Author Topic: Pilot Light Relaunch #3 (Read 45657 times)

CarbonCpy · « **Reply #45 on:** January 10, 2010, 11:43:37 PM »

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'234079\' date=\'Jan 10 2010, 11:10 PM\']For the record, the discussion over whether the Game Show Congress article should be retained came down to a Wiki regular saying that the legitimate points being made for keeping the article could be ignored, because they didn't come from Wiki regulars.[/quote]
Yep, and that was the argument being made by the solitary voice in favor of keeping the anime list in crucifixion, among other such gems as accusing people of having anti-Japanese bigotry. He ended up just waiting till the heat died down and then reverted the article back. It finally took spinning off a "Crucifixion in Art" article before the argument entered an uneasy truce.

You know, I've heard someone compare Wikipedia to the world's most boring MMORPG. The only differences being there's only there's one character class, people camp the "recently changed articles" page instead of spawn points, the battles take forever, and apparently leveling up is determined on how well you've passed yourself off as a PhD.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with them.

dale_grass · « **Reply #46 on:** January 11, 2010, 12:12:05 AM »

[quote name=\'CarbonCpy\' post=\'234077\' date=\'Jan 10 2010, 11:06 PM\']And this is coming from someone who's pretty sure his signal-to-noise ratio has to be expressed as an imaginary number.[/quote]
Two-thirds of a pun: P-U.

DoorNumberFour · « **Reply #47 on:** January 11, 2010, 04:15:29 AM »

Forgive me, but I just caught up on all of this.

From reading what went down on the Jeopardy board, it seems like TPH/Twentington/Bobby is just a nerd who's found something to control, since it doesn't seem like he's made much of a social dent in these forums otherwise.

It was rather painful reading what happened on the Jeopardy boards, mainly because--obscure or not--someone actually took the time to write those articles about things they're interested in or involved in. It's a great deal of hard work, done with good intentions, gone to waste. As someone who enjoys writing very much, I do not appreciate the work of passionate individuals belittled. And when you read a post like this...I mean, really? There's something wrong.

In the case of the GSC article...the Game Show Congress is a very real, very relevant pillar of our genre as it stands today. We're a bunch of people who maintain an interest in old game shows. They are a facet of broadcasting that the major media players have refused to acknowledge more and more as time goes on. The GSC is really one of the last vestiges of a time when a great deal of people, whether in the TV business or not, appreciated the genre and its qualities as much as we do today. It's done immeasurable good for so many former stars, producers, contestants, and fans like us. It is symbolic of our collective passion, and our drive to preserve what's left of what we love. It's worth a damn Wikipedia article. Read about past events, guests, awards!

The GSC is worth a lot more than you may think, and in the long run, it will be more relevant in the genre's history than any little bullshit squabble about its Wikipedia article.

mmb5 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 11, 2010, 09:02:23 AM »

Since this has devolved...

To Twentington: I will admit at first I was ignoring your pleas because frankly last year, at a time when I needed as little BS in my life as possible, you added to it. Admittedly, a Wiki page is not something to get overly upset about, but you hurt a friend of mine who has devoted a significant amount of resources both financial and personal to a project other people enjoy. And because of your actions, you not only cost me and others grief, you cost the Wikimedia Foundation itself, because I declined to donate this year because I could not support a group that condoned your behavior.

Let me tell you this personally but I hope others who are in a similar boat see the same message. Being sarcastic, petty and pedantic will hurt you in the long run. I have lost friends, missed professional opportunities and hurt others because at one time this is the way I acted. It is only recently that I have truly seen some of the actions of 10-25 years ago can still have ramifications today. It will put you in a place you do not want to be in, and it will be much harder to crawl out of the longer you stay.

When the GSC page was put up for deletion, and I had to quickly learn about the process, I figured to myself what would be a convincing way to prove its "worthiness", even though I really shouldn't have had to. I figured I would research other fan-based "con" conventions, specifically ComicCon. The 70s version of ComicCon is probably where the GSC is today. And then I stumbled across this page, a list of science fiction conventions, some of which haven't been held for 20 years. I figured that would be enough to seal the deal.

However, being a neophyte to the system, it wasn't, and the GSC page was deleted. Now, the old me would have then put up every single comic-book con page up for deletion, all the way up to ComicCon. However, being older and wiser (mostly older), I just said fine and moved on. It obviously means something to someone, and I shouldn't hurt anyone else out of pettiness. Somebody worked hard on those pages, and it shouldn't be my call on whether those pages live or die.

