Talk:Berserk: Difference between revisions
UrsusArctos (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:Did I? From the looks of things, you made the article too messy. Not one of the messiest you've done so far, but still, messy. Of course, if anything you wrote looks like it's worth adding, I'll add it.--[[User:UrsusArctos|UrsusArctos]] 16:01, 23 February 2008 (PST) | :Did I? From the looks of things, you made the article too messy. Not one of the messiest you've done so far, but still, messy. Of course, if anything you wrote looks like it's worth adding, I'll add it.--[[User:UrsusArctos|UrsusArctos]] 16:01, 23 February 2008 (PST) | ||
The article itself is okay, but it just seems, a but, say, "unorganized"? (Too strong a word) But I think it would look more "interesting" and more "appealing" to read if it was split into different sections. I mean, from my point of view, it just looks like a whole page of writing. I think separating the different sub-topics into separate sub-articles would seem like people want to read it. But otherwise, well written and very informative. --Bee-Zerk 16:05, 25 February, 2008 (AEST) | |||
Revision as of 05:05, 26 February 2008
"Berserk is a state in which an Evangelion has gone beyond Nerv's ability to control it" is improper grammar. The "it" isn't needed, which is why I killed ... it. --Reichu 19:34, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
- V, I don't mean to start a revert war, but your version of it is sloppy. I'm not saying that my edit couldn't have been improved upon, but this repetition of information and using quotes in odd places does not help very much. --UrsusArctos 01:13, 29 December 2007 (PST)
- Well the version you made kind of cut it to the bare bones; I kept in the new useful stuff you added in which was good. I will take another look at it. --V 07:39, 29 December 2007 (PST)
Removal
Ursus you removed a lot of useful info from this article and I want to add it back in. --V 05:08, 23 February 2008 (PST)
- Did I? From the looks of things, you made the article too messy. Not one of the messiest you've done so far, but still, messy. Of course, if anything you wrote looks like it's worth adding, I'll add it.--UrsusArctos 16:01, 23 February 2008 (PST)
The article itself is okay, but it just seems, a but, say, "unorganized"? (Too strong a word) But I think it would look more "interesting" and more "appealing" to read if it was split into different sections. I mean, from my point of view, it just looks like a whole page of writing. I think separating the different sub-topics into separate sub-articles would seem like people want to read it. But otherwise, well written and very informative. --Bee-Zerk 16:05, 25 February, 2008 (AEST)
