| Revision as of 23:31, 5 January 2013 editReyk (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,854 edits I do not "withdraw my objection", and you know it, liar.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:26, 6 January 2013 edit undoUnscintillating (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,833 editsm Undid revision 531528005 by Reyk (talk) rv/v WP:Vandalism#Talk page vandalismNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{archive-top|status=consensus by withdrawal of objection|result=The one objector has withdrawn from the discussion. ] (]) 11:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| I have restored the link the ], because I feel that essay is a legitimate viewpoint shared by a large proportion of the community. ] <sub>]</sub> 23:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC) | I have restored the link the ], because I feel that essay is a legitimate viewpoint shared by a large proportion of the community. ] <sub>]</sub> 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". ] (]) 23:45, 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". ] (]) 23:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
| :::::It appears that Reyk has withdrawn from the discussion. ] (]) 03:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | :::::It appears that Reyk has withdrawn from the discussion. ] (]) 03:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I do not deign to indulge your trolling any longer. ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ::::::I do not deign to indulge your trolling any longer. ] <sub>]</sub> 03:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| {{archive-bottom}} | |||
| *'''Comment''' Note that material was removed from and restored to the above discussion. ] (]) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' Note that material was removed from and restored to the above discussion. ] (]) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:26, 6 January 2013
CONSENSUS BY WITHDRAWAL OF OBJECTION The one objector has withdrawn from the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Misplaced Pages 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)