Talk:Virginia Tech shooting/Archive 3

message: ABC news should be having an updated report at 6 p.m. (eastern time) so the website should have more information as well...you know, just so you all are aware.
: We on top of it--Kwan-Trill 21:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New information

message: (Vinoo202 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CNN is reporting death toll at 33 including shooter

message: I just watched a special report on this and the number has gone up to 33. CNN still says 32, but abcnews.com is saying 33...should we wait or what? EDIT: when I say 33, i am including the shooter just as the article does. KSL 
:I was also a bit confused by this. I believe the toll is 2 dead at the first incident, 31 dead at the second incident. 33 total (INCLUDING the gunman) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.216.237.83 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well, someone changed it to 33, which seems to be the most recent count so it worked out KSL 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of dead now 33

message: Someone has edited the article to read "over 9000 have been killed." Please fix this. Its not funny. 
Is there anyway of getting an admin to supervise the page and to ban the registered-users who are making these stupid edits. SeaFlat 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some pinhead just put 9000 on there again 156.63.134.4 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrible Vandalism

message: Claims killer was looking for girlfriend http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1260892,00.html 69.119.239.138 21:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw Fox News report the same thing earlier this afternoon. --Bdj95 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sky News Claim

message: Why is the bomb threat information in the article if there has not proven any correlation between the two topics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnkus9889 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is relevant to the topic.Akubhai 19:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see the relevance, unless a link can be shown. Dnkus9889 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We attract vandalism like flies on things like this, it can't really be helped. The good part is that we also attract fly-swatters. That was nuked by an anonymous user, and I then nuked it again, a couple of minutes before you posted. --Kizor 19:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb threats 

message: Not a priority, but the references need to be formatted with  129.120.86.145 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged ... Templates may be used ... subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. (see Wikipedia:Citing_sources) - O^O 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest leaving it for a couple of days. At the moment, we have our hands full making sure the citations are not repeated, and the cite template is harder to handle. (Or is it? Anyway, not right now.) --Kizor 19:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless what format is used, publisher info, retrieval dates, and more need to be added. Again, not a priority, just a suggestion. Cheers! 129.120.86.145 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: reference formatting

message: zh:弗吉尼亚理工大学校园枪击案 thanks
*Done! Halo 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: can you add link to Chinese wikipedia

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Perhaps we'd be serving everyone better by thinking about what has happened here, and why—rather than debating semantics, numbers dead, etc. And, if you fancy yourself a reporter, there is Wikinews. –Outriggr § 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but seeing this is a current event, and there'll be some arguments about leads and what not. However, you've gotta be accurate, seeing Wiki is visited by like, 8435389 people daily. Deletion Quality 19:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We have no idea why, of course, at this point.  Numbers and such are all that are available.  --Xyzzyplugh 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Guys, just be careful- even though your intentions is to provide accurate information, you must understand that this event has just happened. Be considerate, and sensitive in your posts- even if it is just for discussion. Say what you want to say, but just remember- choose your words wisely. 84.112.5.251 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a news service 

message: The BBC has just said 32 dead and the shooter was a student, no links yet I think.Stevenscollege 19:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC News 24

