TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Edit banned/Suspended - would like to edit again.

Go To

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 spam the thread about your appeal, 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 GastonRabbit on Apr 30th 2025 at 11:56:51 AM

painocus Since: Nov, 2010
#6401: Aug 2nd 2014 at 4:24:23 PM

But it is not a debate. It is clarifying that the test is not always used that way, which is 1) an objective fact, and 2) relevant since the entire point of the useful note is to educate on the subject.

And how is Artistic License pages not relevant? They are doing the exact same thing that I did. If what I did is against the rules, all of those should be purged as well.

"We have no obligation to let one that is clearly developing go on"

As I already stated I would not have put it back without starting a debate had it been removed again, so your assumption is incorrect. And I fixed the specified reason for it's removal, so how could it possibly go on like that?

Deadbeatloser22 MOD from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#6402: Aug 2nd 2014 at 4:32:46 PM

"Other people got away with this, so I should as well" is not a valid line of reasoning in here. Just because we haven't dealt with every instance of a rule being broken yet does not mean that rule stops applying.

edited 2nd Aug '14 4:32:55 PM by Deadbeatloser22

"Yup. That tasted purple."
Valsion The Polish Valsion from Lódz, Poland Since: Sep, 2011
The Polish Valsion
#6403: Aug 2nd 2014 at 4:48:08 PM

I'm sorry for causing any mess due to editing too minor mistakes repeatedly. My haste brought out the worst in me. I'm sorry. Please allow me to edit once more (in a few days, maybe) - I like this site a lot and I wish to contribute in some way.

Let's fight fair and square!
painocus Since: Nov, 2010
#6404: Aug 2nd 2014 at 4:48:56 PM

[up][up] That is not my argument. I was under the impression that the Artistic License articles are legal. If they are not how are they still here? They have been there for ages and there are a lot of them. If the entire concept is (as you just said) against the rules why haven't they been just deleted and locked? And how can I be blamed for believing that what they do is legal under these circumstances?

edited 2nd Aug '14 4:51:18 PM by painocus

Madrugada MOD Since: Jan, 2001
#6405: Aug 2nd 2014 at 5:00:04 PM

Jinbo: That meant that, given your posting history, we don't see any reason to restore your forum privileges. Your forum suspension will not be lifted.

Madrugada MOD Since: Jan, 2001
#6406: Aug 2nd 2014 at 5:03:22 PM

The Artistic License tropes are not relevant because they aren't about whether a work's creator got something wrong or not. They did. It's there to see that they did get something factually wrong. Debate about whether an example fits on one of those pages is still Natter and still unwanted and still subject to being removed.

"I fixed the reason it was removed..." No, you fixed part of the reason it was removed. You adjusted the tone to be less complaining, but it was still Natter.

edited 2nd Aug '14 5:11:51 PM by Madrugada

painocus Since: Nov, 2010
#6407: Aug 2nd 2014 at 5:10:34 PM

But, again, it is not a debate about whether or not the "trope" fits. She debates the Bechdel test. So it fits. Nor is it a debate about whether or not she got something factually wrong. What I am saying (like the Artistic License pages) is "[she] did."

EDIT: The person who removed it didn't remove it because they disagreed (and if they did they did not say it), they removed it because they said it sounded like "complaining". (Which I addressed by rewording the entry a bit.)

EDIT 2: They removed another entry at the same time, which I assumed to be what the natter comment was referring to, as I didn't (and still don't since apparently Artistic License is legal (? I'm getting conflicting replies from you guys)) understand how what I did qualifies as natter.

edited 2nd Aug '14 5:59:13 PM by painocus

Madrugada MOD Since: Jan, 2001
#6408: Aug 2nd 2014 at 6:37:26 PM

Valsion You were suspended in error. Someone reported that you had blanked ShoutOut.Ace Combat The Equestrian War. Which you had. Last year. To move it. And had been suspended for not using the cutlist back then. Suspension lifted.

Which is the correct name Ace Combat The Equestrian War or Ace Combat Equestria Chronicles?

Madrugada MOD Since: Jan, 2001
#6409: Aug 2nd 2014 at 6:41:19 PM

^^ No, debating whether Anita is right or not in her interpretation of the Reverse Bechdel Test does not belong on the page. It is Natter. The existence of the Artistic License tropes does not change that. They are not relevant to this at all.

And frankly, you're apparently far more concerned with convincing me that you're right, than with getting your editing privileges back.

