User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-6032121-20200517150418/@comment-6032121-20200610025601: 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:Shambala108]] closure of the ''How The Monk Got His Habit'' inclusion debate merely ruled that it was invalid. It did ''not'' legislate on whether that's because it was an extract from a phantom novelisation, or simply because Harness presenting his story as a "discarded extract" means the story fails Rule 4. As my recent edits at [[:Template:Monk stories]] will show, I ''am'' respecting [[T:BOUND]] with regards to what was actually said in that closure: that this story is invalid. | [[User:Shambala108]] closure of the ''How The Monk Got His Habit'' inclusion debate merely ruled that it was invalid. It did ''not'' legislate on whether that's because it was an extract from a phantom novelisation, or simply because Harness presenting his story as a "discarded extract" means the story fails Rule 4. As my recent edits at [[:Template:Monk stories]] will show, I ''am'' respecting [[T:BOUND]] with regards to what was actually said in that closure: that this story is invalid. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200517150418-6032121/20200610025601-6032121]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 00:06, 28 April 2023
User:Shambala108 closure of the How The Monk Got His Habit inclusion debate merely ruled that it was invalid. It did not legislate on whether that's because it was an extract from a phantom novelisation, or simply because Harness presenting his story as a "discarded extract" means the story fails Rule 4. As my recent edits at Template:Monk stories will show, I am respecting T:BOUND with regards to what was actually said in that closure: that this story is invalid.
