Forum:Is it time to unlock the Virginia Tech Massacre page?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Is it time to unlock the Virginia Tech Massacre page?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4427 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

In my opinion, it is, but I'd like to hear yours. What do you think? --Hrodulf 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'd keep what we have there (one of those "serious zone" things like what we had for Hurricane Katrina and No Orleans) and keep a very close eye on it to make sure it doesn't become ED-esque. The main target should probably be the media trying to blame everything. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess we need a few more people's thoughts before reaching consensus or whatever, but that sounds like a pretty good idea. --Hrodulf 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why not, so long as we keep a close eye on it. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why it was locked in the first place. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb.png (talk to me)
My guess is we wanted to avoid bad publicity, but now that the media has moved on, my guess is we should also. --Hrodulf 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
To prevent people with an ED mindset from editing it. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We can do that by reverting stuff that is too tasteless though, so it's not a reason to continue to protect the page. And I'm pretty sure there was a media concern, otherwise why include the charity link? Not to be cynical or anything (which I am, so I guess I'm lying) but at least part of this had to be about image. --Hrodulf 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, duh. We've been libeled by the media before thanks to a few bad eggs, and I didn't want that to happen again and on a potentially much larger scale. I like to think of Uncyclopedia as a place that knows the difference between edgy humor and poor taste. I didn't want a disrespectful article to cause us to be grouped with sites that use crappy shock humor. I think a well-written, funny article in the Virginia Tech Massacre space is possible, but it has to be funny and not just stupid/shocking/immoral. There's nothing funny about the massacre itself, but the media firestorm around it is ripe with opportunities for satire. Protecting it was a measure I took to prevent rabid morons from making a shitty page in the immediate aftermath, but now I think it's probably safe, as people will now more likely go for the satire than the shock. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Mr. Briggs Inc. 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Eh?

Obviously people care otherwise I wouldn't have made this forum and people wouldn't have posted in it. Including you, Briggs. Duh. You fail at trolling. --Hrodulf 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously he suceeds at trolling otherwise you would have ignored his comment... Just kidding. But seriously, I just realized the Columbine High School massacre isn't locked, and it doesn't seem to get vandalized that often(ignoring when the ED invasion on the 14th and 15th of May of course). Why should this not be the case for the Virgina Tech page? By now, most of the idiotic vandals have already forgotten about it. And it should be in the Category: Massacres, shouldn't it? --Dexter111344 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, since I unmasked his username and showed that his comment was stupid. If he'd said something like "lol balls" or whatever probably no response would have been needed. I agree with the rest of what you said, but just because his trolling got a response doesn't mean it was successful. It didn't get the desired response and my response made Briggs look, at best, silly. So it's all fun and games until someone gets permabanned. --Hrodulf 18:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
by all means and purposes, go ahead and unlock it --» >UF|TLK|» 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't because I'm not sysop lol. --Hrodulf 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
then use your l33t h4x0r skillz to do so --» >UF|TLK|» 18:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I dunno how hazor uncyc or shot web. Lol. --Hrodulf 18:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Hrodulf possesses any l three three t h four x zero r skills. —Braydie 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The closest I came to hacking was using a proxy to get onto immunitysec one time, but then it didn't work anymore so I gave up after trying a ton of proxies. Oh, and I needed someone to show me how to do it. That's how unleet I am. Of course, the reason I needed a proxy is that I'd been G-lined, but that's another story for another forum. --Hrodulf 18:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Well at least you did a good job finding out who User: was. :) Mr. Briggs Inc. 18:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Eh?
That's not really hacking, although it is fun. It's a trick I've done twice before, once to User:Col.swordman, and the other time to Spang/Some_user. It's nothing personal, I just dislike people hiding behind their ip address to make comments semi-anonymously so when I can I make a habit of unmasking them. Like I said, it's nothing personal, it's just what I do.
Here's the User:Col.swordman one.
Here's the Spang/Some_user one.
--Hrodulf 19:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Some User is a sockpuppet of mine or vice versa? I'm going to take that as a compliment. However, it isn't anything that could be described as, say, "true" in any way. Spang talk 01:14, 02 Jun 2007

