User talk:Inquisitor S.
- 1 You have to read this
- 2 Steel Confessors
- 3 TV Series
- 4 Wolfspear
- 5 Perpetuals/ Emperor/ Star Child
- 6 Differences between the Lexicanum and the Warhammer 40,000 Wikia
- 7 The exegetic perspective
- 8 Black Library links
- 9 Erda
- 10 Harriticus
- 11 To users whose user (talk) pages have recently been deleted
- 12 Possible Addition to Help Project
- 13 Garviel Loken
- 14 File:Cyber-Altered Task unit.JPG
- 15 Iron Warriors
You have to read this
Hy there, it has been a while. My vacations are over and I returned to my edits at the Fantasy Lex. I found this site by pure chance and IMHO you have to read it .
The description about you is accurate and funny: The Grand High Marshall of Punishment himself, Inquisitor S., is the most notorious admin on the english Lexicanum. He is equally reviled and feared for his zealous crusade against any users who dare to break the law. Years of bitter warfare with marauding bands of spammers, trolls, and those who are too stupid to actually read the guidelines, have turned his heart into stone. His patience is short and he shoots first and does not ask questions later.
Remember brother Inquisitor: To be just, our law must be cruel. Aehren 04:04, 13 January 2012 (CET)
- I am aware of that. And I did not write it myself ;) --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 10:50, 13 January 2012 (CET)
- I did. The text before that did not match reality by far. --DetlefK 12:07, 13 January 2012 (CET)
- Anyone looked at where the trolling link at the bottom of the page directs to? Hint: Its a good one!--Ytokes 22:40, 13 January 2012 (CET)
I agree with your overall move of the claims-to-be-the-pamphlet info to the talk page, but why remove the information cited from the pamphlet which was already on the page? PDV (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2019 (MDT)
- I do not understand what you mean, please reformulate. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2019 (MDT)
- I thought I had made that clear, but now I see that maybe I will have to formulate it more explicitly. Effectively the situation is as follows: We have nothing but the word of a rather obscure, completely unofficial webpage that the content they have is a copy of a pamphlet that nobody of us has actually ever seen or can check. So it is hearsay and we can not accept hearsay as a source. Even displaying that info on the talk page and making the reader aware he can find it there is already stretching our rules to the limit. When (if!) somebody turns up an actual copy of said pamphlet or an official source with the same content, then (and only then!) can we include that info in the article. Clearer now? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (MDT)
- I don't agree. The information that was already there was cited; not being able to check the cited source ourselves does not violate policy. Your assumption that the information already there was hearsay is assumption, not fact; for all you know the person who put it there had a physical copy of the pamphlet in their hand while editing the page. PDV (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2019 (MDT)
- So if I say that in 2010 I was in England and there was an official Games-Workshop game, where was Chapter named the Humpy-Dumpy Marines who fought with the Burp Marines of Nurgle (I swear you! though I have no booklet of this battle) we must add this information to Lexicanum? Wrong. No approving of information - no article adding in Lexicanum.--Darkelf77 (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2019 (MDT)
- If you can find widespread information verifying that the specific GW game occurred and archived records for it which match a number of details with your description, and a number of people say "Yeah, that sounds like what I remember" and none say "Nah I was there at the time, and you're full of crap", and you have some of the text available and it matches the house style of the writers from that period? Then sure, I guess. PDV (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2019 (MDT)
- The removed information violated policy because a) it did not in fact cite the pamphlet as the source but the Angelfire website. So the Angelfire page is definitely not a valid source because it is not an official webpage. And b): The pamphlet itself is a valid source but since we are aware of the apparent crazy rarity of it and because a simple google search will reveal to you that people over the years fruitlessly tried to to get scans or photos of it we have decided that anybody claiming to actually possess it will have to prove it. That is the long explanation. Wether you do agree or not with this reasoning is of course up to you. From a practical point of view however it is me who has to decide how to handle things (i.e. I decided, it is settled until further developments). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2019 (MDT)
- No it didn't. It cited the pamphlet. I know because I was the one who added any reference to the Angelfire page to the wiki at all, here. Your premises are incorrect. Furthermore, requiring a higher standard than frigging Wikipedian Deletionists do is... unreal. Even those delete-happy sticklers for policy don't require that every source be trackable. No one disputes that the pamphlet existed and had some elements in common with the Angelfire page. PDV (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2019 (MDT)
- So just to make the decision absolutely fire and waterproof I discussed the policy with BigRed. I quote him: "[...]challenge the researcher to spend the time, and do the digging to find the sources and link to them, or scan the cover of a physical copy for evidence[...]". I also quote: "[...]there must be a source somewhere that can be either physically located, or linked to. If no one can find any source for the material - then it is by definition - hearsay.[...]". So until somebody brings us a copy of said flyer the questionable info stays out. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2019 (MDT)
User:Waiting123456 I am sorry for talking too much about what you said. I have not been on here in weeks.
