User talk:Keitaro Shijo

Messages
Welcome to Guildwiki! May I politely point you to GuildWiki:Sign_your_comments =) You may also find Editing guide and Style and formatting useful. --BlueNovember 17:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected tag
Please do not remove the Protected tag when an article is still protected. Thank you. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Do NOT other people's words to create the impression that they said something else. One more and I'm banning. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a cyber security guy, even if you did ban me, it wouldn't take me long to unban myself...not that you CAN ban me, i'm editing my own talk page, this doesn't constitute a breach to the policy, and I don't take kindly to being accused of something that I didn't do. I didn't remove the protected tag, I merely replaced the text as it was before the vandalism.
 * Removal of protected tag, Altering someone else's words. Lord of all tyria 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Clicked edit, hit ctrl-a, ctrl-v, didn't see the protected tag. AND I don't see in the policy where it says I can't alter someone elses words on my talk page.
 * I looked as well, appears to be some sort of unspoken rule. Lord of all tyria 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is, PanSola is threatening to ban me when I haven't commited a banable offense, which would be considered abuse of powers if I'm not mistaken.
 * Administrators, Pan can technically do whatever he feels like, I'll try find instances of the editing words somewhere. Lord of all tyria 21:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if he does ban me do me a favor. "...abuses of administrator power simply do not happen." "As a matter of courtesy, most administrators will not ban a user he is directly involved with; instead, he will ask another administrator to examine the situation from a neutral perspective." Remove those from the admin page would ya? >.>

Hmm, ok, so a couple of things: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 11:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Fact: In the process of restoring wording of the article, your action resulted in the removal the Protected tag when the article was still protected.  You may not have intended to remove it, but the fact is that the Protected tag was no longer there because of your action.  Therefore, from my perspective, you have removed the tag.  I was not accusing you of intentionally removing the protected tag, I was trying to get your attention so that your future actions won't produce the same result again.
 * 2) I consider "editing other people's words to completely twist the meaning to be the opposite of the original intent" a type of vandalism, and pretty much bordering on impersonation.  GuildWiki does not have a policy permitting users vandalizing their own talk pages.  If you are interested, we can raise this issue with the general community to see if GuildWiki should consider this to be vandalism or not.  Currently GuildWiki has no official documentation whatsoever on what constitutes vandalism and what does not, so it's always up to the individual contributor's judgment.  Hmm, actually GuildWiki does NOT have a policy saying vandalism is a bannable offense, but admins have been banning vandals since day 1 of this site ("day 1" is just a figure of speech, I don't actually know if any vandals happened and/or got banned on the literal day 1 of this site).
 * 3) As I originally viewed the second issue as simply of a case of vandalism, it did not occur to me that it was a dispute between you and me, or that I was directly involved (I saw you edit "somebody else's words", didn't occur to me that "somebody else" was me).  If you have the desire to pursue this matter further (or the desire to change what I say/said to completely different meaning), I'll make sure to get another admin to look at the situation.  Thanks for bring this point (that I'm an involved party) to my attention.

Also, the second quote "As a matter of courtesy, most administrators will not ban a user he is directly involved with; instead, he will ask another administrator to examine the situation from a neutral perspective." wouldn't need to be removed from the page even if I do ban people when I'm directly involved with them. The quoted word says "as a matter of courtesy", and "most administrators", so having one or two discourteous administrators does not actually invalidate that quote in particular. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)