User talk:Panther

Ok, this is a warning to you (feel free to erase it). Do not mock the system and do not take your frustration out on wiki pages. You can delete stuff on your user/talk space all you want, but do NOT go messing around on article space to send a message or make a point. Putting "This is policy" on an empty page is either an act of mockery (i.e. vandalism) or misuse of template. Use more discretion... I liberally ban people who would vandalize pages to make a point. --Karlos 14:01, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Sorry Karlos, you misunderstood my intentions. Obviously I'm quite annoyed with several of the people on GuildWiki, but it was not an act of mockery. I do suppose you could say it was to make a point though; that point being that someone (other than me) really should spell out the policy since it appears to keep coming up. The page already existed as a blank, I didn't create it. I was just making it more visible in the hopes that someone would fill it in.
 * -Panther


 * The policy is being discussed and voted on on (forever, I know). So, just set a date for the vote if you want and move on. --Karlos 14:53, 4 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Set a date, unlikely. Move on, most probably.  Here's a summary of my experience with GuildWiki so far:
 * Mildly Annoying
 * Having my work summarily deleted before I could even finish making my case for why it should be there.
 * Highly Annoying
 * Having an undocumented and (in my opinion) questionable policy in the first place.
 * Intolerable
 * Multiple reverts to a page in my own userspace by admin wannabes.
 * Acceptable
 * Finally getting an admin to delete the page.


 * The stats don't look good. I want to point out it's not about the policy either, even though I do find it irritating when things like that aren't properly published or, worse, are made up on the fly.  It's about people's attitudes and behaviors.  The whole experience has really reminded me of why I tend to avoid public wikis and forums to begin with: way too many Curleys.
 * -Panther
 * it's pretty clear you don't like some of us, that's fine. you don't have to be here, and you don't have to contribute. but please, either contribute in a useful way or get out of the way. there are builds that need testing, ugly pages that need work, and questions begging for answers. this whole "whine till i get my way" thing is not apprecated. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:17, 4 August 2006 (CDT)


 * If that's your decision, then I, for one, am sorry to see you go. I know you're probably surprised by that, but it's true.  We may have had opposing views on the redirect discussion, but I respect your opinions and feel that you could be a valluable contributor if you stayed.
 * As a young but rapidly growing wiki, there are many policies that have limited documentation to them. I agree that this can be a source of annoyance for newcomers and regulars alike.  The policies are worked on periodically; but honestly, the general content articles are viewed by most as the more enjoyable work, so the policy articles tend to languish in a partially completed state.
 * As to the reverts to the talk page ... I agree that the user should have a right to delete the content. The source of confusion is an ongoing difference of opinions within the wiki on if a talk page is always public regardless of the space it's in, or if the talk page should be seen as part of the user-space.  I prefer the latter interpretation, but I suspect this is another area where we will need to work on better community concensus and draft yet another policy.
 * If you change your mind in the future, you know where to find us. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 4 August 2006 (CDT)


 * On a similar note, I do believe you have the right to blank your talk page once you deem the discussion is over. On the other hand, I also believe other users may restore (in full or partially) the discussion you blanked out, if they have something to discuss furthur on the matter and the old text helps bring context into perspective.  Of course, that was not the reason the blanking of this talk page got reverted (ie I think in this particular case the blanking should not have been reverted), but just pointing out in some cases it's ok to revert what the user blanked out. - 16:52, 4 August 2006 (CDT)