User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-1432718-20190529014046: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Before I post my comments, I want to clear up two '''major''' misconceptions. | Before I post my comments, I want to clear up two '''major''' misconceptions. | ||
* First, there is more to [[Tardis:Valid sources]] than just the four little rules. It's misleading to assume that all you have to do is run down a checklist to therefore declare something valid or invalid. I suggest a careful reading of that page (and for good measure, [[Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2]] is useful for [[User:CzechOut]]'s attempts to explain our policy to a doubting editor). | * First, there is more to [[Tardis:Valid sources]] than just the four little rules. It's misleading to assume that all you have to do is run down a checklist to therefore declare something valid or invalid. I suggest a careful reading of that page (and for good measure, [[Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2]] is useful for [[User:CzechOut]]'s attempts to explain our policy to a doubting editor). | ||
* Second, despite what some people upthread seem to think, it '''is''' important to get your facts straight before posting. There were a few inclusion debates where a poster withheld information detrimental to his/her cause and/or posted false information. That is not the case here, but it's important when making your case that you are careful not to post, however unintentionally, inaccurate or misleading information. | * Second, despite what some people upthread seem to think, it '''is''' important to get your facts straight before posting. There were a few inclusion debates where a poster withheld information detrimental to his/her cause and/or posted false information. That is not the case here, but it's important when making your case that you are careful not to post, however unintentionally, inaccurate or misleading information. | ||
Thanks for your attention. | Thanks for your attention. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170306172600-4028641/20190529014046-1432718]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:51, 27 April 2023
Before I post my comments, I want to clear up two major misconceptions.
- First, there is more to Tardis:Valid sources than just the four little rules. It's misleading to assume that all you have to do is run down a checklist to therefore declare something valid or invalid. I suggest a careful reading of that page (and for good measure, Tardis talk:Canon policy/Archive 2 is useful for User:CzechOut's attempts to explain our policy to a doubting editor).
- Second, despite what some people upthread seem to think, it is important to get your facts straight before posting. There were a few inclusion debates where a poster withheld information detrimental to his/her cause and/or posted false information. That is not the case here, but it's important when making your case that you are careful not to post, however unintentionally, inaccurate or misleading information.
Thanks for your attention.
