Topic on User talk:Cwf1997

After several warnings and a tempban, Cwf1997 continued to demonstrate an unwillingness (or a complete inability) to understand multiple tropes as they are written and compose proper examples for them. He was permanently banned from the wiki to protect it from contributions that were essentially gibberish and meaningless.

Despite all of the times members of the moderation team have told you to ensure you have the correct trope when adding examples, you have continued to make this same mistake. Most recently, you called a case of Schedule Slip a "Funny Aneurysm Moment" on Rayman/YMMV without bothering to say exactly what happened in Real Life to change it from amusing to cringe-worthy.

All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here clearly states that "Refusing to learn from honest mistakes, or repeatedly making the same honest mistake after it's been pointed out" is grounds for a temporary block of editing rights.

In accordance with that page, I am now giving you an Official Warning: If you add another example that has nothing to do with the trope that you list with the example, your account will be blocked from editing for a short period.

Please reply to this thread with a statement as to what action you plan to take in the future regarding this.

-- robkelk, Admin

@Cwf1997 @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I am planning on making more proper edits.

Don't plan. Do.

And you didn't. From your recent change to Batman: Arkham Knight: Alice Allusion is not about characters named for characters from the Alice books, It's specifically about characters named "Alice" who are deliberately modeled after Alice from those books. None of the characters in your example are named "Alice". At best it's a shout-out.

So congratulations. You have earned yourself a two-week vacation from editing the wiki.

With it you get another official warning: If, after this temporary block expires and your edit rights are returned, you continue to misuse tropes out of willful ignorance or a complete inability to understand written English, then per All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here Section 2.1 bulleted item six, you will be the lucky recipient of a full and total permanent ban from the wiki. As GethN7 has noted in a different thread, you have proven yourself so incompetent at understanding proper trope definitions and writing proper contributions (and so incapable of improving), that we have to deal with you as a potential threat to the integrity of the wiki, if not a flat-out vandal.

So there you go. After a short vacation, you have one last chance before you're kicked out on your ass. Make the most of it.

-- Looney Toons, admin

CC: @Labster, @Robkelk, @QuestionableSanity, @Derivative, @SelfCloak, @GethN7

You had fair warning that your account would be permanently blocked if you did not start paying attention to the actual meanings of tropes here.

You did not start paying attention to the actual meanings of tropes here.

As a result, we have no option but to impose the block that we told you we would impose if you did not change your ways.

Good-bye.

@Cwf1997 @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

I'm coming out of hibernation to weigh in on this matter. I'm sorry, I disagree with this judgement. He made a brand new YMMV page for a work that did not previously have one, correctly used 8 out of 9 tropes, and paved the way for others to provide additional information. One of the two tropes deleted in a later edit, Surprisingly Improved Sequel, was exchanged for Contested Sequel; this is not because he misused the trope, but because of a difference in opinion. The only trope he truly misused was Obvious Judas. All in all, 90% of his contribution was useful.

He has shown a willingness to improve. You are being overly critical and ignoring the human. @Cwf1997 @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

We have to ignore the human - we've never met the human.

All we have to go on is the contributions - which were consistently sub-par and requiring other tropers' time to correct. No matter how many times we asked for this particular troper to improve, it never happened.