Jump to content

Talk:Bob Ross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.136.244.242 (talk) at 14:24, 15 June 2017 (→‎The "Ross at his easel" picture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Requests for comment: Indefinite semi protection

ADMINISTRATIVELY DECLINED
As stated at WP:RFPP, a local consensus of editors cannot override community-wide policy on the use of protection. There is no justification for semi-protection at this time, and as such the request is declined. However, I have extended the pending changes protection on the article indefinitely, or until such a time that it is requested to be removed. Thank you for your understanding. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This page is a vandal magnet. For some reason Bob Ross and connected subject The Joy of Painting (When one page is protected the vandals just hit the other) Pending changes in this situation is just the same as no protection, we're just as busy reverting pending bad changes. I move that Bob Ross and connected subject The Joy of Painting be set to indef-semi protection. I think these pages have shown substantial justification for permanent protection, so I'm here hoping for consensus. Note:A link to this discussion has been left at The Joy of Painting Mlpearc (open channel) 15:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: I've been to RPP and got these results Bob Ross request, Bob Ross reply, The Joy of Painting request and lastly The Joy of Painting reply which is totally fine, I have no problem with KrakatoaKatie call. I just want to try and gain consensus for indef-semi for these two pages before returning to RPP Mlpearc (open channel) 18:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you luck, but they don't grant indefinite semiprotection almost ever. Coretheapple (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Many articles seem to have the same solution, these pages were surly getting the same onslaught of vandalism. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection It seems odd to have this under semi protection but since its receiving relatively frequent vandalism I wont oppose such action. Fraulein451 (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Can't say I've ever ran into this type of RfC before but an indefinite protection will save users time and the hassle of reverting continuous vandalism. Meatsgains (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose indefinite semi-protection, but support temporary semi-protection, reverting to pending changes after a minimum of a few weeks. Good golly, from the comments, I feel like there's a class of person out there (or one really ornery person hopping IPs) whose mother expressed interest in Bob Ross just one-too-many times and the child never got over it; someone ought to tell them to keep it mellow, like some cadmium yellow. Anyway, getting to the point, I can see how this would be vexing, but the fact of the matter is that pending changes are presently keeping the vandalism from reaching our readers. That means that when we are contemplating page protection we are directly weighing the costs of excluding the contributions of good-faith IP editors against the wasted time of registered users. I'm satisfied to resolve that balancing test in the favour of our autoconfirmed contributors, but I can't see excluding well-intentioned but non-registered editors from the article indefinitely just for the sake of convenience to the rest of us. I'd like to propose that we try the semi-protection for a limited period of time (six weeks, maybe?) and then go back to pending changes and see if the clueless IP vandals have wandered away in the meantime. We might even get lucky enough to be able to remove the pending changes protection thereafter, though given the bizarre nature of the fixation of this/these vandal(s), I'm not going to hold my breath. Snow let's rap 05:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Snow Rise: The page has been semi'd or PC'd off and on for months and you want satusquo ? That won't help at this point. Mlpearc (open channel) 14:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as Core told you above, you're welcome to take the request to WP:RFP, A) the actual method for making this request, and B) something you would have to do anyway, even if a huge number of editors had responded, all supporting this extraordinary measure. But I'll also join Core in saying that you shouldn't get your hopes up. Indefinite protection is almost never applied, anywhere on the project, being seen as inherently at conflict with the principles that this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and that it is generally not in the best interest of an article to remove all IPs from contributing to it just in order to forestall edits from vandals. It has generally only been considered (and generally rejected) in the case of high-traffic and highly controversial topics with massive numbers of editors and disruption which is exhausting the broader community's energy to contain. Here we have an article with either one (or a few) number of (admittedly persistent) vandals whose efforts are presently being completely contained by the pending changes mechanism. I just don't think you're going to get the outcome you seek. Which maybe is why you sought support here first, to bolster that request, but I for one just can't see supporting scaling up from pending changes to an indefinite lock-down; I just don't think it reflects the balance of interests here between vandals, other IPs, registered users and (most importantly) the needs of the article. But what I can do is stick around to help respond the pending changes queue. Snow let's rap 21:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh, so now I understand the origin of all of this: see the Bob Ross entry here. That goes a long way to explaining how this all started. It also reinforces to me that this is a temporary state of affairs; meme-influenced trolling can stick for a while, but it does eventually fade. Snow let's rap 21:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old page history

Some old page history that used to be at the title "Bob Ross" can now be found at Talk:Bob Ross/Old history. Graham87 16:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob meets Bill

I'm not sure what the rules are for self-reported research, or whatever, but I discovered while reading this article that I might have something to contribute to the history of Bob Ross. Like bob, my father served a 20-year hitch in the Air Force (except my dad was an officer). From 1963-1968 he was stationed at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska, where I spent my preschool through grade three years.

