User talk:GrammarFreak01/Archive 1

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)

Code of conduct

Your recent edits to the talk pages of Kittystyler and Erica124 display signs of aggression. As far as I've noticed your contributions, this is somewhat of a habit you have (including attempting to give warnings), and that simply isn't kosher. Play nice. If you have a problem with another user, take it to a staff member and let them sort it out, don't comment on their talk page if you can't be constructive.

Please familiarize yourself with our code of conduct and make every effort to be polite and respectful in your interactions with other users in the future. Tiddlywinks (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, clearly they aren't listening to our advice, so I think some harder pushing is in order. ;) GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
That's not your place to decide. You can adhere to Tiddlywink's warning or face a block. --Pokemaster97 22:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Why? I doubt they're reading their talk pages anyway. If anything, they should be blocked for continuing those awful edits of theirs. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
May I remind you who got blocked twice for edit warring and not using the talk page? You are walking a very thin line. If you cannot be polite with other users, regardless of how you feel about them, then you will be moved on. This is your final warning on you attitude.--ForceFire 06:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page Comments

Removing talk page comments, including the initial welcome template, is prohibited per Bulbapedia's talk page policy. Please do not remove any comments in the future. If you wish to clean old comments away, you should archive your talk page instead. Thank you! --Tiddlywinks (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

 :'( GrammarFreak01 (talk) 09:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring. If you have a problem with policy, take it up with the staff. I don't know who came up with the policies or when or why; I'm just explaining my understanding of them to you. Continually reverting things to get your way does nothing productive. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Then I would like an explanation from you on that rule, and why there's a separate distinction between Pokémon and human characters. Because it's causing my OCD to act up. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Like I said: I don't know who came up with it or when or why. Ask the staff. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I can't go to Force Fire. He hasn't responded to another message I've sent him, and he seems barely active recently. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of other staff members you can talk to listed on the staff page. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I thought Force Fire was the only admin. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
We hide upcoming appearances of major characters and Pokémon (like Misty or Ash's Bulbasaur) to avoid spoilers for those that (for some reason) aren't aware that they will return. It's fine for unimportant characters or Pokémon.--ForceFire 05:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Another point is to prevent users, especially new users, from adding any speculation.--ForceFire 05:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Ohhhhh, okay. Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

TCG pages

I saw you doing these updating pages but please do not do those on TCG pages. There are much more to do in these pages, not only the ones you are editing. We're in the midst of doing these updating on all our TCG pages. By doing those edits that you did, we'll assume they are edited in the requirements. So please leave these TCG pages unedited please. Thanks. — Ruixiang95 08:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


You've been informed once before about the preview button. And you're a habitual enough user that you should really know how to use it well. Instead of editing a page like Ash's Greninja many times for progressive little—or even big—things, if you're planning on continuing to work on the page essentially immediately, just save it all up and do it all in one edit. There's no race, there's no real issue if you just wait to only save once. Please remember to be smart about previewing and saving. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It's really hard to follow due to all of that text, even if I use the preview button. I find it better to keep track of my progress by editing a couple of paragraphs at a time. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Unless you want to help me take care of all the cruft in the article, I don't see what else there is I could do. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Use your imagination! ^^ Let me give you a suggestion. If you're on a computer, just use a text editor to copy out bits of the text a time and edit those. If you're on a phone or something, then it may be good enough to just throw a bunch of newlines before/after paragraphs that you want to focus on; you can easily remove them later when you're finished with editing that part and move on to the next part.
We'd really appreciate if you limit the number of times you edit the same page in succession. I'm sure it's not all that great a problem. (To be clear: that's more being polite than it is a request. You're not at any dire crossroads or anything at the moment, but it is very much something we want users to follow.) Thanks! Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


This is what the page currently looks like on my screen, so it's perfectly fine. I guessing you've been making these small edits to adjust the page to your computer screen resolution? If so, could you take a screenshot of what the page currently looks like on your computer?--ForceFire 05:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to take a screenshot of my computer. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Windows or Mac? For Windows: Fn + Print Scr then paste onto PAINT. For Mac(book/book Pro): Command+Shift+3 and it will be saved to the desktop. Then upload to imgur — Ruixiang95 06:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have an Imgur account. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
You don't need an imgur account.--ForceFire 08:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Pointless edits

