Rant that belongs on a user page. Rossami 22:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's incoherrent enough to give me a headache. --Wirehead 22:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn't this just offered a place as a speedily deleted page? Snowspinner 22:57, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it, it sounded like someone had already deleted it and was explaining why. Strange. --Krupo 23:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Quickwik's user page so (s)he can work on it some more. Alcarillo 02:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely out of order in the article namespace. Quickwik has been here only a few weeks and already has an impressive tally of articles deleted or awaiting deletion, all of them ignoring and attacking Wikipedia's basic values AFAIK. A newcomer but hardly a newbie, and quite capable of moving this to their user namespace if they wish, they have done this on several occasions already. Have there been any good contributions yet? Limits must be set. Andrewa 17:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have found one contribution: Milk toast. Andrewa 18:04, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: His Milk toast contribution was generally copyedited by others. Check out the revision history. --Wirehead 20:30, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is quickly becoming ridiculous. RadicalSubversivE 03:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't bother moving to user namespace. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:57, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. gets 350+ google hits. concept emerged from discussion of "antisocial software suite spoof by joyoftech.com. Or delete along with anything else that even slightly upbraids the notion Wikipedia is a gated community controlled by self-selected power-users instead of an encyclopedia. No, just keep and do the homework to make it an accurate article before jumping to VfD. SimBot2 17:47, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
