User talk:Genestealer

From Warhammer - The Old World - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search


Hy there, I have a question and a request. First of all I hope that you can follow my reasons for my many changes and agree with them. Generally speaking I tried to make the categories easier and simpler to use. Many of them were simply way too technical.

Second: Are you a syops? If yes, would you mind deleting/obliterating the specimens that I collected inside of Category:Deletion Requests? Please take a cautious look and if you don't agree with the deletion of something please tell me so (preferably inside of the Category page - easier to use).

You can answer "here". Aehren 01:41, 29 November 2008 (CET)

The minute one cannot be honest if polite in the internet is the day I throw my computer out of the window. I know that I'm not perfect. Still I believe that you agree with most of my changes and with most of the candidates for deletion (?). As for the three deletion candidates that you don't agree upon:

1)That's why I was flexible and created the Category:Vampires & Necromancers (Category:Vampire Counts is also a deletion candidate - this name (of the armybook) is simply way too restrictive). My reasoning is explained in the description of the new category.

2)Category:Minor Races, Ok you have a good point there and you have convinced me.

3)I honestly don't agree with keeping a whole Category:Elves. There is an article Elves which clearly explains the basics (and also includes the necessary Sea Elves-info - "Sea Elves" being a re-direct towards it). An article about something before the civil war, or something concerning all two (HE + DE) or even all three nations (HE + DE + WE) can appear in all two or even all three categories. Giving an example: eventually somebody will create an article about the Elven gods. This article can and should be included all in the three categories (as it concerns all three nations to an (more or less) equal degree) plus a deities-category. Aehren 03:34, 29 November 2008 (CET)

Hmm, I think that these regiments belong in the categories "Dogs of War" and in "Vampires and Necromancers". In final analysis they are a product of Necromancy. It's more or less the same with Treemen, they are a part of the army of the Wood Elves. Aehren 18:38, 29 November 2008 (CET)

How are you doing? I have been largely inactive these days because of the Christmas season (between Christmas and New Year). I have been thinking a bit about being an deal with delete answer questions. Well I guess someone really has to do it - so what the hell. Count me in. I'm going to talk with Inquisitor S about this but only in January. These days he seems to be quite active at the English 40K Wiki (the vandals are quite busy). I just hope that the barbarian/vandal hordes never truly notice and target this wiki. On the other hand common vandals are easier to deal with than assholes who try to push their own personal/political agenda but hide themselves behind a mask of politeness and "official neutrality" (the English Wikipedia is just full of those pricks these days). Aehren 23:39, 29 December 2008 (CET)

What I don't understand is if this vandalism is a personal revenge or something like that or a "profesional" who is paid to put publicity/links in wikis. Aehren 00:45, 10 January 2009 (CET)

Field promotion

Additional rights granted. Please note that for the next time it is best to contact me via e-mail as my access time is restricted. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum 13:24, 13 January 2009 (CET)


Congratulations upon your promotion. Now we can do some real damage (LOL).

I have been thinking a bit about creating a major article (called "Timeline" - the current "Category:Timeline" is probably better replaced by "Category:History" - a better name). Something very similar to History of the Wood Elves but even better, like the English 40K Lex has. We could slowly create a single comprehensive timeline of the whole Warhammer World by including the information from all the armybooks (armybooks first, later also dates and information from novels, etc).

It will need a couple of fields like "Date or Imperial year", "involved nations" (for example: "Dark Elves and Orcs & Goblins" for a battle between the two or only "Wood Elves" for something that only concerns the pointy-eared tree-hugers), "event" (a copy from the entry of the armybook), "notes and comments", "source" (absolutely mandatory, ANYTHING without a proper and verifiable source gets deleted ASAP, with EXTREME prejudice).

What do you think about it? Aehren 22:13, 14 January 2009 (CET)

I have been deleting some stuff. I hope you agree with these actions. In the case that you don't agree with something please tell me something asap.

I personally think that fewer categories is simply better. It's easier to see, to understand, and then to work with. IMHO too many categories simply creates too much confusion. Being honest: es ist ein deutsches Problemm - zu uebertechnisch zu sein. :)

Wikis (and this Lex) should IMHO rather be like a tree. It starts with main/central articles which are slowly expanded. New articles are created slowly and only when needed. Same with the categories. Aehren 00:40, 15 January 2009 (CET)

Real damage, eh? Do you know some good porn sites to link on...? :)
Looks like I'm sysop now in both english lexicani... - because of the spammers ;) But okay, I think two (active) sysops for every lex should be the minimum.

Timeline: there're different styles in the other lexicani:

Although the second variant looks slightly better, we surely get in trouble with it, as there're often several events in the same year (we don't have 40,000 of them here). Also the source on the right takes some space (mostly we have more to write than "Fourth Quadrant rebellion.").

Categories: we need more, when the lex grows. But you're right, the german fantasy lex has far too much and sometimes obscure ones (try to find the pump wagon here...).--Genestealer, Magus 22:07, 15 January 2009 (CET)

Portal boxes

Well to be very honest I'm very but very against the current portal boxes. These kind of boxes are useful to gather ppl who want to cooperate in improving articles about a particular subject (Wikiprojects - that's their use in Wikipedia).

