Talk:Something Awful/Archive 1

Hurricane Katrina Relief
Should something be mentioned in the article about how SomethingAwful was able to solicit approximately $30k in online donations to the Red Cross over a ten-hour period after their servers went down? --64.252.39.24 21:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Report to SA Administrators
Report all IPs used in vandalism to SA Forums Administrators, as doing this type of thing may warrant banning from the forums. Maybe that will get them to stop

Grievre 09:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Or it may send them into a whirlwind of cranky teenage vandalism back here.--DooM Drat 10:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

What's with the vandalism that just occurred on this page...? ugen64 23:24, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Basically a coordinated attack by about 5 (diverse) IP addresses at once, taking the form of a scatalogical conversation. They were all warned and the page was protected to chase them off. They seem to have moved on.-- Decumanus 23:30, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then I'd like to see it unbanned. It was in the process of being edited by the forums. -- Mumbo

People were a little excited, I guess.


 * Unforunately your edits came right smack in the middle of attack. Look at the page history and you'll see what happened. -- Decumanus 23:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The attacks were ALSO a result of the forums. The FYAD portion, to be exact. At least that's my best guess. --Mumbo


 * What exactly do you mean by a forum? -- Decumanus 23:38, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think they mean forums on the Something Awful site. -- Ams80 23:40, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What he said. Sorry for not being more specific. --Mumbo

Ok, I went over there and unbanned my account (which got banned somehow in the two years since I used it, I'd been meaning to go back there anyhow), and I didn't see anything about Wikipedia. I sincerely hope SOmething Awful users (upset at being banned or otherwise) aren't coordinating vandalism on Wikipedia, since I think that would have to be reported to the something awful staff. Pakaran. 01:42, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sirs: I posted a message within GBS asking whether the article here could be improved a bit. I guess the FYAD guys got a hold of the link and started the vandalism. I apologize deeply for the inconvenience-I was a fool to post a link to a Wiki. EuphrosyneD 03:45 Feb 7 2004 (UTC)

But thank you for the edits you caused in the meantime, they were a great improvement to my original article as I have not actually paid the $10 for an account. --User:Ashibaka 03:47, Feb 8 2004 (UTC)

EuphrosyneD, it probably was not people from FYAD doing the vandalism. It tends to be people who have been shunned from FYAD, banned from the forums, etc. that do things like that, as FYAD mainly keeps to themselves and finds it pointless to troll and vandalize outside of their own forum. It's almost against what the entire place is about. ;) --a FYAD poster who enjoys Wikipedia

Invasion of other web sites/forums is illegal at SA, it is not an organized effort; like the poster above me says the most active SA-related vandalism is probably by banned users. silsor 07:33, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say that vandalizing wikipedia is a bannable offense at SA, as can see here from the banlist:

Nehle 04:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs less about forums, and more about Something Awful
Something Awful made its name as a comedy website, with a bunch of notable sub-sites and personalities, some of which have since split off, and some of which still remain (JeffK, Fireman Comics, Bjornar B, Taco the Wonder Dog, etc.). The forums were initially a fairly small portion of the site, just there for people to discuss things in. As of late they're a more major portion of the site, but still hardly deserve 95% of the article. --Delirium 12:14, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -Branddobbe 23:41, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article could be split, with the forums getting their own wikipedia page. There's certainly already enough written about them to do so. --Jeremyh 12:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed again. I think splitting the forums off to their own page would enourage more content about the website to be written. The page is dauntingly long as it is, which isn't the best condition for having people expand the content. I'll wait a day or two for more comments, and if no one objects, I'll do the split myself. Tyler 19:05, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * There's a front page? ;) (you get banned on SA if you say that) But yeah, split it off. I want more info on Cliff Yablonski and the Rom Pit Review! --Golbez 19:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Origin of "interweb"
Can anyone point me at the sources which claim "interweb" was coined on SA? I'm proposing a new entry to the Hacker's Dictionary (jargon file) for "interweb". Lunkwill 06:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it was the cranky old man, whose name I currently forget. Is it Cliff Yablonski, or am I getting that mixed up with something else? -Branddobbe 16:23, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You're thinking of Jeff K --80.4.124.207 14:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I know this discussion is really old, but I noticed the word "Interweb" is used in the game Fallout, which came out in 1997. When you are in your home vault, and use some terminals in the library, it may say that you spent some time searching the Interweb. Though I doubt that is where it spread from into popular use. - Me, 02:46 4 Jan 2004 AEST

