Difference between revisions of "User talk:Superbabysimba"
From The Lion King Wiki
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Thank you. Though apparently some people didn't think it so great as it's almost completely different now from what it was originally... --[[User:Superbabysimba|Superbabysimba]] 13 April 2011 (PDT) | :Thank you. Though apparently some people didn't think it so great as it's almost completely different now from what it was originally... --[[User:Superbabysimba|Superbabysimba]] 13 April 2011 (PDT) | ||
::Well, obviously it's not quite as perfect as you may have thought earlier. I believe there are articles that need more attention then this, but at least it should be fully factual and easy to read. Before I edited it around, it was mostly your own theorys, and that's not really right. I liked what you wrote quite a bit, and thought you had some good points, but as far as confusing people with what's official, and what's not, that doesn't need to be done. --[[User:Wildsimba|Wildsimba]] 13:14, 13 April 2011 (PDT) | ::Well, obviously it's not quite as perfect as you may have thought earlier. I believe there are articles that need more attention then this, but at least it should be fully factual and easy to read. Before I edited it around, it was mostly your own theorys, and that's not really right. I liked what you wrote quite a bit, and thought you had some good points, but as far as confusing people with what's official, and what's not, that doesn't need to be done. --[[User:Wildsimba|Wildsimba]] 13:14, 13 April 2011 (PDT) | ||
| + | :::When read with care and thought, people ought to be able to pick up what's official and what's theory in the way the article originally was. But of course I do understand that the clearer and easier to read the better. --[[User:Superbabysimba|Superbabysimba]] 13 April 2011 (PDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 20:45, 13 April 2011
I enjoyed the Fluffy article very much, great job! ~ Moka 13:17, 3 January 2011 (PST)
- Thank you. Though apparently some people didn't think it so great as it's almost completely different now from what it was originally... --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Well, obviously it's not quite as perfect as you may have thought earlier. I believe there are articles that need more attention then this, but at least it should be fully factual and easy to read. Before I edited it around, it was mostly your own theorys, and that's not really right. I liked what you wrote quite a bit, and thought you had some good points, but as far as confusing people with what's official, and what's not, that doesn't need to be done. --Wildsimba 13:14, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- When read with care and thought, people ought to be able to pick up what's official and what's theory in the way the article originally was. But of course I do understand that the clearer and easier to read the better. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)
- Well, obviously it's not quite as perfect as you may have thought earlier. I believe there are articles that need more attention then this, but at least it should be fully factual and easy to read. Before I edited it around, it was mostly your own theorys, and that's not really right. I liked what you wrote quite a bit, and thought you had some good points, but as far as confusing people with what's official, and what's not, that doesn't need to be done. --Wildsimba 13:14, 13 April 2011 (PDT)
