Implicating spongebob_squarepants → nickelodeon
Link to implication

Reason:

Kind of obvious to anyone who's seen the show.

This should probably be fine as long as we're keeping nickelodeon.

I just want to note that you don't need to manually add the tags before suggesting an implication since the site will handle it automatically on approval. In fact, usually it's preferable to leave them alone to allow others a chance to give their input (even for otherwise obvious cases like this).

parasprite said:
This should probably be fine as long as we're keeping nickelodeon.

I just want to note that you don't need to manually add the tags before suggesting an implication since the site will handle it automatically on approval. In fact, usually it's preferable to leave them alone to allow others a chance to give their input (even for otherwise obvious cases like this).

Alright.

I'm better off fixing my own problems first before inadvertently making more. I should focus more on what made me lose my privileges after all and fix that.

GameManiac said:
Alright.

I'm better off fixing my own problems first before inadvertently making more. I should focus more on what made me lose my privileges after all and fix that.

You're fine don't worry. It's just kind of a waste of effort to manually tag them when they can be approved at the click of a button.

parasprite said:
You're fine don't worry. It's just kind of a waste of effort to manually tag them when they can be approved at the click of a button.

At the click of a button...

...No, but in all seriousness, I should focus on the advice you left me and fix the tags that I got reprimanded for altering.

I'm already working on correcting the whole "furred_dragon scalie" problem I caused. It's easier to manage when you search for the date that posts were put in as well.

And approved