User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-45314928-20200709001009: 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:
'''User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1432718-20200505204802/@comment-45314928-20200709001009'''
as i said about twitter it should have been done long ago, not a decade after the validity concerns were raised. the way i see it this debate has been open long enough, with no proof of commission, or validity, they should be immediately removed. the discussion can be reviewed in the future if new evidence ever turns up, but are we really meant to wait forever for someone to even find a scrap of proof?
as i said about twitter it should have been done long ago, not a decade after the validity concerns were raised. the way i see it this debate has been open long enough, with no proof of commission, or validity, they should be immediately removed. the discussion can be reviewed in the future if new evidence ever turns up, but are we really meant to wait forever for someone to even find a scrap of proof?
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200505204802-1432718/20200709001009-45314928]]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 13:29, 27 April 2023

as i said about twitter it should have been done long ago, not a decade after the validity concerns were raised. the way i see it this debate has been open long enough, with no proof of commission, or validity, they should be immediately removed. the discussion can be reviewed in the future if new evidence ever turns up, but are we really meant to wait forever for someone to even find a scrap of proof?