Why is it redundant? It is possible he has multiple pairs, but stating the trivia as is makes it sound as if he doesn't. If you look through the wikia's list of goofs, you'll see quite a few of the same cases.
As to the error: you couldn't see it in the text, but there was this weird paragraph break in one of the paragraphs. I have no idea how it got there, but erasing the spaces in between the words and replacing them fixes it :P
In that case, stating that his glasses looked the same as the ones in the episode is too speculatory. It assumes that they're "probably the same pair". So should we just remove it all together? We could just say they look the same, which is a fact, and let the implication that they belong to him as well be implied.
Maybe you should make sure that before you undo an edit, you are 100% certain that undoing it is necessary, so as to avoid unnecessary edit conflicts. Also, when you're undoing something, don't add new info to it that will also be undone if someone else tries to undo your bad edit, because then that info that might have been good will also be reverted.
You were undoing my edit where I removed an unnecessary comma that you kept placing there due to ignorance of cumulative adjectives. I would advise you to do some reading up before you undo such an edit again, because you ended up causing an unnecessary edit war between us when it was clear to someone with knowledge of grammar that the comma was unnecessary.
About the sentence thing, I see no reason why you keep removing it. The sentence makes perfect sense and there is nothing wrong with it being there.
I'm sorry I caused this "edit war", I've never learned about cumulative adjectives, but it's not my fault I didn't know. Thanks to you, I do know now, so, thank you. It's hard, though, to look up gramatical rules you don't know exist :P
The sentence, for one, is a little wonky gramatically. Secondly, it's saying that "Either the man in the paper is the Stan we know and we find out later that he's alive (even though we've always known him to be alive) or the man in the paper is the author and we learn later he's alive (but his name has yet to be confirmed)."
I don't know how you didn't know about cumulative adjectives. Maybe you're a little kid, but no matter how old you are, when you're undoing something, you should make sure that you are certain what you're undoing is wrong/redundant. Otherwise, you are just making a mess. But I'm glad I taught you basic grammar.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "wonky". It looks fine to me. Admittedly, I don't know exactly what it's trying to tell people, but I'd rather it stay there until someone can put some time into rewording it rather than removing it completely. I don't think the sentence is redundant, so removing it seems uncalled for.
I've bounced around from ciriculum to ciriculum, so I may have missed it :P Thanks for the lesson. However, since I didn't know, I was certain. Maybe some ciriculums each cumulative adjectives sooner than others, so to you it's common knowledge, but to others it's not.
The Sentence is Contrary to this incriminating article, it is discovered that Stan Pines is at least the direct brother of, if not, the one mentioned in the article who is actually alive.
The wonky part is "Stan Pines is at least the direct brother of, if not, the one mentioned in the article." It's trying to say that the Stan we know is either the one mentioned in the article, or the brother of the one mentioned in the article. The way it's phrased is a little messed up though, plus we don't know that the author is named Stan as well. We also aren't supposed to understand the article just yet, so it'd make sense for us not to.
All-in-all, even if we do keep it, it should at least be re-phrased. It shouldn't stand the way it does.
Well I was saying that we should either remove it or rephrase it, but not just leave it there. I also don't completely agree with what it's saying, but if you want we can take it to the forums and get some other opinions on it.
Hi! I noticed that you like to recommend pictures for infobox images. However, you post a link to the picture rather than including it in your message box. This can be annoying to users who have to click on each one to view it, especially if they have bad internet connection and have to wait for the image to load.
To put a picture directly into your message box, just click on the icon that looks like a landscape with a plus sign at the bottom of the message you are typing. A window with a bunch of pictures will open. Type the name of the picture you want in the search box (you_have_to_put_these_in_between_the_spaces) and the picture should come up. Then you can put it in your message by clicking on the picture and then the button that says "Add Picture".