Please avoid pointless edits like this. If you're doing substantial edits to the page, you can feel free to do that at the same time, but don't waste time just editing pages for something that makes absolutely no difference. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What are you doing? Please respond to this question (and mine from above), don't just keep removing and re-adding it back, because it appears you are just avoiding the question.--ForceFire 05:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Trying to rack up my edit count a little. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Uh... why? When staff asks you a question, you are expected to comply and answer. Making more pointless edits gets you nowhere and a possible block.--ForceFire 05:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, when asked to stop doing something, please do not keep doing it. FYI, this is the same type of thing. I'm sure you're smart enough to realize this. Stop making such edits. Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I have OCD when it comes to numbers. I have a personal goal to reach 10,000 edits before the year ends. I try to make sure my edits count, but after sitting in front of a computer for a while, it gets hard for me to find anything that really needs editing so I just resort to my dummy edits. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, my apologies, but it's really important for me to get to 10,000 edits before the year ends and I run out of stuff to do for the day. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
That's not good enough. If you can't find anything to edit, log off and do something else with your day, come back another day where there probably will be something for you to edit. Don't make small, petty edits for your own selfish goals. Any more pointless, small edits will not be tolerated.--ForceFire 05:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
But I don't have much of anything else to do for today... GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
You're still doing these kinds of edits immediately after the wiki is open to editing again. As previously stated, these kinds of edits are only to be done when there are several other edits to be done to the page. And not deleting the blank only, as you have been doing. Doing these edits just to reach your own personal goal is not a good reason for you to do these edits. — Ruixiang95 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay, which edits are those? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Ah, shoot. I deeply apologized for my edit above. I didn't check properly and I assumed. I'm sorry. Because I saw one of those edit when you are only clearing away the {{right clear}}, and I assumed you're doing the same thing you did last year. I'm sorry again for not checking properly. — Ruixiang95 10:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This is another example in a new string of pointless edits. Even if the last comment above was mistaken, it should have well reminded you not to make such edits. This is at least the second time you've been warned now. Please don't forget again. There's no reason to make such pointless edits. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? There always need to be spaces between sections, right? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Like I said from the start of this section: those edits make absolutely no difference. If this isn't clear, then I'll be even more explicit. Don't make edits that don't change anything about the appearance of the page. That's what it means when we say an edit is "pointless": there's no difference between having done it or not. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
So you won't mind if I remove all the spaces between sections in articles, right? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1) I don't have patience for exaggerated argumentation.
2) That's still exactly a pointless edit. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No, seriously, I'm asking you that. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If that's true, then: don't. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Then that's exactly my point: you'd care if there were no spaces between sections. Hence my brief string of edits. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Your "point" entirely misses the mark.
Do. Not. Make. Pointless. Edits. You cannot justify an edit that does not change the page. End of story.
If you cannot accept this, then I'm far more inclined to believe that a subsequent mistake of this sort should warrant a block. Fair warning. Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Whatever you say. :( GrammarFreak01 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Additionally, please no more edits of this nature. Making edits to condense paragraphs isn't only unecessary, but it makes things more difficult to read and navigate for our visitors/users who may be using Bulbapedia on mobile platforms. On a different note, your edits to Pokémon pages are starting to become excessive. This is not the first time a member of staff has brought this to your attention. Editing just to make edits (ie, editing blank spaces and editing the size of images by a few pixels) isn't acceptable and from this point on, you will be blocked for it. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. --Pokemaster97 01:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I can't read it if they're that short. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


