Talk:Steve Irwin/Archive 3

Media statement – 4 September 2006

Steve Irwin

At 11am today, the 4th September 2006, Steve Irwin was fatally wounded by a stingray barb to his heart whilst filming a sequence on Batt Reef off Port Douglas for his daughter’s new TV series. Emergency services were called from Cairns Rescue Base and met Croc One, Steve’s rescue vessel at Low Isle on the Great Barrier Reef. The Croc One crew performed constant CPR during the thirty minute dash to Low Isle, but the medical staff pronounced Steve dead at approx. 12 noon.

His producer and closest friend, John Stainton said on Croc One today, “The world has lost a great wildlife icon, a passionate conservationist and one of the proudest Dads on the planet. He died doing what he loves best and left this world in a happy and peaceful state of mind. Crocs Rule!”

The section 'Death' is currently in the form of an article, with quotes for example. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the form of all writing should be in that of an encyclopedia. Just because this relates to a current event does not excuse it from being in the form of an encyclopedia.

Crocodile Hunter officialm web page

Fish are animals

"he swam too close to one of the animals (actually a sort of fish)"

What the heck is this supposed to mean? Fish are animals, and most people probably know that stingrays are fish.

---

Many people incorrectly think animal means mammal. Try describing an insect as an animal to most people and they will think you are nuts. I agree, the bit in parenthesis should be removed.

Enviromentalist versus Conservationist

Wouldnt Steve have been a conservationist rather than an environmentalist? Other than some people calling him a environmentalist, it seems his views are more in tune with conservationism, also wasnt he a supportor of John Howard? I know this is pedantics, but I think when doing a biography it is important to show all aspects of his public life in the proper light.

Can one not be an environmentalist and also support conservative politicians? I would presume so. Professor Ninja 17:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, there's kind of a big difference between being a "conservative" and a "conservationist". You do realize that, right? Runa27 19:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you addressing me or the original poster? I hope the original poster. Professor Ninja 21:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also a difference between conservationist and environmentalist, well at least as far as I understand the two. A conservationist preserves the land and its animals, an environmentalist is more into changing society and cleaning up the environment. Professor Ninja, I wasnt saying anything of the sort about some sort of political incompatibilty of the two.

Crocodile Page!

I don't know if you guys know about the edit to the crocodile page sometime yesterday? It said something about Steve Irwin being dead and 72 virgin crocodiles being sacrificed. It was vandalism of course, but creepy. Weird that today we find out he's died too.

What time was "sometime yesterday"? Because news of Steve's death was spread all over IRC and messenger when it was first reported at 2:32am last night CST G2 Wolf 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I reformatted the above message to get rid of the horizontal scrolling. Professor Ninja 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

N-th known fatal stingray attack in Australia?

BBC says second. The Age, citing a stingray expert, says third. This one mentions an earlier attack than the one in/near Melbourne, but does not say if it's in Australia. — LazyEditor (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

News reports tonight said only 17 known in the world and 2 in Australia. However they were ambiguous if it was 2 including Steve's or 2 before his.

The disctinction to be made here is fatal attack. In all likelihood there are far more non-fatal stingray attacks than fatal ones. There may be some confusion over the numbers because of this. Professor Ninja 14:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

An expert interviewd on ABC (Channel 2) during the late news explained that he could find around 30 known stingray deaths in the world to date. Trust the best source, I'd suggest US media know little facts concerning this. Nick carson 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some news reports are saying there is only one other?Cvene64 15:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just a mistake when I created the title. I've also included the possibility of other numbers (as presented below by Djcastel). Now I have no idea which number is correct, though I still mostly believe 3 (including Irwin) because the piece in The Age mentions specifically that the info comes from a "stingray expert". If more numbers keep popping up, I guess we can just settle for "less than five". — LazyEditor (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph reports that there have been three previous stingray attack fatalities in Australia (making this the fourth), and actually enumerates them (1945, 1969, 1990). I think this source should trump the others because it provides detail. Djcastel 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Searching on Google I find mention in 'The Age' [1] of a death in 1988 and a death in 1945 (this last one is found in most sources), plus a woman in 1938. Reuters says "An Aboriginal boy died several years ago, while the previous record death was in Melbourne in 1945." [2] which looks like the same deaths. The Sydney Morning Herald records a death in 1938, as well as 1945. So 3 seems right, but how can we be sure? Unless we attempt our own count. Skittle 16:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"According to the Medical Journal of Australia, in 1938, an adult women died after a stab wound to the heart by a stingray. " Spero News Looks like 3 to me. Can't find mention of the 1969 death. Skittle 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (To be clear, 3 without Irwin. He looks like the 4th) Skittle 17:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the first 3-4 sentences under the death section of Steve's life? Someone made an edit that says he got raped in the chest, and was "jacking-off" Queenslands Great Barrier Reef. It would be greatly appreciated if you would fix this. So many sick-o's are taking opportunity to try and spew their evil. It is very sickening and I hope that noone else has to see it ...

