User talk:Skuld14148

Reverting reverts and Relevant Summaries
Skuld, please stop reverting reverts. You know the GW:1RV policy, and it applies to you whether you like it or not. Also, please make relevant notes in the summary section when making changes. "Some dogs like catfood" is not an acceptable summation for an article change. In fact, if you're using "Some dogs like catfood" as a summation to mask the fact that you're reverting a revert, then you're likely bordering on vandalism. I know that you know better, so please knock it off. If you want to revert a revert, then please take your argument to the article's discussion page. If you do it again, I'll raise the issue with an admin.--Ninjatek 09:45, 12 June 2007 (CDT)


 * sure, sorry &mdash; Skuld 09:55, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Ninjatek, perhaps in light of seeing the anon's mass of changes, you should discuss it first yourself? Just like Skuld, you didn't wait for response before you reverted the anon's edits. 1RV or not, that's poor tact. For the record, I agree with the anon's edits, and do not think any of them should be reverted. But that's just me :) - Auron 10:00, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Auron - Don't make this about me. If you want to start a separate discussion regarding my edits and contributions, then we can do so on my talk page.  The issue that I have tried to present here on Skuld's page is for Skuld and about Skuld.  Given that you are a "friend" of his, and that the two of you play together, I expect for you to be biased and take his side on matters.  Therefore, when I address Skuld, and you chime in, I find your comments irrelevant and undeserving of consideration, especially when you divert the subject of discussion away from your friend and toward me. I've stated my grievance, and Skuld has acknowledged it.  And if you want to go on "the record," then take your opinions of agreement to the article's discussion page.  Thank you for your time anyway.--Ninjatek 10:13, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Well technically, Auron did not divert the subject whatsoever. Saying that anyone's comments are "irrelevant and undeserving" is borderline rude. The note was stupid and in all reality, plain and simple confusing. Skuld removed the note for this reason, as did the anon, you reverted. So as general rule, the majority over-rules the minority. Oh, and btw, this is wiki. Once you post, anyone may scrutinize it :). Not just the one it pertains too. Readem  (talk *contribs ) 04:09, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Bullshit: logic and reason > the majority &mdash; Skuld 08:01, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Which is why we don't use votes to decide anything. They suck. The popular majority is quite often wrong, which is why we look to logic and reasoning (and discussion to form a consensus).
 * (Side note) I don't follow Skuld around like a brainless guard dog and bark at people who disagree with him. I patrol recent changes and check stuff out; if I disagree with what's going on, I say something about it. It just so happens that Skuld gets there first 90% of the time. Dismiss my comments if you must, but you're wrong about assuming they're biased. - Auron 08:06, 13 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Ninjatek, your hostility toward Auron is neither necessary nor welcome. If you believe one of my administrators is biased, you are welcome to take it up with me and provide examples to justify your stance. No editor's comments are "irrelevant and undeserving of consideration." Since you've brought up policy violations, I'll bring up GW:YAV. Consider this your official warning. &mdash;Tanaric 09:35, 13 June 2007 (CDT)