While appearances by image, painting, etc.. aren't notable for the individual species articles since they're not physical appearances, they are fine to be listed on the episode articles.--ForceFire 03:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That would be very misleading, then. Readers would naturally expect those sections to list all physical appearances of Pokémon. It would confuse them if they see the lists also count dolls, paintings, images, etc., etc. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
That's what the parenthesis are for.--ForceFire 03:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I meant to say section titles. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
"Appearances" is a vague title. It's not titled "physical appearances". Also, don't edit war. Discuss things first. You definitely know this already.--ForceFire 04:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Then I say we title it "physical appearances". Problem solved! :D GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah... no. It's fine the way it is and is definitely not confusing or misleading, you are under the assumption the user's aren't going to read the parenthsesis.--ForceFire 04:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I am under the assumption casual readers and new users are going to be confused why we're listing doll, painting, image, etc. appearances yet will not accept such entries in the Pokémon species' main pages. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Species articles should only list physical appearances, since it's about the species. The episode lists should list all Pokemon that appear in the episode in any way, shape or form (be it image or physical).--ForceFire 04:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
And how are all of these people going to know that? It's kind of why I joined Bulbapedia in the first place; I see things like this and feel they need to be corrected. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
After reviewing the policy, it seems that only photos of Pokemon counts as appearances, not statues and doll, my mistake. But the whole listing it on episode articles and not species article still stand.--ForceFire 04:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
That's good to know, I guess. Still doesn't answer my question on how new people can be cleared up on the same confusion I just had in the future. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Content changes and removal

Please do not remove or change content without giving a valid reason for doing so, as you did here and with several edits changing "first appeared in" to "debuted". Your edits do not appear to be constructive. MasterBraixen96 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the provided diff, it is part of a self-appointed campaign to find and remove so-called "appearances" that I've recently been informed do not count, such as photos, toys, etc. In regards to the edits where I change "first appeared in" to "debuted", I just find it simpler that way. There's no harm in that, right? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Headers and no content

While I can understand your thinking of "just in case", it has been an unwritten policy on Bulbapedia that a section header is not needed if there is no content. Just in case is not a valid reason to keep something. Go look at other pages and you will see common headers such as trivia, one of the mot common ones, completely missing from many pages because there is nothing to put there. --HoennMaster 04:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have seen section headers with no content on numerous Pokémon and episode articles. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't mean they need to be there. There is no rule saying they can or can't be there, but if there is no content it is fine to remove them. --HoennMaster 04:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how much work it'll take for me to remove them all? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
If there is no rule one way or the other, then you don't have to remove them all. Nor do you have to worry about being the one to do it, if it's something you don't want to do. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, clearly no one else has noticed them and I have severe OCD, so it's obviously now my duty. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please leave the blank sections in episode and species articles alone, leave them there. They're there for consistency. Every other article shouldn't have blank sections, however.--ForceFire 05:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Force Fire. I was unaware of that. --HoennMaster 05:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering why they would be there if I was being told they're unnecessary if they're empty. Thank you very much. :) GrammarFreak01 (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Creating pages

As a rule, please ask someone on staff about creating a new page before you actually do it.

There may be some pages that will always need to be created. I believe characters of the day are an example, so that case isn't a problem. But otherwise it's probably best to just check in with a member of staff before you create a page, especially if the content is already on an existing page.

Please keep this in mind if you're thinking about making another page like Ash's Pikachu (M20) in the future. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads-up. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Consecutive links

Since you edit a lot, I thought it'd be worth bringing this to your attention. Please do not make links like this. Consecutive links on words that are not plainly separate are just a bad idea all around, but especially so for mobile users who can't even tell what each link is without tediously checking each one.

In this case, I don't think the links to those episodes are all that useful, so I've just reverted it here. But in other cases, there are other solutions that work very well. Like, for example, just adding a parenthetical somewhere appropriate in the sentence with the links there.

Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Cyndaquil and Chimchar

Could you please explain why you removed my additions to the trivia section on Cyndaquil and Chimchar? The reason you have given is "meaningless", however that is the meaning of trivia, meaningless information with little or no use. Should all trivia sections be removed? Also, I would argue that it is useful to some readers, who may want to pick a starter which will evolve more quickly (and therefore have a more powerful Pokémon earlier in the game). Adam Black (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If it's not unique to one Pokémon, it's not notable (expect in some cases like BST totals). The latter part is an opinion and a bit strategy guide-ish, Bulbapedia is not a strategy guide or a walkthrough.--ForceFire 07:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. That is at least an explaination. Adam Black (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
What Force Fire (talk · contribs) just said. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summary on Brionne

