User talk:Shas'o'Kais

Welcome
Hi, welcome to Warhammer 40k! Thanks for your edit to the User:Shas'o'Kais page.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Montonius (Talk) 08:09, August 25, 2011

Suggestions
I will be carrying out each of your suggestions, thank you for the recommendations. The normal variant picture of theTiger Shark on the A-X-10 page is there for a reason, to show the difference between the variants which is not obvious without it, as the picture captions indicate. I will also be using the normal variant picture on the new standard variant Tiger Shark page which I will produce at some point in the future when the Wiki focuses its energies on the Tau. We go race by race at this stage of the Wiki's evolution and we are not focused on producing Tau material right now, save for a page here or there as they come up or as Tau-friendly editors like yourself choose to contribute. Thanks. Montonius 07:44, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Edits
I apologise for missing the small change to the page numbers. Some of your small changes can make certain sentences ungrammatical and must sometimes be reverted. I will be sure to be more careful about keeping any and all the improvements you make. Montonius (talk) 07:40, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Shas&#39;o&#39;Kais (talk) 08:09, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Great Job on the XV8
Wonderful job on the XV8 Battlesuit page, Shas'o. That is the way to do a vehicle page! My only suggestion would be to do a quick check of the Lexicanum's page on the same subject to see if any information or sources they have were missed, but you did such an excellent job on the research I would be surprised. But you should check for every page you do just in case. Kudos to you! Keep it up. Montonius (talk) 04:58, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I did check the Lexicanum page earlier and the sources were the same as the old page (inadequate in other words). I would add more information from the older White Dwarfs too but I don't have access to them. Shas&#39;o&#39;Kais (talk) 07:48, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

OK, cool. Yeah, I'm sorry about the White Dwarfs, I know you've been eager for them, but Algrim's computer died and he lost his entire library. He is trying to reconstitute it at the moment but it may be a while before he can add any new material or do any research. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything more about it. Montonius (talk) 05:10, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing. Under this talk system, you have to reply to the Talk page of the person who sent you the message. it's not like the other system; if you just reply here to a message I send, I won't know you have replied unless you put the message on my page. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 05:11, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry, we'll be staying with this Talk System. Montonius (talk) 00:29, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Artillery
Shas'o, remember, you can create a new category that broad, but you are now responsible for making sure every page created on the wiki or created in the future is added to it. Generally, before you create a new category you really need to ask for an Admin's opinion to avoid a potential problem or wasted work. In this case, you seem to have added most or all of the necessary pages, but since you have set the page's definition so broad, you now need to go through all the xenos races and add their artillery pieces to the category where they fit. It's a pain, but you seem to have made a good start, so go for it. Montonius (talk) 03:56, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

I actually added the pages to the category quite a while ago (several months), but just got round to making an actual page for it. I think I have added every page on the wiki that describes artillery, as the xenos races don't appear to have many. I really don't mind adding categories as they are one of the easiest edits to make. In fact, if there are any categories that you want me to create, I'll happily do it for you.

Shas&#39;o&#39;Kais (talk) 04:47, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

If I think of any, you'll be the first to know. If I see any other pages that belong to the Artillery category I'll add them or call them to your attention. Also, remember, I do not know that you have sent me a message if you reply to your own Talk page. Montonius (talk) 05:09, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

Aircraft
OK I'll check it, but I'm sure you did fine. That category (aircraft) has been used for a while and like a lot of them, we never bothered to fully create the page. It's a little irritating that once you create a category you have to essentially create it twice by then creating the page. I don't think we need an anti-aircraft category, though I am curious, how many pages do you think would be placed within it? Montonius (talk) 22:32, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. probably be better once we have all those pages in place. Montonius (talk) 05:23, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Honours and Moderations
Shas'o, in recent months I have been very impressed with both your continuing growth as a content creator and your willingess to step up and enforce our wiki's high quality standards even when you were not required to do so. As we have grown much more complementary in our work together, I feel that you have become the type of editor this wiki needs if it is to continue to grow and prosper, particularly as the time approaches to begin upgrading our xenos pages. I am in need of strong editors who understand our stringent formatting standards, are willing to hold others to them, and who have shown the increasing skill at research and page creation that you have displayed and have an interest in the Tau and other xenos, as you do.

With this in mind, I believe the time has come to offer you a staff position as a Moderator. This comes with certain basic requirements and formal duties, but more importantly, the promotion will give you the official imprimatur which will simply enhance what you have already been doing of your own free will. What led me to this decision, which you know I never make lightly, was how you treated that unregistered contributor who was just getting into the hobby and wanted help. I felt your actions there represented exactly the kind of leadership we should expect from a staff member of this wiki, and I know the anonymous editor greatly appreciated them. I know that I have been at times difficult to deal with from your perspective, but this is only because I expect all our editors to pursue the same extraordinary level of quality for which this wiki was created.

In recent months, you have risen firmly, determinedly and gracefully to meet those standards, and I have been very appreciative. So, if you would like the position and would like to join the team, let me know, and we will discuss your new duties and I will formally raise you and announce your selection to the other editors and users (a population, which, by the way, has grown rapidly. Just a day ago we hit a new record of individuals who came to the site over a 24-hour period -- 172,000! Your work is seen by a great many people in the community).

