This is the thread we use to talk things over with people who have received a suspension notice. A lot of the time the notice goes out just so we can explain how seriously we take certain things, not because we want the person to feel bad and go away.
If you're suspended, give What to Do If You Are Suspended a read, then post here to begin your appeal. We try to respond to appeals in order via batch posts every few days. If a moderator has responded to your appeal, you will receive a notification in your private messages, even if you're suspended from PMs.
The Forum Rules
apply here.
Don'ts
- Don't be rude. Rule 1 applies here, too.
- Don't try to negotiate your suspension outside of this thread, such as by sending Private Messages to moderators or posting elsewhere. Such activity may be thumped or otherwise removed, and may warrant an additional suspension block if it keeps happening. All communications have to take place within this thread.
- Don't respond to other suspended users. This is a place for you to discuss your suspension, not others'.
- Don't post multiple times about your appeal if it hasn't been a few days since your last reply from us, since it makes it more difficult to compose responses. If you've posted, we're likely looking at it, and kindly request you to be more patient.
- Don't make another account to try and get around your suspension. This is called ban evasion and will get you bounced. (Again, read What to Do If You Are Suspended if you don't know what these words mean.)
Edited by Synchronicity on Jul 15th 2023 at 11:35:01 AM
I wasn't posting those edits because I wanted someone else to make them for me, I was asking if it would be okay for me to make those edits if I get my editing rights back. I promise not to do anything wrong on this site again so can I please get my editing rights back?
@Witchofthe Absolute: We've already made it clear to you that we're not going to release your suspension.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Okay, so apparently apologizing earnestly for being an idiot isn't enough. I get it, you're not easily convinced. Probably have seen people say sorry and do this crap again. I get it, but that's not me.
I did something wrong. I'm not proud of it. I was angry and took it out on people who didn't deserve it. I have no intention of doing it again. Ever. I'm sorry I let it get that far and what I did was not who I am. I reacted foolishly. Wolfenstein the new order sucks, but that was no reason to assault others verbally for it.
I was stupid and wrong and my actions I know why what I did was wrong and why it got me banned. I have no intention of repeating it again. I was angry at something and failed to handle it like an adult. I am sorry. I just want to edit again if possible. I have no more interest in writing angry shit against a stupid game or even visiting the wolfenstein page ever again anyway.
I'm not sure what else I can say that will make you believe I'm telling the truth. So at this point if you still think I'm a jerk for whatever reason fine. It's unfortunate, but fine. I just want to edit again, I have no intention of acting like I did before on the wolfenstein page. That was a mistake, not because I got caught but because of how I acted. I'm not sure what else I'm suppose to say here.
We'll give you one more try, Gamera.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
@Deadbeatloser: I sincerely apologize if my account did massive vandalism to a few pages recently. I have failed to properly secure my account, and this is my punishment for that mistake. I am therefore requesting that my ban is lifted.
http://m.youtube.com/channel/UCDF9xgeNxebwtw_puIhxzVw http://m.youtube.com/channel/UCZaGReNqwM-Z29gIZXxbnyg
Except, here's the thing. We've found no evidence to suggest that your account actually was hacked. In addition, when I responded to you before I said that if you were admitting that you'd been hacked we'd have to terminate your account for security reasons. And yet you're persisting with the story and claiming you should be unbanned as a result.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Ragna the Bloodedge
I am sorry for bothering you administrators again, but am I banned permanently?
I am the white void, I am et cetera, et cetera... THE END HAS COME!
We'll give you another try, Lambent Soul. Here's hoping you get that we're not trying to run a vent-your-rage site. There are plenty of other places on the internet where you can get your rant on.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
I've been informed by the website that I've been suspended from editing. I'm not sure why, as my edits are few and far between, and I can't think of any that have been more than supplementary in nature, but I'm always happy to hear positive criticism, and would very much like to be allowed to edit the wiki again. Thank you!
Zzzzzzzzzz
You're running a bot that changes 'literally' to 'figuratively' every time it occurs, whether the "correction" is really correct or not.
Like these on Series.The Newsroom:
"and reinvigorates him on a crusade that literally imperils him." changed to "and reinvigorates him on a crusade that figuratively imperils him." The change is wrong. The peril was real — "literally" is correct; "figuratively" is not.
and
"who are so incompetent that Will literally has to make their arguments for them." was changed to "who are so incompetent that Will figuratively has to make their arguments for them." Again, the change is wrong; he did have to actually argue their side of the question for them because they were that incompetent.
and
- Punctuated! For! Emphasis!:
- An interesting spoken version, where Will literally spells it out: "None of this is the fault of a twenty year old college student, but nonetheless you are a member of without a doubt the worst period generation period ever period!"