It might be worthwhile to elaborate on the term "stingray" to include the type of ray that killed him. The ray was a bull ray as identified in one of the press releases [3] included in the article. The wikipedia article bull ray doesn't exist at time of me writing, but bull ray does. As the article is still semi protected I cannot add this fact, if anyone else feels it might be worthwhile information, please edit it. Pissedpat 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I did add this, but couldn't work out the reference system used here. DPosse then removed it, presumably because of the lack of reference. I think it belongs, particularly as that article mentions it. The size of the rays, given in the article, makes it more understandable, and it's all information. Skittle 20:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Tributes

This talk page isn't the place to leave tributes and other such what. If you are looking for that, see here:ABC tribute page to Steve Irwin.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read Help:Talk page and I see nothing that says talk pages must not contain tributes. --Tim1988 ^talk 13:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Did you stop at "inevitably"? "Inevitably, there will arise situations in which collaborators on an article can benefit mutually from discussing the article' - thus we have talk pages, specifically for such discussion. Info for talk pages: There are two types of talk pages - the first one is standard talk pages which are used to discuss an article, while user talk pages are used to communicate with other users or leave them messages." — ceejayoz ^talk 13:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A tribute is discussion of the "Steve Irwin" article. --Tim1988 ^talk 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See above in the {{talkheader}}. It says "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Steve Irwin article". A tribute isn't a change to the article. -- Longhair 13:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That isn't policy. There is no policy that states a talk page can't include tributes. --Tim1988 ^talk 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually created a seperate tribute page, but that was deleted on the provisions that wikipedia does not host tributes. I actually used the same argument you have used. Any way, it clusters up the page.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You have to sign up to post on the ABC tribute page. Suggest using the easier option of the SMH's or The Australian's Rafy 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Since when does an encyclopedia contain tributes? Stop whining.

MSN Tributes Request

Please note the heartful tributes to steve going over MSN messenger. I know people think it's not worthy but alot of people have told me how sad they are and they have added the turtle to their msn names out of huge and great respect for the legendary crocodile hunter. I've attached an image for you to see how many in my contact list are doing it including myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Steve_msn_tributes.jpg

I know this is irrelevant but i have had many tributes distributed throughout msn reach me including the turtle one and many other texts. Its not much but its everyones own little sign of respect.

Bindi

"He had been filming a segment for his daughter Bindi's upcoming television series." His daughter is going to have her own television series? If so, we should have an article for her. -anon

that's too bad he can't finish it...I think it would be cool if she had her own show. --Mitternacht90 16:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If the page is semi-protected...

Then why don't you guys get rid of the damned "I SAY YOU HE DEEADDDDDD" heading near the bottom of the article.

God, now I know why so many people hate Wikipedia.

68.53.121.170 15:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We semi-protected the article to facilitate the removal of vandalism like that. If you refresh your page, you should find that that heading has gone. Before we semi-protected it, we were getting up to 7 or 8 edits to the article per minute, which made it extremely difficult to remove vandalism, because our edits conflicted with those who submitted their edits mere seconds before us. - Mark 16:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

semi protecting for so long is denying many people the opportunity to enhance the article. please unlock asap.

Enhance it with what? Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS}} 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Why do you ask? Must contributions to Wikipedia pass your scrutiny before they are published?

The page has now been unprotected by an admin. --BC 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

find space for this pic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spine2ks2.jpg

exactly but I don't think when people view the page they should focus much on the death how how he died or what killed him. People know what happened, let's focus more on his life, his career, his achievements, and his contributions to the world. ouch!

Clearly distasteful for this page. We would not put an upclose photo of the gun that shot JFK on his page. Jasonid 16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not distasteful. Everyone knows what a gun looks like. With stingray related deaths being so rare, I think it really adds to the article. Just my opinion of course

I also agree that this is not a distasteful picture. The article already discusses the length and serrated form of the ray barb in question, why not show a graphic? Professor Ninja 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

File:Spine2ks2.jpg

Example of a serrated stingray barb of the type that killed Steve Irwin

I offer this as an example of the image. I do think it would be helpful to graphically include it since it is described, but because of the rarity of the type of death, it is hard to visualize. Re: the JFK/gun analogy, most people can visualize a gunshot wound or the approximate type of rifle used to assassinate JFK, therefore the image would be nothing but clutter. In this case it is informative and encyclopaedic, akin to perhaps showing the rifle that killed JFK to an isolated cargo cult in an attempt to explain his assassination to them. The picture in question, with a mockup caption. (whoops, pasted it in the wrong place and forgot to sign)Professor Ninja 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If the man had survived, I'm sure he'd be the first to show everyone exactly what it was / did to him. --82.8.47.238 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, when I saw the barb and read the exact description I decided, ok, I felt sorry for him now, that one HAD to hurt. I was thinking he just got stung by a little thing and died of poison or something. 65.190.42.103 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be a fitting tribute to allow people to learn exactly how he was killed Metakraid 18:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

why not just add the image to the stingray page? - it's already hotlinked in this article Cptoatsy 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

Under normal circumatnces talk pages would not have discussions that are only an hour old archived. But under the current circumstances the volume of edits istarting to expand this page beyond a resaonable size. Most of the earlier discussions appear to be completed.

I intend archive the first 25 discussions except tributes(#15) and weasel words(#22) are there any objections. Remember if something significant gets archived it can be returned to this page. Gnangarra 16:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

also keep (#9)number of sting ray attacks Gnangarra

Should not be unprotected.

