User talk:Lubaf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Imho,

Regardless of whether those editors are still around or not, it is not very nice to mention them by name. For instance, WP:POINT does not contain a list of people who have breached it, and WP:BLOCK does not list people deopped for abuse of blocking policy, and WP:CIV does not list people who are frequently incivil. A good guideline does not need to get personal on people. >Radiant< 22:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO DELETE!!!

On the bad s articles that shouldn't be created page you deleted my stuff. JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T FUNNY TO YOU DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T FUNNY TO THE FIFTY OR SO PEOPLE I SHOWED IT TOO! THEY ALL LAUGHED! H-BOMB 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Tell me about it.User:Fiolexgirl44

[edit] Could you look at something for me?

I don't want to sway you in one direction or the other on this topic, but could I get you to look at this, then give me your honest opinion?

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sue Rangell/B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.

Sue Rangell[citation needed] 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiya

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Eddie (talk/contribs) 18:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About And Now This...

I noticed you've been marking all the entries about "And Now This..." as a hoax. It's incredibly difficult to prove the show's existance, let alone the content. The sole mention I can find of it on the internet is here: [1]

"She has also been in numerous television commercials and shows including the soap opera One Life To Live, Nickelodeon’s And Now This..., and the voice of Queen Latifah, and Robin Quivers on MTV’s Celebrity Death Match".

Though it might (ie., does) constitute as original research, I'm going to try and contact Viacom/Nickelodeon and see if they will even acknowledge the existance of the show in the first place. ShadowMan1od 00:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to find any information at all. For a while I thought I was actually going insane and imagined the show. I'll hunt around. ShadowMan1od 00:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you

The Surreal Barnstar
The greatest piece of "policy" ever written. Very clever. I did indeed laugh out loud. Here's a barnstar for the effort. ♠PMC♠ 08:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You've already gotten a barnstar for this, so I won't add another... But I just saw this and laughed my ass off. Thanks for writing this essay! - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Admin vitriol formula

Very amusing :) Raul654 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Does my addition of C works enough in keeping the anagram? Circeus 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to a recent WP:MFD of User:TV-VCR/Vandalism

Please do not insult the signature of other users. It's not nice. YechielMan 14:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New policy that could use your attention

Wikipedia:Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them Raul654 19:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LAME

The other one is also incredibly insensitive ("rants" "piss him off" "D'oh!" "immune to deletion") and does not treat the subject very fairly. hbdragon88 03:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Limericks about Wikipedia policy

Alright, lets not get silly with this nonsense. I guess if you want to write some poems, you can, but why don't you rename WP:HAIKU to just make it poems instead, and you can merge the two? Honestly, we have an encyclopedia to write and we are wasting time with something so trivial. — Moe ε 05:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

I think the behavioural guidliine is reading clearer and stronger now. Good sharing the interest with you. --Ziji Image:Baby_tao.jpg (talk email) 11:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
For your hilarious Wikipedia essays, I, Sharkface217, hereby present to you this barnstar. --Sharkface217 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your work deserves this. You'll have to accept on behalf of your work. :-P Sharkface217 04:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IAR

nudge... good edit. 1 != 2 04:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] *nudge*

Did you know that you've gone an entire month without touching the article space?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A tag for Wikipedia:The Zen of Wikipedia.

WARNING: This essay may contain egoistic foolishness
Do not accept it as true, unless you know it is true, yourself.
Please be diligent and read it mindfully.

Is this OK with you? I created it for my own essays, but I thought it was appropriate there. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LAME#Libertarian socialism

  1. Classical liberal extremism was called “libertarianism” long before there was a Libertarian Party, which was named for the movement rather than the other way around.
  2. Libertarian socialism was not called “libertarian” in 1850; it was called “libertaire”. The fact that “libertaire” was later translated with “libertarian” doesn't change that.
  3. WP:LAME isn't supposed to be a place where editors take revenge upon those with whose particular side they disagreed during an edit war. And there is no place on Wikipedia for insinuating misconception.

Please leave WP:LAME#Libertarian socialism neutral. —SlamDiego←T 03:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ZAngband

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article ZAngband, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Gazimoff (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you

Hi, I'm puzzled as to why you thought that this edit was vandalism? Fireice (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interprets

I've just created the "essay|interprets". Tell me what exaclty you don't like about it, maybe it could be easily fixed. --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)