TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [6,813]  1  2
3
 4  5  6  7  8 ... 273

Edit banned/Suspended - would like to edit again.:

This is the thread we use to talk things over with people who 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.

For a fun site, we're pretty fussy about stuff like grammar and spelling, for example. More than you would expect, considering that we do want the funny. Everything is better with the funny.

Leave a note here indicating you want to talk the suspension over, then hang in there for a bit. A moderator will be along to talk to you about the situation.

NOTE: If you see another banned person post something that you want to comment on, don't. This thread is for discussion between banned people and Mods - no third parties invited.

While you're at it, browse What to Do If You Are Suspended.

edited 2nd Dec '13 9:48:19 PM by FastEddie

What did I do wrong? Did I anger someone? On my last edit, I was simply trying to make a few minor improvements. Maybe make them witty. Also, I have a few pages I created that need more love. I would like them to be added to the needs more love/needs more tropes index.
What? 3AM? I would ask how that happened, but...
You really, really need to read Example Indentation.
Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
what are you doing
What am I in for?

 54 Camacan, Sun, 1st Jan '12 11:41:31 PM from Australiatown
PM: Putting incorrectly formatted natter back after it was removed with a rude edit reason addressed to specific troper.

Eddie's classing that triple star section as natter and I can see what he means. a) The example does not read with a single voice, and the added material appears to respond to the existing material. b) Using a triple star. It's not a sub-sub-example.

Why misuse a triple star? You've been around longer than I have: you must have read Example Indentation and understood that we don't want folks tacking on stuff with a lone double star, let alone a lone triple star. Double stars are for lists of two or more sub-examples, and we always include the first sub-example when making the list. Never one entry at a given indentation level in the examples section. Tacking on stuff like that makes it look thread-mode right from the get-go.

Edit reasons have to be civil, and aren't the right place to hold a conversation. We've got the incident that got you zapped by Eddie, the two conflicts that ended up in Ask The Tropers plus I see this edit war here. That one is on the order of six revisions and no attempt to take it to PMs and/or the discussion page.

edited 2nd Jan '12 3:26:54 AM by Camacan

what are you doing
So anything with three stars is automatically natter? I've followed Andrew around long enough since the big natter sweep a few years back to see he deletes anything he disagrees with under the guise of "it's natter", and I'm tired of editors removing relevant information and too lazy to integrate them. If relevant information is now considered conversation in the main page because of three asterisks, that's a rather spotty policy.

I'll leave the wiki alone and won't challenge my edit ban any further.

edited 2nd Jan '12 4:07:15 PM by PacificMackerel

Understood. I'll limit my sub-entries from now on and try to avoid 3* examples. Can I edit again, now?
What? 3AM? I would ask how that happened, but...
It looks like I can't edit pages. It says "suspended", but I'm not sure what that means. I don't know why either, so I'll have to ask that before I ask to edit again. I hope this is the right place for that too.

If it's to do with a faux pas at editing Hannibal Lecture, I was removing examples that should not be there because they weren't examples of the trope. A TRRS discussion about how there are so many incorrect examples had just resolved to the effect that the trope would not be changed to accommodate them, so it seemed natural they would need to be removed. Is it allowed to remove a lot of incorrect examples? Yes, I was also moving them elsewhere, but I'm not sure how that would affect things if the edit I was making on the original page was otherwise okay.

edited 2nd Jan '12 7:58:58 PM by VVK

 
Still banned. Still don't know why I was banned.
TRUCKASAURUS
 59 Camacan, Mon, 2nd Jan '12 7:43:43 PM from Australiatown
Pacific Mackerel: No mate, that's not so. I asked Eddie specifically about that. The garbage formatting doesn't automatically make it natter.

If you are in dispute with another troper edit waring and rude edit messages doesn't resolve the problem and isn't allowed.

The policy is not "all triple star crap is natter", it is: use correct Example Indentation, stick to one voice in an example, be civil and don't edit war.

This suspension has been while coming; the ATT stuff shoulda been a warning bell. Surely it's not so hard to sick to those basics and give up the Lone Gunman approach to wiki editorship. I'd hate to lose your contribution over something as fixable as this.