Suspension upheld. Check back in a month or so, if you're prepared then to address why you should be allowed to edit again.

painocus Since: Nov, 2010
#6410: Aug 2nd 2014 at 7:29:19 PM

But, like I've been saying, it is not about her interpretation of the Reverse test. She said (if the article is right for it has been a while since I've seen the vid) that the test can not be used to defend the claim that women are oppressed. This is provably wrong. Shoot! I can prove it right here:

"Let's assume 4 things: 1: If a film fails the Bechdel test, but not the Reverse test, it underrepresented women compared to men. 2: If a film fails the Reverse test, but not the Bechdel test, it underrepresented men compared to women. 3: If a film fails both tests it doesn't underrepresented either gender compared to other. 4: If a film fails neither test it doesn't underrepresented either gender compared to other.

Now if we assume one more thing, which from my experience has been the case: 5: Films in group 1 far outnumber films in group 2.

This would mean that cinema in general massively underrepresented women as autonomous compared to men. Therefore women are culturally oppressed by cinema."

There. Regardless of whether or not you agree with what I just said, I still used the Reversed Bechdel test to argue that women are oppressed. Thus objectively proving her claim wrong.

And why should I not be allowed to defend myself? Yes, I'm more concerned with convincing you, because I think not stating what I said would be wrong and hurtful to the integrity of the site, and I believe that what you (or whoever suspended me) did is not justified within the rule-work of this site. Nothing you have said could convince me that it is natter. It is objective. It is relevant. It is necessary. Factually and morally necessary. Even if you delete what I wrote and forbid me from changing it (which you pretty much have anyways); I will still believe that. I won't add it back. But I will still believe that. Until someone actually say anything debunking those claims.

EDIT: And Artistic License is relevant because it shows that it is not against the rules to point out that the work mentioned in an example is wrong.

EDIT 2: And me being right and thus having done nothing that breaks the rules would be a pretty good reason for "why [I] should be allowed to edit again." So convincing you and getting my editing privileges back is more or less the same thing. Even if what I presume you want me to do is to gravel at your feet and tell you that you are right because you are a mod and that I'm sorry for doing something I had no way of knowing would be considered wrong and still don't know why is wrong. I can do that too, if I'm actually not allowed to defend myself.

edited 2nd Aug '14 8:26:27 PM by painocus

painocus Since: Nov, 2010
#6411: Aug 2nd 2014 at 11:41:50 PM

Screw it I'm just going to say it:

So far you people have more-or-less only come with stawman arguments, ignored multiple things I've said (like continuing to say that I claimed the example did not fit the "trope" despite me repetitively pointing out that I did not) and contradicted each-other on the rules of your own site depending on what would be most beneficial to argue against me at the time. If not straight up lying when it came to Deadbeatloser22's claim that the Artistic License articles break the rules? (I still haven't gotten an honest confirmation on that.)

Essentially you seem to be treating contributors that just want what they believe is the best for your site as enemies that must be defeated, instead of treating them as like-minded individuals that you just have a disagreement or misunderstanding with. And at this moment I'm not sure this is an environment I even want to go back to after this, so you "Suspension upheld. Check back in a month" isn't really frightening me that much. And I've been contributing more or less regularly to this site for years.

Tell me how what I've stated is 1) any less objective than what is on Artistic License articles, or 2) how it is not relevant. These appear to be the two criteria for natter, and none of you have addressed any of them. The closest thing any of you have come is claiming that I am "debating" on the article. Debating with who? Anita? Then, AGAIN, I am not debating anymore then what the Artistic License articles are. This is not interpenetration vs interpretation, this is error vs provable fact. It IS possible the use the Reverse Behdel test to argue that women are oppressed. I just did it. It is objective. It is fact.

The only other reason any of you have given for it being natter is that you say it is natter. I've said repeatedly that it is not anymore debating than Artistic License is. You reply? "Artistic License tropes has nothing to do with this." My question: "Why not?" Your answer? Nothing.

Show me where I'm wrong, and I'll admit to being wrong. And if you can't, and still refuse to let me be right, at least stop beating about the bush and just tell me that "yes, it is that way only because we say so", and I'll quietly follow your commands.

Sorry if I'm harsh, rude or unfair, but this ordeal is really stating to both anger and severely disappoint me.

edited 3rd Aug '14 12:42:16 AM by painocus

kingdoncarlos from Imperial Manila's asscushion Since: Jan, 2014 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#6412: Aug 3rd 2014 at 2:06:53 AM

@Deadbeatloser I'm going to confess. I am indeed quilty of vandalism and disregard of authority (not that any authority is immediatley felt). I sincerely apologize for my actions. I swear not to repeat that stupid act or lie about it ever again.