Again, "literally" was completely correct. Will not only says the line in a way that indicates he's using Punctuated! For! Emphasis!, he says the punctuation marks.
In other words, you're making a mess that requires other people to clean up behind you.
edited 1st Aug '14 8:16:16 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I've been suspended. Too many AFI posts, I take it. I'm surprised. I think the AFI rankings are a delightful bit of movie trivia and I could have sworn when you posted the "100 Years. . .100 Movies" pages that you actually asked people to edit the movie pages to include their AFI status.
I know I was probably doing it far too often, but I'm still surprised that I got suspended outright rather than a "thump".
So, I won't do that anymore.
Zzzzzzzzzz
We can't "thump" on the wiki side. The suspension is to stop the damage and get you to come in so we can talk about it.
You said it yourself: the AFI rankings are trivia. If you want to list them on the Trivia subpage for a film, that's fine. But the main pages are for tropes. (At one time the AFI 100 films page did say to add them to the film's page.)
If you'll keep it on the Trivia pages, I'll lift the suspension.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Oh, I see! I'm terribly sorry, it was a novelty extension that I downloaded some time ago. I never realised it would actually change the words in a text field, I presumed it just made a superficial element change. I've removed the script now, so it won't happen again. Again, sorry, I had no idea it would actually impinge on text fields. Here's a link so you can see the offending code. Truth be told, it was getting a little grating by now anyway.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Fair enough.
Okay then, I'll keep it to the "Trivia" page.
That said (or written, rather), can we can create some kind of AFI trope so that any such post isn't just sticking out there?
And if/when my suspension is lifted, may I create pages for the other AFI categories (Laughs, Thrills, Passions, etc.)?
Why am I suspended?
My edit on The Bechdel Test was removed because another editor considered it complaining. I added it back in (once, so this is not an edit war) and explained that it was not intended to complain, but to clarify what the Reveres Bachdel Test is used for, and since this is a Useful Note about the Bachdel Test and it's derivatives, explaining the Bachdel Test IS the very purpose of the Useful Note. Then Septimus Heap sent me an PM stating that my edit was not in accordance with the Example Indentation article. I replied thus:
"The Example Indentation article is for trope examples, but the article is a Useful Notes detailing discussion of the Bachdel Test (rather than usage) in media. The three-bullet indentation I used was a (in my opinion necessary) clarification to a misunderstanding mentioned in the presiding two-bullet indentation. The only other option would be to have it in the text of the two-bullet indentation, but that might look cluttered and rushed. So I'm not sure what would be the "correct" way to do it, since (as stated) this is very different type of article from those mentioned on the Example Indentation article."
He replied that the rules of the Example Indentation applies everywhere and that that correcting the Web-series in question's usage of a trope is natter. My reply was such:
"But it only explain how to use it on tradition trope-usage lists. How am I supposed to apply it to this? (It also say that 3-bullet indentations can be justified in some cases.) Also [the Web-series] doesn't use the trope (it is not even technically a trope), [it] talks about it. And what [it] say is wrong. And since this is an article whose entire purpose is to explain what the Bachdel test and it's derivatives is, leaving it as is would not only be both misinformation and borderline lying just to avoid sounding "nattery" or whatever, but it would be directly contradictory to the entire purpose of the Useful Notes. "
So I debated civilly and polity, made no further edits, asked how I should use the rules when they do not explain how they should be used on Useful Notes, pointed out that the rules allow what I did in certain situations, but also made a proposal of an alternative way to do it that might be more in tune with the rules and asked how this could be natter when this is an Useful Notes article for the Bachdel test and thus explaining the Bachdel test is the purpose of the article.
I got no feedback to any of that and was instead suspended and asked to take it up here. The only reason on What to Do If You Are Suspended that may explain how I was suspended was "Disregarding moderator instructions and/or article comments". But I was not doing any more edits or reinstating what I supposedly had done wrong (if it has been removed, I have not checked) and instead specifically asking how to fulfill the instructions Septimus Heap gave me since they only directed me to rules which did not specify what to do in this case AND said that what I did could be justified.
edited 2nd Aug '14 2:45:39 PM by painocus
Zzzzzzzzzz
It was Natter. Natter is information that's irrelevant to the trope or the example it's added to, or in a Justifying Edit, an explanation of why the example it's added to shouldn't count or shouldn't be included. In this case, your addition was a Justifying Edit about the Reverse Bechdel Test, explaining why it isn't really what the earlier example said it was. The fact that it was a third-level bullet is a good clue that it's Natter. (Not all third-level bullets are, but a lot of them are.)