At least not today. As soon as this page is unprotected the vandals will start flowing in again faster than ever. Let's have some respect for this man and not let vandals ruin this entry. Jasonid 16:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. How the hell can we do our jobs when those dumb vandals are messing it up? dposse 16:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think JYolkowski was wrong in removing the protection of the article. I check and he isn't an Admin? On the search engines it shows wikipedia as the 2nd or 3rd and it is wrong to have people especially children come upon a vandalised page. It doesn't make sense to leave it unproted. Please protect the page.LogicUser 17:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

James is an administrator. If he wasn't he wouldn't be able to protect/unprotect pages. You can check the admin list here: WP:LA. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked! JYolkowski is an Admin. Do they have sensitivity training for Admins? Does he like busy work created by vandal? This doesn't make for positive PR. I am in agreement with the more "Senior" Admin Zzyzx11....bring back the protection PLEASE! LogicUser 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please add InterWiki

I am a new-registered user, so I am unable to edit this page. Could you please add be:Стыў Ірвін? Bacian 16:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the link. Canderson7 ^(talk) 16:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this may be kind of the wrong place, but when can new users edit protected pages? Is there a time limit or is manual verification needed? ZaInT 22:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

POV?

With all due respect to the dead subject, I am a little uncomfortable with the statement "Irwin's personality and outrageous antics in the series made him an international celebrity". While he certainly was a great guy, that doesn't really sound very neutral to me, sounds more like a point of view/opinion. Thoughts?--Badharlick 10:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, "outrageous antics" doesn't sound very positive to me! pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's neutral - those are the things that made him an international celebrity, which I think everyone will agree he was. - Davokills

He was outrageous, for sure. As I'm sure many people commented while watching him, "What sane person would do that?"

Badharlick may have a point here, about the word if not the sentiment. "Outrageous" actually means immoderate, shocking, grossly cruel, immoral or offensive. Perhaps "eccentric" is more suited? Devious Viper 13:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But that's not the common usage of the word, which Wikipedia says we should use. Something tells me you'd be in favour of retaining the title "Red Army Faction" over a change to "Red Army Fraction" (which is the proper translation), so at the same time you should expect that the connotations of "outrageous" far outweigh its denotations. Professor Ninja 14:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite what I mean - what I'm saying is, it would seem to me to be hard to verify that Steve Irwin's personality made him famous along with his "antics". Even though it may be common knowledge, if there's no source and someone questions it's validity, it will have to be removed. --Badharlick 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Get ready...

The admins in their wisdom unprotected the page again. Get ready for a new wave of vandalism. dposse 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Pages linked to from the main page should not be protected, or if they are for just a little bit of time. Wikipedia is a Wiki, so we want to make sure that our visitors are able to experience Wikipedia to its fullest See m:Protected pages considered harmful. JYolkowski // talk 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a special case. Actually look at the history of this page. I think we can make an exception. dposse 17:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's quite skimpy compared with the amounts of vandalism that a lot of current events articles have got in the past. JYolkowski // talk 17:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite skimpy? Are you serious? Look at it a hour ago. It was being edited at least twice a minute. Oh, and this page was vandalised again not three minutes after you unprotected it. dposse 17:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look back at the history of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI about a year and a half ago. And we managed to keep those unprotected the majority of the time they were linked to from the main page. There's probably lots of other good examples of such pages as well. JYolkowski // talk 17:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's averaging around two edits a minute unprotected, which is far more manageable than the 5 edits a minute earlier in the day. I'm thus inclined to keep it unprotected.--cj | talk 17:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

and again dposse 17:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here comes the carp. Get your popups ready. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS}} 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at this picture that i took one minute ago. It's starting all over again! Use some common sense here and protect the page for at least the rest of the day. dposse 17:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Very manageable, indeed. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS}} 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Full protection is in the extreme.

Semi Protection is more than fine for this article. Full Protection, although it will make sure no more pictures of dicks get on the article, is a bit overkill. dposse

Oh, and someone remove those penis pictures, what the hell is the connection with the article?

No offence but are you an idiot? Does it really need explaining? It's just some fool pissing about.

Those edits were to {{Infobox Celebrity}}, not to the article. —Whomp t/c 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected, and the penis vandal has been blocked... The Land 17:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The pictures of cocks and no connection, other than idiots who think it's funny. If this page was semi protected in the first place, that would never have happened. dposse 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you!! dposse 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

thx vry mch!

What is wrong with people? Do they think they won't get caught and blocked when there are about 100 Wikipedians with their eyes trained on this article every second?

They're fully aware of the fact that they'll get caught but simply don't care. It's easy to just switch to another IP address once you're banned anyway. - 81.178.104.77 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for blocking that idiot. Soxrock 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep semi-protected --Gregorof 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound like I just registered a few days ago, which I did, but who can initiate a full-protect, and who can then edit it? --ExNoctem 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please will someone remove the pornography from this page NOW?

This is most inappropriate; I realise that it is vandalism but someone with editor rights needs to remove it. It is very likely that kids will be finding this page, as they try and read about their hero!