And one more thing: I was really offered credits, but I actually had to video chat the person and show him/her my wang. Of course I rejected. I was quite drunk when I appealed my ban. Once again, my sincerest apologies.

edited 9th Aug '14 3:25:32 AM by kingdoncarlos

http://m.youtube.com/channel/UCDF9xgeNxebwtw_puIhxzVw http://m.youtube.com/channel/UCZaGReNqwM-Z29gIZXxbnyg
Deadbeatloser22 MOD from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#6413: Aug 3rd 2014 at 4:04:36 AM

Now, you see, what you should have done at that point is report the threat to whoever runs the game.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
Madrugada MOD Since: Jan, 2001
#6414: Aug 3rd 2014 at 4:54:39 AM

Painocus: Ok, I see where the problem lays here. You define "being given an answer" as "being given the answer you want". I have answered you, several times on all of your points. The fact that you don't like those answers doesn't mean that I didn't answer. But I'll run through them once more:

  • Example Indentation applies to all pages that have bulleted lists, not simply trope pages. You addition was incorrectly indented.
  • Your addition was Natter, first in the form of a JustifyingEdit, then when you changed the tone slightly, it remained Natter in the form of Conversation In The Main Page. Natter is not wanted, and the addition was correctly removed, with an edit reason, by another editor.
    • The main page is not the proper place for discussing whether you think Anita's interpretation of the Reverse Bechdel Test is correct or not is not; the proper place would be either on the discusson page, or in the forums.
    • One of the main rules of the wiki is Repair Dont Respond: If an entry is factually wrong, remove it or correct it. Do not add another entry disputing it. The only question of factuality regarding this entry is "Is that what Anita said?"
  • The Artistic License tropes are irrelevant to this discussion for two reasons:
    • They are not allowed Natter, either.
    • Even if they did have special rules that allowed Natter, the page under discussion is not an Artistic License trope page, it's Useful Notes Page and therefore any special rules that applied to Artistic License pages still wouldn't apply to it, anymore than Cricket Rules apply to Baseball.
  • "Add — remove — re-add the same thing, essentially unchanged" is an early-stage Edit War. Neither I nor any of the other mods are required to wait until it's gone on longer than that.
  • Even if I agreed with your interpretation of the Bechdel Test, the Reverse Bechdel Test, and what it means, that wouldn't change the fact that you were suspended for Nattering and starting an Edit War, and that you have spent the better part of a page arguing that you didn't do either one. This indicates to me that
    1. you do not understand what either one is, or,
    2. than you think the rules don't apply to you.
Neither of those bodes well for getting your editing privileges back.

There, I think I covered everything.

edited 3rd Aug '14 4:58:45 AM by Madrugada

painocus Since: Nov, 2010
#6415: Aug 3rd 2014 at 5:56:09 AM

The Indentation debate was settled long I go. I admitted that a reformatting could be necessary, but asked for more specific instructions because the Example Indentation only described how to proceed with normal articles. (I didn't get any specific explanation for what to do however, so technically I still hasn't really been given an answer about this either. But I assume the problem was that I used a 3-bullet Indentation.)

My problem is that almost none of these are answers to my actual questions.

"The main page is not the proper place for discussing whether you think Anita's interpretation of the Reverse Bechdel Test is correct or not is not; the proper place would be either on the discusson page, or in the forums."

Like I said quite a few times now this is not about her interpretation of the test itself, but about her claim about how it is used. So this is not an answer to my actual question, but rather a straw-man argument. I have not said "her interpretation is wrong", I said "her claim about it's usage is wrong".

"One of the main rules of the wiki is Repair, Don't Respond: If an entry is factually wrong, remove it or correct it. Do not add another entry disputing it."

Irrelevant since (as I have again stated multiple times) I'm not claiming the article is wrong about what she said, but stating that it is necessary to a clarify her error as not to spread misinformation on the Useful Notes.

"The Artistic License tropes are irrelevant to this discussion for two reasons: They are not allowed Natter, either."

Exactly my point. One of my questions is what is the difference between what I am doing, and what those articles are doing? Because if there are none, either those pages are natter (which you have just said they are not) or what I'm doing is not natter.

"the page under discussion is not an Artistic License trope page, it's Useful Notes Page and therefore any special rules that applied to Artistic License pages still wouldn't apply to it, anymore than Cricket Rules apply to Baseball."

