Template talk:Arguments

I have restored the link the WP:MUSTBESOURCES, because I feel that essay is a legitimate viewpoint shared by a large proportion of the community. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As the creator of the essay, Reyk is not an impartial source. (2) The essay is a fork of material removed from WP:ATA, removed because it was not compliant with policy/guidelines. (3) The entry doesn't belong here in any case, and there has been no response thus far to the edit comment that identifies the entry as "superfluous". Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Irrelevant. Besides, your objection to the link is that you have a personal grudge against me, not because of its actual content. Don't think I don't know that. (2) False. The material was spun out because it was long enough to constitute a stand-alone essay, not because it was unsuitable content for WP:ATA. (3) If you feel WP:MUSTBESOURCES is so unacceptable that it should not be linked to from anywhere, take it to MfD. Reyk _YO! 23:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reasonable editor on Wikipedia would agree that Reyk as the creator of the essay has no bias. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim that the essay was "spun out", I have documented the history at WT:ATA#History of TMBS. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the disparaging and scatological edit comment, and the material added as an afterthought, I believe that these do not belong on this page. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains that Reyk's essay has no relevance to this template. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DNFTT, I will not be sucked into this pointless argument. The material stays. Don't like that? Take it to MfD. Reyk _YO! 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in the history I posted at WT:ATA, the forked material was removed twice from WP:ATA. The essay is unlike the other entries on this template, and no attempt has been made to refute the point that the entry is superfluous. Unscintillating (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Reyk has withdrawn from the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deign to indulge your trolling any longer. Reyk _YO! 03:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that material was removed from and restored to the above discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]