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 deliberately ignored 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.
Wildgoosespeeder
reminder overturned
Text can appear slightly different from browser to browser: it was just unlucky that it appeared a couple of pixels too long. In future, users should have a bit more leniency on such a... small issue.
User talk:Wildgoosespeeder#Signature
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:
| Tests | {{sigbox}} | 
|
|---|---|---|
| Internet Explorer 11 | 
|
|
| Google Chrome | 
|
|
MarioMario456
[NO COMMENT]
Wildgoosespeeder
reminder overturned
The Aboutfile template itself says its usage is optional. Someone hasn't read the instructions.
Wildgoosespeeder
- {{aboutfile-reminder}} is for people that have {{aboutfile}} 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 {{aboutfile}} template.
Marshal Dan Troop
warning overturned
A warning isn't necessary if the user was already blocked for the same incident, let alone one that occurred two years prior.
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]
BBQ Turtle
warning overturned
The admins have decided to just remove it altogether, as the entire situation was inflated more than it should've. I guess you blew it this time.
BBQ Turtle
- I feel that the last warning was unnecessary because what I did I could only find listed as a level 2 offence, which would mean that it does not need to be given a last warning, but only a warning. I was confused as to whether we could delete the comments or not, as at the end of my welcome message it said that we could delete it, and after I did it once, I did not receive any reminders or comments saying you should not do this, just the last warning. I don't feel that it is fair to be instantly issued this warning, and I would never do it again, even if I had only received a reminder. It is, at worst, a level 2 offence, which only warrants a warning, and as I only did it once, I would like to have the last warning removed, or least downgraded to a warning, please.
Owencrazyboy9
- Now thinking through it, I think the last warning was not necessary. You did stop after getting issued the reminder and last warning, too. For now, it be best to either change it into a warning or have it removed altogether.
Raymond1922A
warning overturned
Calling out offensive names is unacceptable in any circumstance, but a Warning was too harsh for the action seeing as this was their first courtesy breach. It will be changed to a Reminder.
Raymond1922A
- My comment on Talk:Hotaru was simply a joke meant to make a point about the problems of using Japanese words. I did not mean to call any user on this site a baka or assume bad faith.
User talk:Raymond1922A#Warning
Baby Luigi
- Regardless if it was a joke, which I find to be frankly rude, out of nowhere, and uncalled for, calling other users a "fool" or "idiot" in Japanese for following established policy guidelines is not acceptable behavior. Also, I did took offense to your wording of saying that it's not "kawaii", because I felt like you're also stereotyping some types people who sometimes pepper Japanese in their writings. I don't think this type of condescension is very respectful. While it is possible that I was too heavy-handed with handing out warning, I still think you should receive at least an official reminder for your behavior.
