Talk:Tosh.0: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:24, 28 January 2010

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tosh.0. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tosh.0 at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Comedy Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The introduction sounds like it's a promotion of the show, Tosh.0. It should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.12.210 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it links to the right Mike Gibbons. That is, unless zombies are allowed to be executive producers nowadays. --76.117.110.236 (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree, i have removed the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.42.117 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need several more "no sources" banners on this page. I didn't notice till... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.100.182 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the style of...

Currently the page states "In the style of Web Soup. This seems a bit inacurate considering Web Soup was developed completely independently and actually started days after Tosh.0? You could argue it's in the style of the original Soup show, or that around the net segment of Attack of the Show, but considering it started before and has signifigantly higher ratings than Web Soup, the description seems wrong. If no one objects, I'll change it. Iarann (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Page is about to get Covered in Shit Edits

On his show today the Tosh guy invited his viewers to edit the Tosh.0 Wikipedia page, and announced that he's going to read the funniest edits next week. Just giving you bros the heads up. 8bit (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected in violation of policy

From Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection :

"Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred,"

So why is this page already protected when there has been no vandalism? kenj0418 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was vandalism, you just can't see it. It's been deleted. Q ^{T C} 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw vandalism before the lock was applied. Check the page history. 8bit (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An accurate but unsourced description of his wardrobe, a good faith typo that causes a problem with the citation displaying, and a the addition of a trivia section. Boy, is it just me or has the quality of "vandalism" really declined in Wikipedia recently?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't reverted. It was deleted. You won't find it in the history. --Onorem ♠Dil 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Onorem.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He asked us to vandalize it. I swear! user:waterygrave

While that is true, he does not own this page. If there were facts/information on this page that he wanted removed, then he could do ask for them to be removed. But he is not allowed to ask people to vandalize "his" page. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What Mr. Tosh asked for really doesn't matter. Articles aren't left open for blatant vandalism just because someone affiliated with the topic asked for it. --Onorem ♠Dil 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but what then exactly are you protecting? The article is barely a stub and one would think that a comedy would have a little more leeway for levity. Why not let it run it's course and let the "cooler heads" amongst edit for veracity, while preserving the comedic nature? waterygrave —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is so supposed to be an encyclopedic page, and thus, is not meant to have the type of edits that he asked for. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man... Some people here are just asking to be ridiculed on a basic cable channel. Anyway, here's a thought that will likely get shouted down: Why not leave it open for a couple days, let the people have their fun, then close it and revert it to it's present status? Shostie (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Why not let people have some fun? Waterygrave (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a free for all. I love the show and watch it quite often but cringed when he brought up Wikipedia last night and made the comments. Protecting the page was the right thing to do in light of the situation but the justification for a protect on grounds of BLP is not the right reason IMO. Nefariousski (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the Admins of this entire site feel entitled to "rule" as it were the information that goes into the site. You all do realize that the site was created for anyone to edit anything, which is why reverts and deletions were created. now instead of anyone editing it admins and editors protect the pages so that they are the only ones who can change it . . . some open community. I agree with the user a few entries further up, let the edits happen and as soon as Tosh has his fun, revert to today and re-lock the page . . . BOOM problem solved; people would stop complaining, and the uptight admins can continue to make diamonds with their ass cracks, everyone wins.

Should be perma-protected anyway

Seeing as this is a WP:BLP-related article, the page should be semi-protected indefinitely until flagged revisions are implemented. JBsupreme (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this wp:BLP related? it's a TV show with a host. Are we now considering every talk show or hosted show as falling under the umbrella of WP:BLP now? That's news to me. Nefariousski (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 :::Because Wikipedia is not a free for all.  I love the show and watch it quite often but cringed when he brought up Wikipedia last night and made the comments.  Protecting the page was the right thing to do in light of the situation but the justification for a protect on grounds of BLP is not the right reason IMO.  [[User:Nefariousski|Nefariousski]] ([[User talk:Nefariousski|talk]]) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
+::::Why do the Admins of this entire site feel entitled to "rule" as it were the information that goes into the site. You all do realize that the site was created for anyone to edit anything, which is why reverts and deletions were created. now instead of anyone editing it admins and editors protect the pages so that they are the only ones who can change it . . . some open community. I agree with the user a few entries further up, let the edits happen and as soon as Tosh has his fun, revert to today and re-lock the page . . . BOOM problem solved; people would stop complaining, and the uptight admins can continue to make diamonds with their ass cracks, everyone wins.
 ==Should be perma-protected anyway==