Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kallon Industries"
Sarna News
(agree) |
(→Fanon content: Clarify) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:I agree with the sentiment of this statement but have you found the data to be wrong? Talk to the editor rather than make a general statement to everybody, most folk around here will gladly take constructive critercism. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | :I agree with the sentiment of this statement but have you found the data to be wrong? Talk to the editor rather than make a general statement to everybody, most folk around here will gladly take constructive critercism. --[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
| − | :65.190.30.41, I agree with Dmon. Doneve was told the difference between an official source and a meta-source, which is a source compiling information from official sources (just as BTW does). As such, he does not reference MadCapellan's work | + | :65.190.30.41, I agree with Dmon (regarding the truthfulness of the added materials). Doneve was told the difference between an official source and a meta-source, which is a source compiling information from official sources (just as BTW does also). As such, he does not reference MadCapellan's work any longer. But, just like every other edit made with a reference, facts can be kept if not proven wrong (or, at least without a great deal of doubt regarding its veracity). In other words, there is nothing wrong with putting true statements into an article. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 02:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:15, 24 January 2010
Fanon content
BTW editors are discouraged from adding unofficial fan-made information to articles that contain canonical or apocryphal information otherwise. Fan-created material may not be included within the body of any non-Fanon articles, but may be linked to in the ==See Also (Fandom)== section (please feel free to add this to any articles, if it is not already present). We also ask that fan-created articles not be included in any categories that do not have a derivative of the word "fan" or "custom" in the category name.
A huge amount of material is being added by this user from MadCapellan's Objective Raids: 3067, an (awesome) fan-work, but still a fanwork.--— The preceding unsigned comment was posted by 65.190.30.41 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 January 2010 .
- I agree with the sentiment of this statement but have you found the data to be wrong? Talk to the editor rather than make a general statement to everybody, most folk around here will gladly take constructive critercism. --Dmon 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- 65.190.30.41, I agree with Dmon (regarding the truthfulness of the added materials). Doneve was told the difference between an official source and a meta-source, which is a source compiling information from official sources (just as BTW does also). As such, he does not reference MadCapellan's work any longer. But, just like every other edit made with a reference, facts can be kept if not proven wrong (or, at least without a great deal of doubt regarding its veracity). In other words, there is nothing wrong with putting true statements into an article. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 02:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)