Protect this page
Will somebody pleeeeeaase protect this page? I can't do it, because I am not an administrator. --Lst27 21:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Why would you like it protected? Meelar 21:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I want to protect it because it keeps getting vandalised. --Lst27 21:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've blocked both offending anons for 24 hours -- perhaps we'll be fine? I hate to protect pages just because of a vandal or two, unless they get really persistent. :-)  Just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 21:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear. We actually had the same debate over George W. Bush, and if that wasn't locked, this certainly doesn't rise to the level. Meelar 22:33, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Can somebody please revert this page? Thanks.
 * So you know, you can always revert on your own. :-) Click the page history, and then click the date/time of the edit you want to revert to.  This will open the article as it looked then.  While the old version is open, select "Edit This Page" -- you'll be warned that you're saving an old version of the page.  Then put a note in the edit summary (revert to non vandalized version, or something) and hit save.  The article will be saved as the version you selected.  Jwrosenzweig 22:47, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * But I couldn't revert it 3 times or more in more than 24 hours. I have reverted it twice today already. --Lst27 22:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's vandalism, then the three-revert rule is waived. This applies only to pure vandalism--content disputes of any sort are right out.  Use wisely, young Jedi. Meelar 22:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that. --Lst27 22:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Flurry of Activity
Thought we may be the Awful Link of the Day:rolleyes - but found we were simply mentioned on the forums (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1197450). We should be able to unprotect once this drifts off the top page. --[[User:OldakQuill|

Oldak Quill]] 20:46, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This thread has not been posted in for over 24 hours. Due to the fast-moving nature of the SA forums, it means that it now long dead. This page can probably be unprotected now without incident. I'd like someone to do that so I can proceed with splitting SA and SA forums into two different articles as discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Tyler 04:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Needs revert regarding the LJ Drama misinformation.

Fark/somethingawful rivalry
Should there be a mention of the Fark/SomethingAwful rivalry? --Yes.
 * There should be an entire section devoted to famous rivals. IE: Derek Smart, Fark, Scientology, furries, Malign, etc. Lucidish 23:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How long does this thing need to be protected?
Is the vandalism really that bad?


 * Unprotected after twenty (!) days. I think sometimes sysops forget. If you notice this in future go to Requests for page protection and ask fro the page in question to be unprotected. We like to unprotect a page as soon as there's no ongoing reason to keep it protected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've protected it again. It's unfortunate, but this page seems to be a rather popular target. -- ran (talk) 18:30, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Ultimate Warrior threat
Apparently the Ultimate Warrior threatened to sue lowtax, head of SA, because he posted a link to his website. Here's the article:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2790


 * I think the objection was more that they used a picture of the Warrior without permission (OH NOES!) and that they called him racist (the fact that he is, in my opinion, a big fat stinky wart-infested racist is of course beside the point). Am I the only one who's thinking tag-team match?  Warrior and his 'Director of Communications' against Lowtax and Zack Parsons, to be accompanied to the ring by Leonard "J." Crabs.  THEY'LL MAKE MILLIONS!  And it'll probably be a better match than Hogan-Warrior II, too...  Hig Hertenfleurst 19:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * this doesn't really have anything to do with this encyclopedia article? - Stoph 01:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the wider issue of SA's semi-frequent legal threats could be inserted in the notable features list as an example of how controversial and shit-stirring the humour can be a lot of the time, using the Warrior as (if you don't count Dr. Derek Smart as famous, which I don't) an example of the most famous person to be offended by it? Hig Hertenfleurst 02:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category addition
Could an admin please ad this to Category:Something Awful please?

Unprotected
I've unprotected. Also added the requested category. Here's where we find out how persistent those vandals are. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Protected again on request. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Requested where? I don't see it on here or on WP:RFP. --Golbez 04:35, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove the protection. There are some changes that need to be made. Lowtax recently wrote of the details about the falling out between him and gamespy, and there's other stuff to add. Looking at the history, only two people have been responsible for the vandalism since the beginning of the month. We can deal with stuff that light. If only Wikipedia could set some pages to be only editable by logged in users (can it?). I realise that its little work to set up an account, but these immature little twerps might feel too lazy.--DooM Drat 10:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Couldn't we just remove the protection and ban those responsible for the vandalism (that is, ban those IP adresses)?


