Talk:Urd (Oh My Goddess!)

Personality section

I rewrote that section abit. I removed reduddent repetive lines by merging them a bit. I also removed several examples of her failiures as the list can get long very easily :)

Also please do not revert rewrites. Just trying to improve article quality here :)

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I see your point, but the elaboration I added back in helps explain Urd's complex character persona and various situations of how it gets her into trouble. :) Please allow me to kep the elaborative anaylisis, but I agree to remove some of her screw-ups; I see what you mean by repetitive. :)-MegamanZero|Talk 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And I made an edit by simply rewriting the section over again, I didn't make any reverts. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] is a result of a revert. The total diference between your edits is minimal and in the process my edits are completely gone aside from a link to belldandy... Thats a revert. There is a level of unequenes but thats a still a revert. "For a Goddess" is redundent for example. I spent 3 hours typing that, least you can do is read and modify it rather than disregarding it and completely removing it. I havent removed any info, I reorganised existing info, removed some quotations of belldandy (and converted them to actual analysis sentences) and reorganised material. I also deleted redundent repetive sentences. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In the end, however, we came to concensus, I, for one am sastified with the section. Its all good. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You know... we are not debating about the material, we are debating about how its presented. Rearange stuff I done without reverting, I am cool with that, revert? That causes stress. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I just was a bit flustered when the personality section was left basically untouched for over a month, then suddenly it was changed and run-on sentences were inserted. But, you are correct, we weren't debating, we just came to concensus, and I believe your edits are helpful. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not happy with my version. I do not mind it being further improved. So long as it doesn't get reverted I am OK :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)