Talk:SWATing

I have seperated the legitimate 911 calls because the reporting of swating and swated seems haphazard. Wikipedia uses the strict definition of crank calls but a looser definition might include calls where no real threat exists and the callers motive is suspect Hamster (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope. The entry in the To Do list was about the "pranking" practice, not the application of SWAT, police overreaction or botched 911 calls. If you want to write about something on those topics, create "SWAT", "militarization of police", "police brutality" or something like that.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Good addition

I just wanted to say I'm glad this article is getting covered by RW and I'm glad to see the work put in. Disgustingly, there's even more sources that could and should be baked into this article. But for the record - this beyond lame trend needs to be called out. Thumbs up, RW. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I restarted this page a few days ago since it got deleted a while ago, and I'll admit I'm the one to blame for not properly citing sources (I'm not even taking all the credit for the work in this page, as it was Ryulong who rewrote the page into RationalWiki-speak); I was in a rush to get the page out that I copied most of the Wikipedia article, even in its Neutral Point of View, into this page, and hoped that people would help me out making this snarkier against pranksters. It's not perfect. So I'll go ahead and add the missing sources in a bit.

But yeah, I see it takes only one person to get a lot of people working on a project, it just needs to be started properly. Unfortunately, laziness takes on all of us, as there are pages out there in the RationalWiki that haven't been updated in years. This page, in fact, used to be an extremely small stub before it was erased. I had to move my butt to get people working again. So for you, Black Percy, go out there and create an excellent new page, and hope people will continue working in this wiki. Thank you. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ten-four good buddy. Though, I'm one of those truly insane people who both start and "finish" an article all on their own. (I don't really mean finish; I love when people help and edit and work on it with me and debate me on its many twists and turns). I've yet to save changes, but yeah. I'll be fun to see people's reactions to it. Think 100,000+ letters, easy. And, so far, 120 sources. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It'll be done. Though we still have to thank Ryulong for also moving the page to SWATing (one t) along with its "edits." That was very tedious. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, to be clear, the thing I'm working on isn't for this article, I'm not giving away which one it is to prevent chaos. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And a thank you to Ryulong. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism

Let's leave this out. It's only ever been mentioned in that one citation on the Wikipedia article you copied over Dandtiks. Yeah, it gets thrown around a lot in Gamergate circles, but it's not in any of the actual press yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. If I find something like it in a law book I'll show it here in the talk page for consensus. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's exposure

This is more of a minor thing but we need a snarkier tone that will help differentiate this article from the slightly-higher-quality version in Wikipedia. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

You copied it from there and I rewrote it. Their version was kinda shit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It was shit because it was neutral! But still, our version isn't as different as it can be. I just checked and Wikipedia's version feels bare just reading it, if not redundant altogether. But we could still use some good old snark in here. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)