 * Unprotecting, since Tony Sidaway failed to justify it. --Golbez 19:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, my apologies, and thanks to Golbez for doing what I should have done. The page to look at was WP:PP, since the page had already been protected previously and I'd only test-unprotected it.  Good idea to unprotect regularly and keep it unprotected as long as the editors want that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

VfD results
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Votes for deletion/Something Awful. -- BD2412 talk July 8, 2005 15:14 (UTC)

My Tank is Fight
Should mention be made of the My Tank is Fight book that Zack Parsons is writing? As can be seen in the tentative cover image on this page, it is tied back to Something Awful.--DooM Drat 01:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it wouldn't make much sense to add the book before it's been published. - Thatdog 05:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Armour plates
Should a section be written on the fundraiser SA ran for forum goon GreenMeat and his 19 platoon mates so they could get armour inserts before they went to Iraq? They had been deemed too low priority by the brass to get plates from the army. Kinda cool for SA to do. They raised the money in double quick time too. A 11 member HUMINT squad was soon attached to GreenMeat's platoon and the funding provided armour for them too. Excess was spent on care packages sent to the team. Greenmeat later wrote that they eventually got plates from the army, but were worn class 3 hand-me-downs, as opposed to the fresh class 4's that SA bought for them. [http://www.somethingawful.com/search.php?q=GreenMeat&author=&col=26 SA search page with links to relevant updates. Start from bottom.] --DooM Drat 10:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Handshake response
I feel that the handshake response needs to be included. It's not secret and is available online in numerous places (urbandictionary, for one). We report on the facts, and without the response, the article is incomplete.

Opinions? 24.4.221.149 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. By the way, sorry for reverting out your edit when I removed that vandalism today. I restored it.--DooM Drat 22:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Christ. There's two options here. Either print the question and response, or leave the whole secret question thing out altogether. I'm in favor of just leaving it out... who's with me? --Liface 20:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've been a forum member for quite a while and even I think it's silly. It's pretty non-notable now. --waffle iron 00:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll be bold and remove it now.--Drat (Talk) 00:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good, that looks a lot better now. --Liface 01:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Zipa purposefully took SA down
According to http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/39438.html:

"Something Awful, bad news. We have to take you offline for now. We have to get more OC3s back online and that's down the street. Doing what we can, people."

There's no indication that diesel fuel was the reason SA is down, currently.


 * They need all the energy they have. Fuel is how their generators produce energy. SA is down because they could not afford to expend the (likely large) amount of energy necessary to keep it running. But yes, it was "purposefully" taken down. Just like one might "purposefully" turn off the A/C in a car if its battery is almost dead. Ipsenaut 18:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone edited the article to include a vague claim that SA can be fully accessed. That link doesn't work.
 * If you are referring to my edit, the site did come back fully at one point. I even looked through an old Comedy Goldmine. Later, the site was reduced the single page it is now.-DooM Drat 22:11, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur that it was working for about 5 hours with about 300 people being on at once, all of whom were accessing it via the IP. The only admin present was fistgrrl, and then only at the beginning I believe. GBS had a few duplicate threads and a handful of closed ones which indicated that no mods or admin were to be found, but, oddly, no defacement was occuring. Also, the frontpage could be accessed by a similar, but different IP and it showed the article from September 1st.--Trypsin 11:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, while SA is still down, would it be prudent to put the locations of some of the temporary gathering places in the article as well as IRC rooms? If people are worried about security, we could instruct people to use unique passwords.--Trypsin 11:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not, so long as they're brief and confined to the "Current Events" section of the page. Lucidish 22:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiFur article - complaints from both sides of the fence
Hehe, I love it - I get complaints here that the WikiFur article is biased, and complaints at WikiFur when featured claiming that it promotes criticism! ;-p

Incidentally, being featured as Something Awful's Awful Link of the Day was one of the best things that ever happened to WikiFur. Really gave us a kick-start. Ironic, no? *grin* GreenReaper 05:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