message: I personally think that this should be moved to "2007 Virgina Tech Shootings", but I know that since this is a current event, all info here is critical, so I want an OK to do that before I move it. Karrmann 19:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read above on this page, this article is currently Move Protected, so you won't be able to move it.  (Unless you're an admin). --Xyzzyplugh 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is moved, it won't be to "Shootings" with a capital S.  As for the year, if there is a consensus here to move it, an admin can make that move. --BigDT 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I agree and I can move it, but it's such a heavily edited page right now, I'm reluctant to do so... ugen64 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's true too ... it may be a good idea regardless to wait until overnight tonight. I think there are several possibilities ... 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, or the non-dated versions of both. --BigDT 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought it was protected from anon editing. Well, after the majority of this event has passed, then it should be moved. Karrmann 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I am very suprised,I mean this article is an event that just happened today, and yet already has more than 500 edits plus a discussion page that has already been archived,all at a time when most people should be at work or school.I dont even think too many tv stations are even reporting on this now, and if so then only as breaking news.Is this acctually going to top the Columbine High School Massacre in terms of notability (which by the way the anniversary is 4 days away) ?Rodrigue 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching coverage online all day.  News stations are all reporting it.  President Bush is going to address the nation on it in 20 minutes (4:15 eastern time).  CBS evening news will be broadcast from VT tonight.  I'd say it's a pretty big deal. --BigDT 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In much of the northeastern US, schools and workplaces are closed. personally thats why I can be on, and I'm assuming thats one cause of the influx of people. TheGoogle 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is Patriot's Day 156.63.134.4 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also now the deadliest school shooting in US history, which counts as notable. Natalie 20:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Extremely.  --  Zanimum 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: This page is linked from the main page and as a general rule, pages linked from the main page should not be s-protected.  Given that it is getting an edit every 5-10 seconds, the risk of vandalism not being reverted pretty quickly is low.  Would anyone see a problem with removing the s-protection? --BigDT 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try and see what happens.  We can always semi-protect again if necessary.  --ElKevbo 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree, its not really needed now. TheGoogle 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyone else see a problem with an edit every 5-10 seconds on a protected page? In principle, yes this page should not be protected but do we really want to see all the edit conflicts and vandalism that will occur when there's two edits a second? In fact, I just got edit conflicted right now. Gdo01 19:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the s-protection.  If severe vandalism returns, any admin may feel free to reapply it with my blessings. --BigDT 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that sprotection has been put back in place by someone.  --Xyzzyplugh 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By me. There were several redlink users and IP's adding bad information in. There's edit conflicts enough. We can unprotect later tonight when this cools off a little. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages linked from the Main Page can be protected. The rule that you are referring to usually applies to TFA. ITN headlines can be protected, if necessary, and given the heavy volume of edits to this article, protection seems justified. Nishkid64 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Looks like no one is reading the older comments.  For someone who is more knowledgable about copyrights, can we use http://flickr.com/photos/cipherswarm/51049252/?  It is of the actual building in the article. Akubhai 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think also that is a goog Idea to use the photo of tha actual building. TheGoogle 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a pic.  Hopefully i did the copyright stuff right. Akubhai 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: READ the links you've offered as evidence of an Asian gunman. Only ONE of them mentions his possible race, and then only that one eyewitness said that he was asian.  Moncrief 19:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is coming from an audio interview here  with one of the people who was shot who claims the gunman was a asian man.  (We have this reference in the article already) --Xyzzyplugh 20:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: WDBJ is reporting now that there is some confusion about that point.  The widely circulated photo of an Asian guy being handcuffed on the ground.  But as it turns out, he was actually a photographer from the Collegiate Times who rushed over to get pictures after the shooting started - he was not the shooter.  But they still said the shooter is an Asian, just a different Asian.  At any rate, I don't know that it's an important fact - his race has nothing to do with the shooting. --BigDT 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, it's not confirmed information and is only corrobarted by one eyewitness so far in any link offered in the article. I'd say take it out at this point.  It isn't information that's being conveyed in the mainstream media.  Moncrief 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The other problem with "Asian" is that it refers to a region in the world.  Is an American with Chinese grandparents who only speaks English "Asian"?  If so, why?  It's a word with POV built into it unless it describes someone from Asia. At this point, that the identity is entirely conjecture is a good reason to omit this.  Moncrief 20:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word Asian also identifies an ethnic group (or rather set of ethnic groups). Ben Finn 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should his race even be mentioned in the article. His name and age is all that should be included when it is revealed. If we should include race, I guess we should put that down on the Columbine article too.Colemangracie 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear! If the shooting was done by a white guy who killed himself in the end, the media would not think it important to report. I do not believe the shooter's race is necessary, at least until it's confirmed. Even then, I find it weird that people feel the need to point out non-Caucasians. SkittlzAnKomboz 22:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Asian man" 

message: When? this says 4:15, FOX says 4:05 Jordan042 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's on now. Rdfox 76 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now he is done. That was fast. --BigDT 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ABC News said on their live feed that he was first going to speak at 4:15, then 4:05 PM. At 4:01, the reporter was saying it was a minute to 4:05 and he was about to speak. However, it wasn't until four minutes later, 4:05 on my clock here, that he actually came out and spoke. And he spoke for two minutes because he wrapped up at 4:07. -- annonymous 4:32 PM 4/16/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.201.84 (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  President 

message: Yahoo! News is calling this the deadlist shooting, period.  They're comparing it to the Luby's shooting several years ago, which occurred in a restaurant, not at a school.  216.234.128.8 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree since "school shooting" would be a sub category of "shooting" incidents in the US. It seems that it should just read as the deadliest shooting period. Cheers--Tom 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WDIV also reported it as teh deadliest shooting ever, also. Karrmann 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadliest "school" shooting

message: Someone keeps reverting to the 24 hour clock concerning timelines on this article. The 12 hour clock should most definitely be used here as it is an American article, a country that prefers the 12 hour clock. If no objections are brought here, I will restore the 12 hour clock and it should stay. John Stattic 20:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE restore it to the 12-hour clock, per Wikipedia policy on regional English preferences.  Moncrief 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the majority of the general public does not refer to time in 24 hour increments (like Europe and other areas of the world). From the average American's POV, 12-hour time is much easier. I've spent significant amounts of time in France, and I still have to take a few minutes to read the time over there. I say keep it at 12-hour. SkittlzAnKomboz 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: SIGN your posts!  Moncrief 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 hour vs. 24 hour clock 