It has been. Please clear out your cache. dposse 17:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you need to fully clear the page, press CTRL than F5. As that should make a full page refresh to check for a new version. --BC 18:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, pressing CTRL and the letter R works better. dposse 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

is this true?

the article says "On 5 September 2006 WA Police arrested Mark Weaver in relation to Steve Irwin's death and he has since been charged with wilful murder."

just wondering if that's really true because i haven't heard that anywhere else.

68.167.67.112 17:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Prameet

no, it's not. dposse 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

article doesn't say that. The Land

It's not true it was an act of vandalism by some joker who thought it was funny I took it out twice. Seems the moron has nothing better to do with his time. Sad, really.

Agreed, pure false and was removed. --BC 18:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If i was an admin, i would permanantely block the saddo who put it there. Something as serious as this should not be joked about and it is in no way funny at all. Woe be to the person who badmouths Steve Irwin. He was a great man. Sadly missed. 49Untouchable 18:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed some idiot had slipped in something about a guy called "Mark Weaver" having been charged on "September 5th" (impossible of course) of "wilful murder". Someone cleaned it up before I did, but I think people should be vigilant of such atrocious behaviour on this page over the coming weeks. The last thing wikipedia needs, and more importantly, the last thing the Irwin family need, is juvenile idiots making light of such a tragic event.

Be glad your not looking at a website atricious enough I won't mention it. They're literally poking fun at Irwin for dying. I'm assuming the idiots are coming from there. Soxrock

Hi there, the page has been locked once again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Irwin --BC 17:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish to point something out to those folks earlier on Sept 3 US and again now that Australia is not in OUR timezone, so sometimes, their datelines will look like they are from the future. Please check timezones. UnseemlyWeasel 18:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there some type of banner we could put up announcing that vandals will be blocked from editing this article? Also, we should automatically ban ips that vandalise, regardless of magnitude, since having their edits removed doesn't seem to satisfy them.

As far as i know, the admins have the page semi-locked, thus meaning that only a few users are still able to edit the site. I also am not sure if the admins here are banning the vandal IP's either. --BC 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the article is now semi-protected IPs and new users simply can't edit it so can't vandalise it. However, generally, users (including IP addresses) that produce frequent vandalism are blocked from editing. The Land 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected, meaning only established Wikipeda editors can alter it. A number of administrators are also keeping an eye on it, so we should have similar problems for a little while. It apparently takes a few minuts for old versions (eg vandalised versions) of the page to be deleted from all the Wikipedia servers, so you amy see an out-of-date page for several minutes yet. Regards, The Land 17:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who blatantly vandalises this page should have their IP address traced and their house bombed... and they can take full responsibility for it.

Too much vandalism...recommend semi-protect of article. Aa35te 22:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, you guys are too fast :) Aa35te 22:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why were certain reference/citations changed?

For example, in relation to his body's location in Cairns, why change this from The Australian to Spero News, when the Australian already said this? Somebody went citation-crazy in asking for cites (and I obliged in some respects and others did as well) the point that whoever put so many references down ended up with Reference 22 cited a-e. Now, however, the article is pointlessly lengthened by excising certain of these citations, which just contributes to bloat. God, when there's a perfectly valid citation, could we please not expand the article from the single extra character used to subcite into an entirely new line? Professor Ninja 18:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

'

Removed POV, and duplication of material already found in article, etc

From the header (or intro) I removed what is inarguably POV, weasel word, and duplication of material already found in article. Examples follow:

This paragraph:

Through his vast exploits, carefree personality and seemingly endless knowledge of nature, Irwin created a distinct persona that for many was not only the face of the international conservationalist movement, but the last of the traditional Austrailian in the vein of national hero Paul Hogan. He also owned and operated the Australia Zoo at Beerwah in Queensland with friend William Rollo and his wife. He died after the barb of a stingray punctured his chest while he was filming a documentary segment for his daughter's show. [4].

Contains POV e.g. "vast exploits", etc weasel words (e.g.: Irwin created a distinct persona that for many was not only the face of the international conservationalist movement) and is a "tribute" which fairly gushes subjective partiality toward the subject (not that he wasn't a good guy, but judgement of character isn't the goal here, is it?), as the banner at the top of the page notes, is no "encyclopedic."

His death is also covered under a separate section.

This statement:

He was credited with re-energizing the so called "wildlife documentary" for television audiences who had long grown bored with the genre's typically stoic and staid manner.

is clearly POV, and the assertion of re-energizing the "wildlife documentary" is unsourced besides being untenable. The Discovery was thriving long before Steven became famous.

This line clearly duplicates material already in the article and, thus, is redundant.

He also owned and operated the Australia Zoo at Beerwah in Queensland and fronted several conservation efforts.

PainMan 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation error

There is a citation format error in the Death section. The first citation after the camera man analysis is ended with a <ref instead of a </ref>. Can someone please take care of it, it is the reason the rest of the section isn't displayed. --84.184.99.16 18:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I already fixed it. Professor Ninja 18:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Added photo of barb

I do not consider this photo any more offensive than other photos on wikipedia, including certain photos (Such as the rather infamous photo of the young vietnamese girl post napalm strike, or the equally infamous photo of the Nazi executing a jew with a rifle, or of the south vietnamese officer killing a VC agent). Seriously, if you can show those on wikipedia, you can show a simple barb, and the reason for it is that most people will be completely unfamiliar with this particular ray, or any ray for that matter, and that this particular cause of death is peculiar, unfamiliar, and rare. Professor Ninja 18:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I found it helpful; Iwas thinking that he died of poison from a small stinger, not that a huge stinger impaled his heart-- that's very different indeed. 65.190.42.103 18:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't find that particular picture helpful at all. It would be better to show the barb in relation to where it is on the fish. Perhaps a picture of a stingray's full tail showing the barb would be more appropriate and more helpful to show what happened to Steve. As it stands, it only shows the point, which anyone can visualize easliy, given it's called a barb.

The image appears to be a copyright infringement. I reported it at WP:PUI. RexNL 18:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't visualize it. (finally remembered to login)Kuronue 18:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We have no idea which species of stingray actually stung him so how can we know which picture to post? But that's beside the point. It's just macabre. Should the article on Rasputin show a picture of the dagger used to amputate his genitalia during his murder? No.

Therefore, I've removed the image.

A MUCH better idea for a picture--if there must be one--is to find out what exact species attacked him and post a picture of that. I would have less problem with that; tho' I still thinks it's weird.

PainMan 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to track down that particular Ray, PainMan. Hopefully I'll find an educational photo, blatantly free of use (contacting the museum is just too much of a hassle on labour day), so that we can be relieved of RexNL's pleasant demeanor. Professor Ninja 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention of the species. I appreciate the fact that you're trying to be professional about the whole thing. I do not see the need for the picture of the barb; I have less objection to a pic of the species. After, it might even serve as a public service to stay the hell away from that kind of stingray!

But the barb? I'm sorry, and it's not personal since I don't know you, but I still don't see the value in it. The isn't a forensic discussion of a crime! After all, would you have posted pictures of croc's teeth if he'd met his end in that way?

The barb is perfect. It's not like he died of some unknown reason, there is proof of what pierced him. Soxrock

The word "barb", to me, anyways (and I'm assuming most of the population out there), causes me to visualize a long pointy object. Here is what Dictionary.com says of the word:

barb1  /bɑrb/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[bahrb] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1. a point or pointed part projecting backward from a main point, as of a fishhook or arrowhead.

2. an obviously or openly unpleasant or carping remark.

3. Botany, Zoology. a hooked or sharp bristle.

4. Ornithology. one of the processes attached to the rachis of a feather.

5. one of a breed of domestic pigeons, similar to the carriers or homers, having a short, broad bill.

6. any of numerous, small, Old World cyprinid fishes of the genera Barbus and Puntius, often kept in aquariums.

7. Usually, barbs. Veterinary Pathology. a small protuberance under the tongue in horses and cattle, esp. when inflamed and swollen.

8. Also, barbe. a linen covering for the throat and breast, formerly worn by women mourners and now only by some nuns.

9. Obsolete. a beard. –verb (used with object)

10. to furnish with a barb or barbs.

[Origin: 1300–50; ME barbe < MF ≪ L barba beard or beardlike projection]

—Synonyms 1. spur, spike, prong, barbule; snag, prickle, spicule.

Pretty descriptive I say. At any rate the pic is back up yet again. No, I took the picture down. Professor Ninja admits that he does not have authorization from copyright holder to use it. PainMan 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) ATTENTION: I have found a free-to-use pic. This should stop ANY question as to the copyright status of it as this image is released under a limited use licence for non-profit educational use, which this falls under. This image of the barb will be uploaded shortly with a full licence agreement. Until then, please do NOT re-add the barb, the last thing we need is antagonizing an admin into going on the warpath and removing a VALID image. Professor Ninja 18:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh look, apparently you can't upload non-commercial images. Apparently very broad image licences now count as no image licence. Way to score, Wikipedia. Professor Ninja 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: unless you're posting the exact species that attacked him, the picture's no good and will be taken down. Fair warning. To repeat, for the umpteenth time, it's simply bizarre to want to post a picture anyway. It smacks of the the macabre at worst, inappopriate at best. PainMan 18:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit what now? As far as I knew, the picture was released legitimately by the user (I wasn't the one who uploaded it). I just assumed good faith on the part of the guy who uploaded it. As for inappopriateness, I definitely have to disagree. Like I said, this image, for example (external linked just to save space): Execution of VC captures what could be highly inappropriate -- the exact moment of a man's death. In context, it's neither macabre nor inappropriate. Professor Ninja 19:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

References

The references list is getting ridiculously long. Could people stop linking to every news article about his death on the Internet and stick to wire reports or Australian sources only? And learn to use <ref> and {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}. I'm starting to get sick of cleaning up after lazy linkers. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I say keep 27, 31, 36, and 37; toss all the others 25 and on, stacking of such related articles is useless. If people want to find out more, use Google. --MSK0SSK 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea

Excellent, Netsnipe. References, esp re: his death, should preferably be Australian media (accessible to anyone via web) since the wire service reports will doubtlessly be based upon them.

PainMan 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, edit "conflicts", this is a bloody mess

It's becoming damned hard to clean up this mess. I've run into so many attempts at vandalism and people obviously keeping the edit page open to block any further edits, that it approaches the farcical.

Out of perhaps fifty attempts, I succeeded only a handful of times.

Someone needs to step in. Stuff like, "We love you Steve! You will be missed" are clearly and completely inappropriate. Somebody even tried to post "Crikey it got me!"!