White Scars Pic
I would like to move the image of the White Scars marine that was previously in the top part of the White Scars article back to where it was. You moved it to the bottom when you added more information about him. I think it's good to have an overview of what the Legion looked like in its pre-primarch days. Thanks! Harriticus (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2019 (MDT)
- I do not have a general objection but the new caption should make it quite clear that that colour scheme is not representative but specific to this kind of infiltrator troops. See also my note on the talk page of Space Marine Legion. It just gives a very wrong impression and therefore must be handled accordingly. And when/ if a more typical Great Crusade pic turns up that has to go there (in the White Scars article). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2019 (MDT)
A lot of the information you’re deleting is properly cited and I can confirm in the cases of Marneus Calgar, Arven Rauth, and Ulrach Brathan it was also accurate Harriticus (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2019 (MDT)
- As far as I am concerned and already having been occupied weeks with just cleaning up (and still probably weeks ahead of me) behind that illiterate, banned idiot everything he ever wrote is dubious. In some cases he plainly made up info that was nowhere to be found in the cited sources, in other cases he left out the most elementary info but did include long paragraphs about completely irrelevant details. Add to that an atrocious writing style. I am not longer going to waste any of my time trying to salvage stuff there (apart from very basic operations in isolated cases). Frankly it would take me less time to just create an article from scratch than repairing the "work" of our special friend who likes to phone in with threats (see BoLS).
- If you feel like signing off for specific pieces of info he included (and fixing potential problems) you can feel absolutely free to copy/paste that info from history section (where everything remains available) and re-insert them under your name. And your responsability, obviously ;) No problem or objection with that from my side. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (MDT)
- I'll revert the Calgar, Rauth, and Brathan as I've already reviewed those and they're accurate. I've reviewed the sources and they're accurate as far as I can see. I'll check other works of his over time and see if they're accurate as well. I agree with Axelhansons ban especially in light of the phone threats but if the material is accurate and cited I don't think it matters who makes it. Harriticus (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2019 (MDT)
- As I said: no problem. There are some articles which I also checked in depth with the original source and massively modified. Those I will leave, because I did verify/ modify the content. if you proceed accordingly I do not see a problem. But unverified that stuff cannot stay. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2019 (MDT)
Iron Warriors Citation's
I noticed you put in a lot of citation notices on the Iron Warriors article for things such as lists of battles and characters. I'm not sure how necessary they are, given the linked articles themselves are cited. I can understand citing something listed if it doesn't have its own article but otherwise I think this just produces visual distractions for readers without providing much necessary information. I think the policy of needing to provide additional citations for linked articles on lists needs to be reexamined. Harriticus (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2019 (MDT)
Admission of mistake and formal retraction
- No harm done and nothing to worry about. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2019 (MDT)
Thanks for the help lately. By the way, I've added information on two new official (i.e. non-fanmade) TV series being made on Warhammer 40,000 here and here. Given that there's never been this stuff on Lexicanum before due to lack of TV series in the past though thought I'd run it by you. Thanks Harriticus (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2019 (MDT)
- Just remarking ans sometimes fixing what I see ;) Re: TV series. Apart from the fact that I am sceptical that they will actually ever see the light of day I agree that the format should be considered. For Angels of Death from quickly looking at it I must say that the three character images basically look the same somehow, I don't know if for an overview article this is really... constructive? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2019 (MDT)
- I feel it's the duty of the lexicanum to document 40k material be it lore or the media (ie. books, video games, also tv/movies). In the past we've added stuff like the Ultramarines Movie and short films so thought it was appropriate this time around. There isn't much info to go on at this moment though, but I do think these will actually be made unlike the skew of youtube projects. Harriticus (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2019 (MDT)
Here is the Tweet Guy Haley saying he'd use that color scheme in the official canon for the Wolfspear
- The Colour scheme. That does not mean that the self-fabricated images of the heraldry are now official. That is - if at all - considerably more disputable than "semi-official". Plus Guy Haley is also subject to GW approval, he cannot decide things on his own. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2019 (MDT)
- Fair point. Plus one should not forget that the changes to the article were made by what seems to be a member of that group and (maybe) co-creator of the artwork, so I could at least see a potential conflict of interest. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2019 (MDT)
- Absolutely justified, these things should be talked about. It also underlines the need for a policy on how to handle private homepages and social media feeds of GW employees and contributors *thumbsup* I will make a note in the Help discussion about it. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2019 (MDT)
Perpetuals/ Emperor/ Star Child
Hello, Inquisitor S., would you read my comment on the discussion page for the Perpetuals? I show a quote from The Unremembered Empire that shows Damon Prytanis saying he is a natural Perpetual. And to add something for the Star Child, below is a link of a Daemon saying the Emperor would integrate the Chaos Gods into a pure warp entity if he was freed from his materium body.