Hey, I got blocked a year ago for what I assume was some (or maybe a lot of) dyslexia caused spelling errors and a few unwise edits when I didn't fully understand the use of the trope. I apologies for the spelling, it's a constant battle for me in my everyday life and I rarely post in chat rooms because I'm afraid people will think that I'm a troll. As For the bad edits I think I've got a better grasp of quantifier like invoke and YMMV and understand what the discussion page is for. (I originality assumed that it was a chat room to talk about the work rather than about the trope page) I feel that I could contribute as a fact checker on quality control rather than a primary editor and hope that you will give me a second chance
 
 61 Fighteer, Tue, 3rd Jan '12 11:24:23 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
With Mod Hat On
Tom Walpertac 2: You need to fully understand Natter and Example Indentation. I'll lift the suspension but we don't give second chances lightly, especially for the same offense.

VVK: What I see is exactly that, you chainsawed Hannibal Lecture. If TRS was not in favor of the action you suggest, you are not allowed to unilaterally take that action anyway. If this is how you're going to approach changes to tropes, you probably shouldn't be doing them. Do we make ourselves clear?

Eris Online: I see you being a Single-Issue Wonk about transgender tropes, inserting bogus disclaimers on all sorts of articles. We don't appreciate people using the wiki to soapbox about political topics and Unfortunate Implications thereof. Tropes are about media, not real life.

readergurl6: Sorry, but we cannot allow you to edit if you're just going to make work for everyone to fix your edits. The reason why you can't do so is not important. The post you just made was loaded with errors. That said, we do have a thread here for you to request help with English. Put a few of your suggested edits in there and we'll see where it goes. Maybe you can demonstrate some improvement.

edited 3rd Jan '12 11:28:45 AM by Fighteer

Ironically, the pursuit of the definition of happiness does not appear to be a happiness-maximizing behavior.
I see. I understand I shouldn't do that, and can promise I never will, but I must point out that I wasn't doing it at this time. Deleting all that stuff was necessary according to the TRS decision. My own suggestion had been that nothing should be removed. Please hear me out.

Hannibal Lecture had lots of examples that didn't belong there because they didn't fit the definition. I started a TRS thread because I didn't want them all just removed. The action I suggested was to broaden the definition so that they could be kept. (See post 29 for how I would have changed the page.)

This suggestion was not accepted; Fast Eddie rewrote the trope so that it remained almost the same thing it had been (see post 63), and that was declared the official new definition (65-66).

This meant that a majority (or at least a huge minority) of all the examples on the page were still wrong. Hence, I was not unilaterally acting against the decision arrived at at TRS when I started removing them. I was acting in accordance with the decision. Unless it takes a separate resolution to start removing incorrect examples, but as far as I could see, it was implicit that it would be necessary to do it.

(I was also putting the examples I removed in a new YKTTW, something I didn't think needed discussion on that TRS thread, since it was about a new trope, not Hannibal Lecture. This, in case you were wondering, also accounts for my enthusiasm to start making massive edits that were contrary to what I had wanted done.)

I now understand what you thought I was doing, but according to the TRS decision and the definition of the trope settled on, all those examples should in fact be cut. Hannibal Lecture was and is about a bad guy turning the tables on an interrogator, and the page is full of examples where there's nothing like interrogation going on.

Oh, and now that I know why I have been blocked, and I hope this clears it up, I can ask, may I edit again?

edited 3rd Jan '12 3:56:07 PM by VVK

 
That's why I took it to the forums in the first place, and that conversation is still ongoing. It was a first offense, and it wasn't an offense according to any established policies. Furthermore, I was discussing fiction and tropes in as neutral a manner as possible, just as I have since I first began editing. Throughout this process I have been trying very hard to stay polite and friendly, but the impression I am getting is that discriminatory writing where it concerns transpeople is not considered discriminatory by the community of TV Tropes.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a single-issue editor, but I may seem shrill or aggressive because of the turn that this process has taken. As far as I can tell, the only thing I did wrong was to ask if I had done anything wrong.

