User talk:Tealinia 93

Response
Admittedly, you were right. I shouldn't have made a big deal about that right on the front page, or at least contacted you about it first. Also, thank you for cleaning up and organising the news section, it's a lot more clear and navigable now~

But despite that I agree with you on some things, I think you missed my point. I wasn't restricting freedoms at all, I just meant that people shouldn't edit and mess with a character that's not theirs.

"I simply believe that you've misunderstood the point of a wiki site and just wish to better inform you on its purposes, which are not only to be informational, but to also be correctional on false information or grammatical mistakes."

Going on that definition, the creator of the character would be the original source. Everything they write on their own page about the character and the headcanon surrounding it would be considered fact because it is theirs and of their own creative design. So if someone else comes in and decides to add in a relationship or a personality trait or anything that hasn't been approved by the creator- even if it isn't intended to cause offense, it would be considered false information. It would be vandalism.

tl;dr This may be a free editing site but there's a point when you should keep your hands to yourself. Would it be right for me to go edit the wiki page about Elephants to say that they're all purple simply because I didn't think grey properly suited them? No, it wouldn't. LittleIreland 01:46, January 28, 2011 (UTC)