Hi, welcome to Warhammer 40k Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Imperial Cult page.
Please be more careful in your comments on History pages. Using pejorative words like "stupid' to describe errors found in various pages is inappropriate. Be aware that many people have worked very hard for a very long time to build this wiki. Our editors often add large volumes of information at one time, and mistakes inevitably occur. Not everyone possesses the best grasp of English grammar or is as artful a writer as yourself. We edit as best we can, but there is a great deal of information and many different editors of varying skill levels. Styles often clash, subject-verb agreement gets mixed up, misspellings appear. We are very appreciative of your fixes to mistakes made in grammar and syntax, but leave the superior attitude elsewhere, please. Thank you. Montonius (talk) 04:41, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
I understand that many mistakes may occur. But when my one-word edit, to help the wiki's style and professionalism, is continually reverted (three times!) with no explanation given, I will, on the fourth attempt, try to attract someone's attention. My tactic worked in this case--you did not revert the word I had changed, and you left a comment on my talk page. The evidence I have gathered at this point shows that using words like "stupid" in the edit summary does help, contrary to your claim, since the sentence in question now reads (a tiny bit) better (but it's not fantastic). Using a derogatory word drew your attention to your own inattention, and helped fix the sentence. My only goal is to fix sentences. I will use all my powers (including horrible, terrible, unpleasant words like "stupid") to reach that goal. Elric Grey (talk) 16:43, January 26, 2013 (UTC)
Be that as it may, keep your edit comments short, sweet and functional with no editoralising, please. If you need to "get my attention" leave a note on my Talk page. If I deem it relevant and/or something I cannot fix without further information from you, I will respond. If you pursue this as a tactic for attention again, you are now being formally warned that you will be sanctioned by an Administrator with a one-week ban for inappropriate activity and you will not get a further response from an Admin except for that sanction. I am sorry your edit was mistakenly reverted in one of those instances, but this is NOT how to go about things. Had you simply called to my attention the mistaken reversion of a correct subject-verb agreement change, I would have fixed it with an apology. Some of your edits may be reverted, some will not. This is simply a reality. Your grammatical edits are generally quite good and greatly appreciated. But please accord yourself more appropriately in the future; this is not the way to get what you want. Thank you.Montonius (talk) 03:32, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, the smell of authority in the morning. It seems I must bow before your administrator status. It shall be as you desire, Lord Montonius. [Edit: while still kotowing before your authority, I would point out that, the time I did leave you a (polite and forthright) comment on your talk page (17 Jan 2013), it was quickly deleted and no response was made. All the evidence points to getting results by saying the word "stupidity" in the edit summary, and only your protestations above (proved false in the past) say otherwise.] Elric Grey (talk) 16:23, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
Dude, seriously...what the heck man? Why do you get so offended every time the Lead Mod asks you politely to do something? Instead of abiding by what he's says you always have to go off on a tangent and give him a hard time. It's ridiculous!!! I would expect more from a fellow veteran, especially in the department of personal conduct on your part! It's just like the military dude, you don't always have to like the individual, but you have to at least (at bare minimum) respect the position of authority. All Monti was asking you to do was to chill out on some of the negative remarks when you make an edit (i.e. 'stupid,' 'dumb,' and so on). We both appreciate the edits and work you've been doing lately, but the negativity has got to stop! Please, from one vet to another, chill out and relax! Don't be so sensitive. Seriously, man. Thnx! Algrim Whitefang (talk) 23:42, January 27, 2013 (UTC)Algrim Whitefang
"One" does not equal "some;" I have once used the word "stupidity" in an edit summary, and I have already agreed to abide by Montonius' command to refrain from doing so in the future. I have always respected the mandates delivered from on high, and I will continue to do so.
What I have been (and will always be) offended by is a lack of consideration for my edits. I make an edit because I believe it helps the style/grammar/clarity of the sentence in question. When my edit is reverted for no given reason, without even the courtesy of an edit summary, both my effort and my intelligence is degraded. The politeness of someone's words does not negate the rudeness of their actions. The reversion is offensive because it is so thoughtless. I have always striven to be transparent in my reasoning, and I do expect others to be actively clear as well. In the past, when one of my edits has been reverted, I have politely posted on article talk pages, user talk pages (yours included), used the Edit Summary... and got nothing in return. The only time I have received responses was when I used (mildly) rude language. In the two instances when I did use "offensive" language, I was immediately reacted to and the issue was resolved. I'd hardly call trying to improve the wiki "negativity," but any negativity I may express is merely a reaction to the way I am poorly treated in these parts.
Furthermore, while ad hominem attacks have their place (as I seem to have proven), I find them to be largely ineffective on me; please refrain from employing them against me in the future. Also, I'm not a veteren, I'm a noob. Elric Grey (talk) 02:37, January 28, 2013 (UTC)