Talk:Ben Going

Untitled

Talk page entries previous to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_16 can be viewed in page's edit history. Ichormosquito 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this article

1. I'd recommend removing the line "Most of Going's videos are shot with a Creative Webcam Ultra. He has edited them using Windows Movie Maker and Adobe Premiere.[10]" .. the tools that these people use aren't part of their essence. He could use any other camer and software and convey the same message.

2. Recommend removing Stickam mention from the YouTube section. "Stickam has credited Going for bringing 1,000 new.. " because grammatically it has nothing to do with YouTube.

3. Fix grammar of "Going contributed with Barenaked Ladies to produce a music video" I believe he submitted his content which was used by the barenaked ladies. I don't think he produced the Barenaked ladies video.

4. "He was one of the first twenty or thirty YouTube.. " - suggest removing 'twenty or thirty' as it's vague-speak.

5. I recommend that the articles in the 'Youtube Celebrities' list have the same look and feel. ie: paul robinett's page doesnt have an 'off Youtube' biography section, and relevent biography info is already listed in the top right box.

Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.112.64 (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Done. I thought that information might be useful, and utility might have been enough of a reason to keep it if we were writing a Start Class article; but I now think B Class might be possible.

2. I think that bit could stay if it were rewritten to convey its context in the Stickam press release. Stickam gives special attention to Going, but the point of the press release is that popular YouTubers have helped expand Stickam's user base.

3. That needs to be rewritten for clarity.

4. I changed the phrasing to "twenty to thirty", which is slightly less vague. Unfortunately, there isn't a reliable source with a more exact count. I ripped "twenty or thirty" from a New York Times article.

5. That Going waited tables is relevant according to the article's reliable sources. The other stuff is questionable, but harmless. There isn't much of it, either, so the article is not affording it undue weight. And I don't agree that we should aim for consistency for consistency's sake; but in the interest of making Ben Going as good an article as possible, a better template than Paul Robinett might be Christine Gambito.

Thank you for your suggestions. Feel free to work on the article as you see fit. Ichormosquito 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

Lacking specific objections to the article's content, I deleted the neutrality templates. Ichormosquito 04:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

in addition, Ichormosquito, you also deleted various concerns of neutrality on this talk page. which i believe is against the terms of service for wikipedia. these are all genuine concerns. unclear why you moved and removed talk page. sorry if critical discussion of bias articles are interfering with your "Current mission: to flesh out YouTube's presence on Wikipedia" TomSkillingJr.

I cleared the previous talk page to avoid confusion. Except what you voiced in response to them, none of the removed talk page entries falls under the description "concerns of neutrality". They were posted before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_16, when this was still a deleted, protected article. Until you cite actionable instances of bias, I will keep removing the templates. Ichormosquito 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peacock tag

There aren't any peacock terms. If you are referring to the AP quote, it establishes notability in the face of a veritable ocean of similar, less notable YouTubers. Ichormosquito 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Fansite"

I read it again, and the only thing close to fancruft might be the Vegemite stuff. It's independently noted by two sources, though.Ichormosquito 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod delete

Someone needs to remove this tag; it's been removed twice already. According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, that's one too many times. Ichormosquito 02:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

expert, bias, POV talk Ichormosquito

review has been established. this page needs expert attention as Ichormosquito is attempting to block a review Sexyorge 03:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

article on vlogger needs a clear review by peers. While the "consensus" for deletion was addressed, various users and contributors comments were censored and removed. Terms like sockpuppet and meatpuppet were used to dismiss contributors who clearly stated their opinion on the status of boh3m3(Ben_Going). This article lacks Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on several levels. I am asking for a review / expert attention on Ben_Going, as well as wikipedia peers user:Ichormosquito who is trying to vandalize this review, article and harass me personally regarding this topic/debate. Thank you. I do have further arguments, however wanted to keep this on review/topic and to the point. Sexyorge 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not try to block a review. Editors can check the edit history. There wasn't a review, so I removed the templates. Ichormosquito 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• sorry i lost my password. anyway, here is the deal

• http://www.boh3m3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2162

"Over the next few days, Wikipedia should allow editors to work on Boh3m3's entry. It's been protected in order to prevent further editing for a while now; but I'm fairly confident I can bring it back, at least temporarily. Since I don't know as much about him as some of you do, I'll need your help.