Let's have some class! What's next, pictures of his corpse?!?!

I'll let it go until tomorrow and then clean up whatever mess has resulted.

PainMan 18:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Admins needs to ban everyone who tries to constantly post vandalous stuff. Soxrock

Source #28

Hmm...it says that there are only 3 known cases, and then the article says 1 or 2. It then lists who and why, but why say 1 or 2 when it was 2? Also, this part of it: "I have never heard of an unprovoked attack from a stingray," Connell said. "Such attacks usually only happen when the ray is under severe stress," he said. Isn't that a contradiction, because he obviously HAS heard of an unprovoked attack? PureLegend 18:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Stainton

Um, who is stainton? His quote is fine, but can someone please expand on who he is so it doesn't sound like everythings been copied and pasted from a news story? dposse 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

He was Steve's good friend and Manager.

Barb Picture

This picture should be allowed under the "Death" section as it shows the barb of a Stingray. LindaWarheads 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

File:Spine2ks2.jpg

Example of a serrated stingray barb of the type that penetrated Steve Irwin's chest

No, it is probably a copyright violation. See WP:PUI for more details. RexNL 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And, it's just plain BAD TASTE! PainMan 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, we deal with facts and the truth, it should not be watered down. LindaWarheads 19:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely missing the point. There is NO value, encyclopedically speaking, to showing a non-descript spine that could be from a species from the North Atlantic or something. A pictre of the exact species, while still odd, would be acceptable. Just popping in a copyrighted image with no idea whether it was the animal actually invovled in simply "not on." PainMan 19:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not copyrighted, so that one won't work. It is an appropriate picture of a stingray barb, like the one that stung Irwin. Until a better one comes along this one should be used. Encyclopedia's are cold and detached. Thank you LindaWarheads 19:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Cold and deatched" does necessitateheartless and insensitive, Ms. Warheads. PainMan 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator of this image and can attest to it's originality. I freely grant wikipedia it's license and usage. Sysrpl 19:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on! Anyone can claim to own a image. That's not going to be a defense for the foundation when it's sued by the actual owner. You'll have to better that that.

PainMan 19:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a copyvio from [5]. Do not upload this photo again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that a free image of a stingray barb would be useful on this article. Not many people know what these look like (I certainly didn't), and it improves the reader's understanding by answering the question of, "But what is a stingray barb and how can it kill a person?" --Cyde Weys 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an image of the barb would be better off with the article for the bull ray. It would make a lot more sense there.P kumar 21:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

--plz remove the chasing bull ray vdo from here...it should be on the bull ray article --- Sohaib Zaheer / X-F \ 22:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism again

What I've just seen is not just vandalism, it's a mockery, gibe, jeer, profanation, call it as you like. Please, delete the picture that's on top of everything! I was not able to do it myself. Gazibara 18:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The cock picture? Yeah, i bet he's being banned now. At least, i hope he is. dposse 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That junk has been removed, thanks to whomever did the cleaning on it. :) --BC 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty horrible, if you ask me. The guy dies and you put a penis on his page. 69.125.199.241 19:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

((deleted some profanity someone put here, just to let you know))P kumar 21:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would someone even want to vandalize this? (Not to detract from the thousands of other vandalisms evey day...) Too many members of the human race are decending back into the lower orders of the animal kingdom. Nah, that gives the lower orders a bad name... Very depressing. Juggins

Not everyone knows french.

Um, not everyone knows french. Let's keep only english words in the article, ok? dposse 19:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sobriquet, if that is what you're refering to, is actually a word in use in the English language, but it indeed sounded wrong there. Incidentally, do you understand how the reference system used here works? I don't, but would like to include the information that it was a bull ray somewhere. The relevant links can be found at the end of the section on how many people have been killed in Australia by rays. (contrary to the article, it looks like he was the 4th to me). Skittle 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Undetected vandalism?

"Caught on camera" in the 'Death' section links to "Snuff film". May have gone undetected. 84.71.49.172 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign language articles

Did anyone noticed that before Steve Irwin died or before September 4th, this article only has about five or six foreign language articles, but as of today, it has 24 foreign articles. --67.2.148.214 19:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's more or less of people remembering that this guy existed. It's sad, but a major event spurs everyone's interest. Yanksox 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Death in header?

Shouldn't we mention his death in the header of the article? Something like a quick, one-sentence mention of the event at the end of the header, since it is currently important and we spend a lot of time talking about it in its own section down below. Mad Jack 19:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We've already mentioned that he's dead in the intro and the info box. dposse 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The intro needs to be considerably larger, including a mention of his death. It's fine to wait on that until all the details become clear, but the current one-sentence intro should not remain for long. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Let people post tributes if they want to

I'm discussing this as a point of policy now, so I consider any removal as vandalism. It's not good for Wikipedia's image if we prevent newcomers from saying a few words in tribute to a fallen Australian icon. Some of these people may be tommorow's admins, bureacrats, Foundation members. Instead they will think we're a bunch of miserable bastards and head off somewhere else. Comments? --kingboyk 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. dposse 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the Discovery Animals channel has a forum where people can post condolences, so what I suggest is make a hidden text at the top saying "If you are here trying to leave tributes to Steve Irwin, this is not the place to do it. However, you can do that at foo, foo and or foo. Thank you for your cooperation." Would that work? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's good for Wikipedia if we allow the purpose of article talk pages to stray from discussion of the article, to discussion about the subject of the article. Just as there are more appropriate places for blog-style entries, or for link farms, there are more appropriate places for tributes. Joyous! | Talk 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It happens on every other talk page from time to time. Removing them instead of archiving was callous, and not giving newcomers a nice welcome is a bad idea. In my opinion. --kingboyk 20:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to quote WP:TALK to a respected administrator, but:

Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match.

