User talk:Shas'o sodit

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Warhammer 40,000. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Pak21 21:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Please do not call people 'prats' as it is uncivil and a personal attack. Such behaviour can lead to being blocked in the future. Also, please assume good faith - that link obviously slipped us by.-Localzuk(talk) 21:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware of how WP works...
Just because someone removes a link because it's not supposed to be there does not mean that someone else who is either totally unaware of the rules or chooses to ignore them won't put said link back in. If you really don't like it, don't read the page, or better yet, rather than complain, why don't you just take it out yourself instead of assuming "favoritism" because that's the position that suits your purposes? MSJapan 22:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your reply to me illustrates exactly my point. MSJapan 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated incivlity
It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. --Pak21 15:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are being warned because you persistently act in an uncivil manner. The Etiquette policy is one of Wikipedia's Five pillars, which all editors are required to abide by, no matter what actions they are taking. As for your comments about being a "client" or a "customer" and it being the "modding service" that is at fault, I believe you are still fundamentally missing the point of Wikipedia: it is a community. As an editor, you are just as responsible for ensuring policies are followed as any other editor; critcising the other editors, all of whom are unpaid, just because they happened to miss one link is highly unfair. --Pak21 20:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i've just written the same in 40k talk, but you blame the custom over yourself Shas&#39;o sodit 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting absurd. The fact is, you think Wikipedia works in a way it does not, so let me do this so you can see it: Wikipedia is not a business; it is a community.  At least three people have told you this, but you refuse to listen and continue to go on and on about "customers", "clients", and "superiors", and thus the link problem is everyone else's fault (when in fact you could have done something about it yourself).  At this point, your actions and attitude are doing nothing but causing trouble, so you are indeed to blame.  You really have a simple choice: Learn how the community works, and work with it, or don't. If you do the former, you'll have a rewarding experience.  If the latter, you'll probably be banned sooner or later.  Take your choice. MSJapan 21:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The link problem is your fault, you missed it for a week despite it clearly being in the editing history, i remove it and inform you of this rule break, and you blame me! i've emailed your website, if you want to continue to act in this manner, go ahead and ban me, as your customer service skills are shockingly bad and i want nothing to do with this website Shas&#39;o sodit 22:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take a few seconds to understand what we are trying to say. There is no customer service - this is not a business. We are not employees. We edit this site voluntarily - as do you. We are all the same, equal, not different!! If we missed something, it is not a huge issue - you spotted it and removed it. What we are trying to say is that you misunderstand how the site runs. There is no customer service, there are no superiors, there are no employees or bosses. Can you understand this?-Localzuk(talk) 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

so basically Wikipedia is like a school play with a paedo backstage shagging a kid? to the audience all seems good, but actually its very wrong? regardless i still find the mods attutude here very insulting, i do a job that your supposed to do (voluntary or not) and i get blamed because i appear to be 'uncivil' about informing you of my actions. and of course you have customer service, your talking to me! thats customer service! Shas&#39;o sodit 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is not customer service - as that implies that you are a customer. No-one is a customer, no service is being provided by me to you. You are an editor, I am an editor. There are no 'mods'. We are all just editors. Simple. There is no job either. We simply edit the site where we see fit. We can decide to ignore an article if we want - there are no rules requiring anyone to edit the site. Your attitude is what we are complainig about - but this seems to stem, as we have said, from your misunderstanding of how this site works. I think it best if you simply go about your life, edit what you want (according to our policies and guidelines) and leave this issue. You will learn how the site works, realise that no-one is obligated to do anything and you will become a good editor.
 * Also, I don't understand your analogy - that would imply that all editors behind the scenes are some form of criminal - and I would advise you to retract that statement. It would also imply that you are in the same position as that 'paedo' - as you are an editor also...-Localzuk(talk) 22:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

the analogy is that the website Wikipedia appears to be very welcoming on the front, but backstage it is parhaps the most horiable thing in existance, as this is my honest opinion and does not involve swearing, it will remain. you complain of my attitude, yet i have not swore and have spoken honestly, it may not be informed opinion, but it still counts. now if we are equal and you have no power on this site, why are you bothering me, please go away and leave me alone. Shas&#39;o sodit 22:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Top Gear (current format)
Yes, I did watch the show. But you might want to think of an alternative way of phrasing whatever it is you're trying to say. At the moment it makes no sense whatsoever. Also consider whether thsi information needs to be added to the article at all. The information that was previously there was probably adequate for an encyclopaedic reference, if you're adding an opinion it will doubtless get removed in time anyway. DrFrench 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to your comments on Top Gear (current format):&#32;Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Gwernol 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Gwernol 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Of course if you'd like to apologise and strike out your comment on the talk page, then we'll say no more about it. Cheers DrFrench 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)