Boh3m3's deleted page

Page undelete discussion

We might need to write an article off of Wikipedia first before handing it to admins for approval. If you want to get started now, keep in mind nearly every bit of info must be sourced. Ideally, any pictures must be taken by YOU or signed off on by their creators.

EDIT: Page is back. We still need a picture of boh3m3 that has been signed off by its creator for noncommercial use: see the licensing information under Smosh's or Barats and Bereta's picture for a better idea of what I'm talking about. Pictures you might have taken of him at "As One" are acceptable."

— ichormosquito post on boh3m3 personal forum

---

that is my entire argument on why the article is bias, advertising and needs review. Heideggger 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with recruiting experts to help write an article. If one looks at the deletion review and my 6 post history at boh3m3.net, any objective viewer will excuse me. Nothing bad happened. Did I recruit people for the AfD? No. In fact, his detractors had meatpuppets in spades. Stop taunting me and read up on WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Ichormosquito 22:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

i apologize for any confusion. i must be in the wrong, however there is a tendency for you to lash out at anyone that disgagrees with you in a civial way. i read up on Wikipedia:Five_pillars and i'll take your good faith that you meant the "best" when you actively promoted boh3m3 and other youtube celebrities for wikipedia in order to "flesh them out". consider checking out ethics. regardless it's clear this needs further review Heideggger 22:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow

well Heidegger - that forum thread is very telling - and when ichormosquito said in the thread "Wiki admins can be bitches" - i personally felt very offended.. someone who thinks that way doesn't deserve an account on this fine site. Shoopshoop 18:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins often have the same opinion of each other; so long as they don't express their opinions here, and I didn't, they're in the clear. Please stop adding this nonsense to an article's discussion page. Ichormosquito 20:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I also want to say "sorry" to any admins who see this; I didn't know what I was talking about. Ichormosquito 02:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to say a lot worse to bother me. (smile) Personally, I don't think comments off wiki, short of actual threats, should affect what we say or do here. The reason we don't use forums as sources is because people say all sorts of things--that's their very purpose. Here, in contrast, we're supposed to be responsible, and to edit and judge articles on their merits, not on who supports or opposes them. DGG 05:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

vanity

I haven't been active in the community for several years, but this is obviously a vanity article. Call me a deletionist if you will, but this is retarded. --TonySt (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Is this Youtube user even all that significant? I went to his page, and he's not in any top 100 viewed/subscribed lists. If he ever once was, he surely isn't anymore. Do we really need a Wikipedia page for every person on Youtube who makes videos? --Richjenkins (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to knowingly and blasphemously necro this talk page, but I strongly agree with this.

Specifically, it's comically saturated with stuff like "Stickam has credited Going for bringing 1,000 new users to its video networking website hours after he advertised his presence there on YouTube" and "...he went on to adopt a vlogger personality that has worked to give him over 44,000 subscribers and a top spot on YouTube's Most Subscribed list."

I mean COME ON. I think it would be best if we put it down for good.

Being the devil's advocate, I suppose an article such as this would be a shining example of "extremely horrible" and thus would be a good education tool. I found it while browsing the list of stupid article ideas, and it is indeed a very stupid article. Maybe that's why it's still up? Eh.

For the record, I think it should be deleted (or at least archived in some way).

Wetsocks3499 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a list of stupid article ideas? This is news to me. Also I wish people in these talk page discussions would be nicer to each other. It's hard to stay motivated and be myself as a newcomer to Wikipedia when all I can think of is how not to provoke hostility from my co-editors. Definitely scary stuff!! Sruthijayanti (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ben Going. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070223084559/http://www.nypost.com:80/seven/11122006/business/video_venom_business_peter_lauria.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/11122006/business/video_venom_business_peter_lauria.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070911051046/http://www.adweek.com:80/aw/iq_interactive/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003494877 to http://www.adweek.com/aw/iq_interactive/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003494877
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090307104020/http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=4b3PkL8HQcw to https://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=4b3PkL8HQcw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ben Going. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14869770/site/newsweek/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15227651/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618050941/http://www.savetheinternet.com/ to http://www.savetheinternet.com/

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) 16:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)