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
Now this is the part where you don't make any sense.
Namely, what passive-aggressive sniping? I'm pretty aggressively informed people doing The Con that they are wrong and this change is stupid. There was nothing passive about it. And that was where my participation with forum ended, since I got suspended over it.
If you're talking GCPTR then, again, that example was always correct and always proper, making the big show of cutting it and leaving behind "reinstate only when the trope is fixed after this date" pointless. Because there is just no way those particular entries would be ever "wrong" in the definition of GCPTR. Especially the one from How I Unleashed World War II, since it even comes with an extra commentary bulletpoint why and how that particular scene was kept around despite censorship. Hence - yeah, it was pointless to cut it in the first place, and now it's utterly ridiculous to cut them yet again, based on the premise of not the merit of the entry, but troper who put it.
If you are talking anything else, then I literally have no idea what you mean.
.
.
I feel like the actual problem we are dealing here is some weird, real-life case of Protocol Peril:
- you expect from me full participation, on the basis that if I have to be 100% on-board with what's going on with the site as a whole and must participate in changes being done and their related discussion - by participation meaning forum discussion and edits.
- I don't care about the participation, which for me is only forum discussions, because I can deal with the fact the site and its content is changing, even if I find some of them stupid and counter-productive - and since I can't participate in the related dicussions, I must roll with their results, thus doing my "job" of editing articles according to the existing tropes and definitions.
) and once all the con-related tropes are merged the way they are planned to be, the whole thing will have to look more or less like this:
This film provides examples of:
- The Con: The Movie
- Con Men Hate Guns: Everyone is shown using them mostly for intimidation, never firing any and generally avoiding violence. This starts to be a problem in the finale, when nobody wants to shoot their gun, despite being in a Mexican Standoff.
- One Last Job: Joe is getting with the years and after his previous heist went sideways, he's looking for large payoff that would let him retire
- Playing Both Sides: Fran. By the end of it both sides end up used, betrayed and tricked, until nobody really knows who Fran was supporting - and if anyone at all.
- True Companions: Joe, Bobby and Don. They've been working together for a lifetime and trust each other to the point where when Don is forced to betray them to save the life of his niece, they fully understand why he did so, with no hard feelings over it.
See the problem I've got with merging con tropes? And the rebuke I've got was "well, we don't use those tropes, so they are useless and you are giving us attitude - besides, it's been already decided without you". So what for my participation is needed for, exactly? It's not like it mattered for anything at all and it's not like things like that are well-announced in advance, so people actually can participate in them when it's still time for voicing the issues and concerns with planned changes.
And if I try to describe the plot of the movie using post-merger The Con, I will have about 70% of the whole article as bulletpoints to a single trope. Not to mention retooling them with twice as much explainations, since I can't just do the good, old "[Trope Name]: Description how it applies", as I now have to explain every basic con first, then the relation to the plot. "Inefficient" doesn't even start to describe it.
Not that any of it matters, since I'm effectively banned for "non-participation spirit".
Edited by Osiem-Setny on Jun 11th 2021 at 2:31:47 AM
How sweet it is
And you've officially overstayed your welcome. You refused to cooperate with TRS consensus, and now you refused to cooperate with us.
We have no choice but to show you the door.
she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report
I created the WAW Wrestling page. After the company dissolved, I added information regarding how it happened. Another person (mod, regular user, I'm not sure) deleted the block of text citing "no bashing." I put it back, they deleted it again. Put it back again and sent them a message trying to explain the situation. That's when I was suspended (presumably to halt the edit war).
I understand and respect having rules against bashing, but also feel having the information out there regarding the company's folding is important to the page. Instead of just deleting the whole chunk of text, suggested rewrites to fit site standards or editing offending passages would have been much more helpful. My ultimate goal is to have the information back up in a way deemed acceptable.
Hey there, I have been recently suspended because of my worrisome edits as Michael Katsuro called it. I didn't mean to breach TV Tropes' policies. I am very scared about this suspension. So I am requesting my appeal
Please be patient with my reply since I live in a different time zone and it's very late as I'm typing this. Thank You.
Another thing to note is that I and one other person I'll rather not disclose are the only ones actively working on these Object Shows. I got reckless in making all those ZCEs and whatnot since I thought nobody would bother to correct me and I can do these workpages at my leisurely pace. I was wrong.
Hey, I was only attempting to add an honest fact on the "Relic of the Future" main trope page and I thought I had the right trope correct, but apparently I was wrong in my first assumption that the first disappearance of my addition of the "Curse Escape Clause" was removed from someone who, at first, I thought may have believed my addition was a false fact. After re-adding it in another time I got suspended and I didn't realize that it was in fact the wrong trope to use for said fact. It won't happen again however, of that I can assure. I'm usually not one to tell lies on Tropes so I hope this suspension can be lifted in time.
