Talk:Shock site

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Finally a credible source that Meatspin is a shock site and should be added to this page[edit]

"The early 2000s brought scores of Goatse knockoffs: Shock sites like,, and each enshrined a single, nasty piece of porn for the delight of the savvy."

Surely this source (Wired Magazine) is credible andmainstream enough to allow for Meatspin's inclusion in the article.

Yep. And now that that crybaby MangoJuice is gone (hilariously enough driven off by some redneck with an IQ of 20), nobody will be crusading against the addition of Meatspin to this article. I'm adding it. ElectricPickle (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Upon Images[edit]

Now, I am not suggesting this to be prurient, however, this article might be improved by a screengrab from a shock site that is notorious to users of the internet, as, from the contents of the article, shock sites have cultural repurcussions. If somebody has the appropriate technology to blur out genitallia, then one could put on a picture of one of these websites, ideally one mentioned here. Pictures do help for people who find it hard to see small print, inter alias, it helps the formatting of the page to appear encyclopedic. I also suggest more video links describing the sites, within obscenity rules, of course.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

One Man, One Jar[edit]

I have added 'One Man, One Jar' together with an appropriate reference (an interview with a band, as a featured article on the website for 'Blurt' magazine. Please don't remove on sight as it does have a proper reference! Buckethed (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Would have been nice to not just remove this saying 'source is not notable enough' - e.g. what kind of notability meter was used etc??!. The source is as notable as most of the others used, it verifies the 'One Man, One Jar' perfectly. One Man, One Jar will be re-added soon, since the removal was unwarranted! (Note : this removal is different to removing the constant re-additions of meatspin, BME pain olympics final round (hatchet vs genitals) etc etc, which aren't posted with sources. Buckethed (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, the entry is back, with a good number of references - didn't realise it was so notable to be honest :) I know it is one of the most shocking and disgusting sites, so please don't remove it for this reason alone :) Buckethed (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If this site is to be removed, please discuss here first! The references are more notable than several other shock sites on this page (not peer reviewed scientific journals, but we can't get those for any shock sites) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckethed (talkcontribs) 08:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Also, this site is the sexiest thing ever created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


We should add information about in the page. (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • If you can find reliable sources, post them here, or 'Be Bold' and add it to the shock sites page... but only with references which are of higher quality than just 'personal blogs', or links to the particular picture of the old lady in question. Buckethed (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


We should add information about in the page. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

  • This site has been added and removed many times; there are simply no references or sources of any reliability for it. If some can be found, post them here, and we can look at readding the site - but many people have tried to find references for the last 3-4 years, so it is probably not possible Buckethed (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's your reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

One Man, One Jar - discussion[edit]

After the Good Faith removal by Delicious Carbuncle of 'One Man, One Jar', I think it is worth discussing the validity of keeping 'One Man, One Jar' in the article (in the context of how the Shock Sites article is currently managed.

The 'Shock Sites' article used to be called 'list of shock sites', and included things like Goatse, Tubgirl, Dolphinsex, Urinalpoop, Lemonparty, Meatspin, and many of the original shock sites. It had about 15-20 shock sites in total. The problem came with the fact that it really was just a list of shock sites, mainly without references except those pointing to the site itself.

There were many arguments about whether it was reliable to just point at a shock site (e.g. 'the reference of means that it exists, and it is a shock site, so it should be kept'). Eventually, it was decided that (as per Wikipedia policy), any shock site should actually be backed up by references. This resulted in the list being slimmed down greatly. Some of the original sites (such as the original, non-commercial, and tubgirl, did not survive the slimming down, as although they were the 'original' shock sites, not just the 'me-too' ones, they did not have any references whatsoever.

Ideally, on Wikipedia, all the sources should either be from BBC news / similiar quality sites (with the proviso that they are not just 'the story of the day', but news articles which have lasting impact e.g. a large earthquake etc), or even better from peer-reviewed journals. In the field of medicine, if something is not published in a peer- reviewed journal, it is not considered to be good evidence; 'expert opinion' is one of the lower levels in the hierachy of evidence when designing the SIGN / NICE / AMA medical guidelines.

