This page is supported by the Department of Fun WikiProject, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.
I almost added something to the top about this being intended for humorous purposes only, but maybe there's a serious point here that I'm missing? Someone at a RecentChangesCamp suggested that it's about WP:POINT, but if so I think it would make me more confused about POINT rather than less.
Could this please be tagged appropriately? --Chriswaterguytalk 02:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
No, it isn't serious at all- it is a juvenile "WP" thing that bitchy people can throw at you just before they storm off a project. Like most of WP, it's just like the tantrums in junior high, with everyone accusing everyone of everything. Remember, don't shoot the messenger is always shouted by the editor/admin who shows up with a machine gun and a grudge.--Djathinkimacowboy 05:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
What makes you think that?Did someone say it to you & now you are calling them names secretly? Don't POV push on what you think this article is.It's just humourAssistant N (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
This disgraceful article should be deleted, on grounds of sexism and homophobia. 1) This disgraceful article should be deleted on grounds of sexism and homophobia as it oppresses all men in general and gay men in particular by allowing females in general and lesbians in particular to climb the Reichstag dressed as Catwoman. 2) This disgraceful article should also be deleted on grounds of draculophilia and arachnophobia as it oppresses Spiders while allowing Count Dracula to climb the Reichstag looking like a bat. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Please discuss your Bold move here, as per BRD
(Besides wrongly accusing me of vandalism, incidentally), you (twice) deleted a large amount of text, much of which had been there for quite a long time, and had been vieved by well over 600 people (according to the stats) without anybody expressing any objection, except eventually you. That was a Bold move. Bold moves are allowed by Wikipedia, but if somebody objects to a Bold move, there is a procedure for handling them: WP:BRD, which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. You have made a Bold move, I have reverted it, we should now discuss it here on the article's Talk page.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, upon reviewing it, what I dislike most is "Thou shalt lick Jimbo's Most Holy Posterior, and thou shalt pretend to enjoy the taste". Everything else is ok (that's one long note), but I just find it distasteful. I didn't examine your contributions in the article before, which I should have. They do fit in pretty well. Could you adjust that line? Thank you for following policy, Origamite (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've provisionally put in "Thou shalt always be absurdly sycophantic towards Jimbo, and thou shalt pretend to be happy about it", plus in the Note I have accordingly changed "deliciously tasting" to "happy", all of which conveys essentially the same message. That's because the average person's way of saying "sycophantic", a word not found in many people's vocabulary, is "arse-licking" in British English, and "ass-licking" in American English - note that I had deliberately avoided using "arse" and "ass" in the text to try not to be accused of vulgarity. However, perhaps mistakenly, I don't feel my new wording does the job all that well. If you can find a wittier way of saying it without mentioning the licking of holy posteriors, please do. Alternatively I would actually prefer something like "Thou shalt lick Jimbo's Most Holy Posterior, and thou shalt pretend to be happy about it", but if you still find that unacceptable, I guess I can live with the current 'provisional' change. Thanks again for your cooperation. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you figure out a way to shorten the whole thing? Now it's longer than many paragraphs in the essay itself.Origamite (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've split it into 3 notes. I hope that's better. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, can you change the caption area you edited into a note? The part with the sycophantic comment? If you did that, it would be a decision to view, and if you really wanted you could return it to Jimbo's Most Holy Posterior. Origamite (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've turned it into a note, but I'll still omit his posterior, just in case it upsets anybody else.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)