Template talk:Arguments
In the article that we present below, we want to delve into the fascinating world of Template talk:Arguments. Along these lines, we will explore its origins, its evolution over time and its importance in today's society. Template talk:Arguments has been the subject of debate and study by experts from various disciplines, who have provided valuable knowledge that allows us to better understand its influence on our lives. Through this article, we invite you to reflect on Template talk:Arguments and discover aspects that you may not have known about this topic.
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)
- (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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The point remains that Reyk's essay has no relevance to this template. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- It appears that Reyk has withdrawn from the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do not deign to indulge your trolling any longer. Reyk YO! 03:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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)
- (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)
- Comment Note that material was removed from and restored to the above discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)