But here? We are only two contributors, and way too few to need them at all. In the future perhaps, but now?

Even if they become useful in the future the correct place would be in the talkpages and not on the article pages at all. Currently they seem to be a kind of rival to the categories themselves (e.g.: 'Skaven portal' rivals the 'category:Skaven').

Another alternative is to later create larger boxes (say one for each nation) which show the major articles of a nation. Aehren 21:10, 16 January 2009 (CET)


The "Template:SpeedyDelete" is a good idea. However having a whole article to present each case, to agree (or not) upon it... We can also do all these things inside the Category page. Right inside of Category:Deletion Requests. And this way we can clearly see all the candidates. Aehren 21:16, 16 January 2009 (CET)

Original image


Can you upload the whole image? I remember it and IMHO it is one the finest images of the Beastmen ever made and more than worthy to include in an article. Aehren 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tell me something, do you have more of such images (original and somewhat older material of GW)? Where did you get them? Can you upload more? Aehren 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I vaguely remember a big image of the Horned Rat. He is rising from a throne and is enormous (he also has 4 horns, etc). Could you get that image? If you can't do it today, tomorrow (or whenever). Thanks. Aehren 22:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A minor Skaven God? Would it be OR or something to use his image in a "Vermin Lord" article? The image could be of a Vermin Lord and it is kind of a shame not to use it (perhaps with a little note explaining the issue).

I also vaguely remember an image of a beastman, carrying two axes and walking through a forest or something. I THINK that it's the same image inside of Warhammer Armies Chaos 4th edition, page 69. Could you you find and upload that image? Thanks in advance. Aehren 19:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hy, how about another image? A Skaven warlord holding a spear in one hand and a shield on the other? He is looking over his army. It appears inside of "Warhammer armies skaven (4th edition)" page 72. Thanks Aehren 05:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the one (it's a beautiful image, isn't it? We can include it in the article 'Skaven Warlord'). Thanks man (you do know that I will never be satisfied, don't you? :). Here and there the English lex has some better images than the German one. Aehren 23:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Found it in WD 137 during source researching along with Andy Chambers old skaven army. It's a nice image (I think Smith's best workings are those including Chaos - especially Nurgle) and should find it's way into an article.--Genestealer, Magus 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How about uploading another fine image? A group of Knights Panther passing in front of a very large castle/city/fortress. Painted by John Blanche, it appears in Warhammer Armies: The Empire (4th Edition) page 50. Aehren 23:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the book, but I have problems with my scanner anyway. I remember another nice picture of a solitary Knight Panther from Blanche in the WFRP book... wait... ah, yes.--Lexstealer, Magus 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


There is a problem. If you don't log in and take a look at "Skaven clan", "Pillar of Commandments", and "Council of Thirteen" you won't see the references at all. I don't know what's going on. Aehren 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Orcs & Goblins" or "Orcs and Goblins" ?

Hy there I see that you made a significant change. However I believe that the proper name is truly "Orcs & Goblins". At least this is the name used by the 3 armybooks. "&" is AFAIK simply a shortform of "and", at least this is what Wikipedia says. I'm simply very much in favour of returning to the previous name (Orcs & Goblins"). Another thing: what is "DPL" ?. Aehren 15:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I see the advantages, but notice that the DPL is supposed to serve the articles and categories and not the other way around. I also think that most of the functions of DPL can be fulfilled by the categories. I'm strongly in favour of using "Orcs & Goblins" (and "Vampires & Necromancers"). Aehren 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I understand and kind of agree with having good and short articles of older and outdated fluff. Having a good short description of the "evolution of (whatever) nation" can also be done. Perhaps the best place would be in the "Sources & notes section"?

A whole category "Greenskins" is IMHO unnecessary (as are any categories "Elves" or "Humans"). I think we should rather have good articles about these subjects giving the necessary information. See Elves, Human, and Greenskin (all three articles still need plenty of work). Aehren 00:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


I took a look at the categories Bretonnia and Skaven and I saw plenty of such articles (needing moves to the proper names). I'm trying to improve the article Bretonnia into something acceptable first. Then it could be used as a schema for the articles of other nations. Aehren 01:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Magnus and Skaven history articles

Hi. Could you have a look at the Magnus and [[Skaven history]] articles? I'm looking for a reason to delete them (aside from being rubbish) and was wondering if they came straight out of a book? They read like they do! Thanks--Jonru 09:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hum, I don't have the appropriate sources, but the narrative style is really florid. And the content of the history article is for the most part the history of Skavenblight and should therefore be part of the respective article.--Genestealer, Magus 21:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Portal boxes

What's your opinion on deleting all the portal boxes? Take a look on Dominic2 talkpage. Aehren 02:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Copiy of articles from Hammerwiki

Hy there. I have reverted two articles. As far I could judge it the user copied and pasted the articles from Hammerwiki. The effort was honest but I'm of the opinion that to simply copy whole article is dangerous. First it smacks of cheating, second there might be mistakes, third (but not last) they include stuff from the MORPG which might not even be part of the "official universe" (as written in the armybooks). I hope that you agree with these reasons. Aehren 21:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC) PS: What do you think of the new table inside the article Emperor? give me some feedback.

