More actions
Spoiler
It isn't a spoiler, the name of the lake is revealed, in Let's Kill Hitler, when the Doctor finds out he's going to die. --MrThermomanPreacher 15:49, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Restored.--Skittles the hog - talk 16:13, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
The page has been deleted again, this time without a reason why. Could Mini-Mitch please explain why he deleted this page? --Bold Clone 14:56, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Because it's a lake, that's all we know. People keep on adding "River Song killed the Doctor here", which we have no proof of. So i deleted it to stop the mindless speculation being added. MM/Want to talk? 14:59, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Restored the page. You can't delete a page just because it is vandalised.--Skittles the hog - talk 15:06, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- @MM:It's a lake, that's all we know. Therefore, we need to create a page to place that info on.
- @MM:River is confirmed to kill the Doctor. The death of the Doctor is a fixed point in time and space. So we know that the Doctor will die; we also know that River Song will kill him. Since the Doctor was killed at the lake, we therefore know that River killed (will kill) the Doctor at this lake. We have proof that River will kill the Doctor at the lake, and it is mindless to remove that correct information.
- @StH: Thanks for the restoration. :) --Bold Clone 15:08, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
River?
What proof does anyone have that River Song was not the astronaut? The astronaut killed the Doctor at the Lake--FACT. We know that River killed the Doctor--FACT. Therefore, River is the astronaut that killed the Doctor--FACT. What "proof" is there otherwise? --Bold Clone 15:24, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Lack of negative oproof is not the same as positive proof.Boblipton 15:36, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would rather wait for more on screen evidence until you make a conclusion.--Skittles the hog - talk 15:38, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
- @Boblipton:We have positive proof. We also have a lack of negative proof. We know that the Doctor dies--we saw that. We also know that River was the one to kill him (Let's Kill Hitler). Can you prove that wrong? --Bold Clone 00:09, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- We know that someone in a spacesuit shot him twice. Everyone thinks it's River. That doesn't mean it is. Ever see a newspaper retraction? Boblipton 00:41, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- So...you're saying that River murdered a man, and everyone is mistaken when they claim she killed the Doctor, including the Teselecta. --Bold Clone 01:22, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- No. I'm not saying that. But given the evidence we have, including eye witnesses, a good lawyer could get her off. But that's not the gist of my point. Attend, please. I am not saying she didn't kill the Doctor. I'm saying that the evidence we need to put it on the page is not present. This keeps getting said again and again and we keep getting it wrong. How much of your time did you spend correcting false 'information' concerning the Silence being a species? I know that I rewrote the section on the Doctor teaching River how to fly the TARDIS in light of the last episode. Such gaffes will happen from time to time anyway, but it is the official policy of this wiki that we depend on what we see onscreen. Did you see Sydney Wade's face at Lake Silencio? I didn't. Until we do, or the face of someone credited onscreen as River Song or Melody Pond or whatever she's called, then it is not a fact. It's speculation. Boblipton 01:47, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- We KNOW that the Doctor dies. FACT. We saw that happen. We KNOW that River will kill the Doctor. FACT. (Or at least as far as we know from the current story.) What MORE do you need? As far was we know, River was in the suit because she was the one that killed the Doctor. Until we get any more info that prove me wrong, we need to stick with the facts. --Bold Clone 23:22, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- You never read any murder mysteries, did you? Boblipton 23:28, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- You didn't answer me. As far as we know, River was in the suit. That is what the episodes have shown, and that is what we need to display until we have further information. --Bold Clone 23:35, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly was wrong with the comprimise solution that others had put up? - It made clear that we haven't seen under the visor yet, so we can't be sure; and it even noted that the data download said River did it - putting "someone" whilst noting the that data seems by far the most sensible soution, especially when we have a main writer that likes to play around with our expectations Baziel 23:46, September 1, 2011 (UTC)