13 June 2019
17 September 2018
21 July 2018
17 June 2018
7 September 2017
27 March 2017
Changed protection level for "Bulbapedia" ([Edit=Block new users] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))m
21 June 2016
29 May 2016
22 March 2016
7 March 2016
6 February 2016
17 January 2016
10 January 2016
9 July 2014
27 June 2014
→Staff: Updating. I would describe the influences Werdnae made to the site but I'd most likely screw it up and get it entireley wrong.
7 January 2014
14 December 2013
22 August 2013
Undo revision 1956889 by Spyspotter (talk) No, it just means we're aware that you refuse to listen. MAGNEDETH and other admins insist that it stays, and this is the 6th time you've removed it.
→Vandalism: My talk page message has been up there for a month, and nobody replied to it. That means nobody has a problem with it going.m
29 July 2013
You literally just got back from your second ban for removing this. What could possibly be going through your mind to make you think this would be acceptable a third time?
21 July 2013
Changed protection level for "Bulbapedia": Counter-productive edit warring ([edit=sysop] (expires 03:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (indefinite))m
Undo revision 1939377 by Spyspotter (talk)Please leave it. When a former Eitor-in-Chief tells you to stop, you stop.
Undo revision 1939369 by Pumpkinking0192 (talk) The reason was so he could have easily undone my edits. Furthermore, even admins make mistakes sometimes. Maybe he didn't see that editm
Undo revision 1939368 by Spyspotter (talk) When an admin tells you not to mess with something, don't mess with it. MAGNEDETH must've had a reason for reinstating it along with the other stuff.
→Development: Removed questionable fact. Furthermore, that would have more to do with the history of Pokémon wikis than with the history of Bulbapedia.m
13 July 2013
Reverted edits by Spyspotter (talk) to last revision by SnorlaxMonsterm
→Development: If a fact is questionable, it should not be on here.m
→Vandalism: Who put this back? A little note to whoever did: we do not need to document the history of a deleted page and the reason it was deleted. Doing so is foolish, and nowhere else on the mainspace is there a record of deletion of an article.m
→Vandalism: indenting quotesm
If anyone removes this info, I will block you for edit warring. It is a major piece of BP history and deserves to be here. Many people wanted to keep the vandalism pages, but these quotes explain why we don't. They solidify our stance against vandalism.
8 July 2013
→Vandalism: If you're going to delete the explanatory info, it makes little sense to keep an obscure reference to something many people have never heard of and will have little or no ways of finding information about.
This info is unnecessary. Even by Wikipedia standards (and that's saying something), this information should be removed as it has nothing to do with the subject (Bulbapedia, for that matter), instead it states information on a deleted Bulbapedia page.m
no edit summary
I don't think you understand the importance of this piece of "history"
→Staff: putting user quotes in mainspace articles is just weird.
→Vandalism: forgot to remove thism
What I mean is, do we really have to detail the existence and deletion of every single article in the mainspace?m
Undo revision 1930778 by Force Fire (talk) What I mean is, do we really have to detail every single s
Undo revision 1930776 by Spyspotter (talk)Yes it is. It details the existence of the page and reaspn of removal
→Vandalism: Are those details really worth mentioning?