- I will look into it when I have time. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2019 (MDT)
User:Waiting123456 You can ask Harriticus to update it. 05:02 PM, Septermber 27
- That is not how the Lexicanum works. Plus you already asked him to, so why should I do so again, he can distribute his work time as he wishes to, there is no requirement to take on user requests, the Lexicanum is not "write-on-demand". --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2019 (MDT)
10:16 AM, September 28
Differences between the Lexicanum and the Warhammer 40,000 Wikia
The exegetic perspective
Can I discuss the source books in an exegetic manner? A lot of the lore is contradictory, so I want to write things like "In this older book, it says this, but in more recent books, it says that". WH40K is fiction, and fiction has a habit of being contradictory, especially when it's a large body of work written by many writers and the editing isn't all that tight. Kurzon (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll do something in the way I have in mind, I'll show it to you as an example, and then you tell me whether I should keep going. Is that OK?
- I do not think such a template exists. What is it normally used for? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Would we be able to work on fixing the links that let us purchase books at the Black Library? The Lexicanum pages for books show links that let us purchase the books. A few of the links do not work. Waiting123456
- 1.) Please insert subheadings when starting a new topic, thx.
- 2.) I do not understand. If there are non-working links and there are links in existence with the same content (=because theyare used as sources) just replace them. But keep also in mind that the purpose of the Lexicanum is not exactly to drum up business for the Black Library or anybody else. So keeping track or not if all purchase links work or not is not our task. Keeping track of links used as sources on the other hand is. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Have you heard about the new Perpetual that is coming to Dan Abnett's first Siege of Terra book? Its a female Perpetual named Erda. There is going to revelations about the Perpetuals.
Erda was in the Dramatis Personae for 'Saturnine'.
She was shocked the Emperor did not come after her when most of the Perpetuals stopped serving him.
We might have to make a page for Erda when we have gotten to read Saturnine.
Note that I said we should only make a page for Erda when we have gotten to read Saturnine. I hope its alright.
Waiting123456 March 23rd, 2020, 1:59
- Really no idea what you are trying to tell me. And what did I say about not simply throwing stuff at my talk page without proper subheadings? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright. I am sorry.
Waiting123456 March 23rd, 2020, 12:54
Do you know where Harriticus is? He was here a month ago. Is he busy? Waiting123456 March 25th, 2020, 4:52
- People don't have to report to me when they go where and do what, this is not a company and contributors are volunteers, not employees. Just look at his activity log. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I just wanted to know. That is all. Waiting123456 March 26, 2020, 11:42
To users whose user (talk) pages have recently been deleted
I am in the process of cleaning up the user database and am deleting the content from thousands of unused or inactive (for years) accounts (note: Lexicanum webspace is reserved for active contributors). The cut-off date is the 31 December 2017, if you have been active after this date and your page was emptied this was probably by mistake. You can contact me here or on Discord to resolve the issue, thanks and sorry for any incoveniences caused. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Possible Addition to Help Project
Hello. I found this page which you may wish to add to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Help (I can't, I assume because I don't have high enough permission to edit a project page). Thanks. KazilDarkeye (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, I will make a note of it. As it was not categorized in the Help section I was completely unaware of its existence. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I responded to your inquiry about the Garvil Loken page. I'm unsure if it was done in the wron way, place. (19:21, 11 May 2020 Lord Lorne Walkier)
- Yes, you answer queries on the page where the issue was raised.
- Please always sign talk/discussion contributions with your automated signature (--~~~~)
- When starting a new topic on a discussion page please always do so under a new subheading.
- --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
File:Cyber-Altered Task unit.JPG
You cannot use unofficial/fan-made images, sorry. Also do note (as mentioned before here) that ALL changes must be sourced, thanks. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any recommendations for accessing a picture then? Games Workshop did have a model, but since they've pulled the product there's no real offical representations left that I can find, even using internet archive. Also could you specify further what you mean by "ALL changes must be sourced"?. Are you referring to summarising each change i make when I edit a page (I often save changes then realise I forgot something, sorry), or are you referring to placing a citation at the end of each new bit of information? Because I'm pretty sure i did the latter. -- User:Hoyinny (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2020 (EST)
- No, the source numbers are not the same anymore as before. Just let me sort this out tomorrow, it will be less work for everybody like this if I add in the new sources you diligently searched and provided instead of you retroactively trying to re-fix my improvements of different issues. But for the future please keep in mind that when I "quarantine" parts of an article I also do general clean-up and fixing of other problems, therefore reverting cannot ever work. The problematic sections must be reinserted manually and the new/ old sources included in a logical and better way than before, thanks for understanding. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)