message: http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/picture_gallery/0,,70141-1260911-3,00.html
the identity of the shooter is not confirmed, it is disgusting that wikipedia immediatly report directly from foxnews. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.113.51 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, AND MSNBC. --Kizor 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple news agencies, not just Fox News, are reporting that the man is asian. dposse 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's not the shooter, however. Deletion Quality 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The arrested man in the Sky News picture is alive.  The gunman, according to news reports from ABC, BBC, and Fox, is dead.  They can't be the same person.  Abe Froman 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This  is the original source of the claim that the shooter is asian.  --Xyzzyplugh 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shooter is not asian, foxnews reporting based on this picture 

message: There is a large difference between "the largest shooting in American history" and "the largest school shooting". I added a Reliable Source per WP:A that states that this is the largest school shooting in american history.  "A lone gunman is dead after police said he killed at least 21 people and perhaps more Monday during shootings in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech -- the deadliest school attack in U.S. history." Please, stop removing it. dposse 20:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:A is no longer policy. Further, this is the largest CIVILIAN shooting in american history, school or otherwise, this is from yahoo.com, and further, reliable sources are now reporting 32. We are reverting you because the information has updated. That's how wikipedia works. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's core content policies." Um, i think you should read the page again. WP:V and WP:A are the same thing, and they both are still very much the core policies of wikipedia. I provided a RELIABLE SOURCE from a news agency that updates its article every few minutes, and it's saying that it's "the largest school shooting". Would you like me to come up with four or five other sources that say the same thing and post them here? dposse 20:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ATT is a "proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process."  --ElKevbo 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "school shooting" 

message: The article is not reflecting certain changes in the article history because the wikipedia database has not caught up. Be aware of this. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Database is slow 

message: This language seems off to me:  "It is the deadliest civilian shooting in American history, surpassing the Columbine High School massacre.[14]"  It implies that the previous deadliest civilian shooting was Columbine, and I know that's not the case.Chunky Rice 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the deadliest US school disaster: New London School explosion 156.63.134.4 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: An associate professor of Engineering whose name I did not catch claimed that at least two professors had been shot, including one in the arm and another in the face.  He said he heard "at least 40" gunshots, "probably from a handgun".  Hope that helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casey-amn (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPR Report 

message: number 3. is the comparison between past shootings and this one, please move it down towards the bottom, its not important enough to be in the middle of the article --Joe Goss 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'll move it now if nobody has an objection (it can always be moved back if need be) TheGoogle 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparison  

message: A great deal of controversy is beginning over the alleged lack of warning given to the students after the first shooting incident. Persons interviewed on several news programs have said that they witnessed students going to and from classes as they would normally as late as 9-10 o'clock, about two hours after the first incident.
Is there a link for this news source? Deletion Quality 20:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comes from a live interview broadcast on Fox News.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I am fairly sure I also heard it ON THE LIVE BROADCAST from FOX News today... Vegetaman 20:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a NY Times source from the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cnd-shooting.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp "Kirsten Bernhards, 18, said she and countless other students had no idea that a shooting had occurred when she left her dorm room in O'Shaughnessy Hall shortly before 10 a.m., more than two hours after the first shootings."Akubhai 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Links

message: Virginia Tech's spokesman just announced 31 dead including the shooter in the second incident, and two in the first, for a total of 33 dead overall, in the press conference.  Rdfox 76 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press conference 

message: If we decide to include a controversy section, should we include information on the gag order (restricting information or comment from being made public.)? This order has created trouble in the past, most notably from Columbine. ThirdPoliceman 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gag Order

message: What's with the NPOV tag?Chunky Rice 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. That NPOV tag has no relevance to the section. If anything, a reference tag should have been added. Nishkid64 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: "Two students were injured after they jumped out of a third-story window of West Ambler Johnston Hall attempting to escape the gunfire.[1] All classes for the day and the following day were canceled.
...
...
Eyewitness reports indicate that two students jumped from windows upon realizing that they would soon be targets of the massacre. These two students escaped, as did several others who were interviewed by news sources who arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting had ended."
shouldn't that be kinda meshed together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violask81976 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumping out of Windows overlaps 

message: I think mini-massacred would be a very adequate term to define what happened.  Maybe people who are still arguing about shooting versus massacre will be happy with the compromise.
**Mini-massacre is not formal, and besides: how does one decide whether 32 people dying is a massacre or 'just a shooting?'ThirdPoliceman 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Massacre seems to be too POV at the moment. If it becomes known as the Virginia Tech Massacre, then the article title could be changed in the future. For now, I think it should remain as "Virginia Tech shootings". Nishkid64 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing POV about "massacre" whatsoever.  Countless reliable sources refer to it as a massacre, just as Columbine was a massacre.  Your presentation of this issue as an NPOV problem is disingenuous. Italiavivi 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mini-massacre sounds silly, like an indie rock band. Natalie 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mini-Massacre 

