Team talk:Deadly Alliance: Difference between revisions
m (EXemplary Logic moved page Talk:Deadly Alliance to Team talk:Deadly Alliance: seeding new namespace) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
All the controversy that surrounded EMP written on the page was completely true. I would understand if an old-school DA member wanted to restore the page back to DA to separate themselves from the shadiness of EMP, but the way the editor handled the page looked like that they were trying to cover up EMP's shadiness and controversy. I'm not sure what's going on with DA or if they split with EMP or something, but in that case, two completely distinct articles should be created. --[[User:Timson622222|Timson622222]] ([[User talk:Timson622222|talk]]) 05:40, 13 May 2016 (EDT) | All the controversy that surrounded EMP written on the page was completely true. I would understand if an old-school DA member wanted to restore the page back to DA to separate themselves from the shadiness of EMP, but the way the editor handled the page looked like that they were trying to cover up EMP's shadiness and controversy. I'm not sure what's going on with DA or if they split with EMP or something, but in that case, two completely distinct articles should be created. --[[User:Timson622222|Timson622222]] ([[User talk:Timson622222|talk]]) 05:40, 13 May 2016 (EDT) | ||
:Bumping this. --[[User:Timson622222|Timson622222]] ([[User talk:Timson622222|talk]]) 20:47, 26 May 2016 (EDT) | :Bumping this. --[[User:Timson622222|Timson622222]] ([[User talk:Timson622222|talk]]) 20:47, 26 May 2016 (EDT) | ||
Why does this article not talk about the controversy? Aka the only reason anyone would search for this thing. Don't turn into wikipedia and have bullshit politics prevent you from delivering accurate information[[Special:Contributions/71.87.110.186|71.87.110.186]] 00:06, September 24, 2019 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 23:06, September 23, 2019
Move
Considering that Deadly Alliance is a redirect to this page, yes. Support. Dots (talk) 
The Saiyan 19:12, 27 April 2016 (EDT)
"Inaccurate information"
All the controversy that surrounded EMP written on the page was completely true. I would understand if an old-school DA member wanted to restore the page back to DA to separate themselves from the shadiness of EMP, but the way the editor handled the page looked like that they were trying to cover up EMP's shadiness and controversy. I'm not sure what's going on with DA or if they split with EMP or something, but in that case, two completely distinct articles should be created. --Timson622222 (talk) 05:40, 13 May 2016 (EDT)
- Bumping this. --Timson622222 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2016 (EDT)
Why does this article not talk about the controversy? Aka the only reason anyone would search for this thing. Don't turn into wikipedia and have bullshit politics prevent you from delivering accurate information71.87.110.186 00:06, September 24, 2019 (EDT)
