Talk:ubersexual

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

RFV 1

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

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. —Ruakh_TALK 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

RFV 2

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

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 DAVilla (talk • contribs), 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)