message: Thoughts on changing this to ""by a currently unidentified gunman" ? It reads better and will no doubt be updated soon. I would be bold but am locked out of my real account at the moment....  !!Pedro |  Chat   21:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have logged in and done the bold thing. Pedro |  Chat   21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Lead 

message: Is 'comparison' the best title to use for that section? It seems a bit blunt. As much as I believe in NPOV, we are talking about people's lives here. -- Vince 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  How about Other Shootings?  Not sure what would be less blunt, though... κaτaʟavenoTC 21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is preferable. Or perhaps "Comparison to other Shootings in the US". Just something more than the cold-sounding 'comparison'. -- Vince 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison 

message: I heard 32, but I don't think we should tally the total yet, as not all victims are accounted for. Also some numbers have been printed ridiculously high (such as 9000 or 264) which could not have happened.68.81.252.24 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 9000? 264? That could have been a result of vandalism to the article (I'm assuming you saw those figures on Wikipedia). The Virginia Tech website reports 33 dead, including the gunman. There's no way to stop editing the article like mad (unless I fully protect it, but there's no reason to do so), so the tally changing will continue. Nishkid64 21:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's like on 9/11, the first estimates were way higher than the actual amount. TheGoogle 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite where these alternative figures are from. It's as relevant to cite unreliable figures here as to cite reliable figures within the article, to help future editors. I have seen no reports of 9000 or 264. Pedro |  Chat  
Those statements were from Wikipedia itself. But they aren't true anyway (there weren't even 9000 people in there probably.)68.81.252.24 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Number 

message: Something about this paragraph seems unencyclopedic to me. I'm stopping myself from doing away with it completely. Maybe someone else can come up with something better? --Elliskev 21:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's libelous... Just unencyclopedic, sensational language. --Elliskev 21:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicholas Macko paragraph 

message: It looks like journalists are starting to question the decision not to close campus after the first shooting. Additionally, they criticise the fact it took two hours for the students to be notified a shooting had taken place.
I think we should restore the "controversy" section of this article.
An officer at the PC also confirmed the gunner had taken his own life. 
-- Ishikawa Minoru 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Press conference

message: *EDIT* (removed rumored information)
The information about the gunmen's identity hasn't been confirmed by any official source and shouldn't be listed even on a talk page until it is. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, you think you might want to provide a source with that? Moncrief 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shooter ID? 

message: Can someone clean up the references?  The VT newspaper site is in there three times from what I can tell.Akubhai 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's moving so fast that edits that take more than a few seconds are very, very difficult.  I tried to clean up some of the references and gave up for now.  --ElKevbo 19:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yikes! I'll give it a shot. Remember, ElKevbo: fast, trained thrusts. Stick to subsections if you can, and be prepared to cut-and-paste once or twice. En garde! -Kizor 19:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it's a little cleaner.  Collegiate Times and College media are the same site for now.Akubhai 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I tossed Kizor an Editor's barnstar. Funpika 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Where did that part go?
Did somebody delete it without discussion or something? TheGoogle 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The edit summary called it redundant. I picked it up but was busy with the references. --Kizor 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see TheGoogle 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I edited to delete the vandalism but the db is not recognizing the edit conflict. Both reverts are not the intended one. Too much editing going on I guess. Had a hard time posting this. --I already forgot 21:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean, edit conflict after edit conflict... TheGoogle 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My reverts

message: Taking in account that he used semi automatic nine mils, can anyone give an estimate of the amount of mags he carried around? (also taking into account the wounded and probably missed rounds) Billtheking 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A typical magazine for a high-capacity nine would hold 15 rounds or so.  Magazines can, of course, be reloaded. Friday (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be orginal research and couldn't be included in the article.  It would also be pretty hard to estimate since you don't know if or how often he reloaded his mags, nor do you know how many people he killed per bullet. - O^O 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, though it's an academically interesting point. --Kizor 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of magazines used

message: I'm not breaking the guidelines, but I think people who make such foolish statements on such a serious subject should be banned.
:not banned, a warning would be good. TheGoogle 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we please get an admin to monitor this article and maybe tempban the registered-users who persist in vandalizing the article?  Rdfox 76 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks as though someone is taking care of it. At least a couple of users have temp bans. Pthorson 21:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zombies nonsense 

message: On the news, they said that this is the deadliest shooting incident in US history (bath school incident not included, since that was a bombing, and not a shooting). Can someone add that. I heard it on CNN.
:Hold the hyperbole. I think there were a couple of worse shooting incidents during the Civil War. Maybe during the Indian wars as well and  during the Dakota War. Maybe stick with shootings of civilians by an individual in stating the scope of the claim.   Edison 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadliest shooting in US history