UnNews talk:Heartless bastards make HILARIOUS Steve Irwin-based UnNews story

The original "crikey for steve irwin" was done in taste. It never says it was his own fault that he died. And there was even a concolences part in the unnews article.

This is a parody site for poop's sake...--Kingkitty 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the original Steve Irwin news item was this one which for some reason got moved. I also hoped that it would be seen as quite tasteful, given that I am a fan of the late Mr Irwin.

ACTUALLY... there were at least four of them, and a buttload of complaints about them. This article was seen as a fair middle-ground, given that it indeed acknowledges that the incident is funny and worthy of an article, but that it might be a little early to make the jokes. I agree with you that not all of the articles were tasteless, but many were, and all were seen as offensive by many of the Aussie readers we have here. If anyone needs any articles restored, I'll be more than happy to do so, and put them into your namespace until such time as it's deemed "the right time." (For a hint of the kind of comments we were getting, see Talk:Steve Irwin.) Thank you for putting up with all of this, and please "throw another stingray on the barbie" understand that when we take an article down for being in bad taste and replace it with an article about how much of a heartless bastard you are for writing it, it's not at all personal. No really, it isn't: regardless of what the title and the content say, we're just trying to appease the widely offended masses by noting how cruel making light of a famous person's death really can be (despite the fact it's both commonplace and prevalent on the internet Today).

Sorry if my article about how offensive your relatively non-offensive article was offended you. Some people are just touchy, you know?--<<>> 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, actually, can you point out exactly where the other one was offensive? All I see are random IPs spouting crap that they would do whatever the content of the article was. And since when exactly is offensiveness a valid reason for deletion on uncyclopedia? I'm sure cancer porn, fisher price and niggers all cause a lot more offense. And how do you and whoever else get to decide that "THIS will be the only Steve Irwin article for a while"? Sorry, I'm sure everyone knows by now how much I don't like these things being discussed where not everyone can see them. Care to post the discussion here? And seeing as I wasn't part of this discussion, here's my opinion: I'm very much against this being the only Steve Irwin news story.

I'm sure if you looked a little closer it's been metioned by the main editors of it that they were all fans of Irwin, so anything written is not done with the intent to ridiclue of make fun of him.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that me and David Gerard were the only admins to add to those pages, so I'm hoping those comments about the admin in this weren't about me. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

10 Take a Chill Pill

20 Print "Still offended?"; INPUT $

30 If $ = "Yes", goto 10

40 End

There's nothing sexier that people getting offended at being lampooned for being offensive: turns me right on..--<<>> 03:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, there's no reason at all to bring MoneySign into this. —rc (t) 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Who ever said I was offended? And to reply to your edit summary: As far as I'm concerned, IRC discussions do not, and will never be valid for deciding consensus of the wiki. That's what discussion pages are for. If you want consensus, aks for it on the wiki, where everyone can see. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it would appear that there are two discussions giong on here, which are linked and might not need to be. How about this:

Is my article offensive?

No. If the answer to this is "yes", the universe will implode through paradox.--<<>> 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• No. Was it funny? Meh. Were you getting a bit ahead of yourself declaring that yours should be the only one? Yes. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I could live with it not being funny. Humor was it's main purpose, but as long as it served its secondary purpose to hold off the Irwin jokes, if only for a little while, I'm happy. And it did. Again, I didn't move or delete anything, nor did I bring up the idea of getting rid of the other articles, though to be honest I thought that if people were as horribly offended as they appeared to be, I thought it was a very good idea, and would hope I would have thought so if it was someone else's article that was telling others to hold off on the jokes. As that wasn't the case, of course I can't say what I would have done in that instance.

I still think that using callous indifference to mock callous indifference is the perfect way to mock callous indifference, which was present at Uncyclopedia, if not in the main article, then certainly in the one that had a picture of Irwin making love to a stingray, to name the first one that comes to mind. Also, just so we're clear, I didn't have ANY admins other than myself in mind when I wrote the bit about the evil admin. It's merely a stereotype, and I was merely casting us the way were were looked upon by the complainers.--<<>> 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the two Irwin news articles that are there now probably should do the trick in that case. The "main" (for want of a better word) is still protected, and I'm fine with that as a cooling off thing. Obviously the articles still need to be funny and not just stupid, I have no problem deleting the crap one-liners, but articles of sufficient quality shouldn't be removed, as long as they are funny. Though articles like yours generally do stop others on the subject, like the similar pluto one. And I know you didn't delete or move anything, but the talk page of this article seems the only place to discuss this, and someone did. Anyway, I can't think of anything too wrong with things as they are now now. Your triple-header attack has weakened my agumentative powers :). Must sleep to regenerate them for the next person to fall foul of Spang's Unwritten Rules Of Uncyclopedia™ ;) • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• yes to the extend that Uncyclopedia is offensive. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the other Steve Irwin articles offensive?

• Unsure. AM IRC-ers were pretty unanimous that the answer is "yes", PM IRC-ers have been 50-50, but many more people are piping up about not wanting to "censor" the wiki, though I think holding off until maybe the country of Australia, which regarded Irwin as a national hero, has had a LITTLE time to mourn would be nice, in the very least. I am relatively neutral in the whole affair, but prefer to err on the side of taste, when given the option.--<<>> 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Possibly, but what does that have to do with it? I thought we loved offending people.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 04:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The plan wasn't to remove it forever, just temporarily, as things seemed to be snowballing as people were trying to one-up each other.--<<>> 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Irrelevant. It's an UnNews article. News is about stuff that's new. Holding off on the joke will make it not new, and therefore not worth doing as a news article, when you decide the time is right. (22.3 years, for those not in the know). • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

22.3 years? Am I missing something witty?--<<>> 04:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 22.3 years. (Near the bottom of the plot section) (watch it though, it may even be relevant to this discussion). • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well Southpark has always been the moral compass of the humor community, for better or worse. Seriously, though, I think giving people 24 hours to get the really tasteless crap out of their system at other sites when a national hero dies isn't exactly 1984.--<<>> 05:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the IRC off-limits for making snap decisions?

HELL NO. If we need to make a call on weather something is cruel or otherwise menacing, we need the ability to make a quick move on the matter. This article was placed here to be a hint to others that maybe it would be best to leave the "HAHAHA! That Croc Hunter moron is finally dead," to lower-quality humor sites. Feel free to vote on this here, or take it to the Dump instead. This is the issue here where I have the strongest opinion.--<<>> 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but I'm not sure we all agree on what requires a snap judement. Did you actually read the "main" article on it that wasn't yours before codeine moved it? "HAHAHA! That moron..." it was not. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I did read it, and I didn't find it offensive, though others did. We could have placed a big red banner at the top of the UnNews page that read, "Let's chill on the Irwin jokes, people," but without an article of SOME kind, it would have looked rather silly.--<<>> 04:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a 24 hour lockup would be appropriate--Shandon 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

How about if a snap judgement on IRC is deemed necessary, the snap judgement maker(s) still set up a discussion about it somewhere on the wiki, about whether to uphold the snap decision or reverse it? Then everyone wins, probably. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it any good now?

I think this article and the other one cover it. I've added the requisite joke about thumbs up aaaaaarses - David Gerard 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)