different numbers in one and the same month (there is really a mess with this numbers). I will write a letter later on your mail to decide matter about this article properly :)--Darkelf77 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2018 (MDT)
I've sent you a letter, hope you will receive it. Also I want to add, that Content in article about WD255 UK probably from the Australian variant of WD255. Because in this content there is no info about Golden Demon 2000, that properly stated on the cover of the WD255 UK, but may be not included in Australian WD.--Darkelf77 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2018 (MDT)

Kraken edits

New here so not completely sure of the rules. The section I added to the Kraken article more or less summarizes the novel The Greater Good in its entirety, are more specific citations really needed there? --StarSword (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2018 (MDT)

Yes we need. Many people would like that we may rest satisfied with only mentioning of the Source as a whole. But it would be a Wikipedia Warhammer 40k way. In the Lexicanum, adepts needed more thoroughly working with the sources so that anyone could check every mentioned fact about the case of article and don't needed to re-read all the novel for it. Chapters is more appropriate in this case. Look for example the article Aldo Dercius where information added accordingly with the rules and sources Chapters or their substitutes (A Memory:) are indicated. Adept even added pages number though it's not obligatory because BL may re-release novel in a lot of books (including e-books) and their pages would vary widely. So, only Chapter numbers are sufficient. --Darkelf77 13 June 2018

Ishmal Sulnar

hey darkelf77 i noticed there is links for the page before i even made it. are you able to add the last name to the page for ishmal i had made. making it ishmal sulnar. thanks. Axelhanson

mess up

Hey Darkelf77 I noticed i had messed up the names on Ven'tal and Nar'van of the salamanders legion. I fixed most of my mistake myself but im not sure how to fix the pictures as they are named wrongly. for example Ven'tals image is on Nar'vans page but the pic is named ven'tal and vice versa. i think id be best to just delete the images on both pages from the wiki and i can upload them again but have the right names. Sorry for my mistake though ik it makes u guys job harder. Axelhanson

It's not a big problem. I changed them. Still, you not adding Category to your pictures (please add them), and page number of the Source-books (please add them). For Category - see how I added 'Category: Images (Salamanders)' to pictures of Ven'tal and Nar'van and (please) do the same with all your uploaded pictures (Legions appropriated)!---Darkelf77 (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2018 (MDT)

Hey again Darkelf77. I had notice when I was reading the Index Astartes volume 1 that under the section it talks about Paullian Blantar, that Iron Father Bannus Is called Brannus. I was wondering if Bannus on here is a mistake or if that is old lore or what you think?

I think that it is one of the scores of misspeling that GW made in old materials. It is may or may not be the same Bannus. All in your discretion as an adept.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2018 (MDT)

Darkelf77 the Iron Fists are loyal chapter and successors of the Iron Hands. I had only changed them back because Wotan was added under there page even before I created the article for him. I have looked around and the only Iron fist I know of in lore are the Iron fists successors of the Iron Hands. My believe was it was a mistype like the Bannus issue because of it being a older book.

Oh, if they are Iron Fists - then your link to Iron Fist was wrong, because it is the Iron Warriors warband. Those -s and without -s may be complicated things because they may mean opposite things in Warhammer 40k, as we see.--Darkelf77 (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2018 (MDT)

Darkelf77 but I did have them linked to the Iron Fists before your change.... as you can see now the way you changed it the link is broken and doen't take you to the page. thats why I changed it back the link dont take you to the page for the Iron fists now.

Yes, you was and is right. Now I see. Sorry about that. I really somehow thought that it was link to the 'Iron Fist' as Chaos SM's. I will change your variant back.--Darkelf77 (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2018 (MDT)

Darkelf77 all good man. we all make mistakes. I still need to get better at my edits myself as you have told me too. Your just doing your job making sure everything is correct.

Thanks.--Darkelf77 (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2018 (MDT)

Hey Darkelf77 idk if you can help or not but the source for the unsourced images on the techmarines page is one of the index astartes books. im unable to find them though as they are out of print. I know the images are canon though and in one of these books just not sure which one of the 4. The images are the servo arm one and the signum mk3 bionic head thing that i added a while back.

I'll try--Darkelf77 (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2018 (MST)

English Angel of Fire

Hi, apparently you have the English vesion of Angel of Fire (well, obviously). Can you may look up some names of Imperial Regiments that are listed in the hospital scene in chapter 18? I just have the German anthology and want to improve the Macharian Crusade article. --Modgamers (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2018 (MST)

Give me the name of the one of the Regiment there (in German), please.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2018 (MST)
Apparently there are two. They are all on the 4th page of the beginning of the chapter: Graue Legionen von Asterion (Grey Legions from Asterion?), kleine robust gebaute Männer von Trask in rot und schwarz der neunten Husaren (small, robust men from Trask in red and black of the 9th hussars?). --Modgamers (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2018 (MST)
They are Grey Legions of Asterion and short solid men from Trask in the red and black of the Ninth Hussars. But it is Chapter 15 in my book :)--Darkelf77 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2018 (MST)