Montonius (talk) 04:59, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

You are raised to Moderator status. Please check the Administrators page in the Important Links for a full, formal list of your new duties. In reality, just keep doing what you are doing, though you now can feel free to boss around other, non-staff editors as much as you like -- you are on the staff, after all, and represent the Greater Good. LOL. We need you to check in with me approximately once a week to see if there is anything new you need to be aware of, and now I will start assigning you areas of the wiki to be responsible for. VforVendetta does vehicles, you already have Tau, so for now I'm also making you the Master of Categories. Congratulations, and good luck! Montonius (talk) 07:59, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations Tau Commander
Congradulations on becoming a moderator, you deserve it!

Vforvendetta1 (talk) 00:14, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Tau Commander
I actually don't know, which is the most commonly used form in the literature? Montonius (talk) 02:57, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's go with your suggestion. I do believe that is the primary way we have done it in the past, so let's continue. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 10:08, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Shas'o, if there is a Tau Lexicon name you need to include it in parentheses after the English name in the Notable Tau Commanders section. If there is not a Tau name, just use the English name, but you need both if they do exist in that list. The English name alone will be used if we create a separate page for that character. Nice work on the Tau Commander page by the way. Montonius (talk) 10:36, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Shas'o, the individual links are red-linked because I will create the page or redirect they link to. When I red link something it is usually done for a reason related to something that will be implemented in the future; please leave it in place.

As for the capitals, they present a problem. For consistency's sake, we have been using the Lexicanum nomenclature in this instance so that there is similar nomenclature across both Warhammer 40k wikis. That is the style they chose in most instances, and was the style used here on all preexisting pages dealing with the Tau. I want it maintained so that editors and readers who use both systems do not see differences over nomenclature. Their wiki came first and has set certain nomenclature standards that we adhere to, which is why in most cases we use their page names for similar topics. However, I have seen the titles used with both capitalisations and without them, though the capitalised forms were definitely in the minority. Can you determine first which is canonical, and second, where this information, if you can find it, can be found? I need to see the material and then make a decision. Depending on how I decide, I may need you to fix it across the wiki. Montonius (talk) 13:17, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

LOL, nevermind, I looked it up myself using the Codex. Games Workshop actually uses both forms throughout the Codex:Tau Empire and the Imperial Armour 3, which is why I have seen both used. They are both canonical based on the examples given, though the new Tau Codex may provide more guidance, we will see. For now, we will be using the lower case versions because it is the more prevalent and the one we have already used on all the other pages, and I also think it looks aesthetically better anyway. Montonius (talk) 13:36, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

OK, Shas'o, I made my decision. We're not using the capitalisation for the reasons I stated. I don't care if there is redundancy in pages; it's a networked wiki and people access the information from different points without necessarily going to a page with the other information; having it in two places is fine and we have always done that. When I red link something, it is done for a reason. In this case, I intend to create the page all the Fire Caste ranks will be linked to; if you create something similar, I will redirect each rank to that page. I want it done that way. Do not revert edits I make on a page again unless there is an obvious canonical mistake, like with the Tau fingers (which was funny).

You're a good editor Shas, and getting better all the time, and your pages are a real asset. But on this wiki, Admins are responsible for all final edits and all structural decisions. I make these decisions based on how the wiki will grow months in advance and everything is done with a reason. I think part of the problem is that you may not understand why we have that system. The single most important quality that makes this wiki better in the long-run than the Lexicanum and many others is what I call, for lack of a better word, consistency. Because one person makes all final edits, this wiki has a consistent style, quality (more or less) and tone across its entire, ever-growing breadth. Yes, this means subjectively that it is one person's preferences and style in a lot of places, but the benefits are legion and this is one reason our wiki does not look like the Lexicanum, with its hideous presentation, poor quality and random shifts in style and tone from page to page. I make no apology for our system and I think its benefits (and our rapidly growing popularity) speak for themselves.

However, I know you disagree with some of the decisions I make, particularly concerning your baby, the Tau pages; that is fine, we will simply have to agree to disagree, though I will always explain my reasoning to you, as above. I will accomodate some of the changes you made to the page where it it just one preference over another, like with the removal of the "Greater Good" clause from the intro paragraph. I like it; you don't, so I will let your version stand. But if we are going to work together closely as staff members this cannot happen every single time on every single page you do, and you have to accede to the final decisions I make in most instances, whether you entirely agree with them or not. So tell me, can you work under this structure? Otherwise this will just turn into a war of constant reversions, locked pages and other ridiculousness which I have no patience for and I am sure you don't either. Let's not do something that silly. I don't want to work that way. So let's decide now. Montonius (talk) 03:53, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

No problem, buddy, it's already forgotten. Let's just get this bitch rolling! Thanks for being so understanding, and I look forward to your next page. Montonius (talk) 00:41, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is the end of this discussion, forever. Both ways are canon, as I said. From now on, you do them with the capitals when using whole names, and without capitals when using the ranks alone. This violates the consistency principle which I told you about, but I'm so bloody sick of this topic that I will accept both ways from now on. That's it, no more capital talk. ;) Montonius (talk) 08:09, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Lex
Based on Alexa data, much less than 100,000, but there is no concrete number and that could be wrong. For obvious reasons, no one releases their exact page views. For instance, they have slightly more Facebook links than we do, but my read of the situation is that their group of loyalists is much more hardcore than ours. We tend to draw the newcomers, they keep the veterans. We are helped by having a higher Google rating for the main page and some of our content pages. Montonius (talk) 03:03, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Style & Formatting
Hey Shas, First of all congrats on the promotion! Welcome to the wonderful world of "never enough hours in the day" and "too much to do, and not time to do it!" If anyone deserves the accolades and the recognition for the continuous standards of excellent posting, editing, mentoring and enforcement of the wiki standards, its you! Great job! Now that I've gotten the formalities out of the way, I just wanted to chime in quickly in regards to the "passionate discussion" between you and Monti over certain views in regards to style and formatting.

