The page text specifically states "all versions" of Fullmetal Alchemist, not a single version, so pointing to a single version instead of the disambiguation page is not desired on this page.
If we wanted to blindly replace all of the links, we would have run a bot job.
This isn't the first time that I've mentioned this to you. MOD: Please be more careful when you replace disambiguation links.
-- Robkelk, admin
Looking over the other moderator messages here, I see that you have been told more than once about this, by more than one moderator.
Thus, I have to give you a warning. You have failed to learn from your own mistakes. As per All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here, if we have to call you on this again, you will receive a tempban from editing the wiki and will lose your automoderated privilege.
@HLIAA14YOG @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
Regarding your edit this morning to Tricked-Out Gloves: Does Roy Mustang only have the gloves with an alchemical circle on them in the manga? Are they completely missing in every other version of Fullmetal Alchemist? Do you even know?
Similarly, your edit this morning to Chekhov MIA strongly implies that Ed and Al have a different father in every other version than the manga.
We told you to stop this shit. You haven't. So we are stopping you. Welcome to first your ban, and second your loss of automoderated privileges. Be aware that doing sufficient research to confirm your edits are correct and just not brainless autochanging for the sake of changing things may take an excessive amount of time. Your edits may not get through moderation very quickly.
@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
Considering that you apologized for your actions and then repeated them less than 21 hours later, your apology is worth nothing.
You will need to re-earn our trust after you are able to edit the wiki again. This will not be a short process.
Gotta agree with my fellow mods here. If I did this, I would have my knuckles rapped and I would deserve it. Despite our more lax stance on citation compared to a place like Wikipedia, we still expect a bare minimum of baseline facts to be established that can be confirmed with a working brain and eyes because we do strive to at least be objective and accurate in report on facts.
Changes just to change things with little more than "trust me bro" don't cut it, especially, when these are edits about things where you cannot cite proof for the changes as accurate nor wish to try to assure us your edits are made in good faith.
A lot of tropes are common between adaptations and the original source. Because adaptations are the same story told in a different media, or in a different pace, or in a different perspective.
I see no implication of ambiguity about who Ed's father is when I made that change. When the 2003 anime adapted it, they were adapting a element of the manga. So it was a manga trope. Bu there is also a videogame, and a live-action movie, and Brotherhood who is also another adaptation. All of those, he is their dad because he is their dad in the manga. I see no reason to point out to a disambiguation/franchise page when the trope comes from the original source.
Okay, fair enough. That said, if for no other reason than to avoid further conflicts, note this fact at least in your edit reasons from now on to establish your motives and establish good faith behind your contributions. Remember, it may be clear to you, but not everyone else, so make it clear to everyone else who is flying blind if the edit could cause the remotest issue.
Can you please provide a little more information? Are they wrong, false or otherwise misleading? Wordiness by itself is no reason to revert.
@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
They certainly spread wrong information. They write long entries about one specific scene on the plot, raving and raving about how the protagonist's mom having sex with a random guy and everything is result of the affair.
First, she says the mom of the protagonist is abusive. In the very next sentence they say they aren't abusive, so the trope doesn't apply then, but still go through 200 words to explain how she made her son rape his stepmother years later by accident, despite the fact she had no way of knowing the kid would caught her cheating on her husband much less that would lead to her son becoming a raging misogynist that thinks every woman is a slut.
Second, they said there was an adaptation expansion of the sex scene of the beginning. I played the visual novel, the sex scene is pretty much the same. Well, except it's all animated instead of a static image.
They said she went through adaptational villainy, by saying she went from a minor character to main antagonist. That is also a lie, she still is just a minor character that only shows up in the prologue and does nothing antagonistic. She is certainly not a flawless person but isn't like she is telling her son to rape women. The main villain is the protagonist himself who is a rapist.
The scene described in "All For Nothing" and "Irony" is mom's unnamed lover making a sarcastic remark. She is cheating on her husband and he is joking that if she doesn't improve her oral sex methods her husband will cheat on her, that she will obviously doesn't care since she is cheating on her husband already. She isn't trying to be "better on sex" to prevent her husband of cheating on her.
"Buxom is Better" is if characters in-universe think large breasts makes a woman prettier. Nobody states that on this anime.
So he exaggerates two minor characters' roles in the plot and outright invent things. By what I've seen, he does that so he can write extremely lenghty descriptions of the sex scenes using the most graphical and obscene terms possible.
In that case, we have no problems with the deletions. Thank you. We'll keep a closer eye on his contributions in the future.
There is, however, James Bond (novel).
Stop breaking working links by turning them into redlinks to non-existent pages. I've had to clean up this error of yours several times in the last couple days. Make sure the page you're trying to link to actually exists.