Now THIS is an actual answer. But I will counter it with another question, doesn't the same natter rules apply everywhere? (As if so, for what I did to be natter there must be a difference between what those pages do and what I did.)

The Edit War misunderstanding might be a language problem. In my native language something has to cycle for an extended amount of time to be considered, well, a cycle. Thus going back and fourth once is not considered a cycle. The rules were not at all clear on the fact that one could not add something back at all. Anyways, I fixed what (I was under the impression) was the problem with the entry when I added it back.

I'll try spell my questions out in a list to make it easier:

  • How is what I said (pointing out that the Reverse test can be and is used for different purposes than what Anita said) not objective?
  • How it irrelevant? (When this is a Useful Notes article about that very subject.)
  • If my contribution is objective and relevant could it then be natter?
  • How is what I am doing different from what the Artistic License tropes are doing? (This is relevant since what they do is not considered natter.)
  • Is it still considered contributing to an edit war when you remove the reason for it's deletion before adding something back? (This also partially relies on how we settle the natter-debate.)

And if I didn't think the rules apply to me, why would I spend time trying to argue that I didn't break them?

edited 3rd Aug '14 6:14:32 AM by painocus

ViralMonster Since: Dec, 2011
#6416: Aug 3rd 2014 at 2:47:02 PM

Hey you guys didn't unban me, I'm very sorry for what I did, it was an honest mistake and it won't happen again.

Madrugada MOD Since: Jan, 2001
#6417: Aug 3rd 2014 at 2:59:59 PM

That would be why, Viral Monster. The reviews section is for your reviews, not simply linking.

Sence you get why, and have said you won't do it again, I'll lift the suspension.

kingdoncarlos from Imperial Manila's asscushion Since: Jan, 2014 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
#6418: Aug 3rd 2014 at 3:10:11 PM

The game thing is insignificant. What matters here is that I'm very much wrong, I lied about it and I am now facing the consequences of my actions. Once again, I apologize for my actions.

edited 9th Aug '14 3:28:07 AM by kingdoncarlos

http://m.youtube.com/channel/UCDF9xgeNxebwtw_puIhxzVw http://m.youtube.com/channel/UCZaGReNqwM-Z29gIZXxbnyg
Deadbeatloser22 MOD from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#6419: Aug 3rd 2014 at 3:43:13 PM

Here's the thing though. We still only have your word to go on that you were hacked / threatened / etc.

With that in mind, we will not be releasing your suspension.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
ThePope Since: Oct, 2010
#6420: Aug 4th 2014 at 12:39:06 AM

I'm assuming my editing permissions were revoked due to the mass wick fix I performed on British spellings to trope names that don't use British spellings?

lu127 Paper Master from 異界 Since: Sep, 2011 Relationship Status: Crazy Cat Lady
#6421: Aug 4th 2014 at 1:10:13 AM

Yes. Why did you do that?

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Pastykake Since: Jun, 2014
#6422: Aug 4th 2014 at 7:49:37 AM

I was told I was being given another chance, which I interpreted as being allowed to edit YKTTW again, but it was almost a week ago and I still cannot edit. Is there a minimum time frame that has to be filled before it unlocks?

ThePope Since: Oct, 2010
#6423: Aug 4th 2014 at 9:24:08 AM

All the wicks I edited were to fix redirects. In all cases, the trope title is in said language.

I didn't go around fixing, for example, The Lady's Favour, because the trope title is in British English. But I did spend a number of hours fixing all of the misspelled wicks to Parental Favoritism because that trope title is in American English.

It's to my understanding that the fewer redirects, the better, since direct wicks are just cleaner and make everyone's life easier.

Deadbeatloser22 MOD from Disappeared by Space Magic (Great Old One) Relationship Status: Tsundere'ing
#6424: Aug 4th 2014 at 9:33:59 AM

Actually, Administrivia.American And Commonwealth Spellings allows for redirects for that sort of thing.

"Yup. That tasted purple."
ThePope Since: Oct, 2010
#6425: Aug 4th 2014 at 9:39:35 AM

Fine, whatever.

I had to go on a multi-thousand page crusade to fix the wicks to Main.Fullmetal Alchemist to either the Anime or Manga page, so I'm used to mass fixes.

I'll back off alternate spellings unless the trope in question leans on one or the other. And if one of you really wants to go through those hundreds of pages and revert them, be my guest.


Total posts: 35,557
Top