Talk:The Sports Junkies

message: Lurch has died of Aids?
Where is Lurch?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.189.90 (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: WTF?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.32.192.33 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did the Lingo Go?

message: Could someone please update the poker open table for Last week's Junkies Poker Open 3? Players: 365 First Prize: $28,000 Winner: Andrew Phillips
I sure would appreciate it.
-- User:Protoculture  —Preceding comment was added at 04:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poker Open Update Request

message: Okay, so some donkey decided that the lingo dictionary didn't belong on this page, and instead he gave it a page of its own. Fine. But then the Wikipedia Gods came along and deleted it, so the options are either putting the definitions on this page, or not having it at all. So it's back. You obviously thought it should go somewhere, and apparently the only place it can go is on this page, so don't remove it again, ricky. -- User:Jeff Smoker
I agree with Jeff Smoker, let's see the lingo section back...it's at least helpful for those not familar with the show in understanding what they are saying half the time. --MMAJunkie250 (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Junkies Lingo is Back!

message: While I can appreciate the humor as a local and loyal listener of the show, this article as it is written in the style of it is now, is not suitable for this environment. To the authors of this article, might I suggest copying the article as it currently read and keep the humor, and then move it to Encyclopedia Dramatica. However, might I commend you on your recent article clean up. It's a start. :) -- vi 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth vs. Funny

message: I would question the neutrality of this article, and would suggest it be cleaned up much more.
K-lit 11:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who put up the tag? It has to be explained, otherwise it's erroneous and needs to be removed. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality?

message: I removed all the material that was potential libel or blatant POV. More cleanup and/or citations still needed. If any of the potentially libellous material is added back it should be deleted on sight. Brian 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the POV has been removed, then I'll go ahead and remove the tag. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential libel

message: Why did some donkey ruin such a a good thing?  The Junkies themselves would come on and look at the page and laugh at what was written.  Whoever decided to flag this article must have a small Jersey Number and has no idea what the Junkies are all about.  A once great thing has now been ruined forever.  Thanks, Ricky!
Betaboy78 17:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously 

message: I'm sorry, but I was not aware that the Junkies ran wikipedia. Their show has nothing to do with this website, so there's no need for anyone to listen to their podcast.
What was written in this article has NOTHING in common with what wikipedia is about, and violated several of wikipedia's guidelines and policies. It was not written in NPOV, it was not factual, had racial epithets, and was full of libel, to name a few. Try and get familiar with the guidelines of wikipedia before assuming you know the Spirit of Wikipedia. Everything here was nothing more than a way to mark out and hope to be mentioned on the show. It was all vandalism. 
:Wikipedia's policy on vandalism
:Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
:The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.
::Wikipedia's policy on biographies on living persons
::Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:
::* Verifiability
::* Neutral point of view (NPOV)
::* No original research
::We must get the article right.Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006 talk pages, user pages, and project space.
I can't find a policy that encourages adding things that you think are funny and libelous because the Junkies tell you to. On top of that, have you missed the talk page where at least 3 different people cited the issues with this article? The Junkies message board is moderated and is not a free-for-all, why should this be? Your arguments holds no water. Angrymansr 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop Complaining

message: I have moved the list of junkies lingo to it's own page. The list was much longer than the article itself. This was my first attempt at this, so if anyone knows how to improve this move please feel free to do so. Angrymansr 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Junkies Lingo

message: What happened to this page? I know it was separated theom the main article but now it looks like it was deleted enitrely. What was the reason? It was a great resource on the copious amount of in-jokes and terms the Junkies use and was likely the largest collection of these terms in one space. --12.156.195.3 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what happened  
Angrymansr 19:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd. It's a huge component of the show. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the AfD discussion, junkiesradio.com has a glossary. A link to the glossary is definitely appropriate. A few definitions with the link are debatable. A wholesale dump of the glossary is not. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell not? Do you still have a 14.4 modem and the page takes too long to load? Honestly, who cares if the article is a little long, as long as the information is complete, accurate, and easily accessible all in one place? The Junkies' website(s) are tough to navigate and infrequently updated, and they can't keep pace with the new lingo. I'll say that again, very slowly: The lingo information on the website is inaccurate and out of date. The information here is far better, so leave it. And if posting a link to other sites is sufficient, why not just get rid of the whole article and just put links to the Junkies' bios on their other pages? Do you really want to know what this is about? It's about a bunch of nerds getting off on controlling Wikipedia and giving it "standards" that no one who doesn't live in his mom's basement gives a crap about. Let the fans edit this in peace, and stop ruining a good thing. --Jeff Smoker
Where did Rick.Felt go?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.Felt (talk • contribs) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junkies Lingo 

message: Hyping their upcoming "Naughty Schoolgirl" Junkette search, the Junks have been saying they only have 4 active Junkettes, at the moment.  So the page is definitely wrong.  But I don't know which four.  Can someone help out here? David in DC 03:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Junkettes?

message: The Junks are using it correctly, according to Urban Dictionary.  Compare http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jones with http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=joneDavid in DC 18:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jonesing vs. Joning

message: I'm considering adding something to the opening that identifies what this show is about.  The show is essentially four men, rapping about sports, women, pop culture, early fatherhood, and friendship, oftentimes in a crass but harmless way.  If I knew nothing about the show, I'm not sure I get that after reading this article.  A good opening should deliver what this show is essentially about, because a reader expects (and deserves) to get a sense of this very early.  Any thoughts?--Lindsay 01:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Be bold David in DC 06:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, save for the "rapping about sports" bit. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 08:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: I think this article could do with a sentence at the top which mentions the British comedy film The Junkies, written by Jane Bussmann and David Quantick.
86.130.137.106 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation req'd 

message: Since the Junks are no longer broadcast in Baltimore, does the intro need to be changed from Baltimore Washington metro area to simply the Greater DC area? Thoughts? Angrymansr (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be adjusted?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on The Junkies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811114553/http://www.junksweb.com/news/EEVkupZZVEUrBMqOug.shtml to http://www.junksweb.com/news/EEVkupZZVEUrBMqOug.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130205033451/http://www.csnwashington.com/show/table-manners-junkies to http://www.csnwashington.com/show/table-manners-junkies
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I listened to the Junkies when they first got on WJFK in the 90's. Their real first time slot was either weekends or doing the Redskins post-game show, but they did both before they got moved to the weeknight 7-11pm slot. 216.212.113.196 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real start of the show