I, of all people, can totally appreciate your position in regards to editing based on structural and aesthetic decisions, and I understand Monti has explained his position in regards to why he has asked you to stop reverting his edits based on these decisions. I have to support the Lead Admin on this one. We, as both wiki editors and mods, may not always agree with the choices or decisions of our illustrious leader, and heck, we may feel very strongly one way or the other in regards to his final edits. But ultimately, we have to abide by the will of our Lead Mod's final decision in regards to any edit or changes that he sees fit on enacting on any article. We may not always agree, but everyone is (of course) entitled to their own opinions, and of course you can air your grievances to Montonius at any time.

As you well know, he will always take into account your position, and should he disagree, will let you know in a timely manner, a detailed reason why he does things the way he does. So, in the interest of maintaining a harmonious environment here on the 40K Wiki, I ask of you, please respect Monti's final decisions. You may not agree with it, heck, you don't even have to like it. But ultimately, Monti has the final say, and as a Mod on this wiki we need to respect his decision and support him as fellow Moderators. Not trying to brow beat you or gang up on you. Just wanted to clear the air. Algrim Whitefang (talk)Algrim Whitefang

Capitals
Please read the Codex, the capitals are only used when the WHOLE title is NOT used, as in O'Shovas. Otherwise its Shas'o Shovas. The Codex shows these examples on the character names. Montonius (talk) 07:26, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Categories
That would be helpful, one for each First Founding Legion; then please place all the relvant pages within it, if they exist. Montonius (talk) 10:22, February 1, 2013 (UTC) Please do not add Space Marine Chapter or Legion categories to individuals or places which are not directly connected to that Chapter or Legion. For instance, Alessio Cortes and Rynn's World are NOT included in the Imperial Fists category, though their Chapter would be as a Successor Chapter of the Imperial Fists. Tzo Sahal, however, would be added to the Night Lords category as he is a member of that Legion. The categories are only to be used for direct members and for the confirmed (not suspected) Successor Chapters of that First Founding Legion. Anything else is way too broad and gives the reader the mistaken idea that those individuals are members of that Chapter. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 07:56, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

No, those categories are unnecessary, thank you. Montonius (talk) 11:08, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Stubs
No, I'm happy with the default template we inherited. I don't care how prominent it is, stubs are repaired only by us (admins, mods) and you use the wiki's automated stubs list to find them anyway, not the template on the page, if you were not aware of that. The template is only important because it auto-adds the page to the list. Montonius (talk) 15:16, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Forums
Shas'o, just to let you know, you should have the power to lock out threads that have become too long or have started to wander off topic. Do not be afraid to exercise this power if needed, though in general the forums are where we would like admins to take the lightest hand possible, unless they start throwing out f-bombs or begin flame wars, at which point the threads need to be deleted and the perpetrators will be sanctioned by an admin if you bring it to my attention. Hope you're having fun on there; it's the Wilderness Space of the wiki! Montonius (talk) 06:21, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Please draw one up, post it on my talk page and we will go over it together and then you can post it in a highly visible place. I already wrote an outline of permissible actions for the forums when I installed them, but it's in a place no one is ever going to see it. I'm not unhappy with the forums, but they seem to be dominated by a few people who often have no idea what they are talking about (other than you, of course). Montonius (talk) 06:33, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

The following should cover it. I have removed a few points where you were bordering on telling people what to say. That is not our goal. The forums need to be a free place for discussion, especially because the main portions of the wiki are already so restrictive and contain so many rules. It is our job to moderate, not dictate in this area of the wiki. Everywhere else we are as dictatorial as hell, so I want a slightly lighter touch in the forums.

"The following set of guidelines are the expectations for comments/posts in the Warhammer 40k Wiki forum. Failure to follow these may result in the modification or deletion of your post/comment and also *insert punishments* if the offence is serious enough.

Montonius (talk) 07:24, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * Treat others politely and with respect - No sarcasm or attempts to put others down to prove your own superiority and make yourself feel better. Any criticism should be intelligent, constructive and not intended to offend. Flame wars will result in Administrator sanction against the perpetrator, up to and including a permanent ban.
 * Use appropiate language - This means NO swear words and vulgar language. Attacks based on race, creed, gender, or sexual identity will result in an immediate permanent ban against the offender. If you would not say it to your mother, do not say it here.
 * No spam - Spamming is not allowed in any way, shape or form.
 * Use proper spelling, punctuation and grammar - Proper spelling, punctuation and grammar should be used to make your posts easier to read and understand for other users, and also to keep the quality of the general forum high. Try to keep formatting normalised and refrain from using excessive spacing, bold text, capitalisations, exclamations marks, etc.
 * Stay on topic - If a thread is made about a certain topic, keep comments on that topic. Major diversions will be deleted. If you do want to continue a discussion about a different topic, make a new forum post.
 * Post in the correct topic - Please post discussions in the right topics/areas of the forum.
 * Fanon - Whilst fanon is not disallowed as a topic to be discussed on the forums, it is recommended you post them on the Warhammer 40k Fanon Wiki *makeitalink*. 
 * Pictures - Any pictures posted in the forums should have the wiki disclaimer added to their page. Try to keep picture sizes at 250px-300px.
 * Games Workshop Intellectual Property - DON'T post any game statistics or game-related material from Games Workshop, Forge World, Fantasy Flight Games. This means unit profiles, weapon statistics, character statistics full rules for hwo to play the table top or role-playing games, etc. This is a legal infringement of both intellectual property and copyright law and will be deleted immediately.
 * Links - Don't add unrelated links to your posts. Only add a link to a website related to the topic under discussion.