For the shock sites article, the chances of finding references on major news sites, or in a peer-reviewed journal, are minimal. While these types of references are the MOST verifiable / reliable, it should be noted that verifiability / reliability is of course a spectrum; and we cannot always obtain references / sources at the purest / best end of that spectrum. There have been discussions by moderators in the past on this page, and it has been noted that we cannot expect broadsheet newspaper or peer-reviewed journal sources for this article, we will not accept personal blogs, or links to other lists of shock sites, or references containing only very tenuous links to the site (although this last category of reference can be useful). Going back to the medical field, even here, the utility of 'Evidence Based Medicine' (basing everything only on peer-reviewed journals) has been questioned, with one particular article being published in the [British Medical Journal] directly question this approach.

With these points in mind, I would like to discuss the One Man, One Jar references:

The references are:

Blurt Magazine is a printer magazine, and has an accompanying website, blurt-online. This reference is actually a printed discussion about his experiences watching 'one man, one jar'. Admittedly, the description is pretty graphic (as well as his description of the response to it), but as it is not a blog (it is a published 'interview' in essence), it is a more reliable reference than the two lemonparty ones.,+One+Jar

This reference is from a music / radio station website, listing an album 'One Man, One Jar' by a group 'Products of Monkey Love'. The description includes the statement 'Well anyway, this song is about that video, looking at the world from his perspective...' (after giving a full description of what happens in the One Man, One Jar video. Again, this reference therefore is more clear in content and more reliable than the two lemonparty ones.

(as well as the other two Justin Bieber references)

These confirm that Justin Bieber videos on Youtube were hacked, with 'OMG FAGGOT', a claim that he had just died in a horrific car accident, and also that 'One Man, One Jar' was substituted for some of the videos.

So, in summary, these references feature an interview with a band member discussing the site and his reaction to it as a shock site in detail, the second is a 'tribute' to the site (also, documenting clearly that it is a tribute to the video), the third group of references refer to the fact that the site was used as part of an attack on Justin Bieber Youtube videos (a classic use of a shock site essentially the same as 'bait and switch' as described in the Shock Site article.

I am now going to briefly discuss the 'Lemonparty' article:

The Lemonparty maxim article (ref 13) just mentions the word 'Lemon party' without content; and it mentions the phrase 'Lemon Party' in describing dialogue within a show Reference 12 'It's not an old man orgy if it's not a lemon party' is from (VH1), which is a blog (and with a link to a media spoof of Lemonparty - a lemon having a party).

I would say that these references are weaker than One Man, One Jar. I do not think Lemonparty should be removed; it meets the Shock Sites inclusion criteria which have been hammered out with years of discussion between Wikipedia editors and moderators, and has stood the test of time by not being removed for months / years. The current criteria are quite strict; allowing only four (or five with One Man, One Jar) sites to be listed. I am also aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I am not using the fact that Lemonparty is weaker alone to justify inclusion of One Man, One Jar in this page; just using it as a reference for the Shock Sites inclusion criteria.

Comments? :) (other than TL;DR of course!) Buckethed (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Any views on this (particularly the references etc?) My opinion is that they meet notability criteria as above, and that the 'One Man, One Jar' site therefore has a place on this page.~