Okay? If you want to discuss policy regarding tributes, head on over to the village pump and kick it up there. If you want to write a tribute about the man, click here. If you want to write a tribute to the article on Steve Irwin, then that's acceptable. -/- Warren 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is flexible, you should know that :) Note also that juicy word, "generally". I'm well aware of the intended purpose of talk pages - and sometimes remove inappropriate crud myself - but I think at a time when we can expect a huge influx of new visitors (and when experienced editors like myself are finding their few modest words removed) we could perhaps show some generosity of spirit and lighten up. That's all. I'm clearly in the minority so I'll shut up now :) --kingboyk 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Famous people die all the time. There's no reason to relax talk page policy in these instances. --Cyde Weys 20:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, Cyde, I've said I'm in a minority and will shut up about it! :) --kingboyk 20:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you'll also apologize for flying off on an unprovoked little tangent at me. I don't imagine so. Professor Ninja 20:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I support Kingboy's suggestion, for what it's worth, and don't see why some believe that they are not required to assume good faith about it. How elitist and cliquish do we want Wikipedia to be? Why can't we divide the talk page and let people post their tributes there? First the userboxes, now this. Yeesh.--Folksong 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's simply that this has already reached a consensus, and the consensus was to not really allow tributes. I mean, this makes sense in so far as talk pages are article based anyway. Nobody's saying Steve Irwin's passing hasn't left a serious emotional impact with people, but message boards are already filled to the brim with this stuff. Adding more to this talk page just makes it that much harder to archive and control. Professor Ninja 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. The page is already moving very quickly and trolling like this is staying here for longer than it would otherwise because it's getting lost in the flood. Tributes will make it even worse. There is nothing callous about referring people to more appropriate sites for their needs. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't just blatant disruptive vandalism, I say it's fine. Talk pages aren't some resource that we have to worry about the content of. The article pages are what we should be tending to. --Macarion 21:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm siding with the negative vote. I'd rather Wikipedia look like a cold but efficient encyclopedia than a inaccurate soapbox, especially since popular opinion among non-wikipedians falls into the latter. James 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Animal Planet Tribute at 6PM EDT

Is this article-worthy? Starks 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. Include a citation. dposse 20:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably not needed, but seconded. It will have to be removed or reworded after the fact, but it does belong. Professor Ninja 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, i would argue that it's just as notable as the quote from the Prime Minister. dposse 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Documentary Mr. Irwin was Shooting When He Was Killed?

I heard on the FOX News Channel that The Crocodile Hunter was actually shooting a documentary on the ocean's friendliest animals; however on Wikipeida, I have notice that it says it was a documentary on the ocean's most dangerous animals. Just wanted to mention this...Kyle Bandy 20:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And you actually believe Fox news? dposse 20:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep your left-wing, liberal taunts to yourself. SarahTeach 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep your personal attacks to yourself. dposse 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddy, it's a not a personal attack, it's a fact. Keep your politics out of Wikipedia. SarahTeach 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first off, logically speaking, there's no reason why any political persuasion to could disbelieve Fox news. I know conservatives that don't trust Fox news because of their dogged use of hyperbole, but that's not the point. The point here is, don't be unecessarily quarrelsome... either of you. Dposse, he's just asking a question. SarahTeach, you sound like a chagrined school marm. Relax. Professor Ninja 20:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A little hypocritical, don't you think? You chastise me for whatever reason, and then you insult me on the way out? Nice. SarahTeach 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I criticized your demeanor. There's quite the gulf of difference, unless you think sounding like a vexed authority figure is a personal insult (which, by the way, is exactly how you came off). Regardless, drop it. There's no reason for you to get testy and there's no reason for Dposse to bite the hand of somebody asking a question. Everybody relax, enjoy. Reclaim the article from vandals. Professor Ninja 21:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Zing, but not relevant. There's actually two filmings occuring, one concerning dangerous animals, and the other being for his daughter's show (his daughter being eight years old, I imagine it would be the friendly animals one). Mr. Irwin was taking a break from one to film the other, so it's not terribly inconsistent. I suppose, in effect, he was in the midst of producing both. Professor Ninja 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have watched segments on Steve Irwin on MSNBC, CNN, Foxnews, and NBC. None have said it was "Ocean’s Friendliest" and all have said it was "Ocean’s Deadliest," so you either misheard or they happened to mispeak on that occasion. A quick look on google news confirms its "Ocean’s Deadliest." ~Rangeley (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Australia Zoo Website

I have no verifiable sources but I suspect that along with may Australian News Websites, that Australia Zoo's Website. This could be just be to protect the website or otherwise but it would not load up. I think this could be due to the amount of well wishers and so forth. Does anyone else have this problem and could it be definitely explained?

