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

User talk:DetlefK

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

each of those pages was a broken redirect, I merely deleted the redirect as it went no where.--qryan 00:21, 31 October 2011 (CET)

Lead paragraphs

Hello. Just to check, you know lead paragraphs don't need cited as stringently as other entries, yeah? As they contain no infomation not found in the main body of the article and compress much into little, they're not normally cited to the same degree as every other paragraph in an article. Some exceptions to this exist of course, like dates and numbers, but it's a general rule. I've cited Ahriman up as you asked for it, but it's not something that is normally demanded of leads. Of course, the convention on lex may have changed since we adopted this method and I may have missed it. Thanks!--Mob 17:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of such a policy for entry summaries. But as I only come here for checking the edits of others, I have developed a more puritan approach. (Though I started out as a Radical in the german Lexicanum. ;-) )
From now on, I will check unsourced entry summaries towards infos from the main text. --DetlefK 20:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Thankyou, I appreciate your work in making sure edits are appropiate, it's a difficult role to take on.--Mob 23:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Doom Blaster.

Did you actually read the source before editing the article? Runes of Khorne don't protect this engine; instead, they unleash Perils of the Warp on the unfortunate psyker. There is a lot of difference between the two definitions. Other than that, your edits are fine. NTC3 12:52, 6 May 2011 (CEST)

"for they make the psyker pay" could mean all sorts of stuff. It was too vague and with too much gore, so I trimmed it down a little.
Remember: The Lexicanum is supposed to be a lexicon. --DetlefK 12:30, 8 May 2011 (CEST)

Ario Barzano

Thanks for the edit.


Thank you,

This isn't my first account on the site, I know how lexicantum works. Lexicantum has been using sources since at least 2007, the new counter intuitive, meticulous, source school is much more recent. Pages as late as Chaos Rising in 2010 use standard game sources. When I list the pages and the status quo as evidence he says "I haven't the time" to read it, new infomation always requires sources, when the sources are offered he becomes even more fickle, appealing to a policy that is not only non-existant but not exersised on any page to date.

My current consern is how someone sources FEATURES; storyline, scenes, manuals and endings aside (his fresh policy), how to you source something that is seen throughout?

- Secondat of Orange 05:24, 14 August 2011 (CEST)
Well, we could follow the new, stricter guidelines, if we had capacities to overhaul all those obsolete sources...
What do you mean by "feature"? Reading between the lines? How the Imperium is fascist and theocratic, although it's never called that way? How Chaos and the Satan of christian religion share many features? The inherent hypocrisy of the Imperial Truth (accidently laid out in Kyril Sindermanns lecture in "Horus Rising") that goes unmentioned by the authors?
I have no good idea how to deal with that in a clean way. Get good footnotes and hope that other users share your "opinion". --DetlefK 23:37, 21 August 2011 (CEST)

Space Wolves books

I saw you mention on the WH40K Space Marine game Talk page that the Space Wolves novels exist in an alternate timeline. Could you explain this a bit more to me? But please bear in mind that i have not read the books yet and dont want any major spoilers!--Ytokes 12:58, 15 September 2011 (CEST)

I have not read them. (Well, I read the first page of the first novel in a bookstore, but I was not a WH40k-Fan back then. :-) ) I just read somewhere in the Lex that the described incidents are considered non-canon. As Games Workshop doesn't meddle with novels, maybe Black Library or the author himself declared it non-canon. Better ask in the forum. --DetlefK 17:02, 15 September 2011 (CEST)
The only thing conflicting the canon with Space Wolves novels is the mythology around the spear of Russ, which is mythology in the 41st Millennium about things that are only now being clarified in the heresy series and having happening in the 31st millennium. A Black Library spokesman has previously said that all books are canon. Dan Abnett has since said that the writers have to run everything past Alan Merrett who keeps an eye on what is allowed out because of it being canon. Bear in mind several people dont believe that anything Dan Abnett writes is canon, which is particularly awkward as Games Workshop made some models and rules... Thornblood 20:35, 18 January 2012 (CET)

External Links.

Your sourcing for the 2 images was appreciated, but could you please read the Lexicanum: External Linking help page? Visually, the properly formatted link is superior to the bare URL. NTC3 09:54, 26 September 2011 (CEST)

I know how to place an external link. But because it wasn't in an article, I didn't bother to make it look nice. (I guess it's a matter of personal taste.) --DetlefK 14:54, 26 September 2011 (CEST)


How does the first kill feel? ;) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 13:18, 27 September 2011 (CEST)

Want ... more ... blood! --DetlefK 13:20, 27 September 2011 (CEST)
Plenty of bots nowadays to sate that, no worries ;) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 14:25, 27 September 2011 (CEST)
Khorne will kill me if I dare to show up with 888 spambot skulls... --DetlefK 20:01, 27 September 2011 (CEST)


Bitte schreib doch auch mal an Odysseus, ich krieg da keine Rückmeldung. Ich plädiere für manuelles Freischalten von Usern. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 10:43, 6 December 2011 (CET)

Judd Clausel

If you could un-delete said article I would be most appreciative. I apologise that I had not put the relevant categories on the article as this is one of the first articles I have written from scratch rather than just add to an existing article and categories are not mentioned in the "general article structure" article under help. I now know how to add categories to articles and understand that about five need to be added to this character. As for sources, I cited two. Clausel is one of the main characters in the first and a secondary character in the second. As in both sources he appears in every chapter I did not see it necessary to cite the chapter number. Again I apologise and can simply add the reference of his first appearance in each. He also appears in another novel (Nightbringer), but as I don't have it I did not write of his exploits in said novel or state it as a reference. Thornblood 20:35, 18 January 2012 (CET)

