Talk:Kevin Ray Underwood

message: I see absolutely no justification for including links to friends of an accused murderer who have no notable connection to the crime. In fact, I find it highly objectionable and potentially libelous. And links to Google and Usenet searches? Be serious. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, please. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have this absolutely backwards. Wikipedia is not a crime investigation. Links on the chance that they contain something notable is wrong, because they are not proven to be notable links. Links that provide notable information, once verified, are acceptable, but they should be provided as sources and not as generic "hey invade this person's privacy" invitations. Have some common sense, and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd go even further.  I'm not sure there doesn't need to be a particular politic for this sort of thing, since it's become so popular in the American media.  By politic I mean a more rigorous restriction on content.  Passionate proclamations wil lbe galore.  To keep maniacs like me from writing nonsense into the article indirectly and subtly, let's have a set of rules regarding what ought to be kept out.  --VKokielov 02:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term you want would be a protocol. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 16:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friends section 

message: The transcript of his confession is available, and answers a few of the questions in this discussion page (KoL, etc.), would it be possible or advisable to post it?  74.182.230.140 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcript

message: I have provided tags on this article to alert other editors to issues that can help make it a better article. It needs to have a more appropriate tone, exhibiting a NPOV about whether the individual in question committed the crimes for which he is accused, and preferably citing specific crimes with which he has been charged and citing statements that have led to those charges. Secondly, sources should be cited in articles like this one, even if only a single inline link:  so that we know what is being said is backed up. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 07:29, 18 April 2006 VKokielov (rv. You shouldn't express yourself on Wikipedia talk pages on hot subjects. If ou do, the talk page becomes a discussion, and the real subject - viz., the article -- becomes lost.)
:Wikipedia is one of the most public places for dialog in the world, at least it's the only one *I* know of.  While this may show an architectural deficiency in wiki, it nevertheless probably should be addressed by adding a new section to talk pages (optimal) or at least keeping the conversations in-line on the Talk pages.  Otherwise, I feel you should rename 'Talk' to 'Meta data' as that would far more accurately describe them.
:This is a serious matter and the piece you deleted seemed to be a fairly serious note that you deleted.  *I* certainly wouldn't want to have on my hands any guilt about what happened if I were to delete something like that.  Maybe the reason that you did so is in itself indicative of a cold culture that breeds killers, or at least pushes them over the edge? — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I would start citing rules at you, which is by every custom whatI ought to do.  Instead, let's try to see what Wikipedia is.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia isn't a Usernet forum.  In particular, *opinions* don't have any place on Wikipedia.  You've expressed your opinion on that blog.  When you come to Wikipedia to flaunt it, you're not only singling yourself out for attention, but also neglecting the rules established by this community in order to keep the focus.  If nothing else, to heed these rules is to take the first step against more Seigenthaler debacles. --VKokielov 14:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here: Wikipedia:Talk page#Wikipedia-specific information. --VKokielov 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JC! I was only pointing out how Wikipedia could evolve into something more than it is...if Edison had believed those people who said candles were bright and long-lasting enough we'd all be worse off.  It's O.K. for things to grow, so — please — temper the vermicitudes! — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You weren't.  You were answering me for acting up.  Now I say I should have acted up.  If you look carefully, you'll notice that I edited myself afterwards; if you look even more closely, then you will see I have done it precariously, because the sentence I have taken out justifies the contents of the sentence I left in.  --VKokielov 04:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No dialog? 

message: Can anyone find any more information as to why Rep. Burrell tried to link Underwood to Kingdom of Loathing, of all things? I've been  playing that game for nearly two years now, and this is the first serious action I've ever heard of any player. This has simply stunned our community. How any link could be made to the game simply baffles me, as it's just a friendly community in a game full of pop culture satire and off-kilter humor. Why anyone would want to sully its reputation with an isolated incident like this is beyond me, and I'm sure the rest of us on KoL would like a bit of closure on that facet of things. --Antipode 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online Presence 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Is the gallows available for him or will he eat and dwell at public's expense for 30+ years? The article says nothing of it. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Execution or  just life in prison? 

message: In late September there was an edit made by user:GiantSnowman that took out direct quotes made by the Purcell, Oklahoma Chief of Police, David Tompkins in regards to the Underwood case and cannibalism.  The reason being is that since Underwood never ate his victim, that the quote is somehow misleading in regards to whether Underwood is a cannibal or not.  What was quoted was Underwood's plan and INTENTION'S, for which case there are plenty of resources and ghits as to what Underwood had planned to do if he was not caught.  Since what was deleted was a direct quote from a police chief, and from someone who was intimately involved with the minute details, I am planning on undoing that edit.  However, I will give a couple of day's to give everyone a chance to opine, and see what comes from a consensus.  
A few articles and links supporting the argument of Underwood's plan to cannibalize:
*Underwood confession video WARNING: Very graphic.  Underwood admits intention to cannibalize.
*Underwood found guilty Fox News article detailing Underwood's guilty verdict, which further describes testimony given in a court of law detailing the murder as a cannibalistic plot.Chris Hawk (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The information, however disgusting, is relevant to the article, if it can be properly cited to reliable sources. I'd rather see a cite to an actual written source, rather than to television station coverage, especially something as sensationalistic as a local FOX News affiliate. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 16:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After giving several day's for a consensus to be rendered, I think enough time, and the able opinions of those who commented this section points to the inclusion of the cannibal quote in this article.  I will be adding the quote in, and I plan to cite two printed news articles and Underwoods own words in his confession video.  I will give a few hours to see if there are any objections before I do this.  Chris Hawk (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of direct quotes and "[[cannibalism]]" 

message: Someone has been posting that Underwood was a *member* of the Church of the SubGenius. Membership in the church costs 30 dollars and Underwood never remitted his fee. I have reverted the edit making him a member, by merely saying he was NOT a member and someone may want to re-word that. He DID post to alt.slack and there is a link to the Book of the Subgenius on his blog however, and if those facts are deemed noteworthy then by all means someone can write it up. Having answered a few of the guys posts myself several years before the murder, there is a VERY EERIE tendency of his to maneuver the conversation towards cannibalism. Underwood stopped posting in alt.slack about 3 years before the murder citing the fact that the church wasnt satisfying his *spiritual needs* and that a lot of the posters on alt.slack seemed unhelpful. AnkaraX (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: None of this is encyclopedic content or relevant to the article. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SubGenius Connection