User talk:Brennacollins06

As of this morning, you (using the "Lady Kitaro" account") have submitted yet another edit to Foot Focus that is utterly illiterate while ignoring the definition of the trope (wearing open shoes like geta or sandals by definition is not "barefoot", nor is simply going barefoot a case of foot focus). As promised/warned by GethN7 elsewhere, you are now the lucky recipient of a year-long temporary block on editing the wiki, for this and your other two accounts. Do not bother creating new accounts to get around the ban -- your complete and total inability to write in proper English is so distinctive that we will identify you and ban your new account.

-- Looney Toons, admin

@Brennacollins06 @Lady Kitaro @Kitaro @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

Are you truly so stupid that you expected us to think "Collinsbrennacollins05" was somebody different from "Brennacollins06" despite you posting a not-example to the exact same trope that got you banned last time, or did you think that we're stupid?

Your ban-evasion account has been banned. And so has this account. Permanently, this time.

The most ironic thing here is that you the one-year ban on this account had run out. If you had used this account again, you would have been reminded again that the trope you wanted to edit was not the trope that your edit applied to. But since you did set up an alternate account, we have to assume that you have zero intention of following the rules here. So we won't give you the opportunity to break the rules yet again.

@Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk

First, the example that you proposed to add makes no sense - if a character is wearing geta, then that character is not barefoot.

Second, there's no indication as to how the example that you proposed to add is actually an example of this trope. As the trope description says in bold type: "Merely going barefoot is Does Not Like Shoes."

Third, the edit removes necessary whitespace on dozens of lines for no apparent reason.

Fourth, and most importantly, the edits by submitted by "Brennacollins06" and "Lady Kitaro" are substantively the same edit. It is blatantly obvious that they were made by the same person using multiple accounts. The mods do not have so much free time that somebody can waste it in submitting duplicate work.

Both edits have been rejected.

Also, @Looney Toons already told you to pick one account and stick with it. Your decision to ignore a mod and use a third account here isn't fooling anybody. You are now On Notice, as per All The Tropes:How We Do Bans Around Here - doing this again will result in a ban from editing the wiki.

@Brennacollins06 @Lady Kitaro @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @Robkelk @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

It's fairly obvious from the one edit made under this user name that this account is an alternate for Kitaro, which was created yesterday apparently for that purpose. Please be aware that per section 2.1 of How We Do Bans Around Here we consider the use of multiple accounts by a single user to be suspicious and potential grounds for a permanent ban as prima facie evidence of intent to be disruptive or a vandal. This is friendly advice: Choose one account, stick with it, and forget the other.

-- Looney Toons, admin

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