You didn't link to the exact post
1) never mocked anyone
There are so many, just read the thread.
believe it was this post
Oh, then that is pretty condescending. But I don't think it warrants anything harshbelieve it was this post
Finally someone with a brain, as you can see I only braught up pokemon as an example to explain why their arguments are just wrong but somehow it's called "mocking"...
Also this one I feel was uncalled for personally. There was zero reason for such attitude. Plus a condescending attitude.
Because he said that he's going to "muh report me" because he couldn't handle an opinion and somehow it's called "mocking", if anything the one who should be getting a warning is him
Can you not with these kinda comments? Especially in the RVR thread. There’s no need to act like you’re superior to everyone around you.
Please simmer down, and you did kinda derail the thread with the whataboutism.
The thread ended a few days ago so I honestly don't see how I was derailing tbh
Wasn't my intention but my apologies I guess
Except there is a Reason ?
It really doesn't matter if it ended or whatnot, you just don't derail threads at all period.
I really didn't do anything harsh to deserve a warning but do as you please I guess
I already warned them. Since they won't listen, I gave them a yearly block. Not to mention they've been blocked for 6 months already before committing violations.
I'm also in support of a warning here.
@Deagonx Propellus already gave them a warning.
Ok, I wouldn't say that the previous block is justified as such, since for such a minor change only a light warning would be necessary, it seems that Ant in 2021 was less lenient, also the changes made to the profile may have some basis and I have heard of Tier 5 BC so I don't blame the user, but you should also have given him more detailed instructions, the current edit doesn't warrant a ban so I will unban him and give him those instructions.
Fair, though, if they're going to commit further violations after you leave them more instructions then I'm all in for a ban. I didn't leave instructions out the first time because I thought they were an old user, but oh well.
That seems reasonable, yes. Thank you for helping out.
Ah, thanks.
I have removed the outdated portion from the common editing mistakes page.
Yes, but @ImmortalDread will use a mass-editing script to handle it, so it seems like a bad idea to handle it entirely manually and spam our recent changes page in the process.
Okay, okay; I'm sorry for the "insults", but in all fairness, we were asked to take it to our message walls or DMs in the Super Mario discussion thread, and Blunt did reply first on mine after all. The whole convo has been deleted because I don't wanna continue it any further.
vsbattles.fandom.com
vsbattles.fandom.com
vsbattles.fandom.com
vsbattles.fandom.com
......i am sorry, i don't understand? i applied the thread because it was accepted, i keep in track with that thread and.....it pretty much doesn't affect the Ben 10 one at all from what i can read of the new standard
the new thread was not concluded, aka nothing of it affects the other ones that were accepted, if the standards changing affects the thread, then anyone can make a thread to change the ratings based on that, but not applying an accepted thread because of another thread was created and then abadoned makes no sense, just make another one to talk about the topic of the closed one and then downgrade or upgrade based on that
there was more than 4 staff aprovals for the thread, it was accepted hence it has to be applied, i read the standards and saw nothing that would disqualify the thread, and then when another thread seeing that was created, it was not concluded, hence i applied the accepted thread because it was accepted
You were following the thread but you applied it 10 days after the thread was closed?
The point is not that you read the standards and decide whether that would qualify or not, but that the person who opened the thread opens a new one after the standards have changed, leaves the previous one in place, and waits for the new one to be accepted. This means that the thread is moved to a new one. Which means that the previous one is no longer relevant.
I kept track of the thread that was changing the standards for Hypertimelines, no the ben 10 one
That is not how this works, the thread was on hold because another one covering the information accepted was opened, however since that other one wasn't accepted and in fact never concluded, then it leaves the accepted status of the previous one untouched, thus making it so that it can be applied, i looked through the rules and found nothing of what you are just saying, so i don't think i am breaking any rule here
It was not "moved", another thread on the topic was created and then not concluded, the previous thread was accepted, i don't understand what you mean by "arbitrary" in this context, i also don't see in the rules anything about "not applying accepted thread because another one on the topic was created", i don't understand what rule i broke
i didn't even know that the thread was not applied until now, if i did i would have applied it sooner, i don't know what is strange about it? i don't participate too much in Ben 10 thread nowadays
