Talk:Oozinator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on September 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Overt Sexual Detail

I belive this article goes into overt sexual detail unnessecarrly and as well as being bias in the article. Condidering that this is half the article, with links to mastrubation, etc. While I understand it may be a good to include this in this article it should not be the primary focus of the article as it is now.68.18.8.84 22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. By and large all the information on this toy has been about its inadvertant sexual innuendo. For example, here's a clip by the Onion AV Club[1]. For another example of a similar product backfire, do a Google search on the Nimbus 2000 (here's one piece from the Seattle Weekly[2]). --Bobak 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe keep the sexual stuff (the source of its notoriety) but put it in a seperate heading entitled Controversy or something Somaticvibe 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Best article evar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.85.30 (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That clip's not from the Onion AV Club, but rather some other group called the "AV Club". They have different logos. 71.123.95.142 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC) John S.

I find it stupid when it said the black child is getting more sperminated than the rest. People are taking god damn race so seriously. It makes me pissed that they get angry just for something as small as that. Were all humans we are no different. As for that toy. I wish I can do it in 1 pump and get it all over my enemies. And once i drench them in my "ooze" ill go to the bank to refill and come back a "ooze" mountains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.6.29 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self Promotion

The online comic link isn't noteworthy at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.252.23 (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Controversy

The Controversy section is a bit weird. It seems to be building towards a criticism that the advert encouraged anti-socia behaviour amongst children, by referring to the various kids who get shot with the "ooze" as not having water-guns themselves. Then it suddenly drops this thing in about "money shots". What's the relevance of the children being "casually attired", and the only other squirt-gun seen not being a Hasbro? 172.141.167.167 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)