User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45692830-20200510214412/@comment-6032121-20200723191440: 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: | ||
(For the record, I replied to the similar message that [[User:DiSoRiEnTeD1]] left at [[Thread:275671]]. We were talking at cross-purposes because I believe the "more relevant thread" on which all this should more properly be discussed is not Thread:275671, but rather [[Thread:273268]], which ''is'' locked for technical reasons. I mean, it seems to me like the thread about how to define ''Lockdown!'' is the more directly relevant one, rather than the thread about whether to take Harness's arguably-outrageous novelisation claims at face value in the matter of naming one specific page…) | (For the record, I replied to the similar message that [[User:DiSoRiEnTeD1]] left at [[Thread:275671]]. We were talking at cross-purposes because I believe the "more relevant thread" on which all this should more properly be discussed is not Thread:275671, but rather [[Thread:273268]], which ''is'' locked for technical reasons. I mean, it seems to me like the thread about how to define ''Lockdown!'' is the more directly relevant one, rather than the thread about whether to take Harness's arguably-outrageous novelisation claims at face value in the matter of naming one specific page…) | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200510214412-45692830/20200723191440-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 15:21, 27 April 2023
(For the record, I replied to the similar message that User:DiSoRiEnTeD1 left at Thread:275671. We were talking at cross-purposes because I believe the "more relevant thread" on which all this should more properly be discussed is not Thread:275671, but rather Thread:273268, which is locked for technical reasons. I mean, it seems to me like the thread about how to define Lockdown! is the more directly relevant one, rather than the thread about whether to take Harness's arguably-outrageous novelisation claims at face value in the matter of naming one specific page…)