I don't know where that button is. I would actually send an email to wikia, Shas, and ask them exactly what powers a Chat Moderator possesses under their system architecture. I'd be curious to jknow to, and perhaps I can selectively grant you different powers for the Forums, which is sometimes possible. I know very little about it as I know mostly what Admins and Bureaucrats can and can't do.

As to the message, yes, see if you can post it above or below the main forums, otherwise we may simply have to add it to the forum rules in the unfortunate spot where they are, or at least I will as I don't think you can access that part of the wiki. Montonius (talk) 07:27, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Vehicle Pictures
Shas'O all those vehicle pictures need to be sourced and page numbered, if they are not already included in the Sources section. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 06:03, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good question. I'm going to rule no simply because that would be a bitch to source. However, I would stay away from that type of art when other equally good pieces are available. Those pages really didn't need any more pictures, but they're fine for now. Montonius (talk) 04:34, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Tau Drones
Nice general Drone page. I had no idea we already had so many types of Drones on the wiki! To help organise them I have created a Tau Drone Category for you. Please add all the Drone variants you listed on the general Tau Drone page to that category. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 05:13, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Nurgle Category
Gentleman, this message is going to both of you, though its contents are more directed at Vforvendetta. This category business was a mess. Shas'o was correct on both fronts -- one in that I did not want this category created, and secondly in that it does not belong on generic pages like Daemon, greater Daemon, etc. As I may or may not have explained, wikis suffer from what I call "category creep" in that their can often be an obsessive desire to create ever smaller and more specific categories that are completely unnecessary. The Chaos category pretty much covered everything we needed. When you create new categories you must also make sure that every page on the wiki that belongs in that category is added to it AND every new page created that should be in it is also added to it. This creates a nightmare of maintenance for the Admins. I did not want separate Chaos God categories because that would require us going through dozens of pages and adding them, and sometimes there is disagreement about where they should be added to and on and on. The Chaos category is broad enough and EVERYBODY can agree, in most instances, what pages belong in it.

Shas'o was also right in determining that the Iron Warriors category does not belong on a vehicle page. That page is a generic page for all Vindicators. A Traitor Legion category must only be added to pages whose topics are WHOLLY contained within that category and apply ONLY to the Iron Warriors. Now, this was not your fault, V, as we have never spoken about this topic before, as there was no need to before this. But Shas'o is the wiki's category keeper, and his decisions generally trump all others save mine or Algrim's when it comes to categories; please listen to him. But the general rule is: less categories, not more.

As to the Nurgle category, it is now on so many pages that I do not have the time to go through and remove it. If one of you has the time please remove it, otherwise I will let it stand for now. Thanks for both your efforts, but one recommendation I would make in the future is that if there is uncertainty over a given action or a dispute about it, please leave a message on mine or Algrim's talk pages and get an Admin ruling before moving forward so we can prevent these kinds of disputes from happening again. In any event, I loved what you did with the Chaos pages, V, and I look forward to the new pages you will be adding within this sphere. Thanks, everybody. Montonius (talk) 05:59, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Imperium
I'm sorry, you've asked an impossible question. The answer is there are literally hundreds of pages remaining, it is an always growing topic, there is no list since the list alone would be a project, and it will be completed whenever the wiki is (i.e. never), even though we are adding material at a breakneck pace. LOL. Montonius (talk) 03:45, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

One Thing
Shas'o, when you start editing another editor's mistakesm it actually makes it harder for me to fix it because I can no longer use my roll-back power. Wehn you see damage done like army of the dead's just call it to my or Algrim's attention, don't try and fix it, as we can remove all of it with one click. Thanks. Oh, and as to that guy, the next time he does, he's banned' he was warned multiple times already. Montonius (talk) 10:11, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Flayed Ones
Yeah, the guy complained to me about how un-collaborative we are; he clearly didn't read the Important Links just like everyone else. Sigh. Anyway, I'Il do the Flayed Ones upgrade with the Deathwatch material, I had no idea it existed, if you could point out the pages to me I'll do it. As for the Necrons and Dark Eldar, I'll handle the Dark Eldar as I have been doing over the last year, the Necrons will be done later, when you finish the Tau, yeah, that's an area we could definitely move you into. But one thing at a time. Montonius (talk) 04:04, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

Tau
Let's do Tau weapons next. Take a look at the other individual weapons pages and copy that formatting, and I'll go over the next one you do and you can use that asa template as well. The big pages like Fire Warrior we'll need to talk about when the time comes. I'll probably need to see a rough draft of what you want to do and then we'll work together to integrate the new material into the existing page. Unlike the other pages you have done, there is much material on the existing pages I don't want removed, though it can certainly be enhanced. But let's finish the small stuff first. Thanks and good job. Montonius (talk) 06:32, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Fire Warrior page; as I have said before, repetition of information is not a problem for a wiki. I would expect the page to contain ALL information related to Fire Warriors.