Also, a suggestion: when you've got something like Inigo Montoya's famous quote from The Princess Bride that appears in all known versions of the work, don't change the link from the disambiguation page to one specific version of the work -- that implies it only appears in that version, which is not the case. Sometimes the disambiguation page is the right page to link to.
-- Looney Toons, admin
@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
Okay, you tried to claim a trope that appears in all versions of a franchise's works only appears in one version four times on You Are Number Six/Literature. According to your changes:
These are all Blatant Lies, which you have inserted into a wiki page by mindlessly changing links like an unthinking machine. STOP DOING THIS. We appreciate that you are helping clear up the excess of disambiguation links with which we are plagued, but you can't just sweep in and change everything -- sometimes the disambiguation link is the right link to use. Pay attention to what you're doing! If the change you're about to make will result in an implicitly false or ridiculous claim (For instance, changing a reference to James Bond on the Spy Fiction page to James Bond (novel), which would be functionally equivalent to saying there are no spies in the Bond movies), don't make it. Yes, even in a case like this where the entire page is about a single medium. If your "fix" will turn a true statement into a false one, don't make it. The truth of what we say is more important than getting anal about making the links match the medium the example is listed under.
We don't have to start waving tempbans around to get you to pay attention and not make stupid and misleading edits, do we?
Meanwhile, I have reverted those four changes (although the one you made to Ayn Rand's Anthem stays, for now). And I am continuing to watch all your edits to make sure more falsehoods don't get inserted with good intentions.
-- Looney Toons, admin
@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
I will slow down to avoid repetition of such errors.
EDIT: But I must say, those examples were already on the literature page. I made an assumption those examples were about the book versions and therefore the links should show the novels. I thought the reason we have rules like "multiple Works need separate pages" was to make distinctions between different versions of the same story in multiple media.
Our rules for "Multiple Works Need Separate Pages" do say that the Franchise pages are intended to list the tropes that are common to multiple versions of works. We expect that there will be tropes that apply to more than one version -- when they do, the correct page to link to is the disambiguation page.
While we're on the topic, you have have been replacing Necessary Evil universally with Necessarily Evil. In most of the cases I've looked at, I think what you really want is Lesser of Two Evils instead. "Necessarily Evil" is a person who is evil (often profoundly so) because he feels he has to be to accomplish some greater end. "Lesser of Two Evils" is a value judgment, picking for an evil that is unavoidable something that does the least evil. Even then it's not always quite right, but it's closer to right than "Necessarily Evil". Plus, simply plopping "Necessarily" in where "Necessary" was makes for a grammar/usage error by itself.
I have just undone your most recent edit to My Apartment Manager is not an Isekai Character, in which you undid my edit that corrected your second-most recent edit to the page.
I am one of the writers of that story. You are trying to introduce an error of fact into the page. Please stop.
Also, please note that edit-warring with a mod is grounds for a tempban, according to All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here. This is the warning that the policy says we are to give you.
@HLIAA14YOG @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
It was an accident. Sorry. EDIT: I did not verify the edit history, I didn't even realize there was an edit warring.
This is not the first time you have been warned for bulldozing your way through a change without looking to see what you are doing or if you are undoing someone else's fix of your errors. Pay more attention to what you are doing and where you are doing it.
Hello! For once, a mod has something good to tell you... We've decided that your edit history over the last few months is good enough that your edits don't need to be moderated. So your edits should show up immediately now.
As we always say, this is a privilege given for consistently good edits and being a Troper in good standing, not a right. Congratulations!
-- robkelk, admin
@HLIAA14YOG @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
... because the quote that you wanted to replace the current page quote with is a quote that applies to the existing trope "Boy Meets Girl".
Please do not remove a page quote without consensus, even on a Trope workshop page.
You are free to re-submit the remainder of your edit so that the example can be added to the page.
@HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
Sorry if I did that, but the troper which did insert that quote mentioned on his edit that someone could change if it had something more fitting. I'm sorry if I abused that permission.
As the troper who submitted that page in the workshop, I want to see the quote, and get this edit approved.
I'm not too confident about the existing one; the edit summary where I added it said " quote is highly subject to change. If you have ANY better quote, replace the existing one without asking".
The quote was:
 |
And thus, boy meets girl. —The title of Xenoblade Chronicles 2s final chapter. |
 |
As I said, that's a quote for Boy Meets Girl.
Because you changed the page image to something that does not exist on the wiki.
Please ensure that an image actually exists with the name you specified before using that name on a page.
Also, please note that file names that end with "- All The Tropes" are routinely changed, especially when the images are not unique to the wiki. We do not claim ownership of copyrighted files, nor do we claim that copyrighted files originate on this wiki.
@HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
I'm pretty sure the link wasn't red before you changed the name of the file yourself, as the page history shows. Also, I was told the name had to be instructive, that is, they should be named in a way to make them easy to find, not in a way it tells its origin, by LooneyToons a few years ago. I never claimed ownership of anything and was not my intent.
No, your proposed edit changed the name on the work page from what I had changed the file name to, back to the old (nonexistent) name.
Because your edit summary was "+Category:Western Animation; +Category:Western Animation of the 2010s; +Category:Western Animation of the 2020s using HotCat The show actually premiered in 2014", but in addition to that you deleted an entire trope and a large number of examples of another trope without explanation.
Misleading edit reasons are worse than no edit reasons at all.
@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
If that happened, it was an accident. I was only trying to change the date to 2014 instead of 2016 after checking Wikipedia. I swear, I had no intention of deleting examples.
Harassing other users about their edits is not a privilege you have as a user of the wiki. This is an all-new, shiny warning: stop trying to police content you don't like. You will receive another tempban for it. And one way or another it will be the last tempban you get here. You have been a good and respected contributor to the wiki for almost five years now -- your sudden left turn into haranguing people for their edits over the past few months has been both unexpected and unwelcome. We don't need that; we need the contributor you used to be.
-- Looney Toons, admin
@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
@HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl, you were warned by @Looney Toons in this tread that "you do not get to declare policy, you do not get to tell other users what they may or may not do when editing an article. Do it again, and you get a tempban."
You chose to "tell other users what they may or may not do when editing an article" again, here; that was is clearly a passive-aggressive attempt to get the editor to undo the edit in question.
You are thus blocked from editing the wiki for two weeks, and your autopatrolled privileges are revoked.
You are free to appeal this decision to any other admin, all of whom are listed below.
@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak
I'm sorry if this came up like an attempt to coerce anyone to do anything, I just found it weird.
Stating this as civilly as possible:
I would like to think my summary regarding the King Richard edits, followed by my response when you queried me on my talk page , were both pretty clear about the nature of the audience reaction I noted. A disagreement would have been fine in a vacuum, but the immediate presumption is what stuck in my craw and led me to wonder where this passive-aggressive streak came from.
I personally find it amusing that you decided to start on this after I caught out a dishonest presentation of information in your attempts to stake a claim on the Bridget character entry. Given the timing of that, I genuinely don't think this veneer of innocuousness is going to go over well - though I also genuinely hope I'm wrong about this being the case.
I did not do it because of the Guilty Gear page. I created the entry for "overshadowed by Controversy" and you edited it later, and I found the edit a bit weird. The probability of me questioning you editing things I wrote is very high because we both wrote a lot of pages and this is a small wiki. Today I questioned you again because you edited over my entry of the Bowser's Fury entry.
Comparing our activities, it's pretty clear why exactly this kind of circumstance happened to you both times: I tend to create work and YMMV pages, and you tend to edit things someone else wrote. By example, my very first edit was to create the sub-page for Euphoria, a work and you very first one was trying to reconcile an argument on the Demonization.
|
and this is a small wiki |
|
This is the largest wiki hosted by Miraheze, by two orders of magnitude. Your definition of "small" is odd.
|
and you tend to edit things someone else wrote |
|
Quoting from the text displayed between the "Summary" box and the "Save changes" button on every edit page on the wiki: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."
"you tend to edit things someone else wrote."
...That is precisely what people do on wikis by design, yes.
I've created several trope articles, works pages and subpages myself, so you'll hopefully forgive me when I say I don't get the point of you mentioning that. As you said, it's a small wiki, and this already happens with me and other users: I tend to follow-up on other users to see if they missed something or if there's another piece of the page I can work on, and I appreciate others doing the same for me in return - that's what wiki editors do, and you're the only one trying to make a whole deal out of this, much less by pulling my editing history like that non-argument's supposed to weigh against me.
And you're pulling my editing history on that Guilty Gear page to weigh against me, when the incident which triggered this ban happened on the King Richard page. You did this first, I followed thinking you would find this valid, but apparently you do not find it valid.
Tempbans on All The Tropes are not triggered by a single incident, as is made quite clear at All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here.
Look, I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but if it's not clear, you've had a consistent pattern of behavior that made us decide, by collegial consensus, a cool-off temp-ban was in your best interest and the wiki. Consider this a good time to step away, calm down, do something else, this place will be here when you get back.
Yes.
I am pointing to a set of specific and recent incidents while you had to dig back several years - that speaks for itself, enough that I feel no need to weigh in on this further.