You say Playerking95 is "freaking out over mere wording", but I have to say I agree with him: your edits frequently seem like pointless reshuffling from one acceptable wording to another, made for the sole reason of fluffing up your edit count, and this is more of that pattern. I can barely use my watchlist anymore because it's so full of your edits, and I would like to cordially but firmly express my displeasure with your editing patterns. Thank you. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems pointless to say "anime debut" because we already know it's debuting in an anime episode, since such a sentence is always under one or another subsection of the "In the anime" section anyway. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I see the wording adjustment as pointless. It wasn't broken, so no need to try fixing it. Berrenta (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
But people already know it's appearing in an anime episode because of the above section header. Why mention anime in the sentence in the first place? That actually hurts the sentence because of its repetition. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Even if it is repetitive, it's still fine.--ForceFire 05:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's gonna take a while and some hard work. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2018 (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. Also, if you want to edit multiple sections of the page, make sure that you click "edit this page" at the top of the page rather than editing it by section. Thanks! --Tiddlywinks (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about the List of clothing in the anime article, I wish I could, and I did have that in mind. But that article has gotten pretty long at this point. As such, it's quite difficult for me to navigate through while finding every section that I needed to edit, especially since so many of the sub-sections have the same titles. As such, I decided to just give up and edit by section. My apologies for that. If you have any ideas to remedy this, then I'm all ears. As for the other articles, that was all my bad. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not hard, just search the page for the section headers. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
But I might wind up missing it and having to look back to the preview to see where exactly it's at. I don't know about you, but I did it a couple of times and it was always a hassle for me. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Saving and finding the next thing can't be that much faster than just previewing and finding the next.
If you're trying to say that it's easier to only preview a single section and see that you got all the formatting or whatever that you wanted to there without the rest of the page being in the way, then you can do that for each section, without saving...and copy/paste the fixes into the whole page so you can save once. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
After I save my edits in one section, I'm then easily able to use the sidebar menu to go to the next section that I want to edit.
But what if I have different edits per section?
GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I understand either part of that...
You can jump to sections in a preview of the whole page exactly the same way that you can on the regular page.
And I don't know what's problematic about compositing edited sections, if that's what your problem is. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't think I could do that. Never mind.
I don't think we're following each other with that second part. Could you clarify what you were asking originally?
GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess I was "originally" asking you to edit the whole page instead of individual sections...? Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I meant the part where you said, "If you're trying to say that it's easier to only preview a single section and see that you got all the formatting or whatever that you wanted to there without the rest of the page being in the way, then you can do that for each section, without saving...and copy/paste the fixes into the whole page so you can save once." GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(resetting indent)Um. I can try?

If you want to edit two separate sections... Say, open both sections as well as an "edit this page". Preview the separate sections until you've got them fixed up exactly how you want them. Then copy those sections, go to the edit window for the whole page, and paste them into the correct places in there. And save that. (That's about the simplest way to explain it I guess, but once you understand what I mean you can mix it up a bit if it's more convenient.) Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about opening up two tabs, one for each section? Is that what you're getting at? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Or windows if you want. Or you could also make it work other ways. ...But that's not the important part.
Yes. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh...I didn't think about that either... GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If I might bump in, you can always copy the full code into a word document or another external source and edit the code there and paste it back. That's what I do anyway. --Raltseye prata med mej 02:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds useful too. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, in Word there's even a function that lets you swap certain word for another word. Quite usefull when you miss something several times in a huge bunch of code. --Raltseye prata med mej 07:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

We've said it enough times, might as well say it again: If you don't like the wording, take it to the talk page. Your edits on Brionne are diving into Edit War territory. So please, stop it. You've been blocked for this before; don't make us do it again. Berrenta (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been discussing it on the talk page. See the "Your edit summary on Brionne" section above. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussing it means leaving the page alone and not doing further reversions/edits. Tiddlywinks (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


