User talk:GrammarFreak01

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Bulbapedia, GrammarFreak01!
Bulbapedia bulb.png

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:

  • Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct.
  • Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around.
  • Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page.
  • Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style.
  • You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy.
  • Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.
  • If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite.
  • Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment.
  • For more handy links, see the welcome portal.
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  たかはりいtalk 02:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)  

The Preview Button

Instead of editing a page several times in a row, try using the preview button to make sure your edit looks the way you want it to. It's right next to the Save Page button. Please try it out, so as not to clog up the Recent Changes. Thanks! --Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

AmourShipping hint

The last part of the XY059 Ash hint should be left as a sub bullet because it's stating a fact that's not really part of the original hint and going off on a tangent. It flows better that way. Ax3w (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Please stop messing up the pages. I'm serious. --HoennLove200 (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


I noticed that you've made this mistake on both Ash Ketchum and Clemont (anime), so I figured I should explain it to you here instead of hoping you'll read edit summaries.

"Forme" is a very specific official term that we use only for forms that use the term "Forme" in the in-game Pokédex. (These are mostly Legendary and Mythical Pokémon, with a couple of exceptions.) Everything else gets the generic word "form." You can check whether something uses "Forme" on the List of Pokémon with form differences article. If you're referring to Ash-Greninja, you should always use "form", never "Forme." Thanks! Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


Due to your involvement in the edit war with Playerking95, the staff has decided to block you for one week for edit warring. Next time, if you see someone revert your edit, don't revert them back. Discuss it with them and sort it out. After your block , I want you to try and discuss things rather than running for the undo button. Thank you.--ForceFire 16:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hey there, over the past couple of weeks I've noticed you've been consistently removing similar contributions made by Kittystyler on a variety of pages. As you should know, this is considered edit warring, which is disruptive to the overall editing process on Bulbapedia. If you disagree with the edits that someone else has made, please contact that user on their talk page or discuss the issue on the talk page of the article(s) that the dispute is on. Continuing to edit war after this warning will result in a block. Thank you. --Pokemaster97 23:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Giving warnings

Regarding User talk:Kittystyler#Grammar, please understand that you do not have the authority to give someone a "warning" about something. Saying you're "warning" someone of something like you did implies that you have the authority to enforce a punishment if they do not heed you. You do not. Only staff does. Please be careful about your wording in the future. If you're concerned enough, you can always bring an issue to a staff member's attention.

Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I was just voicing my dissatisfaction. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"[[the next episode]]" vs "the [[next episode]]"

Out of curiosity, I thought I would ask why you are making these edits to the SMxxx pages, since you seem rather set on it given your edit summary on your reversion of playerking's edit. To me, there seems to be little reason to prefer one over the other. I am merely curious, and I do not think you're doing anything wrong (though please, do try to avoid an edit war if your edits get reverted again for whatever reason). Xolroc (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I just prefer it that way. It's an OCD kind of thing. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
That's called pettiness. Don't change something because you don't like it or it triggers you. It's also such a small detail to go crazy over, "the" shouldn't be within the link unless it's part of the thing you're linking to.--ForceFire 05:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
What's wrong with linking "the" also? There's no harm, no foul. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have also seen many other articles that link the "the". SM008, for one. There are others, but I can't remember them all. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The reason for this is that the "the" in "the next episode" is a grammatical article to "next episode" and not a part of the next episode as a proper noun. --Raltseye prata med mej 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Final Warning on Edit Warring

This is becoming a recurring problem for you, if you have a problem with a reversion, discuss it with the user that reverted you, don't just revert them on the spot. And no, before you go "I only reverted once", it doesn't matter. You still chose to revert the edit rather than come to me and talk about it. Your edits were based off petty reasons like "I don't like it". I'm sorry, but we're not going to cater the site for your nitpicky needs. The "the" shouldn't be in the link because it's not part of the context of the link. This will serve as a final warning on edit warring, if you disagree with someone reverting your edits, go to their talk page and discuss it, DO NOT revert them until a consensus is reached. Thank you.--ForceFire 12:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

 :'( GrammarFreak01 (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Characters of the day getting history sections

It isn't really necessary to revert someone because of an unexplained edit, such as what happened on Mabel's page. In this case, I explained it here but didn't put it on Mabel's page as I felt it would be redundant. As for CoTD's getting history sections, I removed them because they only appeared in one episode (at most in the main series) and the history section is for characters who appeared in at least two episodes. PattyMan 23:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there any rule on that? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't really found where it said so but many edit summaries in the past stated that CoTDs don't get history sections. PattyMan 00:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, if there's no precedent, then this so-called rule shouldn't apply, should it? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That, I can't say. PattyMan 00:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
What in the world do you mean, no precedent, GrammarFreak01? Precedent would be every other page that doesn't have it. It in fact seems that you were the one who added the History sections to the pages linked above. I.e., until your edit, it seems the page's precedent was no History section. And no one else who touched those pages thought a History section was needed. I've also noticed that a significant number of COTD pages that have History sections seem to have been added by you relatively recently. And even then, the great majority of COTD pages still don't have a History section.
FWIW, I'm not really into the anime pages a lot, but your comment makes no sense, GrammarFreak01. Even granting that you may have misspoken, it still contradicts the structure of the majority of COTD pages; the precedent. Honestly, I'm not certain what's most right, but I'm inclined to stand by the pretty clear precedent... It makes reasonable sense. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


Don't think I didn't see these. Just because you didn't hit the undo button or you did and you emptied out the edit summary, doesn't mean you did not revert an edit. I told you not to revert/add back information that you changed and someone else undid, I told you to go to their talk page. But you didn't. I'll go through them one by one. The blurbs are from and are meant to be unchanged from the source, regardless of punctuation or grammar errors. CoTDs don't get history sections, some do because you added them. Give me a CoTD that has a history section that you did not add, because the majority that I checked were added by you. Lastly, Marina being an idol is just speculation, she could just be plain old modelling, nothing to do with being an idol. Anyway, since you failed to adhere to my final warning above, you have been blocked for a week.--ForceFire 04:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, again

Due to continually reverting edits rather than going to the talk page, you have been blocked for one week, one day per reversion. I have already told you to not revert an edit you disagree with, bring it up to the talk page of the user that reverted you. This is a common problem for you, you don't think to go to the talk page rather than reverting. You always pull the trigger even though you know the consequences. If you continue to make several reversions and ignore the talk page, the penalty will be harsher.--ForceFire 09:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)