Also anyone with the proper sources create a proper varifiable section on this 'tribute' of the turtle MSN icon. I understand it was removed earlier due to it being unverifiable?--Oliver Davison 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a problem loading these pages, and several others. In searching for an example of a stingray for a free image, I found several tourism sites with Google using "great barrier reef stingray" and variations thereof that would not load but had recent caches. I imagine the server load for people looking at the news, and trying to look for information on these, has put an unecessary burden on the servers. Recall that on September 11th 2001, CNN was barely able to stay accessable with only a minor three paragraph breaking news text, as well as a single small image of the world trade center on fire and the image of the CNN logo. That was CNN's site. These are much smaller and the burder on them must be comparable. It's undoubtedly killing them. Professor Ninja 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact a bull ray?

I see the article states that what killed Steve Irwin was a specific ray, which narrows down the range, taxonomically speaking. Would it be possible to find a free image of a bull ray's barb for use in the article. I still stand by the idea that it is important and informative (And I swear to God not macabre) to illustrate just what it is that penetrated Mr. Irwin's chest. Professor Ninja 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was actually a Bull Ray. Can you find a citation for that? I just wanna make sure we aren't messing up on that fact. dposse 21:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in The Australian, ref 23 in the article. Skittle 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Ok, then. dposse 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy mentioned in Animal Planet section

The Animal Planet special, "Crocodiles and Controversy", is mentioned in the section dealing with his career (under the sub-section "Animal Planet"). It says "his son was in no danger of being eaten by the crocodile", despite the incident not being addressed until the "Controversy" subsection (under "Personal", IIRC). This should be rearranged so it doesn't refer inexplicably to information later in the article. -Juansmith 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again.

Another Admin unprotects the page, another round of pictures of cocks. When will you guys learn that just because it's on the front page does not mean that it's ok to unprotect such a hot topic as this? dposse 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am totally disgusted by the obscene vandalism which has been added to the page by a range of unthinking moronic idiots, who are only interested in getting their own small-minded disgusting views across and thereby getting themselves undeserved publicity.

Could the admisitrators please protect the page again. Thanks. Figaro 22:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please protect the page. --Zimbabweed 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Splash is at odds with most of the administrator community on this. He seems to think that making sure that everyone can edit at all times is more important than making sure that random visitors don't get penises shoved in their faces. --Cyde Weys 22:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While the people are indeed disrespectful and moronic in their pursuit of vandalism, I think that it is wiser to handle the vandalism with reversions and bans rather than to protect the page entirely. The article needs legitimate work, and there are people out there willing to do it. Not everyone out there that gets a hankerin' to update big stories such as this are of the vandal quality. Vandalism can be disgusting, but that which is disgusting should be handled in kind without deterring legitimate edits. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be semi-protected (and it is). Leaving it totally unprotected, as Splash did, is just leaving us too wide-open for vandalism. The article is already rather decent, and at this point we have a lot more readers than editors. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll also note that rapid-fire vandalism interferes with users' attempts to perform legitimate edits. It's unfortunate that we're forced to exclude new and anonymous users from directly editing the page, but the alternative is a situation in which it's difficult for everyone to edit. —David Levy 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the few. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{blah • RIP Crocodile Hunter • WP:NYCS}} 23:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

This article is undergoing persistent vandalism. Given its high readership I strongly urge admins not to remove the semiprotection for several hours from now. Please be aware that because of hte sluggish perforamnce of wWikipeida servers vandalistic edits, including very graphic ones, are being propagated for some minutes after they are reverted. In any case please do not unprotect the move privilieges for this article for several hours. The Land 22:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Several admins have expressed this should be sprotected and so it's now. Please don't wheelwar. -- Drini 22:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I'm very disapointed to see wheel wars still going on after I last saw the page 10 hours ago.--Konstable 22:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the semi-protection. three peni a minute is too much and the server lag is a significant factor here. pschemp | talk 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is this protection template constantly added and then removed? It should stay there until the sad news of Irwin's death calms down. --GVOLTT 22:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please leave it protected for the moment, the constant vandalism is even making it into the headlines -- Rach 23:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Cause of death

The BBC website is consistently saying that the wound was the cause of death and not the sting. After all, the sting itself is rarely fatal, but the wound is something else. Just an FYI. --81.153.208.70 22:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Over 1700 edits in less than 24 hours...

and only 98% of them were vandalism. Damn wiki's been busy. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny LindaWarheads 23:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know what this is about?

See http://internal.greap.net/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5311982.stm?ls - I can't make head or tail of it. 84.68.212.92 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not a BBC website, see the address. I assume you are the person who created it ! LindaWarheads 23:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Link was forwarded to me. Please don't make assumptions about me. WP:AGF. 84.68.212.92 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like bullshit to me. dposse 23:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is completely fake. ~iNVERTED | Rob (Talk | Contribs) 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, has absolutely nothing to do with the BBC. Forbsey 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks fake. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely fake. Go to the link above, minus everything after .net. http://internal.greap.net/ What's there: I like stuff and things. If you like stuff and things too find me on greap[at]greap[dot]net or Netgoffs IRC. --GVOLTT 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)