That comment was unnecessary, you weren't part of the sprayduck edit war, so butt out. You clearly made that comment to bait Playerking and get a reaction out of him, which will not be tolerated, especially when you and him have a history of getting into arguments. This will be your only warning on making comments just to rile up Playerking.--ForceFire 12:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I would really like to hear him explain himself about this behavior. But since he has not responded, I assume he's deflecting. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


Due to your habit of removing talk page comments from your talk pages for no reason at all, I have given you a one month block. I decided to go with a harsher block because this is something that you commonly do, and I suspect that you do it because you are just plain salty. The last time you did this on your talk page, you pointlessly removed and added back comments in a section about making pointless edits. If you're upset, fine, but don't remove talk page comments out of spite. If you come back and continue to remove talk page comments, a harsher penalty will be dealt. I also will not tolerate you responding with ":(" when you come back, like you usually do when you get warnings, because that implies you are not taking these warnings seriously.--ForceFire 06:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please unblock me. I'm sorry. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Judging by that comment and how quickly you responded, you didn't even read my comment. So no, I will not be unblocking you.--ForceFire 06:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, lets get one thing straight. You have a history of making pointless edits. You have a history of getting into edit wars. You have a history of getting into arguments with other users. You have a history of being aggressive. And you have a history of refusing to listen to staff. So based on your history, I will not be unblocking you. We will not be lenient with you, because as it stands, it does not look like you will change your behavior. And you continuously commenting here, and removing it in the end, proves that you have not read my comment at all and have no intent on reading or heeding it. BEcause of your antics, I have extended your block by an extra week. This is your last lifeline. If you continue to act like a spoiled brat, going into edit wars and throwing a tantrum when things don't go your way, you will be moved on.--ForceFire 06:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hold it right there

I noticed that you are back to making pointless tweaks like this after your block ran out. How many times do we have to tell you to stop fixing what's not broken? Remember, you got in trouble for this before. Berrenta (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I swear, I'm really trying to slow everything down on my end. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Nope, I joined Bulbapedia as an editor this month, although I have edited for other wikis over the past seven years. But I guess that's a compliment. TardisTybort (talk) 06:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, yes, that edit on Team Rocket trio was in error, possibly from copy-pasting. Sorry about that. TardisTybort (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I see. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

ProbablyBisharp is obviously a troll. Don't encourage them. --Raltseye prata med mej 01:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thought it wouldn't hurt to see if they were otherwise... GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I highly doubt so though. But that's my opinion. I'm no mod. --Raltseye prata med mej 01:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Me neither. But I try to look on the bright side first and foremost. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


Do you support the points you re-added to the AmourShipping page? Or did you purely revert them because there was no edit summary/reason given? Because the GREAT majority of edits all around BP are made without any edit summary at all; it's not a reason to revert an edit. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Both. I do support some hints, namely the ones where Ash calls Serena out by name even though there are others in the same approximate vicinity as him and he could've called them out as well. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I apologize if I didn't make that part clear in my earlier edit summary. I probably should've made that clear in the new user's talk page as well. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Gen VI spelling

If it's an anime article, it's fine to use the post Gen VI spelling, even for pre-Gen VI related articles. It's just games, manga, or books that need to use the spelling appropriate to their generation.--ForceFire 04:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Gladion's Umbreon

Just to say thanks for your help with my Gladion's Umbreon page.

You're welcome. :) GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Page histories

Just FYI, telling someone like here to check a page's history before making edits is, honestly, kind of ridiculous.

For one thing, edit summaries are often blank, and it's certainly not reasonable to ask anyone to manually check more or less every past edit to see what they were all about.

For another thing, no one really thinks like that. Long-time users know about issues because they're paying attention. You simply can't blame a new user for not having any idea about past situations. But I really doubt most long-time users make any regular practice of checking a page's history either. I don't. I just know about what I've noticed.

You can't lay such a burden as that on a person. We're all here to help everyone. If someone simply didn't know something...just let them know. ("Hey, FYI [stuff], thanks.")

While I'm here, this note also has room for improvement. "An edit such as this" is kind of meaningless (this applies equally to the other page referred to above); you may know what you think makes that edit more problematic than another, but they can't guess at that. If I were discussing that with the user, I would have said that 1) character names should follow their page names, and 2) character names are usually very important and should as a rule be discussed if you think a change is needed.