Sorry, I haven't been over here for a while. I would have restored the article and as far as I can tell from a quick glimpse, it looks okay now. --DetlefK 23:19, 1 February 2012 (CET)


What malfunction are you finding with the previous Loyal SM Template? It was changed because the version which you have reverted back to was causing problems - it is a complete mess on my screen, where as the French Lexi version that replaced it with worked perfectly, to my knowledge no one else has had issues with it in almost a month since it was implemented. Thelemur 23:29, 1 February 2012 (CET)

Never mind - I see it now, it wasn't like that yesterday!Thelemur 00:11, 2 February 2012 (CET)
Problem fixed. Thelemur 00:20, 2 February 2012 (CET)

General attitude

Not wanting to start a fight, but I don't appreciate your attitude in recent communication. You are an admin. I'm an admin too. I've created 3 new portals, re-organised every factions' vehicle and armoury lists, rebuilt the SM, CSM and renegade pages (lists and individual articles) and a whole lot more. I don't really appreciate being talked down to by someone who never writes an article of their own. I've also created a community page to get frequent users to work together on articles - I'm trying to make the Lexi an accessible and effective project - you just seem to want to be a mod and not contribute. I've also defended you when another user was offended by your unthinkingly nasty response. Perhaps you should re-think what it is you want to achieve here - if it is pissing off a far more productive contributor than yourself, you have succeeded; if it is making a better Lexi, then I think you need to re-evaluate your attittude. The Lemur 22:51, 31 May 2012 (CEST)

My apologies if I offended you. I don't know, which particular comment you are refering to, but it was not my intention to denigrate you or your work.
I do know that you did a shitload of stuff for the Lexicanum, but, to be honest, I had forgotten you are an admin. I myself did a shitload of stuff over by the german Lexicanum (my main occupation over there is dissecting novels) and I wish I had more time for my recent projects (pesky real-world stuff like work and housekeeping keeps meddling).
I simply do not have the time to look for content-changes in the english Lex. I skim over the Recent Changes and look for mistakes: I'm one of the few people who have the tools to right the wrongs. That's how I spend my time over here. I did not keep track of the major overhauls you just mentioned. To me it was just one big blurry "Thelemur good. Thelemur contribute much. If Thelemur check, no need to double-check."
And me being nasty? Explain the same rules over and over again to new users and tell me if you still have a sunny and forgiving disposition after the hundreth innocent newbie messes up. (And the answer is Yes: Overhauling the Help-pages is one of the projects I don't have enough time for.) I correct, I revert, I delete, I explain, but there's a point where you simply run out of friendliness. AND you have to draw a line somewhere if you want to enforce some discipline.
I did not realize, I offended some users with unfriendly responses. Next time, instead of defending me, refer them to me. --DetlefK 23:47, 31 May 2012 (CEST)
First - I know I'm being a bit oversensitive, and a bit of a dick. I'm in the same boat as you - I dont have as much time as I'd like to spend on the Lexi atm. But that makes it more frustrating for me that, when i do spend some time here, I'm suddenly getting treated as a newb. I know I've prob taken it a bit too personally and my response to you is prob going a bit far. But I genuinely feel like I am the ONLY person on the English wiki who is trying to form some form of community attitude - I want to try and get users to talk to each other. Since I formed the "Kill Team", which was an attempt to get the regular users to communicate together for the benefit of the project as a whole, not once has a mod or an admin ever given a single word of support to us - I've never had a message from the powers-that-be to give advice or support - It just seems like the other admins are only interested in bureaucratic issues and are utterly un intersetsd in any practical measures to make the Lexi the best we can. I love this site and I want to make it the best I can; Harriticis, Ashendant, Proteus and others do aswell - I just wish we could get some support. That aside - I know I dont need to have a go at you, I apologise for that. But try and help us, not hinder us. This is a wiki, the whole point is to be a community. The Lemur 00:29, 1 June 2012 (CEST)
There is a reason why the english Lexicanum was under-developed and ist still somewhat neglected nowadays: All 3 bureaucrats are germans and of the 6 admins, 4 (inlcuding me) are germans, 1 is no longer active and the last one, that's you. (for a list see Special:ListGroupRights) In the german Lex, me and Ova are the most active admins concerning the adding of new content. The rest has retired to bureaucratic stuff and shows up rarely.
Your Kill-Team is a great idea, but I as I said above: I trusted you to much to bother. If you need help, advice, ideas or technical aid, just ask. (I suffered a fanwiki-burnout-syndrome some years ago. That's why I left amd switched to the Lexicanum. That's why I have my own schedule now. And having my own schedule is the reason why I wouldn't be useful adding content as part of a team.)
It was not my intention to be some kind of drag on the enthusiasm over here. I will be more careful with my comments from now on. --DetlefK 11:01, 1 June 2012 (CEST)

Redirect Malal to Malice ?

As the Malal page has been deleted, I suppose it could be a good idea to make it redirect to Malice, to avoid new creations of this page. -- Skefrep

Not as such, as there is no Malal in 40K lore. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 11:26, 16 July 2012 (CEST)


Hi there are currently no page numbers in the Epub version of Farsight Enclaves, at least on my reader only chapter titles. There wont be page numbers to put up until a hard copy is published I suspect. ( unless the mobie or IOS versions have them)) User:Joedylan

Then use the chapter-numbers. --DetlefK 16:01, 22 July 2013 (CEST)


There's already a cite request at the bottom of the page, that's the newer format for that. --- Harriticus

Aqualis Ignis

I updated the footnote of the Aqualis Ignis. Its mentioned in Dark Crusade that the Titan was given to the forces of Nurgle, specifically in the archive entry for the Demes Northlands, during the events of Mechanicum.--TheNuclearSoldier (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2017 (MDT)

Byzant Janizars

Removed an old text portion that seemed a tad too speculative (at least with the given information). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)