For reasons I think are obvious to both of you, I think this discussion should be dropped ASAP. Just a suggestion, given the particular reference that was made here to an incident that pissed off more than a few people in December, it's best to let sleeping dogs lie (the lying bastards!).--<<>> 01:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence:User:Some_user/archive8#Template:Cookie, also the fact that Spang was the user who removed my name from the Euroipods article, but it was Some_user who later said to me "You're just mad because I removed your name from the article." I'll give more links to substantiate this later. I have to do the dishes now. And this isn't a continuation of december, it's a totally new issue that was never adequately resolved, being that Some_user is Spang's sockpuppet. I am opposed to sockpuppetry and hiding behind IPs here, and I will expose any such when I see it. --Hrodulf 03:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's Spang removing my name from Euroipods.
Here's Some_user from the Euroipods talk page, Talk:Euroipods#Testimonials_._._._._._dot: "You're just being all sour grapes because I tried to take your username out of the "Testimonials" section, aren't you? c • > • cunwapquc? 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)"
--Hrodulf 03:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
First removal of your name by Some user, second removal of your name by Some user. I have no idea how the Cookie template substantiates your claim.
I'm just going to warn you right now, Hrodulf: if you insist on carrying this out and creating drama without some seriously convincing evidence on your side, your banning this time will be permanent. I personally guarantee that. If you've got a bulletproof case, by all means present it. If your claims are based on hysteria and whipped air, don't bother. —rc (t) 03:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Pardon - the second link is subsequent to the talk page comment. First link is from 28 November, second from 1 December. —rc (t) 03:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've looked it over and there was a mess of edits and it shows that SU did remove my name, so the evidence is inconclusive based on those edits. When I was explaining things before I was relying on my impression of events at the time and the conclusions I drew at the time, which appear to have been mistaken, and it appears I was not rigorous enough in studying the history of the page and jumped to a conclusion based upon emotion rather than reason. Sorry about the snafu, it's actually rather embarassing. --Hrodulf 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we headed this off at the pass. Even though I'd take any excuse to ban Spang. —rc (t) 04:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No! You can't ban Spang! He's... he's so... nice!  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I never thought I would see a user with over 3000 edits and about 40 articles, 4 of which were featured, of being an admin sockpuppet. Icons-flag-au.png Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 13:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, five have been featured - I just haven't gotten around to listing the fifth one. (Thanks for reminding me...) And I'll admit that there are superficial similarities between Spang and myself - both of us are generally n00b-friendly, technically clever, and anti-Wikipedia (although in the latter case, that would be sort of like comparing a tadpole to a killer whale). So I don't really mind so much - he's a LOT better than the last person I was wrongly accused of being!  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh now don't say that. I thought Imrealized was a cool guy.--<<>> 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
He was, but I thought he was accused of being me, not the other way around... Or is that the same thing? I've been inactive for so long, I suppose the rules might have changed while I've been away.  c • > • cunwapquc? 06:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Registered users can now edit Virginia Tech Massacre

But read the disclaimer in the edit box and be aware that anything deemed to be ED-esque will be baleeted. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 18:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yay. --Hrodulf 18:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A Few Changes That Should Be Made

I think we should archive its talk page and move the serious zone and the memorial fund to the new talk page. We should also change the disclaimer to say that if you vandalize or make jokes in bad taste then you'll have IP traced, then both your account and IP will be blocked from editing for at least 3 monthes. How 'bout it?--Dexter111344 20:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd have to define bad taste a bit better before doing that. --Hrodulf 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Umm... I was hoping that one of you who are better at describing things through your brilliant and diverse use of the English language would do that... So... Can I go ahead and do the other things(archive that pretty long talk page and move the serious zone and memorial fund to the new talk page)?--Dexter111344 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait! We keep the current disclaimer but include that vandalism will get you a nice long 3 month ban.--Dexter111344 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should trust the wiki process to come up with something that works out well. --Hrodulf 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What is up with all this we stuff ? . --Vosnul 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I meant the users of the site, I suppose. --Hrodulf 23:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is we. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 03:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I'm leaning in favor of huffing the page, which is a rare opinion for me, but I might change my opinion if there's decent work in the page. Right now, I don't see much of merit in that page, so I wrote an opinion advising that the page be huffed. Rickyrab 03:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

New version

Excellent satire, emc. Just excellent. --Strange.PNG (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Some credit goes to Mhaille and Ljlego as well. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No it's not time

It's still too senstive of a topic, their semester has recently ended and the students at Virginia tech are still going to be depressed by this happing and it will take a while for all the victims to recover from this. This not like Hurricane where it was a natural disatster this is where someone walked in and just decided to shoot everyone he could. I think we should wait atleast a year untill we can be able fully unprotect. But we could have short article making fun of the News media response to the diaster while the article is under full protection and have a big message saying you could donate money to victims or something.--Scott 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of too late since the article's already written. I think it's ok, you're entitled to disagree. I personally find waiting a year to be excessive. --Hrodulf 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)