As to the Escort Drone. Yeah, that one's a pain in the ass. The source is gone, and seems to have been based on a figurine for the Inquisitor specialty game. I would create a small page using the information on the Lexicanum, and add the same information to the list of drones on the Tau Drone page. That one is irritating, and we're unlikely to get any more information about it. Good pick-up. Montonius (talk) 02:20, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Tau Codex
Oh, cool, I can't wait to get a copy. And yes, lots of re-doing all your old pages. LOL. You'll never finish! Welcome to our world. Montonius (talk) 08:37, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Change to Content Creation Rules
Hey Shas'o, I've altered the instructions on creating content to indicate that new categories should not be created without the permission of an Admin, or, well, you. While this won't make anyone actually read the damn thing, it does strengthen your hand when they inevitably violate the guidelines. LOL. Montonius (talk) 13:33, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Brass Scorpion
Thanks for pointed out that I missed a source, it's sad because I looked through the book and looked completely over it.

Vforvendetta1 (talk) 02:23, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Necron Sources
Hey Shas'o, Here's some Necron sources for ya:
 * Black Crusade: Core Rulebook (RPG), pp. 343, 368-371
 * Black Crusade: The Hand of Corruption (RPG), pp. 79-139
 * Black Crusade: The Tome of Fate (RPG), pp. 107-122
 * Codex: Necrons (5th Edition)
 * Codex: Necrons (3rd Edition)
 * Deathwatch: The Outer Reach (RPG), pp. 100-144
 * Warhammer 40,000: Apocalypse, pp. 162-163
 * Warhammer 40,000: Planetstrike (5th Edition), pg. 55
 * Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook (6th Edition), pg. 210
 * Warhammer 40,000: Rulebook (5th Edition), pp. 126, 128, 179
 * White Dwarf 383 (UK), "Rise of the Necrons," "Building the Machines," "'Eavy Metal: Necrons," and "The Rulers of War," pp. 2-16, 24-29, 30-35, 36-39, 40-43
 * White Dwarf 287 (UK), "The Firebrands"
 * White Dwarf 272 (UK), "Nightbringer and Living Metal: Necron Monolith"
 * White Dwarf 271 (UK), "Index Xenos – Necrons"
 * White Dwarf 230 (UK), "Chapter Approved: Necrons"
 * White Dwarf 218 (UK), "Necron Onslaught"
 * White Dwarf 217 (UK), "Necron Raiders Background and Rules"

Thanks for the Necrons
Hey Shas'o thanks for the Necron pages. You're really saving me a lot of work. They are the best pages you've done, really great work. When you redo the Tau pages, please do them just like the Necron pages, with that same level of detail, it's really been helpful, especially when I begin the long-awaited upgrade to the Necron portal page and its related pages in about 2 weeks. Thanks again. Montonius (talk) 07:17, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

No, its real. Was created for a specialist game, but the source has been removed from the Games Workshop page.Montonius (talk) 08:09, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Redirects
The only way I am aware of to make a redirect is to go #Redirect and then type the page in brackets. I know of no other kind at present.

As the guidelines state, we do not use fan-made art save for rare exceptions made by an Administrator. I chose to make an exception because we have no images for those pages, these images were of professional quality, and nothing in them violated published canon about those organs. And they looked wonderful. The rule was changed because of our growing responsibility to our large readership to minimise the fan-made material which we did use when we first started to draw interest. However, a blanket no-use policy would be foolish and would replicate much of the Lexicanum's rigidity; so the right to make rare exceptions remains with admin approval. Generally, Algrim favours the use of almost any piece of fan-made art; I am much more conservative but make the final decision when there is disagreement between us, as was the case with the use of fan-coloured versions of black-and-white canon pictures -- I oppose them, he prefers them. All of the fan-made art on the wiki that was in place before the change in policy has been grandfathered in, except in cases where a new piece of canon art can replace an old, grandfathered piece of fan art. Hope that clears it up, I know it is a complicated policy. Montonius (talk) 05:54, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Categories
You know, I was just thinking about that myself. Yeah, create the Daemon Engines and Anti-Air categories, but I'll put you in charge of making sure we get every relevant page into them (which you do anyway, LOL). Thanks for bringing it up. Montonius (talk) 06:32, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Necrons, Tau
That sounds like a fine plan, Shas'o. Please give me your list. Most of those pages should already be register-locked, and the reality is I have never seen a burst of editors like you describe when a new codex comes out, so I really wouldn't worry about it, but I will set all the pages you list to the more restrictive setting if you're concerned about it because that is what they should be set to anyway.

As to the Necrons, as I may or may not have mentioned, after I finish the Koronus Expanse and Screaming Vortex material in the next two weeks, I will be doing the Necron upgrade personally. When you have time, please finish the Necron unit pages if any remain, but I will be handling the Necron portal page, the dynasties, the timeline and history revisions, and many of the weapons personally, though I will probably need help with the individual weapon pages if we are ever to get it done in a timely manner.

