MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive

Ultimate Mr. L

 * User talk:Ultimate Mr. L

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 and ) and he still failed to follow policy. Initially, I tried to give some leeway before issuing  because he was responding and being polite about it.

Topmaniac

 * User talk:Topmaniac

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 '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

 * User talk:Topmaniac

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

 * User talk:The RPG Gamer

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 or. 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

 * User talk:Toadette the Achiever

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].

Wildgoosespeeder
User talk:Wildgoosespeeder

Wildgoosespeeder
I made sure that my signature wasn't in violation when I first set it up. Here's what I was able to validate for User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig:

MarioMario456
[NO COMMENT]

Wildgoosespeeder

 * User talk:Wildgoosespeeder

Wildgoosespeeder

 * is for people that have inserted, but never filled out from the default when Special:Upload is accessed or never corrected within a reasonable amount of time by the uploader. It is not required to have the template inserted but it is recommended. In fact, there was an abandoned project related to it. I have been doing this for a long time.

MarioMario456

 * Sometimes, the contributor forgots to add the template.

Marshal Dan Troop

 * User talk:Marshal Dan Troop/Archive 1

Marshal Dan Troop

 * So here we are me Marshal Dan Troop appealing a warning I got 6 years ago for an action I did 8 years ago what a glorious country. On April 4th 2011 I was given a warning by DKPetey99 for saying Fuck you to Stooben Rooben on September 13th 2009. Now normally this would be a valid warning since that would be flaming. However, I feel the warining isn't valid because firstly the incident happened almost 2 years prior to receiving the warining which I feel like is a bit to long. And for the fact that I was actually blocked for said action by my personal wiki hero Time Q for flaming that same day. And I feel that you can't really recieve a warning for an action you were blocked for because I was already punished for said action. Because of these reasons I feel that my warning should be removed because I don't think it's really valid.

DKPetey99

 * [NO COMMENT]