Talk:Ben Going

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
  • No consensus, 13 June, 2007, see AFD1.
  • Unprotected to allow for editing, userspace version moved in, 16 April, 2007, see DRV.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

"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)

[edit] 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)