It would be best if you didn't start work on the Tau until both you and I and Algrim have gotten our hands on it, so that we can all be on the same page and check each other's work like with the Necrons. Thanks again, I like your action plan. Montonius (talk) 06:40, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah do the character pages, do it all baby! However, I have one request. Please keep the new pages down to about 3 per day, as I have to edit everybody as well as do daily maintenance and the amount of material being aded is getting a little overwhelming. I certainly don't want to slow you down, but I can't do my real job if I have to spend three hours a day here. LOL. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 06:57, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Doomsday Monolith
Hey nice work on the Necron weapons. Can you produce a separate page for the Doomsday Monolith please? Thanks. Montonius (talk) 17:57, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, also, could you do all of the Necron weapons, please, such as the Particle Whip, Warscythe, Tesla Weapons, etc.? Might as well get them all you've done so well with the Gauss Weapons. Also, you need to add the sources for the new weapons to the Gauss Weapons page. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 18:01, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Tau Unit Pages
Hi Shas'O, thanks for the Tau upgrades, they are going well. However, after looking over the beginning of your redo, the formatting needs to be changed on the pages so that they are more in accord with the codex materials, just like the Necron pages, and with the overall format of our other unit pages to maintain wiki consistency. This is made much more difficult by the fact that most of these pages already exist and contain material from several other sources. Here is how I want the divergent materials integrated into a single, repeatable format:

1) Please keep doing what you have been doing, with one notable exception -- if you include a History section, do not use bullet points and do not create a Notable Campaign section; upon reflection this is not the right way to go. The correct format for a unit page History section is straight, narrative text, as occurrs on all our other unit pages and as I have now done for the Sky Ray page, which can serve as a model for you.

2) Integrate the majority of the Codex 6th Edition text into the introductory paragraph of the page, as I did with the Sky Ray page. It's fine if you later repeat some or all of this information scattered over the rest of the page's sections, as when integrated with the already extant material on the page it creates a fully-laid out description and the introduction now serves as what it should always have been but rarely attains: a summary of the entirety of the information on the page.

3) Add any new pictures wherever you think best, but do not delete any of the existing pages from the unit page. Instead, if there is no room in the body of the page, create a gallery for the older images if there is not one there already.

Thanks, everything else has been very well done and your attention to detail on the weapon systems -- Necron adn Tau alike -- is greatly appreciated. Montonius (talk) 20:38, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. Duh, totally missed it. Yeah, if you're sure they are identical, replace 'em. Sorry. Montonius (talk) 16:47, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

The Greater Good in the Land Down Under

 * Mmmm. Fair enough. Which were the articles in particular where you noticed those 'picture layout' shortcomings?

Also, I would request that when it comes to my style&grammar edits, that you actually scrutinize how they differ from previous versions, rather than leap for the 'revert' button, please. Case in point... for the daemon-engines article, the act of reverting allowed some prose which, to be completely frank, was a bit sloppy to re-emerge. Take a look: http://my.jetscreenshot.com/2306/20130419-4nms-305kb My own writing can be a bit stilted and could certainly be improved upon by other persons looking it over. Ergo, a precursory scrutiny of edits, by a person such as yourself, would be far better than reflexive reversions because you can view them with a fresher eye than either of the previous writers. (By 'precursory', I mean 'a very quick'.)

Keep it real. ;) --MercWithMouth TalkPage 01:35, April 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Heh. 'Old structures good enough?' You did see the screenshot, right? Really-- just look at the text, and then start correcting from there. Reversion is supposed to be resorted to when there's vandalism in play; clear and profuse errors; or technical issues. It's not a substitute for subsequent editing which actually is supposed to be the default course of action when contemplating changes to wiki articles.

Couple of other things... Those recent images that have been added to a number of articles this past day or so? They are fan-art. The stated policy regarding fanart on the front page notwithstanding, the guideline for permissibility of fan-art is (as per Algrim's ex post facto ratification of such), in the case of fanart that is particularly exceptional, and especially that fanart which is of such quality as to make it almost indistinguisable from first party art released by Games Workshop, ought be viewed as worthy of at least thinking about adding to the wiki. That's why I ran the addition of the new Lucius the Eternal image by Montonious, first. (Algrim then picked up the ball and uploaded the candidate-image to the wiki before I could, but... I guess that's besides the point).

That said, while I can't check up on the source of the image file in question -- that task would more appropriately fall upon you or the original uploader -- could you explain to me the 'wiki disclaimer text' please? Specifically, what are the instructions for adding the 'wiki disclaimer text', or, if there are existing instructions for how to do so already on the site?

Lastly, regarding the 'picture layouts at random locations', I think I know what happened. On those couple of articles you mentioned, I had originally tried to implement those edits using the WYSIWYG editor. But this had the tendency to actually place the image-code in a random location within the source-code, though it tended to appear properly lain-out in the visual previews. Also, the WYSIWYG editor has a tendency to implement certain types of 'meta formatting'. Apparently, this can also lead to unpredicted results, and also generates 'wasted code'.

''Quis Molestat Ipsos Molestiae? ''

MercWithMouth TalkPage 03:58, April 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Seems like we're playing 'wikia-phone-tag.' But, yah. I did get your last message. Thanks! :)

MercWithMouth TalkPage 04:00, April 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Got your last messages. Thanks for getting back to me!


 * Also, have you checked out The Shape of the Nightmare to Come?

MercWithMouth TalkPage 08:29, April 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol. I am very appreciative of you getting back to me regarding my last message, as always. (But... for what it's worth, the reason I 'nixed' the first version was because I realized that I was making a moutain out of a mole-hill.)

Also, it says you're the 'Chat-Moderator.' How often are you on in the Warhammer 40k-wiki chatroom?

MercWithMouth TalkPage 23:15, April 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah? Then let's start lurking in it. We'll become the new cool kids. Alternatively, thebolthhole SHOUTBOX can be quite fun -- during the daytime British hours: http://www6.shoutmix.com/?bljunkies&view=1

At any rate, I'll mosey off into the Warhammer 40k-wiki chatroom starting now, and will remain there for so long as Waterfox doesn't crash.

