Talk:ubersexual

Mis-placed encyclopaedia article from 70.224.249.37 removed. Uncle G 11:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

ubersexual
Sounds great, but really? bd2412 T 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read it in written also . But it comes from German, instead of english. --Rider 10:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

RFV failed, deleted. —RuakhTALK 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV 2
Tagged but not listed. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to be cited already and gets plenty of bgc and ggc hits, what is being requested here, specifically? Thryduulf (talk)
 * It was a technical listing; feel free to mark it passed.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, neither noun nor adjective has technically been demonstrated to meet the CFI. I have some concerns:
 * The noun's quotations span less than three months.
 * It's not obvious to me that the October-2005 noun quotation is durably archived. At least, our source for it is not durably archived so far as I can tell; the original radio program may well be, but then the question is, do we consider WorldNetDaily to be a reputable source for transcriptions of radio programs?
 * I'm pretty sure that the November-2005 noun quotation is not durably archived.
 * I can't confirm the 2007 adjective quotation. But it, like all the other quotations, was added by, so I'm inclined to trust it anyway.
 * Neither of the adjective quotations really backs up the adjective definition, but that's probably best addressed by improving or broadening the adjective definition.
 * And the September-2006 adjective quotation could actually be an attributive use of the noun, but that's only a concern if someone doubts the distinctness of the adjective.
 * —Ruakh TALK 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be attestable. World English Dictionary has this definition: a man who exhibits traditional masculine qualities as well as the caring nature of the New Man. --Hekaheka 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added more cites. DAVilla 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Verbesserungsbedürftig, but probably passable under our CFI. - -sche (discuss) 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is stupid
So a dude who cares does not need to be classified as a SEXUALITY Nobody0012 (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)