User talk:YgoFan90

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello YgoFan90! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! J Di ^talk 02:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Proposed deletion of Junkbot: Undercover

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Junkbot: Undercover, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mission Fleg (talk) 05:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orignal Reseach on List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants

The original research in this instance is how you're providing analysis on the character based on what you have seen in the show. If you have a secondary source then the statement will be fine, but without a source it's not acceptable. I hope that explains it. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop?

If you have a problem with me reverting your edits, than you can talk to me on my talk page. Mokoniki 14:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a reason I should be undoing the edits. They are unneeded. The article is fine as it is. Mokoniki | talk 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Mokoniki. Please stop repeatedly editing the SpongeBob pages after your edits are being reverted. Also, the page move you did here. This is the wrong way to move an article as it loses the page history, which is required by law to satisfy the terms of the GFDL (author history). If you think such a huge change is necessary then propose it on the talk page first. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are unnecessary. And I will list some reasons for you:

List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants:

List of characters should not be bolded. It has no need to be bolded.
Formula=Recipe. They are basically the same thing and should not be changed.
Boats may be the underwater equivalent to cars, but that does not need to be listed, as everyone knows that.

SpongeBob SquarePants Episodes Seasons 1 and 2:

You are changing/adding completely obvious wording and adding in things that don't need to be there. An Example? You're edits on Grandma's Kisses.

We can clearly see that SpongeBob and his Grandma do not notice the Bikini Bottom citizens standing outside laughing at them. You did not need to add that reef blowers are the underwater equivalent to leaf blowers. There's a link to it.

I do not want to get into an edit war with you. If you want to edit the SpongeBob articles, then stop adding meaningless information into the articles, and do something else like change spelling or grammatical errors. You could also edit the newer SpongeBob episode articles, and add summaries for those. I'm not the only one undoing your edits and we are getting quite tired of you reverting them back. I will admit that you have added some useful things, but most of it isn't. Mokoniki | talk 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Why?

There is no loss of information.

"Sheldon J. Plankton is a small green copepod who is Mr. Krabs's nemesis and an antagonist of the series."

That sentence is right for the article instead of yours, because Plankton is an antagonist in the series, even if he wasn't in certain episodes.

"His main goal in life is to steal the Krabby Patty secret formula..."

Once again, recipe and formula are the same thing.

"...as the "boats" are underwater equivalents to cars."

That is completely obvious and should not be stated in the article. We can clearly see people driving around in boats as if they were cars.

"Two elderly actors/superheroes... They are also animated characters who look like humans, though they breath underwater (but then again, this is probably one of their superpowers)."

I highly doubt they are using a superpower to breath underwater, and this has never been revealed, and is since, speculation and does not belong in the article. I don't know about the actors thing though.

She can be very whiney because of her father's cheap attitude, and is sometimes shown to force him into doing things.

Honestly, I like this sentence, but I wouldn't add it in without the consent of others.

"speaks with a French accent."

Speaks with and has are basically the same thing in this sense.

And stop bolding list of characters, that does not need to be bolded. Mokoniki | talk 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to List of characters in SpongeBob SquarePants, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mokoniki | talk 23:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why you don't understand this. :/ Mokoniki | talk 23:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, you will be blocked from editing. Mokoniki | talk 00:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Mokoniki | talk 01:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Where do you find that Nickelodeon or the show's producers partition the specials into holiday specials and others? And also, an entire section for the specials on the list of episodes page is not necessary. It is noted in the template and the individual articles are linked in the list. Also, half of the episodes aren't even true specials. Please try to keep fan partitioning down. If you find a reliable third-party source referring to that certain list as "Holiday specials", then they aren't necessary. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please discuss your changes? I am not going to revert you but don't be surprised if others do. You are edit-warring and I don't want to have to report you. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 23:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you must discuss your changes. If you can't, then stop reverting the edits. Mokoniki | talk 00:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism

The fact that you are edit warring, and adding in your own research, despite being told by various people to stop, contributes to vandalism. And how am I vandalizing? I have been reverting your disruptive edits, and telling you to stop adding them, yet you refuse to listen. Mokoniki | talk 16:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob

The reacent edits on the episodes of spongebob are not correct it dose not make it more organized, understand it, thogh all countribuations are appriciated, that one is not a correct edit, please stop putting the movie section it is not organized. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Disruptive

It's disruptive, because you keep adding it back, even when it's being reverted, and people have told you to stop. Mokoniki | talk 19:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous

Why do you keep reverting the edits? You aren't helping, you are being disruptive and ignorant. You need to stop. Mokoniki | talk 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Why do I "keep reverting"?

Yes, and I am finding this quite annoying as well, but there is a good reason your edits are being reverted. Mokoniki | talk 20:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that they are unneeded. You continue to add your own thoughts and fan speculation. Mokoniki | talk 20:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, yes you are. It has never been revealed if those SpongeBob episodes were holiday specials, and if they were, then I want a source for it. Until you can do that, it is speculation and will remain as such. Mokoniki | talk 20:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 20:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

YgoFan90, I am recomendeing you to calm down as a wikipedian, calm down with the edits Bovineboy is right, evryone who has commented to you about this is right you have been reported two times, and belivie me you do not want that to become bigger than it is cause i have bneen there i have done that, and got block five crappy times, and i deserved it all, so stop acting like an ass and please just let it go it happens you do not win, you do'nt get what you want, it has happen to me, it has happen to you and evry freaking one of us, so please calm down and resove it if you want to if not let it go. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at the 3RR noticeboard

Hello YgoFan90. You are mentioned in this report. You are welcome to add your own comment there. You may be blocked if you continue to add your own preferred wording in articles related to SpongeBob SquarePants without making a sincere effort to get support from other editors for your changes. Edit summaries like this one seem to show no respect for the views of others. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You can't delete other editors comments, as you did here.[1] Unfortunately on wikipedia, editors comments are held in higher esteem then editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YgoFan90. As per the editors below, you are not making any friends by your comments, and the way you are carrying yourself. I know you are frustrated, but don't let you frustration cloud your judgment. See Wikipedia:Don't take the bait please. Although this is not a bait case, you are overreacting just as editors who don't like your edits want you to.

While you were making everyone made by your ALL CAPS yelling, and stating arguments with no evidence to back it up, I was methodically showing that these editors were not blameless, [2] and stating that calling your edits cruft could be considered uncivil, which is 110% more effective than what you have been doing.

I know you are probably new here, and you don't know how to defend yourself properly, so ask these editors for who placed warning below and myself for help.

If you stop the yelling and unhelpful reverts, like the editor said below, you can probably get away with a warning. At worst, you will be blocked for 24 hours, along with the other editor you edit warred with.

If you keep it up though, you will be blocked. Ikip (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please agree to stop edit-warring

You've been adequately warned. Responses like this one are unlikely to win friends and influence people. If you promise to stop warring on these articles, you may be able to avoid a block. Wikipedia is not your personal website; other people work here too. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, you will be blocked for vandalism. Tim Song (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Warring on articles related to SpongeBob SquarePants, per a complaint at WP:AN3. You've made no response to requests to tone it down, or to promise to stop warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Junkbot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Junkbot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junkbot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. James^x12345 20:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]