Hello,
I was about to edit a page, then found myself suspended.
What did I do wrong?
I had just learned today that I had been suspended from editing pages. Is there a reason why? If I know what it is, I can learn from my mistakes.
Continuing from my previous post, I now realize what I did was wrong and should have complied to the rules. The truth is I'm disorganised and should have planned out my editing better instead of just haphazardly putting tropes to work pages and dealing with them later.
But if I get perma-banned (hopefully not), no one is ever going to edit those Object Shows pages I put my heart and soul into (As indicated by the lack of anyone else (except my friend) actively or properly working on it in the history pages). A good example of this is The Daily Object Show where I'm predominantly the main editor and mostly fill out the examples accurately and in detail.
I hope you take this into consideration because I'm such a huge fan of this site. As of now, I'm practicing writing out fleshed-out examples not ZCE or pre-commented examples in word document. That way, I can fix the problems I made before my suspension.
Lost in Space
~daemondanzer: There are a few things going on.
- You have engaged in an Edit War over the content of that article. This is grounds for suspension in and of itself. You must discuss contested changes, not add them back.
- That you created the article is irrelevant. All articles are owned collectively by the wiki and you have no special say in what they contain.
- We have a general policy to avoid bashing and drama importation. You don't need four paragraphs to describe the sordid history of this thing.
- There is some question about the claim of WAW Wrestling to their name, or at least its uniqueness, being discussed here.
~Whaterva: There's no need to be scared if you are capable of understanding and following rules.
All articles must follow our policies about stub pages and example context, no matter how many users are editing them. This means that articles must have sufficient examples when they are created, all examples must have sufficient context, and you may not under any circumstances add examples that are commented out.
If you are trying to draft articles for later publication, consider using the Sandbox namespace or doing it offline.
Also, this weird pleading you're doing is pathetic. Stop it. I don't care if you're the only person in the known universe who edits articles for Object Shows; you need to do it properly.
~Helljmpr Rookie: Please read our Edit War policy. It is explicit about how you should handle disagreements over examples. Your editing has other problems as well, such as excessive use of emphasis, overuse of spoiler tags, and some very dodgy grammar. You may need to spend some time using our Help with English topic until we're convinced you can write properly.
~William Shakesman: It was recently discovered that most of the content you have added to the wiki is plagiarized. I'm surprised it took us this long given how prolific you are, but it's especially concerning in that context. How much work have you stolen? Do we have to revert thirty thousand edits over nearly three years? I hope not.
Apart from outright vandalism (or spam), plagiarism is one of the worst offenses you can commit on a wiki like ours. You'd better have a good explanation, and I swear to Loki that if you pull the "I never heard that it was wrong" card I'm going to bounce you out of here faster than Michael Jordan can dribble. Could dribble. Whatever. My sports references are stale.
~WileK209: There are many, many problems with your edits.
- Improper Example Indentation
- Zero Context Examples
- Separating multiple tropes with slashes in examples
- Bad grammar and spelling
You need to clean all of this up. Given the prevalence of these errors, and that you have apparently ignored or failed to understand notification messages sent to you, you will need to prove you can write proper examples. Our Help with English topic can assist you.
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 11th 2021 at 9:37:48 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fighteer, I read your comment about me just now. I understand and totally agree with you although I wish you didn't call me pathetic (but looking back at my appeal...yeah). Never heard of sandbox before but it sounds perfect for my editing.
So what do i now?
Edited by Whaterva on Jun 11th 2021 at 7:28:55 AM
In regards to points 1 (edit wars) and 3 (bashing/drama):
I understand this [point 1] now. There was hardly any discussion either way beyond 'stop bashing', and not clarifying which parts counted as bashing. Just a wholesale removal of the text, which I had taken umbrage with. The last time I put it back in, I did actually send a message to the person (dwa824) explaining the situation, but the edits were reverted a final time by a different user and then I was suspended. Per my previous post, I'm seeking a resolution that involves retaining the information of the company's dissolution in a fashion that meets community standards.
Point 2: I hadn't meant to imply that I had ownership over the article, only that I had personal involvement in the company in question and present factual knowledge regarding how it all fell apart. Granted, I WAS still angry and hurt when I wrote it. I am much less so now.
Point 4: Completely valid - I knew there was a WAW Wrestling in the UK formed roughly in the same time period, I think it predates the New England WAW by about 4 years (don't quote me on that though). If I'm able, I'll probably just bring that up in the discussion.
Since I can't actually post in that discussion, I'll bring it up here: The companies have similar but not identical names. The one I was a part of only ever went by WAW Wrestling, while the UK company's full name is 'World Association of Wrestling' or WAW UK. That should help in distinguishing the two should any conflict arise.
