User talk:Evil oranges

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Evolution (MMOG) 2 W.I.T.C.H. 3 Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series 4 Wicca template

[edit] Evolution (MMOG)

Should you be able to add sources to the article, I'll happily change my opinion, but right now, I doubt its content is verifiable. There is no indication of Evolution passing any of the notability criteria laid down in WP:WEB, which seems to be the most applicable guideline. And no, Digg does not count as a reliable source. Yours, Huon 09:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W.I.T.C.H.

Dude, why are you telling me this. I haven't even done anything on that page. So leave me alone, evil oranges! Tyar 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

0NLY ONCE FOR A GRAMMAR FIX! Leave T-borg, me and whoever tried to help that page to be better alone. Tyar 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between the W.I.T.C.H. comic and animated series

I've added citations to almost all the differences in this entry, including the episode number and title that the differences occurred in. If this doesn't satisfy criteria for verifiability, then I'm not certain exactly what will.

I've also cleared out the comments on the personality and preference of characters, removing pretty much everything that could be even remotely construed as WP:OR, and converted the entire entry into table format. Leaving the only practical complaint against the entry being its notability. In which instance I cite precedent, because other shows (such as One Piece and Sailor moon) have separate pages depicting the differences between the same franchise in different formats.

perfectblue 15:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wicca template

I see you have added the Wicca template back to Wicca without addressing any of the concerns raised at Talk:Wicca or Template talk:Wicca. This is not a good way to gain trust and acceptance for the template's inclusion. I reiterate, there are serious problems with the template. It links to several articles which are not specifically related to Wicca, and of the articles which do relate to Wicca, most are in a very poor state. The format for the template itself has been challenged, and all-in-all it's a sorry attempt at a navigation template. Please read the comments at the above-mentioned locations and provide some useful suggestions rather than just reinstating the template again. Fuzzypeg☻ 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)