MercWithMouth TalkPage 01:03, April 20, 2013 (UTC) 1) Why'd you nix the image of the Necron Gauss Blaster in action on this page? It seemed like a wholly approptiate page on the wiki to place the image, and the sourcing had to be valid since the guy that uploaded it was that guy with a +6/+6 kangaroo rider bonus. → http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Gauss_Blaster
 * Right... Two things:

2) In the future, when you nix my edits, could you please leave your reasons in the "edit summary" box for the corresponding edit-nix? Please bear in mind that I do spend a good amount of time making and fine-tuning edits, so it would just be a little less disheartening if the reasons for the edit-nixes were delineated.

Thanks, Shasokais. --MercWithMouth TalkPage 23:11, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Battlesuits
No that page is freakin awesome! Definitely put it up! Thanks for the work! Great job!Montonius (talk) 18:03, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, in the caption, you need to list the suits presented from left to right as the caption is no longer fully visible on the image itself; thanks! Montonius (talk) 19:59, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

Assignment
Here's your first pain in the ass assignment as a Moderator. The editor MercwithMouth is causing constant damage and wasting my time and the time of everyone else fixing his mistakes. Please try and get him to stop the nonsense and focus only on what other first-time editors do, which is fixing typos, learning formatting, fixing actual grammatical edits, learning how to add a picture and source it properly, etc. I am asking you to do this as I have already given him my instructions but I have no patience for this and I need someone who is more patient to try and instruct him, and you seem to have established a rapport. I am asking you to do this because if this continues, and he does not slow down, he's on the way to a ban simply because I cannot waste time on this every single day and have your time and everyone else's time taken up with this again and again when we keep asking him otherwise and providing instruction. Do what you can for him, please, and my great thanks and aplogy for the request. Montonius (talk) 21:35, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Please check my talk page for the response of MercWithMouth and my response on his Talk page. This threatening tone presents a problem; I am soliciting your suggestions on whether any further sanctions should be taken or what course of action you believe is best considering the implied threat in this tone, which is very similar to a situation we faced a few months ago. Frankly, the threat alone would once have led to a ban, but I am willing to be more open and helpful -- to a degree. But I am growing very tired of these users who come in with no knowledge and simply want to start ripping the place up. Montonius (talk) 00:04, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I had no idea! Thanks Shas'O that is very helpful! You rock! You also rock for the mentoring role you have taken with our new editors; you're doing a fantastic job and I really appreciate you taking the extra time; it helps the wiki and can help prevent people who might one day be exceelent contributors from getting excluded. However, if this continues despite your best efforts, let me know, because I do not like threats and ultimatums -- and make sure he knows that. Thanks again! Montonius (talk) 01:35, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately our forums are still only betas, wikia has not given me the power to create stickies yet. However, I could place a link to such a poll in the Community Messages section where every registered user would see it -- but not unregistered visitors. Montonius (talk) 01:37, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Ion Weapons
Shas', Been checking a bunch of sources, but I'm having a hell of a time looking for any reference of the Demiurge providing the ion cannon technology to the Tau. I'll keep you posted if I find it.

Algrim Whitefang (talk) 03:57, April 25, 2013 (UTC)Algrim Whitefang

I happen to have the BFG Magazine 19. I'll take a gander at it, and let you know if I find the pertinent info. Algrim Whitefang (talk) 06:26, April 27, 2013 (UTC)Algrim Whitefang

Necrons - All done!
Can you post a list of the articles that you need to create on my page so that I can help you create them?Cch123 (talk) 09:11, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

I have done all the pages that you assigned me. I hope they are of good quality :)

The latest 2 that I have created are:
 * Staff of the Destroyer
 * Ghostwalk Mantle

I don't want to screw anyhting up so would you mind if I added the Riptide systems in the tau battlegear?Neithan02 (talk) 12:47, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Anything else I can do for Necrons? Cch123 (talk) 09:19, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Books
No, the Books category is only for physical real world books published by the companies. No don't add the Books category to the Primer, the page for it is only for the in-universe book; the real world book would get a different page with an infobox for published works. I wouldn't worry about this now, all the pages for books will be the absolute last thing we concetrate on when everything on the wiki is mor or less complete. It's not that important. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 03:48, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Plasma Weapons
Sure that's a great idea. Also next week I will be busier than usual, so I may not be around as much as I am trying to get a business off the ground and real life concerns are most important right now. If you need anything particularly pressing solved, feel free to ask Algrim, though I realise he's on a bit of a hiatus now as well. Thanks. Montonius (talk) 08:28, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

If you wanna update the weapon pages, feel free. Algrim and I have plenty already on our plates and weapons are a low priority right now. The Necrons, as always, will get done when they get done, though they will be my focus in the coming motnhs in small weekly increments. It's a marathon, not a sprint. I am most concerned at present about the portal page and its related history pages which is what I will turn to first. When they are done, I will probably have a list for YOU. LOL. But don't worry about them until the Tau is done. There's plenty of material there to keep you busy for a while, and you can do all the Tau weapon pages to start. There's a lot of em. Montonius (talk) 08:33, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Speculation
Shas, please stick to only what is written in the books. Your speculation may or may not apply to Titans and Plasma Destructors through logical inference, but unless it specifically says such a thing for that weapon and that type of vehicle in a published source, you cannot add it to a page. The page is correct in saying sometimes Plasma Weapons explode; it does not make a value judgment about how rarely or not that occurs and that is the correct wording. I like what you're doing, but you need to keep it much more tightly to only what is written, as we have done with the Chaos pages and the Necrons. However, I have altered the wording to reflect the points you made to me without overemphasizing it. Also, when I roll something back, it is done for a reason. Make the argument to me on my talk page about why you feel a certain edit should be altered so I can make a decision to correct it if I realize that I overlooked something that you found, not by editing it back and forth. That's a waste of time.