Of the references you posted above, only the Blurt Magazine article appears to meet Wikipedia standards for reliable secondary sources. The link is self-published and the nextweb link is a blog post. Given that the standard for notability generally requires multiple reliable sources, I think we still need at least one more indisputable source before the information can be added to the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Discussions by Wikipedia administrators over the years on this site (check the logs) do note that shock sites are notoriously difficult to source. The standard for notability for creation of a new page does indeed require multiple sources. 'One Man, One Jar' does not have enough references to justify it's own page, but certainly does justify addition to this page, and should be re-added in due course. Out of interest, there are many, many mainstream news sources regarding the Justin Bieber hack. The sad thing is, they say 'pornography', rather than 'One Man, One Jar'. This is clearly due to the fact that, or, are unlikely to say 'One Man, One Jar' (they are unlikely to know the name of the 'Porn' video). They are also unlikely to describe the contents of the video ('A man sitting on a jar, which breaks inside his rectum, followed by his removing the pieces excruciatingly slowly'). They would just say 'porn sites'. The nextweb link, in combination with the multiple BBC / CNN sites do verify what happened. In fact, this is one of the few sites (probably the only site on this page) that actually has sources backing up that it was used to shock unsuspecting people (e.g. Justin Bieber fans!) Buckethed (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
When the BBC or similar discuss the site by name we can consider adding it to this list but until then it simply isn't notable. As for lemonparty, I would remove it from this article, but I am reliably informed that it is operated by a prominent Wikipedia editor and thus protected from any such action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
If we actually need the BBC or similiar (e.g. CNN) to discuss a shock site by name, before it is notable, then we should put this whole page up for AfD, and even Goatse / 2 Girls 1 Cup might not be notable!. With regard to 'Lemonparty' being operated by a prominent Wikipedia editor, and thus protected, I assume you are joking, but if not, that would make no difference to the inclusion here. Lemonparty has a reference of equal standing to the interview for 1 Man, 1 Jar (which is a reliable source), and 1 blog entry. The 'blog entry' source for 1 Man, 1 Jar is also not just a standard 'blog', but from an editor of a news site which happens to use a model which shares some features with a 'blog'. In addition, 1 Man 1 Jar was used as part of an attack on Justin Bieber sites which did make news sites such as BBC, but of course they would never describe it by name. The site is better-sourced than 'Lemonparty'. Lemonparty meets the inclusion criteria for this page, and 1 Man 1 Jar does too. (I do understand that 1 Man 1 Jar is so disgusting that many people would cringe, but that shouldn't be a reason for not including this notable site on this paqe). I would also note that Wikipedia does have inclusion guidelines that are on a per-page / per-section basis (e.g. the section on aviation incidents / accidents). 1 Man 1 Jar does *not* warrant its own page (yet), but does warrant addition to this site. Buckethed (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't joking about lemonparty - take it out and see what happens. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What would happen? Buckethed (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Any chance at a discussion of why One Man One Jar, which has references, can't be included? (other than that fact it is disgusting?). At present it does meet the criteria which were hammered out for years on this particular page. Buckethed (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Delicious Carbuncle : Any chance at a discussion of why One Man, One Jar, which has *reliable* sources, can't be included?. At present it *does* meet the criteria which were hammered out for years on this particular page. I see you reverted 'Jarsquatter' recently, so you are still around on this page. Buckethed (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

FAO : Delicious Carbuncle[edit]

Hi! Just wondering what you have against 'One Man, One Jar' being added (other than that it is a disgusting shock site, that should not have a place on a wikipedia page?) You say 'please read the talk page again', but nothing has been added for almost a month?

I put the site back up a few days, with *more* proper references, as well as other references which were not of BBC / CNN quality (based on the previous discussions by Wikipedia Admins on this particular page, these references support the higher quality references).

At the present time, 'One Man, One Jar' is better referenced than 'Lemonparty'. I don't know why you aren't removing One Man One Jar and keeping Lemonparty, but I cannot believe that is is because a wikipedia admin owns the site! (as this would be against all that Wikipedia stands for, to be honest!)

I do believe that Lemonparty and One Man, One Jar both have a place on this site. I do not believe that these sites should have their own *page* (and the incredibly detailed sourcing you are requesting basically means you are wanting these shock sites to be eligible for a dedicated page on Wikipedia).

I will however respect your opinion as a more experience wikipedia user, and remove the Lemonparty entry too, to 'see what happens' as you said. I guess nothing will happen, since you are removing One Man, One Jar, which now has better sources, but if anything happens, that will be interesting in itself. Buckethed (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this has already been more than adequately discussed, but to reiterate - your favourite shock site lacks coverage in reliable sources. As simple as that. This will likely never be a long list (on Wikipedia), as internet shock sites are not often discussed in any detail in reliable sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It does have coverage in reliable sources - something most shock sites don't!. I don't have the time to carry on but will periodically look for more sources (I would note; reliable sources are needed - and they are available, but lesser quality sources can also be used (e.g. a news site which is says it is 'blog based', but which only has a small handful of selected editors). This reference was rejected, but is *not* a personal blog, and technically, you could argue is using the same model as BBC News :). This would be a useful supporting source. Anyway, 'One Man, One Jar' is eligible to be included here, but if it is deleted without any review of the sources, I will just get even more sources (a mix of full reliable, and lesser *non-personal blog* type sources, and return in a few months. (Also, I will watch this site, and remove truly non-notable stuff when it is added etc) :) Buckethed (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Another thing; this isn't 'my favourite shock site'; I think my problem is that I am following the rules that were hammered out for this page by various Wikipedia Admins prior to your arrival; I understand that you reverted the addition of this shock site initially (it did meet criteria for this page even then), but I have since found more references for it; I understand you will auto-revert no matter what. My view is that I respect the guidelines set down by the admins in previous years, and that I add sites to this page that have at least 1 reliable source. I agree that 'One Man, One Jar' does not warrant a seperate wikipedia page, but I disagree applying the *page* notability rules to entries within a page such as this :S Buckethed (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Ok, am I the ONLY one mortified and upset that bagslap doesn't have it's own title? Bagslap is one of the most shocking re-directs on any internet site. It is also on the, which I cant link to as that would be the end of this wikipedia account. notability is obvious. Add PLEASE!--Graythos1 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Hands[edit]

Considering that Wikipedia has an article on the Enumclaw horse sex case, should Mr. Hands not have all the references it needs to be included in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kescalada, 24 April 2011[edit]

Under Lemonparty, please add Archer to the list of television shows that have referenced it. Unfortunately I couldn't find a clip to add as a citation like the other entries, probably because the show only aired on 4/21/11.

