MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive
MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive template
Ultimate Mr. L
warning overturned
The warning will be overturned for this case only as the particular wording of {{Reminder}} is in Ultimate Mr. L's advantage; however, the template will be edited to prevent this from ever being an excuse again.
Ultimate Mr. L
- The Warning I am appealing can be found in the middle of the linked section of my talk page. I am not appealing the reminder at the top.Wildgoosespeeder (Talk) gave the warning because I was forgetting to categorize images. At first I thought I deserved it because it was getting annoying for him, but then I realized that reminders say, and I quote, If the action continues deliberately, then a warning will be issued. I was not deliberately forgetting to categorize those images. It was all accidental. If I'm not doing it on purpose, should a warning be issued?
Wildgoosespeeder
- This whole situation is awkward. I like to think of the warning as trying to enforce the rules more so than punishing the user. This is the best way I could do that without having sysop powers. I used it after talking with him several times (in between {{imagecategory-reminder}} and {{warning}}) and he still failed to follow policy. Initially, I tried to give some leeway before issuing {{warning}} because he was responding and being polite about it.
Topmaniac
reminder stands
Unless it's flaming or vandalism, removing comments is a warnable offense. Your talk page is meant to be a record of your editing and conversational history: removing comments just to pretend that it never happened is unacceptable.
Topmaniac
- [I normally wouldn't remove comments from my page, particularly after being reminded. However, I didn't want people to see that I had issues with "vandalizing" a page, so I really wanted to eliminate that part. I felt like there was enough justification to delete that comment.]
The RPG Gamer
- He removed Alex95 (talk)'s informal message to him he has a history of removing comments and even an official reminder before this one, this is the third time this has happened and I reminded him about this once before comments aren't allowed to be removed either way and I couldn't have made myself more clear so the reminder should stay.
Topmaniac
last warning stands
The offense called for a last warning: you have previously received a reminder, warning, and an informal message from an administrator about editing BJAODN content. Furthermore, you Template:Plainlink another user's reversion after you changed the content yet again.
Topmaniac
- I know I have been told not to add unnecessary comments to the BJAODN, but I feel that my last two additions to the Items articles added to the humor of the overall articles. With that said, I do understand that I have been told not to edit that article, however, I do not think it deserves a last warning. If this warning is not removed altogether, I would like it to at least be downgraded to a normal warning.
Alex95
- Whelp, I can definitely say that I called this. Your two edits that you feel "added to the humor of the article" were 1) placed in a way that made it look like is was part of the original edit and 2) unnecessary comments.
Aside from the that, the Last Warning was given because you have been told not to add irrelevant comments to the pages, and yet, you continued to do so. So not only was the Last Warning given because of the comments, it was given due to sheer incompetence and failure to heed the advice of others.
The RPG Gamer
reminder overturned
There is no strict preference about using one mark-up over the other, and does not call for an official warning template. It is perfectly acceptable to use the HTML tags over the typical markups, if users find it easier to keep track of the page's coding in that way.
The RPG Gamer
I've never been reminded that using HTML wasn't allowed. Using the MediaWiki wasn't available when putting a file description for a new upload, Wildgoosespeeder then gives me a reminder for this. Last time I checked, those templates are only supposed to be for when the user doesn't stop the action after being informed about it. This was the first time I've ever been told so I personally think it's unjustified. I wasn't intentionally doing it I just didn't see the MediaWiki one available and I've not been reminded at all. Should've a reminder be issued for this? They weren't available while uploading.
Wildgoosespeeder
It's not a {{warning}} or {{lastwarn}}. Also, you have a record of repeated warnings so this this not really a big deal in comparison. You have been here long enough to know the typical markups used.
Toadette the Achiever
reminder overturned
The user wasn't clearly edit sniping: with the small time frame between edits, it's entirely possible that two users happened to be archiving the proposal at the same time, especially being so shortly after the deadline. As well as this, first-time breaches of the courtesy policy should be dealt with informally, rather than through official warning templates.
Toadette the Achiever
- I know that edit sniping means performing an action before the person meant to perform the action can even do anything. To be honest, I don't think it was obvious enough that Wildgoosespeeder was trying to archive his latest proposal at the time I was trying to archive it as well. Even if it actually was, there were many informal ways he could have addressed the situation, rather than jumping straight to a Reminder.
- P.S.: From now on, when archiving appeals, please use the AppealOutcome template to address the outcome. This proposal dictates it.
Wildgoosespeeder
I saw the edit conflict dialog with the template already in place linking to my archived proposal. I just got done moving my proposal. Ran into some trouble with the link, so it was taking longer than usual to commit my edit. The edit that the user did was almost 9 hours between edits.
