User talk:Cubbi

TURD MONKEY

In soviet russia, and wikipedia, Minestrone soup thanks you! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what were the full names of Lux-Flood?

I'm just curious as to what their full names were.. i've not been able to find their entire names anywhere! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure we can do it with some more searching! Cubbi 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried a list of 60 German male names beginning with H, and affixed it to "Chemist <name> Lux" and "<name> Lux", and have yet to come up with a convincing enough result.. HERMANN LUX seems to be the closest.

♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 23:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo, i have it;

Hermann Lux, “‘Acids’ and ‘Bases’ in a Fused Salt Bath;. Determination. of. Oxygen-Ion Concentrations,” Z. Elektrochem.,. 45303-309 (1939). Here

♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 23:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like working on Hydrocarbon today?

I'd like to sort the article out, as it's a pretty important part of organic chemistry, and since we're both OC majors, i thought we'd collaborate on the article! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 07:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, depends on time. And, btw, I don't like your latest definition there, hydrocarbons still has to be defined as 'carbon and hydrogen only', rather than 'alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, etc' Cubbi 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, i was trying to expand it to the somewhat "impure" alkanes, with nitrogen impurities, etc. Still, i agree -- i'll change it.

♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me write this article?

Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. I've only been in Shito-kai Shito-ryu, Seishinkai, and Shukokai, so I don't have any serious knowledge of other styles. Cubbi 10:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Furry

Looking for something to do? WikiProject Furry is improving articles on furry and anthropomorphic topics, and we'd like to have you on board.

Our current goal is to raise Anthrocon, furry convention and furry fandom to good article status and beyond - but if that doesn't take your fancy, there are plenty of other articles to work on. Give it a go and let us know how you're doing!

You received this one-time invitation because you are a Furry Wikipedian. GreenReaper 22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~7~CyanFOX~7~ 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Wuz here :3 I luff you Cubbi —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~7~CyanFOX~7~ (talk • contribs)

Water memory

Please don't revert the removal of unsourced material and categories without providing adequate sources; it is not constructive. There is no indication that the ideology of Water memory is pseudoscience. --BE TA 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me laugh. --Cubbi (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Tōon-ryū

I have nominated Tōon-ryū, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tōon-ryū. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Torsion field

An article that you have been involved in editing, Torsion field, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torsion field. Thank you. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dream

Hi,

Note that you have twice reverted to a versino of Dream which contains the phrase 'banging Jesica Alba', a version which, at least, could be more generic and in keeping with WP:TONE. I've reverted, and I don't really consider the 'banging Jesica Alba' version to add sufficient merit to retain the phrase. WLU (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that. Thank for catching it. --Cubbi (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not like I haven't done so myself, happy editing. WLU (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Karate, you will be blocked from editing. The removal of sourced information, which has been long requested on the talk page. 220.253.13.106 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. Since you don't read Talk:Karate I did you a favor and moved your addition to the appropriate section of the article. --Cubbi (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts

I know you're intentions in undoing my edit to Martial Arts are good, but the correct grammar would be "makes." The verb "makes" in that sentence is the action that "each style" (singular) takes. It it not describing the action of "facets" (plural).

The facets aren't different than other martial arts, each style is. - Charleca (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. The sentence in question "While each style has unique facets that make(s) it different from other martial arts, a common characteristic is the systemization of fighting techniques", has the subject "style", the verb "has", and the direct object "unique facets". The direct object is clarified by a clause, in which "facets" is the subject, "make different" is the verb, and "it" is the object. --Cubbi (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you might think that. But I am not the one that is incorrect here. This is one of those sentences that has multiple verbs and can be somewhat difficult to break apart. The way you want to word it says the facets are different from other martial arts. The facets make each style different; the facets themselves are not different than other martial arts. I would be OK with rewording the sentence, but "make" is incorrect in the form that it's in now. - Charleca (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no difficulty reading a simple SVO clause with one subordinate restrictive relative clause, I honestly fail to understand how can you see that "facets" clause as coordinated independent (which is what your conclusion suggests). Could it be that the "while" is throwing you off? Stripped of the extra luggage, the main two clauses read Each style has facets that make(s) it different from other MAs. Is this more clear?

What I do agree, though, is that the latter half of the sentence (after comma) is poorly coordinated with its beginning and the sentence is needlessly complex for the simple thought. --Cubbi (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let's come up with an acceptable rewording. I don't want to get into the "right/wrong" fighting arena. -Charleca (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I totally missed the word "while" in the sentence - oversight on my part. I've changed it back to "make." -Charleca (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, very few people concede their points. It's still an oddly complicated sentence, though. --Cubbi (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great reference

Great reference in the Fistfight article, thank you! Kostan1 (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You

You're no fun.

-false awakening guy