To further explain. . . my inclusion of the link to the WikiFur article was based on the maxim that Wikipedia should represent or refer to all majority and significant minority points of view. Given that Something Awful had a "thing" for furry at one point, and had a significant effect on both the external reputation of the furry fandom and the internal reaction to any kind of linking from critical sites, I assert that the furry community's point of view is relevant to this article. A good representation of that point of view is found, naturally, at the wiki edited mostly by members of the furry fandom (including a few furry goons like Verix :-), along with many examples of activities of SA members in relation to the fandom. So that's why I put it there. It might be better put nearer the point at which furry was mentioned, but a See also section seemed a reasonable place for it. GreenReaper 06:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with linking it. But it belongs in the "External links" section and not the "see also" section (which I get the impression is just for related internal links). Lucidish 18:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tended to use See also for links to WikiFur because it is another wiki (and I have seen links to places like Meatball wiki in those sections), but if you think it belongs in External links then that's fine by me, too. GreenReaper 18:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's probably just a silly stylistic thing on my part, and doesn't really matter. But I made the change anyway.
 * Is wikicities a part of the Wiki foundation? I can't see it linked from the site under the "our projects" heading. Lucidish 18:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikicities is a Wikia project, a commercial entity formed by Jimbo Wales to try (I think) and figure out ways of running free Wiki hosting technology while still making enough money to cover costs (initially it was planned to make a search engine, that didn't work out - Wikicities does not yet cover costs, although the situation is improving). Wikicities is manged by Angela Beesley, who is also a voted member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. So there's officially no connection, but realistically there's something there. GreenReaper 19:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Anon: I don't think that adding this link for NPOV purposes is a "troll". Hard to see how it could be. Lucidish 01:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If it was a geocities you would edit it out, but because it is related to wiki you let it stay.


 * Depends on the appropriateness of the geocities page. Lucidish 19:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you bother saying to talk about this, you will never let that shitty link go away. I swear you guys are going to start to edit out. Lets add links to everyone that hates SA, like Euro and King Reol.


 * If they're significant in terms of information and a good example of a point of view held by others about Something Awful, that might be appropriate. Wikipedia isn't a link farm, but it does link to relevant sites. If only the views of Something Awful regluars are represented, that's just as bad as if Wikipeida's article was written entirely by the people at WikiFur (although in truth, several people at WikiFur come from Something Awful as well). GreenReaper 19:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right that the Wiki community "won't let it go away", insofar as you fail to present any reasons at all for its removal, let alone compelling reasons. Hence: talk about it. A start would be explaining how an attempt at NPOV is "trolling". Which, as the above shows, you have not. Lucidish 18:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is one line in the article about "furries" so I don't see why it deserves to get a link.


 * Maybe it should have more - would that be preferable? :-) I believe things like the description of #safurs have relevance and interest to those looking for information on Something Awful, but it's probably not verifiable enough to go on Wikipedia. Linking to it is a good compromise. Of course, I'm biased, but who isn't? :-) GreenReaper 07:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * An entire section on furries can be found at the SomethingAwful forums page. GR, would you object to moving the link there? Lucidish 20:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I hadn't even seen Something Awful Forums. Yes, that seems like a good idea. GreenReaper 20:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Personalities" and "rivalries" section
When I just see Shmorky's section all alone I get a "Behind the Music" kind of vibe. It might be a good idea to mark out the various writers in slightly more depth, along with a brief summary of writing style and that sort of thing. Dr Thorpe, Elpinto, Livestock, etc.

Also a reminder (both for others and myself) that there should be a "rivals" section. Lucidish 18:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Gripes
Something Awful Humor

I think its totally neat that you can get banned from the Something Awful forums for using AOL-speak or too many emoticons while its OK for Lowtax and friends to make fun of 9/11 or the tsunami. Those guys have their priorities straight. -- 24.115.48.245


 * And I was banned for voting "Mood House" a 1, defending the vote, and mocking the absurdity of the backlash. What's the moral? Nothing. It doesn't matter. By giving the cash over, you yeild to the conditions of the admins. If you ultimately think they're unreasonable, then you decline the community and move on. No brainer. Lucidish


 * If anyone else create a film with the same production values and "wit" as Doom House and put it up on their site, it would end up as an awful link of the day.