edited 3rd Jan '12 3:36:52 PM by ErisOnline

TRUCKASAURUS
ok..i apologize for the asinine edit war..can i get un banned now cool

edited 4th Jan '12 7:42:17 AM by TheUrbanPrince

 
 65 Fighteer, Wed, 4th Jan '12 8:33:51 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
With Mod Hat On
VVK: I'm lifting the suspension as I think the issue worked itself out in that thread you referenced.
Eris Online: It's this bit that concerns me:

but the impression I am getting is that discriminatory writing where it concerns transpeople is not considered discriminatory by the community of TV Tropes
I don't know where you would have gotten the impression that we welcome "discriminatory" writing. We are here to discuss and examine writing of all kinds, not pass value judgements on it. See Tropes Are Not Bad. It doesn't seem like you get this concept: that not yelling to the heavens about how a thing is BAD equals condoning it.

I'm only willing to lift the suspension if you're willing to work in the spirit of the wiki.
The Urban Prince: I don't like it when someone comes to this thread and says, "Okay, I'm here, can you unban me please." If you knew that what you did was inappropriate, why'd you do it in the first place? It smacks of a belief that it's okay to misbehave unless caught.

edited 4th Jan '12 8:34:15 AM by Fighteer

Ironically, the pursuit of the definition of happiness does not appear to be a happiness-maximizing behavior.
ok so now in MY defense i didn't expect for it to turn into a edit war. i was hoping to resolve the issue but mackerel was being obnoxiously difficult. i have been on this site since 07 and not ONCE have i broken the rules. so i should be entitled to at least SOME benefit of the doubt.
 
Very late response. "AUS, I've got a note that some of your old edits were tagged with the reason "edit wars are cool". The ban was a preemptive strike against the possibility that you actually feel that way. Do you?"

I don't exactly remember the context of that, I think it was like I was editing to remove an edit war, or something. Either way, I do NOT want to start an edit-war of any kind.
 
 68 Camacan, Thu, 5th Jan '12 2:07:16 AM from Australiatown
The Urban Prince: Firstly, not using correct capitalization here is a bad sign. Secondly, we're talking six reverts, with personally directed edit reasons, in a row. It is not a matter of it turning into an edit war, that's what you were already doing. Thirdly, blaming the guy you were editing warring with gets you nowhere. Not seeing a good unban case here.

what are you doing
Alright, alright. Sorry about my temper tantrum up there, I apologize.

If anything, I'll try to fix the Mass Effect bulletpoints, since it's a massive page and there's way too many spare bulletpoints everywhere. Point taken.

 70 Camacan, Thu, 5th Jan '12 3:22:54 AM from Australiatown
A'right. How about the edit warring? Can we expect civil edit reasons and talking it out in discussion, etc, rather than revert-fests?

What did I do to be banned?

 72 Fighteer, Thu, 5th Jan '12 8:19:23 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
With Mod Hat On
You took it upon yourself to launch Super Armor despite people telling you repeatedly that it was a bad trope with a poor title. You mangled the markup when you did launch it. After it was cut, you did the same thing again. Sorry, we don't need or want tropers who behave like this.

@AUS: I'll lift the suspension for now.

edited 5th Jan '12 8:20:55 AM by Fighteer

Ironically, the pursuit of the definition of happiness does not appear to be a happiness-maximizing behavior.
Thanks, but I only launched the trope once. Somebody else started the trope and I didn't even know the title had already been used once before.

 74 Fighteer, Thu, 5th Jan '12 9:11:55 AM from the Time Vortex Relationship Status: Dancing with Captain Jack Harkness
With Mod Hat On
Here's the deal. You started a YKTTW. It was pointed out that a previous YKTTW existed for the trope. You then proceeded to launch that old YKTTW despite both entries having multiple people point out their flaws. You then copied the entire markup of the YKTTW into the new page. I can see it; it's on the history.

It's hard to see how you could have thought you were doing the right thing here. Enlighten me.
Ironically, the pursuit of the definition of happiness does not appear to be a happiness-maximizing behavior.
Firstly, Camacan complaining about me not using correct capitalization is a bad sign. and again my INTENT was NOT to start a edit war. and you know what Camacan, i'll never be able to make a proper case..so fuck it. so it's whatever.
 
Total posts: 6,813
 1  2
3
 4  5  6  7  8 ... 273


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy