User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170222073756/@comment-1789834-20170428004145: Difference between revisions
(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: | ||
But you know the rules of this Wiki. It ''is'' "guilty before innocent". It's invalid before proven valid in cases where it's not clear. Whether you can accept it or not isn't important. That's how the Wiki works. I didn't make that rule, it's a fact that we thrash out the important stuff on the Inclusions debates before making anything uncertain 'valid'. | But you know the rules of this Wiki. It ''is'' "guilty before innocent". It's invalid before proven valid in cases where it's not clear. Whether you can accept it or not isn't important. That's how the Wiki works. I didn't make that rule, it's a fact that we thrash out the important stuff on the Inclusions debates before making anything uncertain 'valid'. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 4: | ||
These aren't my rules. These are the Wiki's rules. Moreover, I'm just saying what I've already said since the beginning. There's probably no point me saying them again. I feel sorry for the poor admin who has to read all this, and read me saying the same old same old over and over haha. | These aren't my rules. These are the Wiki's rules. Moreover, I'm just saying what I've already said since the beginning. There's probably no point me saying them again. I feel sorry for the poor admin who has to read all this, and read me saying the same old same old over and over haha. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20170222073756-4028641/20170428004145-1789834]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:45, 27 April 2023
But you know the rules of this Wiki. It is "guilty before innocent". It's invalid before proven valid in cases where it's not clear. Whether you can accept it or not isn't important. That's how the Wiki works. I didn't make that rule, it's a fact that we thrash out the important stuff on the Inclusions debates before making anything uncertain 'valid'.
We can keep this thread open if needs be. If we don't have an answer, then the thread can stay open. There's no time restriction. Furthermore, the idea that we'd "call it valid until we then prove otherwise" just because a thread has gone on too long just doesn't happen. The amount of times a glaringly invalid medium has caused yet another thread about it to reopen... and an admin shuts it because of lack of evidence. If an admin were to shut down this thread, I suspect it'll go the same way as DiT. "No new evidence? Then don't reopen an old thread."
These aren't my rules. These are the Wiki's rules. Moreover, I'm just saying what I've already said since the beginning. There's probably no point me saying them again. I feel sorry for the poor admin who has to read all this, and read me saying the same old same old over and over haha.
