User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-5465689-20161221153205

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-28349479-20161216221639/@comment-5465689-20161221153205 Shambala108 wrote: I do have to point out a couple of things most users may not be aware of:


 * We supposedly have some of the writers of FP on this thread, mostly as anonymous IPs. Unfortunately, that isn't good enough. It's very easy for someone to create an account/post in a thread claiming to be someone they are not. I'm not saying that is happening here, but admins have to consider that possibility. Basically, users posting as DWU production are not a valid source of information.

I was a registered user on the FP wiki before I ever wrote an FP book. Most of my argument is quoted from my blog post at andrewhickey.info, registered in 2008 and with eight years' of blog posting on it. If I'm trying to get TARDIS canon policy changed illegitimately for my own nefarious purposes, I'm playing a *really* long game...

Stuart confirms at https://www.facebook.com/stuartamdouglas/posts/10155614226059502 that it's him commenting here, and you can also see SBJ in the comments there confirming it's him. Other FP authors have commented in that thread.


 * We have a very strict policy on sources. In particular, Tardis:Valid sources specifically states that we do not allow someone to be a source for a page about themselves. And Thread:117545 features User:CzechOut's explanation of why it is against wiki policy (including wikipedia's) for someone to source themselves.

Any comments from FP authors/production must come from a valid independent source. That's just basic editing to avoid any conflict of interest. Given that the *only* argument that has been presented against is authorial intent, expressions of authorial intent are literally the only way to counter that argument.