Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Did you send a notifier?
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I had sent them a Word Cruft notifier when I reverted the misindentation the first time (the third-bullet entry began with "speaking of"). Back then I didn't sent them an indentation notifier because sending them two notifiers over the same edit felt like overkill. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if sending them one right now would be useful, as they already claim to know about Example Indentation (they click the "fixing indentation" tag as the edit reason) despite not actually understanding how it works.
135 - 161 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
And now they've sent me an indentation notifier.
By the way, judging from my PM history, I had already sent them several notifiers before, including indentation but also others like natter.
Again, I'm in a dead end here.
135 - 161 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
I've suspended them, and I'll do a revert on that page.
Earlier today
, I had reported that Tailikku violated example indentation (as well as the policy against word cruft) on YMMV.The Legend Of Zelda I, and I had fixed the issues only for them to reinstate the improper indentation. In that query, I was given the OK to fix the issue (since it would otherwise have been Step 4 of edit warring); I even cited the aforementioned ATT query when I made the edit.
Sadly, they reinstated the misindentation yet again (thus the third time in a row)
, which is now Step 5 of edit warring.
I'm at a loss here, I'm afraid. Even if I received permission to revert the improper indentation, they'd probably bring it back a fourth time. They claim to be "fixing indentation", but turning that entry into a standalone third-bullet entry is anything but fixing.