Additionally, where you added it was in the equivalent of the Examples section, so your pstatement that "It's a Useful Notes Page and Example Indentation doesn't apply to those" is erroneous.
And adding back the same entry after it's been removed with an edit reason is starting an Edit War. If you add something, and another editor removes it, giving a reason, don't just add it back in again. Take it to the discussion page and sort it out there.
edited 2nd Aug '14 3:00:28 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
But it wasn't explaining how the example it self was using the "trope" wrong. It was clarifying that the Web-Series that was mentioned in the example used the "trope" wrong. So there is no fault with the example, the web-series WAS taking about the Reverse Bechdel Test. Is it still a Justifying Edit? (EDIT: I would also point out that the (Reverse) Bechdel Test is not a trope. It is an analytic device. The "examples" on that article (at least the one I contributed to) is not talking about "trope usage" but about debates about and references to the analytic device.)
The Edit War article does not state what you said and define an edit war is "a cycle of posts, cancellations, counter-cancellations, re-posts". Two-three edits is not a cycle. I'm sorry if what I did was against the rules, but I could not find anywhere where what you said was stated. My edit was removed for being confused with "complaining" and I addressed this problem by changing the wording. So I fixed the reason it was removed in the first place.
edited 2nd Aug '14 3:05:58 PM by painocus
Zzzzzzzzzz
No. The example was what was said about it in that particular Feminist Frequency video, not whether you think that Anita was wrong.
And even so, your edit would still have been Natter, of the Conversation In The Main Page type; that is, instead of correcting the wring information, you argued against it. If it was factually wrong — that is, it misrepresented what Anita said — you should have (Repair, Don't Respond) corrected it, not simply responded to it.
As to Edit War being a cycle and three edits not being enough, "add - remove - add the same thing back" is the beginning of a cycle.
edited 2nd Aug '14 3:07:51 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
No, the example does represent what Anita said correctly (As far as I remember at-least, it has been a while since I watched the video). The problem is that Anita herself either misrepresents or misunderstands the Reverse test. Anita said that the only purpose of Test is to contribute "to the idea that women aren't oppressed" i.e. that the reverse test is to show that "men are also underrepresented in some films". The objective fact is that the test is actually (sometimes at-least) used to weed out films that would have failed the test also if the genders of the characters in the film were reversed, so that the tests can be used as a better and more objective tool to analyze female presence in media.
EDIT: I.e. if a film fails both tests the film can not be said to underrepresented women compared to men as it has just as much of a female presence as a male one.
EDIT 2: Is the potential beginning of a cycle itself a cycle? Isn't that like saying that holding a knife is always the beginning of a murder? Anyways I changed the wording to remove the problem specified. So could it then even be considered the beginning of a cycle, since the reason it was removed was no longer present?
EDIT 3: We got a ton of Artistic License tropes, so obviously just pointing out that something is represented wrong in a work when it is relevant is not itself illegal.
edited 2nd Aug '14 3:41:45 PM by painocus
Zzzzzzzzzz
This thread is not the place to debate your position on the Bechdel Test or the Reverse Bechdel test. If the example correctly presents what Anita said in the video, (as you say it does) then it does not need to be justified or corrected and the examples section is not the place to debate whether her interpretation is correct or not. That's Natter.
It's really that simple.
An Edit War does not have to be protracted to be an Edit War. We have no obligation to let one that is clearly developing go on until it's hit some arbitrary magic number of exchanges.
The Artistic License pages have absolutely no bearing on this.
edited 2nd Aug '14 4:13:17 PM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I posted on this thread some time ago asking if I could post on the forums again, and I got an answer saying "No thank you." I don't seem to understand the response.
I got suspended a few months back, probably for using spoilers on trope names. I have mostly dropped off the face of the wiki since then, so I would really just like to appeal so I can edit my userpage to reflect this.
Not nearly a good enough singer for the Choir Invisible, and the Basement Room With A Synth Invisible is much less prestigious.