As the company is no longer even operating (there are a few wrestlers, some of whom were associated with WAW, wrestling in a garage and using the same name) and lacks notability, I'd understand if it comes to just removing the whole thing wholesale.
Fighteer, thank you for pointing out my flaws. I have read the pages you linked to, and that makes it easier for me to learn from my mistakes. As for the spelling and grammar, I could always initially type something in Microsoft Word to see if it needs fixing, and then copy and paste it into the TV Tropes article or whatnot.
Lost in Space
Please don't reply to other posters in this thread. It says so right at the top.
~Whaterva: Sandbox is a namespace, just like Main or Film. To draft an article in a sandbox, use the link Sandbox.Name Of Article Here (replacing NameOfArticleHere with the title of the show), then edit away. You can copy the markup to the finished article when it's done, then send the sandbox to the Cut List. Alternatively, if you only work on one article at a time, use Sandbox.Whaterva, which nobody else will touch.
~daemondanzer: If you agree to work on this cooperatively, we can release your suspension. "Personal involvement" with a work or creator is fine, but you shouldn't use a privileged position to argue your point of view or base your edits on private or insider information. Everything in our articles should be based on information available to the general public.
~WileK209: I'm going to be frank. Grammar checkers can help, but they cannot substitute for actual knowledge of a language. Please use the help thread I linked earlier. Grammar check your posts ahead of time if you like, but you must still show that you can write adequately. If you edit the wiki again and make more mistakes, you will be permanently banned.
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 11th 2021 at 11:48:37 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Understandable. I am willing to work cooperatively, I only ask that the parts of the text deemed inflammatory be identified and edited, either changed or removed, rather than the passage being deleted wholesale. Erasing it and saying 'no bashing' wasn't cooperative or helpful.
I am more than happy to make the edits deemed appropriate.
Lost in Space
Again, if you have a problem with a deletion, you discuss it. You don't just add your content back, no matter how inadequate you find the reason. That's the edit war. Are we clear?
Edited by Fighteer on Jun 11th 2021 at 12:00:06 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Sorry about the thumped Fighteer. It won't happen again. Thanks for explaining the sandbox to me, it will be very useful after my suspension is over.
We are clear.
Lost in Space
~Whaterva and ~daemondanzer: I am releasing your suspensions. Study up on the rules so there won't be another conversation like this.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Yes I understand this'll be my last chance. So can I at least ask for a warning, rather then being suddenly suspended, and/or a link to a group or someone where I can put the tropes I want to put inbefore I put in proper to see if it fits the rules?
Lost in Space
~ssbob90: No. You had that chance already. As we said, you will need to use the Help with English thread, satisfactorily, to have any chance of being allowed to edit the wiki again.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I normally have no issues with english, it's the language I started with after all. And I usually use the "'''" emphasis and spoiler marks for understandable topics, i'm not really going out of bounds with that in most tropes that allow spoilers and emphasis marks. But fine, i'll wait until my suspension is over, though I already apologized sincerely and said I wouldn't do so again on the fanfic's trope page on re-adding the aforementioned "Curse Escape Clause", I was only wanting to be helpful and add in an honest fact is all, I didn't realize before that it was removed for a valid reason of an incorrect trope and not by someone who may have thought I was making something up.
Regardless, as I said before I truly apologize for re-adding it in after mistakenly thinking that it was first removed by someone who, at the time, I thought I may have made it up, though I didn't. It seems I used the incorrect trope as mentioned previously, if someone else can identify the proper trope for what I was going for then i'd truly appreciate if they'd let me know what it is.
Edited by HelljmprRookie on Jun 12th 2021 at 7:16:02 AM
~Osiem-Setny: I'm sorry, but what you're saying makes no sense. While you might have an argument for those Getting Crap Past the Radar examples that you are contesting, you failed to make that point in any reasonable manner and just added them back.
You don't get to use your non-participation as an excuse to defy troper consensus, and we aren't going to keep adding new restrictions every time you get angry and use some new venue to complain. You've lost forum and PM privileges; since you've also been using edit reasons to convey your ire, that removes the wiki as an option.
We would rather that you participate in the process of gathering consensus rather than passive-aggressively sniping at it. Since you have stated that you won't, we have no choice but to permanently ban you.
~discojoggs: Here's the problem. While you may be making an effort to learn, you are rushing into things in a haphazard and destructive manner. You need to take some time to sit back and study how the wiki works. In addition to breaking the image selection rules, you have been making stub Characters pages.
We like enthusiastic tropers but there's a line between enthusiasm and trashing the place because you can't be bothered to look first.
VG_Addict should have been bounced years ago. This has been corrected.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"