It's a shame, really, because Wikipedia could be something really special. Instead, it's become a haven for pedantic politics and certain pet hobbies over others. TV station pages littered with effluvia over theme packages, logos and horror hosts. A place where the information about the TV series Angel has more depth than the actual historical concept of an angel. And just plain creepiness. It would be nice to actually one day use Wikipedia as a bona-fide source of information, but we're nowhere near that yet.

Basically, Bobby, if you want to be liked around here, and it's obvious that is very important to you, think positively, and don't take it the wrong way if nobody responds. Not everything ever said here or anywhere else requires responses.

--MIke

mmb5 · « **Reply #49 on:** January 11, 2010, 09:04:41 AM »

And to revolve it...

I should have more in the next couple of days. Spent waaay to much time researching one of them, but that's part of the fun.

--Mike

clemon79 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 11, 2010, 11:58:59 AM »

[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'234092\' date=\'Jan 11 2010, 06:02 AM\']Basically, Bobby, if you want to be liked around here, and it's obvious that is very important to you, think positively, and don't take it the wrong way if nobody responds.[/quote]
One more thing, kid:

You've burned an assload of bridges. You're not going to win everyone back, and you have nobody to blame for that but yourself. So when you find out that some people aren't going to turn around on the subject of Bobby Peacock (and I'll give you three guesses as to who is right at the head of that list), you're just gonna have to deal with it. Trying's just gonna make it worse.

I'm reading a Cory Doctorow book right now where the main currency of the society is your esteem in the eyes of others. He calls it, for no reason at all that I've discerned yet, "Whuffie." As in "I pinged his Whuffie and was surprised to find it was off the charts."

Yours is negative.

I really do think you would be best served here just by moving on. As, to someplace else. Seriously. Start fresh with other people. Maybe you'll learn from the mistakes you've made here. I doubt it, but maybe you'll prove me wrong.

Twentington · « **Reply #51 on:** January 11, 2010, 11:16:41 PM »

Okay, first off, my sarcasm was uncalled for.

I have been trying to gather sources to rebuild the article on the Game Show Congress. However, I can't find much of anything other than a.) self-published press releases and b.) articles that say "Game show personality X won the Y award at this year's Game Show Congress" without mentioning GSC anywhere else in the article. But wait, what's this? Where was that last time? What about the mention in Bob Harris' book? That might be useful!

Oh yeah, and there's this. Deletion review. Actual effort from me to see if we've got enough to call for an un-deletion. I think it actually has a chance, myself, but I'm taking it to deletion review so it can be restored to its last form before deletion, and then built onto from there.

TLEberle -- I actually have tried being witty on this very forum before. Nearly every single time, the responses were along the lines of "You just don't know how to be funny, do you?" I'm really not that different in real life than I come across on the forum: constantly cracking "jokes" about everything, spewing sarcasm whether or not it's called for, and usually when it's not. As I said, I'm really no different on any other forum, but just because everyone else tolerates me doesn't mean that this forum is to blame.

Clemon79 -- you have a point. It's obvious that even when I make what I consider a "good" post, it doesn't really go over well at all. So maybe what I need to do is just stick to reading posts unless I have something really important to say. For instance, I tried out for Wheel of Fortune back in November; when I get on the show, of course I'm going to make a post about it here.

TLEberle · « **Reply #52 on:** January 12, 2010, 12:18:11 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'234103\' date=\'Jan 11 2010, 08:58 AM\']He calls it, for no reason at all that I've discerned yet, "Whuffie." As in "I pinged his Whuffie and was surprised to find it was off the charts."[/quote]The 'Pedia article (oy, the coincidence!) says that it is in fact a made up word.

But we all have a Whuffie-meter for every person we contact. If someone on the board is funny, thought-provoking and insightful, the whuffie flows like coins from a slot machine. If they ramble, can't cut/paste properly, overdose on the punctuation or S P O I L E R S P A C E, or are generally a pain in the buttocks, their-W count drops like a rock. And I do treat people differently depending on my perception of them at that particular moment. I do it with people in my off-board life too. I think each of us does.

I don't think there is enough time in the universe for Mr. Peacock to dig himself out of the hole, and that doesn't even take into account that I think he should lose 2x the whuffie for continuing the hissy fit after we all told him how to get back on the straight and/or narrow.

clemon79 · « **Reply #53 on:** January 12, 2010, 01:44:26 AM »

I am amazed (but unsurprised) that "Whuffie" has its own Wiki entry.

/which I only glossed over - I don't want to have it spoil something in the book

mmb5 · « **Reply #54 on:** January 12, 2010, 08:36:32 AM »

[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'234156\' date=\'Jan 12 2010, 01:44 AM\']I am amazed (but unsurprised) that "Whuffie" has its own Wiki entry. :)

/which I only glossed over - I don't want to have it spoil something in the book[/quote]

The irony of having a Wiki page about a fictional concept by a minor science fiction writer in one book as opposed to tangible event that occurred seven times (GSC) or over 1,000 times (Quizbusters).

--Mike

clemon79 · « **Reply #55 on:** January 12, 2010, 12:08:10 PM »

[quote name=\'mmb5\' post=\'234162\' date=\'Jan 12 2010, 05:36 AM\']The irony of having a Wiki page about a fictional concept by a minor science fiction writer in one book as opposed to tangible event that occurred seven times (GSC) or over 1,000 times (Quizbusters).[/quote]
And yet, he's still here.

Don Howard · « **Reply #56 on:** January 12, 2010, 12:31:08 PM »

[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'234145\' date=\'Jan 11 2010, 11:16 PM\']Oh yeah, and there's this. Deletion review. Actual effort from me to see if we've got enough to call for an un-deletion. I think it actually has a chance, myself, but I'm taking it to deletion review so it can be restored to its last form before deletion, and then built onto from there.[/quote]
.....until someone rubs you the wrong way again. I must confess, I'm way skeptical about your seeming attitude change taking root. I hope I'm mistaken.
In the meantime, until the Congrefs page is restored, be reminded of what you've done every time you see my sig in a posting of mine on this forum and within the Jeopardy! Forum.

Matt Ottinger · « **Reply #57 on:** January 12, 2010, 01:24:12 PM »

[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'234145\' date=\'Jan 11 2010, 11:16 PM\']I have been trying to gather sources to rebuild the article on the Game Show Congress. However, I can't find much of anything other than a.) self-published press releases and b.) articles that say "Game show personality X won the Y award at this year's Game Show Congress" without mentioning GSC anywhere else in the article. But wait, what's this? Where was that last time? What about the mention in Bob Harris' book? That might be useful![/quote]
As I've told you before, the fact that you are uninterested in or incapable of finding sources really shouldn't be the determining factor on deletion. Meanwhile, you seem to already have forgotten about this one. And there have been others. How many more do you need before your answer is no longer "just need one more"?

[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'234145\' date=\'Jan 11 2010, 11:16 PM\']Oh yeah, and there's this. Deletion review. Actual effort from me to see if we've got enough to call for an un-deletion. I think it actually has a chance, myself, but I'm taking it to deletion review so it can be restored to its last form before deletion, and then built onto from there.[/quote]
The main problem, of course, is that all of this would have been unnecessary if you had behaved like a game show fan in the first place. Rather than asking for suggestions or help, which you would have gotten, you took unilateral action and even went out of your way to try and circumvent the usual process so that it would happen faster.

It's sad that the two of you who instigated this, and now have the most control over it, both insist that the criticisms are coming from people who don't understand how Wikipedia works. We understand it just fine. We simply know how screwed up it is.

chad1m · « **Reply #58 on:** January 12, 2010, 02:33:32 PM »

[quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'234145\' date=\'Jan 11 2010, 11:16 PM\']I tried out for Wheel of Fortune back in November; when I get on the show, of course I'm going to make a post about it here.[/quote]When? Maybe it's just me but the use of that word seems to continue this vibe I get from you that, for some reason, you have this sense of entitlement with so much. If you acted at the audition the way you act on the internet (which, by your own admission, seems to be the case), you'll be lucky if you don't get a ban from Sony Pictures Raymond-style.

Then again, Wheel has always seemed to be the show most interested in the assclown type so maybe you're perfectly qualified.

Don Howard · « **Reply #59 on:** January 12, 2010, 02:49:46 PM »

[quote name=\'chad1m\' post=\'234183\' date=\'Jan 12 2010, 02:33 PM\'][quote name=\'Twentington\' post=\'234145\' date=\'Jan 11 2010, 11:16 PM\']I tried out for Wheel of Fortune back in November; when I get on the show, of course I'm going to make a post about it here.[/quote]When? Maybe it's just me but the use of that word seems to continue this vibe I get from you that, for some reason, you have this sense of entitlement with so much.
[/quote]
He's entitled to a foot inside his ass and nothing more or less.
There's a quote closely associated with Anne Robinson and with George Gray, Bobby. It applies to you. Shame on you.