Current text: The image has been mentioned on some television shows such as a sketch on Talkshow with Spike Feresten,[1] and dialogue on 30 Rock,[2] and in the Flaming Moe episode of The Simpsons.[3]

Please change to: The image has been mentioned on some television shows such as a sketch on Talkshow with Spike Feresten,[4] dialogue on 30 Rock,[5] in the Flaming Moe episode of The Simpsons,[6] and in the Archer episode "Double Trouble."

Kescalada (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done Please provide a reliable source, a youtube video won't cut it either. CTJF83 12:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please change the tv shows referencing Lemon Party to include John Stewart's Daily Show on 9 May 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ It’s Not An Old Man Orgy If It’s Not a Lemon Party! Best Week Ever (VH1) official blog, September 2007.
  2. ^ [1] -- sample video at [2]
  3. ^ Clip of Simpsons Lemon Party Reference
  4. ^ It’s Not An Old Man Orgy If It’s Not a Lemon Party! Best Week Ever (VH1) official blog, September 2007.
  5. ^ [3] -- sample video at [4]
  6. ^ Clip of Simpsons Lemon Party Reference


Shouldn't there be some kind of distinction made between shock sites that are based on a single image/video (goatse, tubgirl, 2 girls, meatspin, etc) that does not change and those sites that are collections of material that changes over time (,, etc). (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of sites[edit]

Do we really need a list of sites? It's fucking disgusting. These sites aren't going to help people looking for research. With that logic I've removed the list of sites. Cheers, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fucking disgusting" is hardly a reason to remove the list. Having a list of specific examples helps to illustrate the degree to which a shock site can be, well, shocking. Many of the sites that you de-listed are also fairly notable. List should be reinstated. (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm shocked that someone with reviewer and rollback privs would blatantly vandalize an article. I have taken the liberty of undoing his edits. Eminence2012 (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Viewer Discretion Is Advised (thus demonstrating the passive voice, better avoided)[edit]

Perhaps a warning advising those who land here by accident of search engines, etc, of the content herein? This page might, for instance, turn up in a search for "electric shock." The vivid descriptions of assorted shock sites tends to turn this wiki page into a shock site. An adult-only warning might dissuade young teenagers from reading the examples. Me, I've skimmed the depths of depravity decades ago on USENET groups where people post images that try to out-disgust each other. (You think that is disgusting, well, look at this!). A listing of the newsgroups suggests that it may be wrong to impose one's own notions of moral depravity upon others. Just as the produce section of a grocery store contains a wide assortment, few choose one of everything, rather folks choose what they like. Something is wrong if it generates negative consequences for those involved. We cannot protect everyone from hurting themselves, even if the negative consequences do not present themselves a long time afterward. Hpfeil (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be obvious that these are not safe for work. Besides, Wikipedia is not censored. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Meatspin[edit]

Would these qualify as reliable sources? If so, I think Meatspin warrants a section because it received news attention.

Sega31098 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Sega31098 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin review[edit]

I have asked for an Admin review of the AfD, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FShock_site_.283rd_nomination.29. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You nominated it for deletion. It was closed as keep. You asked for review. It was reviewed and re-closed as keep. The next step is not to then gut the page (with misleading "clean up" edit summary) and then edit war over it. Don't take this as a defense of any particular content -- just a WP:BRD-type request that specific issues and/or major changes be talked about on the talk page first (especially since it's the person who nominated it for deletion removing the text). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014 edits[edit]

In light of the tag added here citing that the article needed "cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: missing history, impact, legality; too many examples.", I made some edits to the article. I removed the non-site based examples from the Example section and moved the examples that had their articles to the See also section in accordance with WP:SEEALSO. I kept the Category link, removed one entry which was already mentioned in the body text, and added several more that have their own articles to the See also section. This effectively reduced the Example section to nothing, so I removed its section title as well, which resulted in this version.