Also, don't take this as a reprimand. I like the Plasma Weapons page; it's coming along quite nicely, though you've bitten off a huge chunk of material. LOL.Thanks. Montonius (talk) 06:19, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

Weapons pages
Thanks for the input on the neutron laser, I think I will attmept a page on the digi-weapons next, it looks like little material given and seems to be just a "small" one.Neithan02 (talk) 10:49, May 13, 2013 (UTC)

We have the most basic facts in the Rogue Trader RPG core rulebook on page 127

Demon Hunter Codex pg 17//Wtch Hunters Codex pg 21  Wahmmer 40k War Gear pg 45:

witch huntes codex pg 21 (same for the note on henchmen as in demonhunters codex)

Witch Huntersd pg 15 Demon Hunters pg 13

all units with possible access to digi weapons (to all equiptment from the Witch Hunter's Armoury) :

1. Lord Inquisitor

2. his Henchmen

3.Adepta Sororitas Heroine

4.priests

5.Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor

Demon Hunters Armoury, units with access to all items:

1. ordo Malleus Lord Inquisitor

2. Grey Knights Hero

3. Ordo Malleus Inquisitor

4. Henchmen

Witch Hunter Codex: pg 32, Demonhunter Codex pg 25 (bottom left)

Dark Heresy Ascension (RPG) pg 138

Digital Weapons in Rougue Trader (1st ed 1987)

Sources I have no acces to: Warhammer 40k Eisenhorn Trilogy and "the Inquisitor (1st book of Inquisition-War Trilogy)

Plasma Weapons
Wonderful page on Plasma Weapons Shas'o! Great work. You will see I made very few changes. The only one which mattered, which was not your fault, was the reference to photonic power sources. That's a common mistake in GW literature on this topic, and its scientifically impossible. Elsewhere on the wiki we refer to this as a  gaseous fuel cell if it contains hydrogen or we simply call it  a fuel cell, leaving it ambiguous. The same changes have been made here, if you were wondering why. Other than that, it was a wonderful page, and thanks for taking it on.

I was just wondering if there was any more detail on how Tau Pulse Weapons work? That canon explanation is terrible and actually makes no sense with the limited detail about the particle breaking down under the effect of the containment field, but without any more detail, we'll just let it stand unless you can find anything else on the subject (which I highly doubt; GW is terrible when it comes to actually explaining how their weapons work; probably why it's a fantasy). Thanks again! Montonius (talk) 08:25, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought. Anyway, again, great work! Montonius (talk) 17:50, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Articles A and An
The article "an" is used instead of "a" before a word beginning in "X". It is an exception to the general rule because you use "an" in front of words that sound like they start with a vowel even if the actual letter is a consonant. Thus it is treated as "Ex" rather than as the consonant "x". This makes the correct notation "An XV88" rather than "A XV88." Grammatically yours, Montonius (talk) 02:49, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no they weren't because I fixed them. I think there was some mistake when you published the page as  the last set of changes i had made reverted. Weird. Hope it's not a new bug. Oh and nice work! Montonius (talk) 02:58, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

Necron Dynasty Page Picture Help
Hey Shas'o, can you use your graphical magic when you get a chance to give me a bigger and clearer image of the makeup of a Necron dynasty on page 13 of the Necron 5th Edition Codex? I need someone with some picture manipulation skill and you did a great job with that picture of the Battlesuits from the Tau Empire Codex. I need a bigger and clearer version of that image of the Saurekh Dynasty on page 13 to add to the upcoming Necron Dynasty section on the Necrons portal page when I continue work this week. Thanks, and obviously, we have crappy sopurce material so anything you can do that is better than the current page would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Montonius (talk) 17:38, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It looks wonderful, a vast improvement over the GW version! Too bad the original source was so blurry. Thanks again! Now I know who to turn to for all my graphical needs! Montonius (talk) 08:14, May 29, 2013

Tau Cities\Architecture
Two things, first can a category `Big Choppa` be added to this page? As well as `Shoota` and `Big shoota` onthisone?

Second, i have noticed that there aren`t any articles or images featuring Tau buildings and such. I have found this, which has already been sourced here

There is also a cinematicsin the DoW Soulstorm game ,featuring Tau construction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kecrE4VkI1E

I can get screenshots of it, do you approve adding them, and where?

Marshall Silverman of The Black Templars (talk) 00:01, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

if you really want to go into material on architecture, you could also go into some of the cinematics of "fire warrior" even though the graphics are quite old,  the training facility of the bootcamp is definetely Tau.Neithan02 (talk) 07:01, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Concerns
Watch the return of Marshall Silverman. He has proven unwilling or unable to follow the rules in the past and his pictures have always been suspect. He is on probation after his previous ban; if he sets one foot out of line, tell me, because he's gone. We don't have time to waste on someone who refuses to learn the rules. He has promised me he will reform; we will see. Also, it is in the wiki rules that sources can be added to the picture's info page OR the Sources section of the page. Most people prefer the latter because it's easier and they are simply using pictures drawn from the same source they are writing the article from, but for him it's better to have it on the picture so we can check that it is sourced properly from the start. He still seems to be incapable of copying our formats, so if he puts a picture notation in the Sources section it just means one of us is going to have to clean it up after him, as already happened on the Commissar page. Montonius (talk) 02:25, June 11, 2013 (UTC)