As a final note, new users may not need a talking to for one mistake. People are allowed to make mistakes, and we don't want to come off like we're jumping on a new user. Notes become more advisable if issues persist. In short: be sure to give it careful thought.

Tiddlywinks (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Brock (anime) Trivia

I appreciate your diligence when it comes to grammar. Though my point about Brock (anime) in the Trivia section is valid. Trivia is about fun facts and anomalies regarding a particular topic, I've undone the change you made on the page.PardescanSlowbro (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

First off, the trivia was poorly formatted. Second of all, trivia also needs to have some sort of significance to the character or the scenario at hand. What exactly was it about that trivia that made him stand out in any particular way? If anything, the point of trivia seems more relevant to the episode page rather than the character article. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I've noted that the point I was making was already present on the ep 249 page PardescanSlowbro (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Since when? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-English speakers

Yes, we are an English wiki, but do understand that not everyone that comes on this site is going to have the most perfect English. If they have made an error, at least let them know of their mistake so that they can learn from it. The sentences you've removed weren't that bad, the errors were very, very minor. If you don't know what they were trying to convey and were afraid that you would screw up the sentence, you could've either left it alone for someone else to check or asked the user what they meant. Again, not everyone that comes here is going to have perfect English, so don't expect that everyone is going to have high level English skills. Thank you.--ForceFire 04:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not appreciate him saying I was being racist, though, because I was not. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


The parameters of the autoconfirmed status are pretty much explicitly undisclosed to prevent users from joining and only doing what they "have to" to become autoconfirmed. Do not attempt to tell users even a guess at those parameters. Tiddlywinks (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, they asked and I was trying to be nice. I didn't even know I was not supposed to do that. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages

I've thought before that you have a habit of jumping into conversations where it may not be necessary. I don't fully trust that I'm altogether unbiased and/or right about it, so I haven't said anything before, but your comment here puts a toe over a line. I do not consider that there was any need for any further comment at that point. Your comment just puts more pressure on the user.

I've kind of said it before, but please give careful thought to whether you need to jump into a given conversation. If you have something actually unique to contribute, by all means, speak up. I think you should really start to recognize when a staff member has stepped in on what can be considered an "official" matter, though. (If they're just teaching/helping, that's a bit of a different matter.) The fact of the matter is, if staff is handling that sort of thing, you should probably leave it to staff unless (again) you really have something unique to add. Otherwise, staff is very well equipped to make any response necessary themselves. It's honestly not really your place at that point to emphasize a warning or whatever.

Thank you. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to express my annoyance at that user like you did? I feel guilty about enabling this user; I was the one who extended a warm welcome to this user and now they're already getting ahead of themselves and irking you admins in the process. I take this sequence of events to be a bit of a personal insult, which is why I keep butting in. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
No. It is not appropriate to express your annoyance at someone. To be more plain, that is, itself, a form of bad behavior. Users may do it. But that does not make it the best way to handle any situation. Taking things personally and communicating in that mindset is a recipe for bad blood.
Your comment added nothing. Your guilt is your problem, not Veralann's. Feeling insulted is honestly your problem. When staff handles it, you don't have any sort of right to butt in just because you feel hurt or whatever. That's only acting emotionally, not for any rational reason. If it doesn't "need" saying, don't say it. Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Fine. >:( GrammarFreak01 (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi GrammarFreak. I read your message about being a little annoyed with me when I kept breaking the rules even when you were trying to guide me. I just wanted to apologize for that and acting rashly without thinking about how my actions might affect other people. To be honest, I tend to lose sight of that when I'm interacting online. I will try to do better and remember how my actions might make other people here feel. And I will also concentrate on being a good contributor to this encyclopedia. Veralann (a.k.a. Incentive) 01:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And I do appreciate the help you have given me here so far. Thank you. I will try to start following your advice. Veralann (a.k.a. Incentive) 01:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


You're continuing to be at least a little heavy handed on Veralann's talk page. I think this comes from you being a bit overly frustrated with the user and bringing that to your interactions. I'm going to lay out two options. Either find a way to tone it down (focus on helping a new user, not on your frustration or whatever). Or just lay off your involvement on Veralann's userpage: if you see a problem with them in the future, you can bring it up to a staff member.

Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Macy & Incomplete article

I noticed you were the one to add the 'history section needs more detail' to the incomplete article alert and this section hasn't changed yet. I am wondering what detail are you thinking should be included? I would be more than happy to add such details to the article. PardescanSlowbro (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that Macy appeared in more than two episodes, but I could be wrong, since I haven't even seen those episodes. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I can't say for certain either. I'll see if anyone else knows. Thanks for the reply PardescanSlowbro (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Lucky thing the incomplete alert was still attached. Macy made a cameo appearance in the following episode, though hasn't been seen since. I've also adjusted ep 270 to account for the discovery. Thanks PardescanSlowbro (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome, I guess... GrammarFreak01 (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


Judging by our partner wikis, all Apricorns actually did appear in EP143. While I haven't exactly seen the episode either, I think the Spanish site even has some pictures of them. You're right that the texts you removed focused on Apricorns that are not the title of the pages, but anyway, I think it's appropriate to mention the fact they did appear on each individual page, somehow. Could you have a look and change the pages as you see fits? Thanks. Nescientist (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll see what I can do. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


I've been assuming your welcome sprees have been for recent users. However, it's come to my attention that at least some of them are for users who contributed long, long ago. Please don't create talk pages for users who haven't been active recently... Let's say maybe if a week has already passed, let it go. Thanks. Tiddlywinks (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I happened to notice another user make a similar welcome spree perhaps a few weeks ago or so, though I forgot the name. Thus I thought that would be okay. But I didn't really look into it much, so I assume that user was welcoming recent users rather than cherry-picking. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Other Users

Hello GrammarFreak01. I know I'm no staff member, nor do I have any authority, but I may recommend that you don't call others out for pointless edits/superficial trivia such as with Tygamer64. What they're doing is wrong, although I think it's best left for the staff members to sort that out since the last thing that you and I want is for you to get blocked again, since you do have a history of getting blocked. Just a quick recommendation. Thanks! Ice Cream 21:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What am I doing that would warrant a block for me? I'm trying to help them avoid another block on their first day(s) back by urging them to discuss potential edits with me on the talk page if they insist on continuing like this. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I am aware of that, although it really shouldn't be your job too. Reverting their edits is fine but possibly acting like a staff member to tell them off is something that you probably shouldn't do. They will penalized by staff members when they discover their edits. It may be slightly misunderstood as intimidation to other users which could result in you getting punished for acting like a staff member when you aren't. Seriously, I'm not trying to put you down, I just don't want you to get into more trouble. Cheers Ice Cream 21:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
So I should just leave those users out to dry right away instead of not adhering to the philosophy that Bulbapedia is a collaborative wiki? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It does mention on the code of conduct to report cases such as these (pointless edits comes under this category) rather than deal with them yourself since you don't have the power to block them, only to tell them not too which in the case of Tygamer64, since you left a few messages on his talk page about the same mistakes he was doing, which is turning out to be rather pointless. Again, I'm purely trying to help you. For people that are not here to contribute, there is very little that me and you can do since we lack authority. Ice Cream 22:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
FINE. I'll report them to Force Fire. >:( GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Now the user's banned for a month when I could've just helped him out on improvements. Hope you're happy. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Bulbapedia does have any outright problem with regular users helping out other users or trying to inform them of rules. (The ambivalence in that statement only means that there are always bad ways to do things.) Whether with Tygamer or the user GrammarFreak01 actually referred to ForceFire, I do not think that GrammarFreak01 wholly overstepped any bounds.
If a user is proving an intractable problem, then yes, it's probably best turned over to staff at that point, because regular users have no authority to issue any ultimatums or any power to enforce consequences.
On a final note, though, petulant/accusatory comments like "Hope you're happy" aren't really helping anyone involved. You're welcome to personally be dissatisfied with an outcome, but that doesn't make it okay to lash out. If you're dissatisfied, ForceFire is the one who did it, talk to ForceFire. In the meantime, be nice, please. Tiddlywinks (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I was seriously not trying to put you down, I was just trying to help you since that I was slightly concerned by some comments. Some users are only here to cause chaos and no amount of talking or telling off can sort it out. Again, I had no benefit from this, I just want you to stay safe. Ice Cream 15:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Edgreen was clearly just misguided with his editing practices, not intentionally trying to cause chaos. If he were trying to cause chaos, he would've been indeffed quickly. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Decent point. Let's just leave him to ForceFire now. Ice Cream 21:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing comments