Rhododendrites did not like this edit and reverted it twice [5][6]. I'm not sure if Rhododendrites took the time to review the actual edit since their edit summary was "Seriously? obv keep at AfD so you practically blank the page with "clean up" edit summary?"

I agree with the tag that Qxukhgiels added and agree that if this article is going to be kept that it should have history, impact, and legality sections added, but I can't get that far because Rhododendrites objects to my first step in the process. Comments anyone? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your use of the phrase "if this article is going to be kept" suggests you have yet to accept that the AfD passed, just like the first two did. I'm not sure how gutting the article is a required prelude to history, impact, and legality sections getting added, maybe you could enlighten us? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
If converting the Example section selections to See also items is what you refer to as "gutting" then your issue is with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and not my edits. Qxukhgiels tagged the article as needing Cleanup and that is what I proceeded to do. If you accept that the article could benefit from the new sections, then how about Assuming Good Faith and letting someone who has demonstrated willingness to actually work on the article, do just that. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Qxukhgiels is entitled to an opinion and to tag the article accordingly, but that doesn't prescribe certain actions nor does it circumvent the need to gain consensus. The fact of the matter is you didn't and haven't tried to add anything to the article, but have only removed content. Nobody stopped you from adding sections and as is clear here the addition of content was never objected to. It sounds like you're still saying the examples have to go before you can do anything else. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually that's exactly what you did. I was literally in the middle of making edits when you started to revert. As slow as I edit, the "Examples" would have been gone for maybe an hour or so before I had used the sources and some of the content (as NinjaRobotPirate indicates below) to post the new sections.
Qxukhgiels is not alone in their opinion. Significant discussion in all 3 AfDs have pointed out that the article needs improvement. You violated WP:POINT in a rather obvious, but seemingly unconscious way. Maybe you need to take a step back for a bit and gain some perspective? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually that's exactly what you did. No. It's not. You AfDed the page, you took it to DRV, and those didn't go how you wanted it to. The next edit you make is to gut the article without any explanation other than the misleading edit summary "clean up". So I reverted. You then removed it all again with the edit summary "Nothing removed that is not in the Main articles, edits made in light of new tag", again with no indication you were doing anything other than gutting the article, using the clean up tag as an excuse. You came here and have ever since been trying to argue "Rhododendrites won't let me add content and improve Wikipedia!" as though there was any indication you were planning an expansion. You'll notice that I didn't revert anything after you explained that here and even said nobody's stopping you from adding content. Rather than go ahead and make the edits, you're now saying "yes you are?"
I never disagreed with the addition of the other content, and in fact I think it would be great! Nor am I defending any particular content currently in the article, and in fact I agree the examples dominate the page unnecessarily. All I did was revert when you removed them wholesale then started to edit war over same removals with no real explanation or discussion. My only point about Qxukhgiels is not that I disagree with him/her, it's that you used the cleanup tag as an excuse. Look, all that I (and, I think, most people) would ask is that if you want to make improvements to a page that start by removing lots of content -- especially if you just finished trying to delete the page -- just let us know, either in the edit summary or on the talk page beforehand. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Rhode, I've gotten past the AfD and I wish you would too. I've stated what my intentions are for this article and you have said that you agree that changes and improvements need to be made. How about dropping the stick? --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, that doesn't address what I said in any way, of course. But regarding dropping the stick: This thread exists and persists because you've been spuriously accusing me of somehow stopping you from adding content. I've repeatedly explained that the opposite is true, but you don't seem interested to hear it and instead accuse me of beating a dead horse. Please take this as a personal invitation to proceed with your article expansion as well as appreciation thereof (if that sounds sarcastic in this context, I assure you it's not). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. Regards, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not especially concerned with whether the examples stay or not. I wouldn't miss them. However, I think some of the content could easily be salvaged in a rewrite. For example, the cleanup template requests information about legality, and the section on does, in a limited fashion, discuss this topic. The article from The Verge that I added also discusses this topic briefly. I'll see what else I can find. History is a little easier. Most sources trace shock sites back to From there, we get the classic shock sites, such as I'll try to get around to writing this up later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've looked at the sources that have been mentioned here and in the recent AfD and I can't find anything worthwhile to add under the headings of History, Legality, Impact, etc. And quite frankly, I just don't care enough about the subject to devote any more time to it. So unless someone else wants to improve this "encyclopedic gum on the bottom of a shoe", it will likely be AfD'd again and the fans can go through this with someone else. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shock site. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)