Editing User talk:LuigiBro
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
== Last Warning == | == Last Warning == | ||
{{ | {{lastwarn|overturned=yes}} | ||
You have a history of edit warring. Don't revert [[:File:MPAdvanceUKboxart.jpg]] again. Just purge your browser cache. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:53, 2 September 2016 (EDT) | You have a history of edit warring. Don't revert [[:File:MPAdvanceUKboxart.jpg]] again. Just purge your browser cache. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:53, 2 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
:WHAT?! Can I ask HOW THE HECK that counts as edit warring?! Edit warring is undoing edits multiple times!!! How many times did i undo that one?! ONCE!!! {{User:MarioKid/sig}} 13:16, 3 September 2016 (EDT) | :WHAT?! Can I ask HOW THE HECK that counts as edit warring?! Edit warring is undoing edits multiple times!!! How many times did i undo that one?! ONCE!!! {{User:MarioKid/sig}} 13:16, 3 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
::If you feel I was wrong, you can [[MarioWiki:Appeals|appeal]] and the warning will be reviewed by sysops. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 14:43, 3 September 2016 (EDT) | ::If you feel I was wrong, you can [[MarioWiki:Appeals|appeal]] and the warning will be reviewed by sysops. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 14:43, 3 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
:::BTW, I already recieved a warning for the edit warring. {{User:MarioKid/sig}} 15:15, 4 September 2016 (EDT) | :::BTW, I already recieved a warning for the edit warring. {{User:MarioKid/sig}} 15:15, 4 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
Warning was overturned by {{user|YoshiKong}}. Sorry I caused this mess. At least a lesson can be learned from all this. If someone uploads a newer better version of an image and there is no debate the image is better, instead of reverting to the worse image, try to talk to the user first who overwrote the image. I think I fixed your issue and it had nothing to do with the upload I made. MediaWiki, the software this website uses, just went a little funky is all and can be fixed. My end, your userpage seems to be fine. You can see my solution [[MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive | Warning was overturned by {{user|YoshiKong}}. Sorry I caused this mess. At least a lesson can be learned from all this. If someone uploads a newer better version of an image and there is no debate the image is better, instead of reverting to the worse image, try to talk to the user first who overwrote the image. I think I fixed your issue and it had nothing to do with the upload I made. MediaWiki, the software this website uses, just went a little funky is all and can be fixed. My end, your userpage seems to be fine. You can see my solution [[MarioWiki:Appeals/Archive 2#LuigiBro (talk)|here]]. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:40, 11 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
:It's fine, you were just trying to enforce rules. You're still cool in my book :) {{User:MarioKid/sig}} 04:51, 13 September 2016 (EDT) | :It's fine, you were just trying to enforce rules. You're still cool in my book :) {{User:MarioKid/sig}} 04:51, 13 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
:It wasn't a strong reason. All you said was "it's fine" without saying anything else about why the support vote reasons are wrong, new reasons why it should stay featured, etc. that are necessary to have a reasonable (no pun intended) vote. {{User:Roy Koopa/sig}} 13:56, 14 September 2016 (EDT) | :It wasn't a strong reason. All you said was "it's fine" without saying anything else about why the support vote reasons are wrong, new reasons why it should stay featured, etc. that are necessary to have a reasonable (no pun intended) vote. {{User:Roy Koopa/sig}} 13:56, 14 September 2016 (EDT) | ||
::Wouldn't saying something like ''per proposal'' or ''per nomination'' be sufficient like several users have done in the past? Overall, identifying if a vote has a strong reason accompanying is completely subjective and shouldn't be a rule. Not everyone has a paragraph to say, especially for the support votes. Oppose votes, I kind of understand, but shouldn't be a requirement. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:55, 14 September 2016 (EDT) | ::Wouldn't saying something like ''per proposal'' or ''per nomination'' be sufficient like several users have done in the past? Overall, identifying if a vote has a strong reason accompanying is completely subjective and shouldn't be a rule. Not everyone has a paragraph to say, especially for the support votes. Oppose votes, I kind of understand, but shouldn't be a requirement. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 15:55, 14 September 2016 (EDT) | ||