Talk:Victor Vance: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
::Gboyers changed the colouring of links back to staff members name, with Admins being orange. This is designed to make the staff members names stand out from the blue and red links on the wiki. Although I can't see it anyway. [[User:A-Dust|A-Dust]] 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | ::Gboyers changed the colouring of links back to staff members name, with Admins being orange. This is designed to make the staff members names stand out from the blue and red links on the wiki. Although I can't see it anyway. [[User:A-Dust|A-Dust]] 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
So, why does this article have to be written in such a certain way concerning the death situation? I did my best to make it look non-speculating, but A-Dust reverted it without explanation on the edit summary. It's best to say that the Vance brother was ''possibly'' Vic and that he is indeed not mentioned in the game at any point by name but only on the crime tree of VC's site which doesn't exactly clear up anything either. My 2 cents, besides I don't care what anyone say, I just am tired of being linked to fan-sites and wiki's on forums whenever I'm into this argument. As update, I see you are trying to add "sources" to show what you believe, but honestly you can go and dig up millions of reviews saying Vic is dead or fan sites but none of them actually answer the question. It's like fan-sites and wiki assist together in this to get as many people to believe them and things they say. I'm not saying it's impossible that Vic died but to make it as "fair" as possible to all believers of this theory it's best to just type "possibilities" and "thoughts" as no one is gonna get confused or recommended to believe what this site amongst many other write. And the gamespot is not the best ever to use as it's just reviews. I mean I can also go and write a review on VCS then type throughout that Vic wasn't present in VC, but that doesn't mean it's a fact, it's just what I think on the whole situation. --''[[User talk:GTA4PC|GTA 4 PC]]'' 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | So, why does this article have to be written in such a certain way concerning the death situation? I did my best to make it look non-speculating, but A-Dust reverted it without explanation on the edit summary. It's best to say that the Vance brother was ''possibly'' Vic and that he is indeed not mentioned in the game at any point by name but only on the crime tree of VC's site which doesn't exactly clear up anything either. My 2 cents, besides I don't care what anyone say, I just am tired of being linked to fan-sites and wiki's on forums whenever I'm into this argument. As update, I see you are trying to add "sources" to show what you believe, but honestly you can go and dig up millions of reviews saying Vic is dead or fan sites but none of them actually answer the question. It's like fan-sites and wiki assist together in this to get as many people to believe them and things they say. I'm not saying it's impossible that Vic died but to make it as "fair" as possible to all believers of this theory it's best to just type "possibilities" and "thoughts" as no one is gonna get confused or recommended to believe what this site amongst many other write. And the gamespot source(s) is/are not the best ever to use as it's just reviews. I mean I can also go and write a review on VCS then type throughout that Vic wasn't present in VC, but that doesn't mean it's a fact, it's just what I think on the whole situation. --''[[User talk:GTA4PC|GTA 4 PC]]'' 16:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | ||