Talk:Kevin Ray Underwood

Friends section

I see absolutely no justification for including links to friends of an accused murderer who have no notable connection to the crime. In fact, I find it highly objectionable and potentially libelous. And links to Google and Usenet searches? Be serious. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, please. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The friends section should probably be removed soon, but not now because links need to be here for a while until someone can verify that Underwood never posted something psycho on his "friends" pages, and that they never said he was weird or something. I propose that the person who removes them should also be the person to pull out all interesting info regarding Underwood from their sites. 128.208.36.39 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have this absolutely backwards. Wikipedia is not a crime investigation. Links on the chance that they contain something notable is wrong, because they are not proven to be notable links. Links that provide notable information, once verified, are acceptable, but they should be provided as sources and not as generic "hey invade this person's privacy" invitations. Have some common sense, and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go even further. I'm not sure there doesn't need to be a particular politic for this sort of thing, since it's become so popular in the American media. By politic I mean a more rigorous restriction on content. Passionate proclamations wil lbe galore. To keep maniacs like me from writing nonsense into the article indirectly and subtly, let's have a set of rules regarding what ought to be kept out. --VKokielov 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have provided tags on this article to alert other editors to issues that can help make it a better article. It needs to have a more appropriate tone, exhibiting a NPOV about whether the individual in question committed the crimes for which he is accused, and preferably citing specific crimes with which he has been charged and citing statements that have led to those charges. Secondly, sources should be cited in articles like this one, even if only a single inline link: [1] so that we know what is being said is backed up. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the link to optymyst.com. Please do not link to my domain unless you also link to my blog - optymyst.blogspot.com. Thanks. 4.252.79.127 13:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC) OptyMyst[reply]

No dialog?

07:29, 18 April 2006 VKokielov (rv. You shouldn't express yourself on Wikipedia talk pages on hot subjects. If ou do, the talk page becomes a discussion, and the real subject - viz., the article -- becomes lost.)

Wikipedia is one of the most public places for dialog in the world, at least it's the only one *I* know of. While this may show an architectural deficiency in wiki, it nevertheless probably should be addressed by adding a new section to talk pages (optimal) or at least keeping the conversations in-line on the Talk pages. Otherwise, I feel you should rename 'Talk' to 'Meta data' as that would far more accurately describe them.

This is a serious matter and the piece you deleted seemed to be a fairly serious note that you deleted. *I* certainly wouldn't want to have on my hands any guilt about what happened if I were to delete something like that. Maybe the reason that you did so is in itself indicative of a cold culture that breeds killers, or at least pushes them over the edge? — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would start citing rules at you, which is by every custom whatI ought to do. Instead, let's try to see what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a Usernet forum. In particular, *opinions* don't have any place on Wikipedia. You've expressed your opinion on that blog. When you come to Wikipedia to flaunt it, you're not only singling yourself out for attention, but also neglecting the rules established by this community in order to keep the focus. If nothing else, to heed these rules is to take the first step against more Seigenthaler debacles. --VKokielov 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:Talk page#Wikipedia-specific information. --VKokielov 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JC! I was only pointing out how Wikipedia could evolve into something more than it is...if Edison had believed those people who said candles were bright and long-lasting enough we'd all be worse off. It's O.K. for things to grow, so — please — temper the vermicitudes! — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't. You were answering me for acting up. Now I say I should have acted up. If you look carefully, you'll notice that I edited myself afterwards; if you look even more closely, then you will see I have done it precariously, because the sentence I have taken out justifies the contents of the sentence I left in. --VKokielov 04:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online Presence

Can anyone find any more information as to why Rep. Burrell tried to link Underwood to Kingdom of Loathing, of all things? I've been playing that game for nearly two years now, and this is the first serious action I've ever heard of any player. This has simply stunned our community. How any link could be made to the game simply baffles me, as it's just a friendly community in a game full of pop culture satire and off-kilter humor. Why anyone would want to sully its reputation with an isolated incident like this is beyond me, and I'm sure the rest of us on KoL would like a bit of closure on that facet of things. --Antipode 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]