Thread:Will Hardy 117/@comment-33779247-20180214180233

I guess arguing things in life if strange, then the admins one sidedly ban because they were naive enough to ban people who are Grahamfield fans and arging why that couple is legit as Pricefield.

For me...

They think we ignore everything from the games when in fact they did... even we brought arguments that are supported by what happened in the games and the Life-is-Strange.wikia.com articles itself.

Examples like for Max Caulfield, I made arguments about Max's character that is even supported by third party sources and even the articles like Max's page itself. If I'm wrong about Max's character in my arguments and the things happened between Max and Warren, then that entire wiki got a lot of unreliable information problems because I thought articles are not suppoe to have bias, opinion, or fale information. I know wikis are not the best reliable source to begin with but still.

I even quoted from the journals like they accused me of ignoring, but when I even quoted from Max's journal and then they ignore that part... even the Max and Warren article proves that part of her journal. So it is either I'm right or that part in the article shouldn't be there... that would be false or misleading information in where it doesn't belong.

They even ignore Max's character traits like her passion for photography, her loyalty towards her friends, she would never to things behind their backs or that would hurt them... if she did she would make up for it somehow, what would be her favorite movie, that her trait that she is a geek, and etc... but they decide I'm wrong about that... so 70% of Max's page is wrong.

Because what is good as a wiki article when the information there is false or opinion based?

When I argue my side... I even brought third party sources and where to find them... I guess that is not the case for some article admins so what is good of a article when they are not willing ot rely on it or not willing to listen or accept third party sources? 