Stealing articles from other Wikies (without notes - the discussion page doesn't count) is against the GNU and, as they're not an official source, this approach is also against our guidelines.
The table is useful, but (feedback) the yellow is too flamboyant IMO. And the headings should use capitals.--Genestealer, Magus 23:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha Genestealer! thanks for the warm welcome. --Acidface 04:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Council of Thirteen & Grey Lord

Please take a look at the articles Council of Thirteen and Grey Lord. I honestly believe that they are fine articles. There is always room for improvement of course. The first is even better than its German counterpart. What's your honest opinion? Aehren 16:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Change or not to change - Merge or not to merge?

Hy, there. Perhaps you could give us your opinion upon the matter? Read: [[Talk:Treasures of the Necropolis]]. Aehren 09:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue with deleting articles instead changing them to fit the guidelines.

I used to enjoy this site, as it had info on nearly everything in Warhammer Fantasy. Now, though, due to laziness on the part of the editors, it has fallen into a mess of links to deleted pages. Deletion of pages should only be used when a page is all redundant info that is completely explained elsewhere, or can be merged with another page.

Otherwise, the page should be fixed to fit into the guidelines if it does not do so. Deleting the page is just a waste of information. If articles need to be rewritten, rewrite them. See the quote below:

12:43, 9 October 2010 Aehren (Talk | contribs) deleted "Grimgor Ironhide" (Copying from Wikipedia is dangerous. 1st) The material might contain mistakes. 2nd) It smacks like cheating. 3rd) Way better to write new articles -with all proper sources at the right places.)

Note the time this was deleted. It still hasn't been rewritten. So much for his 3rd point. This needs to be worked on, even if the first result is just a draft form of the article. --GundamMerc 08:28, 28 May 2011 (CEST)

LOL. Look everybody is entitled to his own opinion. However in my defense I must reply with the following:
  • 1st) I wrote several articles. I hope that you have read them and that you like them.
  • 2nd) AFAIK I never copied whole articles/paragraphs/sentences (I read the books, put them aside, write my stuff, check the info and always try to provide the proper sources afterwards).
  • 3rd) I deleted several poorly unsourced articles. I also rewrote more than a couple of them. I'm not obliged to rewrite any of them at all.
  • 4th) I based several deities-articles upon information found in Wikipedia. Afterwards another user pointed out that the info was simple bogus. Guess who felt himself humiliated? I'm giving my best to prevent a similar mistake.
  • 5th) I'm here to have fun and I like to write and improve articles (from time to time) for the enjoyment of the readers.
  • 6th) Everybody can quickly copy material from random web pages. However only those who care will write proper articles with proper sources.
  • 7th) Don't blame the guy who has to clean up. Blame the guy(s) who copied the article Grimgor Ironhide from Wikipedia in the first place.
  • 8th) I'm not mad at you, I don't plan to give up in the next couple of years and I will continue my work (unless banned). However I take breaks from time to time. Sometimes the breaks take whole weeks. This isn't my job and I'm not here to win popularity contests. Aehren 14:56, 29 May 2011 (CEST)
I also agree with the action that Aehren took in regards to Grimgor (being the person who flagged it up the first place). An article that is no good is just as important to write as an article that doesn't exist. However, it is much easier to see if an article doesn't exist because it appears in wanted pages and is red linked.
This Lexicanum has very few editors of quality, especially compared with the 40k lex. It is a shame that important pages like Grimgor Ironhide (the most destructive Orc Warlord ever) don't exist but in my opinion they are more likely to be written from scratch than rewritten from sub-standard. I am hoping to spend more time on this Lex in the near-future but I only have so much time and there are others things I have to be doing. Tdf4638 18:21, 29 May 2011 (CEST)
You flagged it and I decide to delete it. IMHO it's simply dangerous to start with unverified material. Better to sweep everything clean and then start anew. Please remember always that our studies, jobs, families and girlfriends (or boyfriends) are simply more important than the Lexicanum and should always come first. Aehren 19:37, 29 May 2011 (CEST)

Why not just keep the verified stuff then delete the stuff left over?--GundamMerc 02:19, 17 June 2011 (CEST)

Most articles are AFAIK original work but lack proper sources. If I delete all of them we will end up with perhaps 30 articles (probably more). If you find any copied material (copied as in cut and paste or word-for-word from the armybooks) give me a warning. I will verify the article and delete if warranted. Aehren 02:32, 17 June 2011 (CEST)

Main Page links

Could you please fix the links on the main page as they're currently not working, like I suggested on Talk:Main Page. Thanks--Ashendant (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2016 (MDT)

The link for Grand Alliance of Destruction, links to the Grand Alliance of Order. And thanks again.--Ashendant (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2016 (MDT)
Ah, thanks. I just corrected some wrong linking (the linking for images was used for the normal text links too) and missed this.--Gene, Magus (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2016 (MDT)
Could you add the icons I posted on the talk main page?--Ashendant (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2016 (MDT)