| rdfs:comment
| - Delete Is basically the reprinted Wikipedia article, word for word, with a few gay jokes added in. --Jlove1982 16:08, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
* I just reinstated the above comment, after it was vandalized by the page's author. I also banninated the jerk for attempted ballot tampering. That probably warrants a Delete in and of itself. Plus, the page name is miscapitalized. I hate that. -- 17:09, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC) Keep Has potential. Dasphoebus 09:03, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) DO NOT Delete!! Will be hilarious if allowed the right amount of time!!!
|
| abstract
| - Delete Is basically the reprinted Wikipedia article, word for word, with a few gay jokes added in. --Jlove1982 16:08, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
* I just reinstated the above comment, after it was vandalized by the page's author. I also banninated the jerk for attempted ballot tampering. That probably warrants a Delete in and of itself. Plus, the page name is miscapitalized. I hate that. -- 17:09, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC) DO NOT DELETE!!!!! Substantial edits have been made. This is an evolving article. What gives you the right to unilaterally delete posts? And what makes you assume that this alleged "ballot stuffing" was perpetrated by the original author of the article? Check the IP addresses in the history, and you'll see that the author did no such "ballot stuffing." BobBobBob, you should double-check your facts before you make false accusations, moron!-- Lance McBeefwell 01:54, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) Do not Delete-has potential for expanding into something beyond a carbon copy of a Wikipedia article (which, by the way, was severely edited as well). There's a whole mess of things that can be added to this article to expand upon it and make it funnier. Furthermore, if the IP addresses of whoever allegedly vandalized the comment here and the article's author match, fine, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the article itself, as other people are going to edit it and turn it into something else. If you're bullshitting us, Bob, and coming to some groundless conclusion on your own, then you're a retard. And quit being such a pissy cunt about the capitalization... it's not like that can't be fixed. Happy goLucky 22-12-05 5:14 (UTC) Comment. What do you mean it's an "evolving" article. If you are still writing it you should add a {{WIP|~~~~~}} tag. Simply being able to be expanded isn't necessarily a reason not to delete an article, almost all articles could be expanded. The question is if someone is going to expand it. I haven't really read the article, so I won't vote, I just wanted to clarify a few things. Keep Has potential. Dasphoebus 09:03, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) DO NOT Delete!! Will be hilarious if allowed the right amount of time!!!
* Wow... I opened a can of worms here... the author seems to be really committed to whatever he's doing. I put it on this page rather than the quick deletion because I felt that someone could do something more creative and original with it. Anyways, my concerns are still relevant. Yes, it has potential. That being said, so much of it is still just the Wikipedia article copied and pasted onto the page... there is potential with the subject to make great things out of it. I won't change my vote for now, but I'm going to leave myself open to change that. Jlove1982 22:56, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
* Jlove, if you'll look at the rest of the comments in VFD, you'll see that the so-called votes above are highly unlikely to be counted. Well, that's not entirely true. The IP addresses that made them are highly likely to be counted in the Roll Call of the Damned. I don't have time to research them at the moment, but we admins don't generally like it when someone calls one of our bretheren and sisteren "moron", "retard", and "pissy cunt" (although that last one at least shows some creativity, or at least anatomical accuracy, if I happened to be of the female persuasion). Also, if anonymous folks want to fake a signature, they should at least *try* to do it right. -- 18:00, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC) Hey Bob. I just checked those out. I think that I was simply responding to the backlash my reaction to the work caused. That being said, their responses to your correct actions are incredibly childish, and the article itself (which is supposedly evolving) seems to be turning into a mess of tasteless gay and AIDS jokes. Sorry to keep this going, but there's humor, and then there's tastelessness, and they seem to have drifted into the latter. Jlove1982 20:55, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC) Do not delete-This is hilarious! Anon. 19:15, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) Hilarious indeed. Baleeted, along with the stupid category whose only member (heh) is this article. Comments welcome, and please be sure to vandalize my user page, too, so we'll know who to ban. -- 17:58, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)