Sometime around 1967 I have a vivid memory of my family attending a USO-sponsored painting show held in a local rec hall on the base. There were only about 100-200 people in the audience (that number might not be accurate, since I was only 8 years old at the time, and memory of a kid is not always reliable). We sat on folding chairs sat up in a semi-circle around the painter's easel. I remember that the artist was an older gentleman who spoke with a distinct accent, and he painted rapidly while talking to the audience in a soft, gentle voice. I did not know it until reading this article, but that painter must have been Bill Alexander! And, moreover, Bob Ross must have been in attendance in the audience with us, which is where he was almost certainly exposed for the first time to Bill Alexander's painting style! The artist painted several pieces, which were then given away to audience members from a drawing (unfortunately, we didn't get one).

The article states that Bob first saw Bill Alexander's style on Bill's tv show - but in the article about Alexander, it says he didn't have a tv show until the 1970s. I am quite certain that Bob first was exposed to Bill, and first met Bill in person, during that painting demonstration at Eielson around the year 1967. If someone wants to use me as a source for the article, please feel free to do so. And please contact me if you want to talk about this. --Saukkomies talk 15:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ross at his easel" picture

Though probably not really important to the average reader, but probably rather important to a Bob Ross fan - - - the picture/photo is BACKWARDS ! ! !

Is there any way that can be corrected/flipped?

Just curious. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know on the show, Ross is usually to the left of the painting, but this probably a staged publicity photo. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

who cares

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016 for Bob Ross artical

The change I request to be made is to the Commemoration and pop culture section of the article with the edition of a fact. The fact is about a parody of Bob Ross and his PBS show the Joy of Painting in the Family guy episode Fifteen Minutes of Shame.

This is my proposal for the addition:

Bob Ross was featured in the Family Guy episode Fifteen Minutes of Shame, Peter Griffen is watching the PBS show The Joy of Painting and supposedly following his instructions to paint a landscape, however it is revealed he has painted the Keaton family from NBC's Family Ties in a parody of that show's opening titles.

Here is the source for the addition:

  • S. Callaghan, “Fifteen Minutes of Shame.” Family Guy: The Official Episode Guide Seasons 1–3. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. 86–89.

Thank you for considering this edit and have a nice day.

Lord Akira otafuku (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. -- Dane2007 talk 06:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Seems to be non-notable trivia. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bob Ross. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ASMRtists probably does not apply

No mention of the practice anywhere on the article (actually, same applies to two of the other three artists in the category).

181.115.9.117 (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before Bob Ross Became the Guy Who Painted The Happy Trees

[1]

References

  1. ^ Kowalski, Annette; partner, Bob Ross' business. "The Real Bob Ross: Meet The Meticulous Artist Behind Those Happy Trees". NPR.org. Dann Hajek. Retrieved August 29, 2016. {{cite web}}: |first2= has generic name (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

Under "Commemoration and Pop Culture", note that the video "Back to the 90s" features singers who dress up like Bob Ross and mention him in their rap about memorable elements of 90s pop culture. [1] 72.214.170.233 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcUG8GYbrxM
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

For inclusion in the pop culture section: On November 7, 2015, season 5, episode 22 of My Little Pony: Friendship is magic featured the character of Discord appearing as Bob Ross and painting a scene of Sweet Apple Acres, a place in the show. Later in the episode he briefly appears as Bob Ross again but this time painting a portrait of Twilight, another character in the show.

References: http://mlp.wikia.com/wiki/File:Discord_appears_as_Bob_Ross_again_S5E22.png https://www.reddit.com/r/HappyTrees/comments/3rxx68/bob_ross_homage_in_todays_my_little_pony_episode/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic_episodes#Season_5_.282015.29 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4534338/ Masonmouse (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2017

In May 2017,Hirez studio released a Bob Ross skin for the character Sylvanus for the popular MOBA game Smite Xapekuck (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 14:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Ross. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Ross&oldid=785804198"