Jump to content

Talk:Roman's Child: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
(expanded my point)
No edit summary
Line 24: Line 24:


I feel that I have to clarify an important point. I was not the one who created those names. I only created articles on them because, as you said, I saw the name on the Roman Bellic article and I believed that they were the proper names, therefore I created articles on the names. Because Grand Theft Wiki hardly has wrong information and every time wrong information was posted, it gets removed, I believed that they were the proper names. You can even check the edit history of Roman Bellic's article. I didn't add them. They were there long before I created those two articles. And I added a speculation tag on this article because I knew was a danger in keeping that article on the wiki the danger being, as you stated, making other people believe that the child's appointed name were the ones stated, which leads to other users re-incorporating that into that article and others as a fact. It can then lead to other sites citing it as true, even though they only read it on here.--[[User:MrLanceVanceDance|MrLanceVanceDance]] 09:40, 14 October 2011 (BST)
I feel that I have to clarify an important point. I was not the one who created those names. I only created articles on them because, as you said, I saw the name on the Roman Bellic article and I believed that they were the proper names, therefore I created articles on the names. Because Grand Theft Wiki hardly has wrong information and every time wrong information was posted, it gets removed, I believed that they were the proper names. You can even check the edit history of Roman Bellic's article. I didn't add them. They were there long before I created those two articles. And I added a speculation tag on this article because I knew was a danger in keeping that article on the wiki the danger being, as you stated, making other people believe that the child's appointed name were the ones stated, which leads to other users re-incorporating that into that article and others as a fact. It can then lead to other sites citing it as true, even though they only read it on here.--[[User:MrLanceVanceDance|MrLanceVanceDance]] 09:40, 14 October 2011 (BST)
:Fair enough - a perfect example but someone else's fault! The speculation tag is relevant to the contents of this article, but it must be ''in addition to'' clearly marking the text as an assumption/speculation/possibility, which I've now done. Pretty much sorted for now, I think? [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 09:43, 14 October 2011 (BST)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.