I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't want to start an edit war- you can't remove or edit talk page comments, regardless of a change of opinion, or typo, or anything. I apologize if this comes across as rude. --Celadonkey 22:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. My bad. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It's fine, just thought I'd let you know. --Celadonkey 22:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I just restored the comment and struck it. I realized that was a thing too. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

For clarity's sake

>Not sure how this is relevant to Cyndaquil.

It's called adding context to aid comprehension, but it's too late at night for an edit dispute for me, so you do you. I just wanted to say that. Horo-kun (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless the robe requested by Kaguya-hime also has some direct association with how Cyndaquil was created, I feel it does not contribute to the section at all. It's just a random piece of trivia from where I'm standing. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's the source through which the huo shu is the most famous, and adding that bit of information helps comprehend what the creature is based on relative familiarity. But god forbid people learn something new, am I right? Nevermind that assuming the contrary throws the very utility of the trivia section into question.
Horo-kun (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
But does it have anything to do with Cyndaquil itself? That's the important thing. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It falls within the scope of explaining what Cyndaquil is based on, so yes, it is relevant. Horo-kun (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so what part of it directly inspired Cyndaquil? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for completely ignoring what I just said, but if I must answer the very likely scenario is the creators first heard of the creature through the classic fairytale than the original legends, which are difficult to research.Horo-kun (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I did not ignore what you just said. I just think your reasoning for including it is not good enough to excuse inclusion. From where I'm standing, "Origin" sections always talk about the things that inspired the Pokémon of concern, and they do not go off on small tangents for the sake of "clarification". Nothing more, nothing less. If the robe itself played a part in the inspiration of Cyndaquil, yes, it could be included. But if it's just going to be included for the sole sake of bringing further context on the legend that inspired Cyndaquil, then I don't see what's the point of its inclusion if it didn't inspire Cyndaquil itself. Why go off on this tangent in the "Origin" section if it has nothing to do with Cyndaquil's origin?
The robe didn't even help "clarify" the legend for me, because I know absolutely nothing about it in the first place. The only people who would benefit from this, if needs be, would be people familiar with the legend itself. And I doubt everybody who visits this site would be aware of it unlike me. For the most part, it's just a piece of trivia that should belong on the "Trivia" section itself, if needs be. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
You know what? I explained it the best I could and it still didn't get through, so sod this, I have more important things to do tonight.Horo-kun (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm sleepy too, so I apologize if I might've missed anything. But I'm pretty sure I didn't. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Major events

This is the last thing from important. No one can see it and they're old episodes. If it's not actively a problem—for a specific page—it's fine as is. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Why do all of the recent episodes have it, then? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The answer isn't going to change the fact that there's no good reason to add it to OLD episodes. Tiddlywinks (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Then you won't mind if I remove those from recent episodes...? GrammarFreak01 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You've tried that exact tack before and it's entirely as obvious now as it was then. You're just being contrary. As far as I'm concerned, if you act on that contrariness, you're asking for a block. You know better. Tiddlywinks (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

GrammarFreak, the old episodes don't have the hidden notes because they were made before we had the New Episode template. You don't need to go around adding the hidden note to the old episodes, it's a waste of time. And seeing as you have this thing to get to 10,000 edits a year, it can be seen as spamming for personal gain. And don't try to be smart by suggesting to remove the hidden note from recent episodes, you're clearly looking for a reaction. May I remind you that you are walking a very thin line in regards to making pointless edits. Don't make pointless edits and try to be snarky when things don't go your way, you only have one chance.--ForceFire 10:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)