Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Well Lucky-Seven-Leaf-Clover finally give an edit reason, what he said was this: In my defense, I was editing again before the last edit was reverted, but I want to make it clear that I was not trying to be biased.
“Boom! Boomboom! Boomboomboom! Bakuage Tire! Gogogo!"
It doesn't change the fact that they still Edit Warred (which is a huge no-no) and deleted large chunks of information with no Edit Reason, nor does it change the fact that they inserted a Justifying Edit. And now they're trying to justify their Justifying Edit.
Edited by mouschilight "In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction
Yeah, they are making excuses.
“Boom! Boomboom! Boomboomboom! Bakuage Tire! Gogogo!"
Exactly. That's why I really think a moderator needs to get involved at this point.
"In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction
Holy Wall of Text, Batman!! That example is in dire need of an ax; I'll take care of it after I have a few hours of sleep.
Regardless, the timeframe of the edits (each less than one hour apart) suggests that Lucky-Seven-Leaf-Clover isn't making excuses: either the page lock timer ran out or they didn't refresh the page before hitting the edit button, so mouschilight had time to revert the examples before Lucky made the tweaks. It can happen when two tropers are editing the same page back-to-back.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
I'd personally like to get a moderator involved (whenever someone has availability), because, again, this person 1) inserted a Justifying Edit, which is not allowed; 2) deleted a large chunk of information with no Edit Reason, which isn't good; and 3) initiated an Edit War (Add -> Delete -> Re-Add), which is not allowed.
"In conversation, do you listen or wait to talk?" "I have to admit that I wait to talk, but I'm trying harder to listen." — Pulp Fiction
You keep insisting the Edit War thing, but does it really count as an Edit War if it was an accident? Shouldn't intention count more for what makes an Edit War than what technically happened? According to them (and what is apparently supported by the timestamps) they didn't see your edits and then think "Hmph! Gonna put back what I wrote!," they weren't done editing and accidentally put back their version of the page.
I have nothing to say on the rest of it, since I can't judge from what's been said if this user understands the Justifying Edit was wrong or is still insisting on putting their edit in there. I don't think you need mod permission to send someone a notifier.
Edited by Octoya
Yeah, that's not an edit war.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Further evidence that it's not an edit war: Lucky's second edit
concerned mostly the Yu-Gi-Oh! entries. I suspect that they were working on that and the lock timer ran out before they could finish.
I'd like to note here that the Yu-Gi-Oh! entries concern at least 5 different sequels/spinoffs, and it's still smaller than the Naruto entry, which concerns only Sakura. Seeing as we're waiting for a mod to weigh in anyway, do I have permission to slice-and-dice it to something more concice?
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
Slice away.
Yeah, it's clear Lucky wasn't doing it out of bad faith at all.
(Don't) take me home.
I have revamped the example and added a moderator notice. Frankly, this is an entry that is continuously written poorly. None of the quotes from the interviews were actually relevant, since none of them had anything to do with Sakura's poor performance as a fighter.
The Justifying Edit was poor but I don't see any inherent bias. The viewpoint is reasonable but is not enough to strike the example off. Mouschilight, the link to Fighteer's post was uncalled for and assuming. A simple PM to the troper asking for clarification would have sufficed.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
^ Can I replace the Faux Action Girl entry in Characters.Naruto Sakura Haruno with the revamped one, Lu?
Edited by RoundRobin - Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
Sure. It's not perfect by any means, but it suffices. People can read the manga if they want to find out more. Add the note as well.
"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Cheers!
I've swapped the old entry with the new one, moderator note included, and left an edit reason linking back to this thread. From a cursory glance, I'll need to revisit that page at some point to trim some other wordy entries.
- Fly, robin, fly! - ...I'm trying!
Great! I consider this one done. I'll lock this query.
Edited by lu127 "If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer
Troper Lucky-Seven-Leaf-Clover just did three offenses on Faux Action Girl: they Edit Warred, they inserted a Justifying Edit, and they deleted a large chunk of information with no Edit Reason.
Here's their Edit History: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/el.php?findfor=Lucky-Seven-Leaf-Clover
Edited by mouschilight