Hey darkelf77 i noticed the link for duros on the brazen claws takes u to the planet not the brazen claws member. im not sure how to fix this so im letting you know thanks. AxelHanson

High Adept Harriticus already did it. I didn't even catch to do anything.--Darkelf77 (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2018 (MST)

Hey Darkelf77 i just noticed after i had made the page for Iron Father Khatir of the Iron Hands that his first names in the book too. its Hervel Khatir idk if you can help change the pages name with that update. AxelHanson

OK.--Darkelf77 (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2019 (MST)

Hey again darkelf77 I notice for the Skull of Brantor page for the Deathwatch its spell rite in the text of the page but the page is self it is spelt skull of bantor. I just double checked which one is correct in the book and Brantor is. Just letting you known so it can be corrected thanks. AxelHanson

Hey darkelf77 sorry I have been forgetting to add my categories. I defiantly will make sure I don't forget that anymore. I didnt realise I spaced adding them. AxelHanson

Yeah. I see - now you add images pretty good! :)--Darkelf77 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2019 (MDT)
Still no grasp of headings or signatures though... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2019 (MDT)

Admission of mistake and formal retraction

See Talk:Arkhan Confederates for details. Once again, my apologies. KazilDarkeye (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2019 (MDT)

It's OK, I understood.--Darkelf77 (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2019 (MDT)

Uploading new versions of files

Please always remember to a) adapt the sources to current formatting and citation standards and b) to delete the old version of the file in question, thanks. See here. Also at least this source seems not to be correct: click. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2019 (MDT)

Edited. Cured.--Darkelf77 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2019 (MDT)

Picture categories

Which pictures didn't I add categories too? The most recent stuff I've uploaded were magnus and horus pics and both of those have categories Harriticus (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

--Darkelf77 (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Harritucus, grrrr!--Darkelf77 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

So, just so I understand, you asked me to categorize the pics I forgot to, then removed them all less than 24h later? Orsay (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Next time respond faster. Or follow the rules from the beginning.--Darkelf77 (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm supposed to log on lexicanum every day without fault? And why did you target my pics in particular and left others that have been made in 2019 untouched? Orsay (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I deleted not only your pictures but at least another one user. Also some of other users (in one way or another) answered to the problem and added category or asked for postponing. If you want, I will now re-create all of your pictures. But, please add Category to them.--Darkelf77 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
That would be the best solution. Please put the images back into the articles as well if you canOrsay (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. I've found only two previously deleted your pictures. Both of them returned and links to them in articles returned back also. If that not all of deleted pictures of yours, please indicate.--Darkelf77 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WIP articles

Please check and if not really still being created, remove WIP template, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Completed--Darkelf77 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


Can you provide a source that shows Tauros (not Venators) have lascannons? I deleted the Hyperlink because i could not find the reference in the sources or independant research -- Hoyinny (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2020 (EST)

I thought you delete Lascannon by mistake. I've checked the source - you are right. Rolled back my edit.--Darkelf77 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

ethereal page

did you even read the sentence in question? it's literally the same thing repeated in the first few sentences of the history section, just rephrased. that requires no discussion if you actually have passable command of the english language.

Their power over the Tau is such that an Ethereal could tell a Tau to die and that Tau would do so quickly and gladly


The authority of Ethereal is so absolute that if he order a Tau to kill humself, that Tau would be met with instant and unquestioning obedience

aside from the spelling errors in the passage i removed, spot the difference. Eldar ears (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the actual issue at hand: moderate the tone somewhat @Eldar ears. Thanks. Less confrontative will get you much further than being abrasive. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you was right. Apologizing. Not need to be so rude, though... Anyone can be wrong.--Darkelf77 (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
good to know you folks can be reasonable. i'm only here very infrequently as i manage another site where that kind of talk is allowed (even more so if i was the one who screwed up) as long as the other guy has a point and things get done. Eldar ears (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Good. Just, please, next time in such cases use the term 'double'. There were people who destroyed whole paragraphs of articles with this 'redundant' cause - believing that some information don't needed in articles at all. That's why I was immediately triggered on that and was too rush to decide.--Darkelf77 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Haywire Rifle

Hey, got a confusing situation with the Haywire weapons. Most haywire weapons use an energy burst of electromagnetic or electrostatic particles to disable vehicles and tech. The Haywire rifle however, uses a charged slug to do more damage to machinery. Because of the different delivery method and effect i did not include it in the Haywire Weapons page and instead added it as a disambiguation. With the latest change its been added to Haywire Weapons. Does that mean the disambiguation page should be deleted?-- Hoyinny (talk) 18:30, 20 Novmember 2020 (EST)

Aaaah. Now I understand your point. This situation is really unusual. We can wait until the end of the day - may be someone from the experts write his opinion here. If not, tonight I will edit the article (most likely I will remove the link to 'See Also' and will delete the mention of the Rifle in the 'Haywire Weapons). You do not need to delete anything yet.--Darkelf77 (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for getting back to me, it is definitely a strange one --

Hoyinny (talk) 18:30, 20 Novmember 2020 (EST)