User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-45314928-20200707131140/@comment-39988495-20200707135747: 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-45314928-20200707131140/@comment-39988495-20200707135747'''
And don't get me wrong, I personally believe that all charity publications should be covered on the wiki, even if they're decided to be an invalid source.  
And don't get me wrong, I personally believe that all charity publications should be covered on the wiki, even if they're decided to be an invalid source.  


But we have to follow the policies put in place, otherwise the wiki would be an un-organised mess.
But we have to follow the policies put in place, otherwise the wiki would be an un-organised mess.
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude>
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|Inclusion debates/20200707131140-45314928/20200707135747-39988495]]</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 15:19, 27 April 2023

And don't get me wrong, I personally believe that all charity publications should be covered on the wiki, even if they're decided to be an invalid source.

But we have to follow the policies put in place, otherwise the wiki would be an un-organised mess.