 * Probably, but who cares? Lucidish 04:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Who cares? Things only have the meaning and value people assign them.
 * Yes. And you can take that insight either as a basis for critical attack upon a meaningless comedy site, or you can use it as a basis for shrugging it off. Lucidish


 * A critical attack? I was making an observation and actually trying to make a friendly response to your Doom House story. I was not trying to "attack" the SA crew and perhaps upset them or hurt their collective feelings. Why would I do something like that?
 * Alright, I misunderstood. Sorry. Lucidish


 * Lucidish get out of FYAD please :) Jtrainor 10:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Every time I try to get out... THEY PULL ME BACK IN Lucidish 01:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's an easy fix to that [[Image:emot-clownballoon.gif]] Jtrainor 08:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Lowtax lives in the same town as me, and the guy can't even respond to an e-mail inviting him out for a beer. I guess that's the price you pay for fame or something. I figured the two of us would have some interesting stories to exchange, even though we've never interacted directly.


 * He has a kid and I doubt meeting up with internet strangers is high on his list of things to do. --waffle iron 03:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Happycat Merge
Personally, I don't think happycat should be merged with this article. It's just not relevant enough to SA, since we don't have very many other catchphrases on here. --Liface 20:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree with you. I personally think Happycat doesn't deserve its own article and that we should have a whole new secton on the SA article about its catchphrases/fads and the notable ones. Such as "Do you have stairs in your house?" or "Ban me" threads. Then again there might just be too many. Either way i'm pro-merge. Andrew Northall 23:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be put in the forums article. It's more relevant to the forums anyway.--Drat (Talk) 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. --Liface 05:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Liface isn't asian?

Controversy
The section on the controversy with eBaum's World seems one-sided to me. It's seems like an extension of ebaumsworldsucks.com and slanderous toward eBaum's World. I think a link would be sufficient. Ortzinator 18:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Specific citations please.

Retracted. --Ortzinator 21:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Something Awful Wikipedians Category
I've created a category (Category:Something Awful Wikipedians) so we can all identify ourselves. --Liface 23:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sweet. Thank you. --El Zilcho 11:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neato 8) O bli (Talk) 13:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Giving Something Awful the corporate template
I am curious, it may be helpful for some users to get an idea of how Something Awful stands out as a corporation. Afterall, Paid forum registration, Moofwear (clothing), Awfulmart items (cloths,mugs), and AwfulVideo can go along way, far more than what is needed to pay a $2200.00 bandwidth cost. I find the something awful community as sort of a proxy for what the site really is, a company. The site presses alot of oppurtunities to go shopping (if you look at the top links). I don't know if the money is given to the creators of the movies/artwork or not, but I think it'd be great (again) to have an idea of somethingawful from a corporate stand point - I believe a corporate template may be able to do that.

--Depakote 18:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not, since it is very much a business. The owner even makes a living off it. --Antrophica 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just added the template. I called it a company, as doesn't a corporation have to have a certain minimum number of employees? It still needs more info, and a logo.--Drat (Talk) 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it the grenade thing? Pacific Coast Highway |Spam me!
 * Ah, So have the template. I am not sure if a corporation needs a certain number of employees or not, but anymore information placed in the box needs to have sources.  I don't think they are publicly traded or an organization, so I don't think they are required to give out certain information (Like revenues, etc) out. --Depakote 21:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Server move
What's with this server move I've heard about? Are they changing hosts? I noticed the absence (or rather, replacement) of the Zipa logo on the site recently. Granted I don't know how long this has been going on, as I browse with images off as a habit. Does it have anything to do with... certain alleged controversies regarding one Sigmund Solares?--Drat (Talk) 05:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The servers are moving to a colocation site in Chicago. The move happened because Zipa stopped giving SA a considerable break on bandwidth fees. It wasn't anything Zipa or SA did, purely a business decision and no ill will between them. --waffle iron 07:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about "ill will" but Lowtax did start looking for new hosting right on the heels of the NO disaster. He explicitly said that he wanted a colocation service that was in a city above the water table, but he also said that he was disappointed at Zipa's decision to take his hosting down above all others during that crisis.  So, put two and two together....  --BridgeBurner 22:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)