Talk:TV.com/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Hi, I am User:Muchi. For some reason I can't login in either Game Spot and TV.com, it always says that the combination of my email and password are invalid, and when I try to request a new password it doesn't work either, this is happening to me about one week. I tried to email them but they I haven't got any answer from them, as they probably haven't even read it. And from what I know TV.com has some technical problems with their website as well. I hate TV.com Bring TVTome back It someone can help please tell me.

Well, this probably isn't the best place to ask either. Maybe you have the account with another e-mail address so that is why the passwords are not going to your inbox? • Thorpe • 07:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

maybe User: Muchi's right you hate tv.com so do i we hemand bring it back at bight User: Telekan1 2:46, 25 September 2005 UTC

Quick question

• How long does a person stay banned on TV.com?
• Another question...how do you level up on TV.com?
• what time does the repeat happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.193.174.123 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Geographical/language coverage

This article should say what TV programmes the site covers. I couldn't see an explicit policy on About TV.com or anywhere else on the site. The site is run by a company based in the USA and some of the content (eg listings) is heavily US-centred but I'm not sure how coverage of US English-speaking programmes compares with other English-speaking countries. There are some British shows but these may be ones that have been broadcast in the USA. Within the USA it seems only to cover the English language - I tried a few Spanish-language shows from the USA and couldn't find any of them on TV.com. I've added "the site covers television and focuses on English-language shows made or broadcast in the United States" but please improve on that if you can. -- Andy Smith (talk) 14:25, 21 October 3000 (UTC)

TV.com

TV.com is a superb site, and I don't know why anyone would want TVTome back over this site. It is awesome.

No it isn't. Tvtome didn't have all those bugs and pop-up and evil mods. Andrew120 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I know a friend who has appeared in several TV shows and have repeatedly tried to update his personal info (i.e. birthplace) but the editors there keep rejecting his entries, despite the fact that he provided undeniable proof that he is, indeed, the actor mentioned. He told me that many other actors and actresses have a similar problem too, because the mods there don't recognize the fact that these "real" actors might want to add some information to enhance their section on the site. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 00:00, 21 March 2158 (UTC)

Wrestlingfan4life 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC) i can't agree or disagree but i don't know why your complaining the levels...um that is so damn childish i dont even like the levels what is the point of it.

Original Research

Having no references or sources, the entire criticism section is suspect. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a place to put your personal complaints about subjects. If there are no objections, I shall remove this entire section in a week's time. -- Perfecto 01:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If no one cites relevant references or sources, I shall remove this entire section in a week's time. Remember, opinions are not facts, and facts are not opinions. -- Perfecto 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Objection- I am a former editor for TvTome, now retired due to Tv.com's practices. When the change went through in June, I was missing 2 months of info from my guides. We're talking info from first of April to the first of June. May sweeps material. That stuff was lost by the engineers, and they didn't bother to replace it or give an explination. When I confronted the modirators on it, I was shunned from the Forum, and quickly banned within a week. I quiestioned their decisions, and I was removed for it. Plus, I know of several editors who were banned from TvTome the day before the transfer. They were singled out as people the staff did not want operating there. I can't vouch for the entire article, but I will defend the material I know to be true on there. And I guarentee if you leave it up and wait, you'll get several others in here posting how horrible the site is, and how true that info is. --GenuineMind--

I sympathize, but I belabour you to read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Please cite verifiable or reliable sources to guarantee the information to stay. Thanks. -- Perfecto 03:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment- No offense, but how are we supposed to catalog, reference and research things that happened behind the scenes when the site was first starting? Especially when we know for a fact no one at Tv.com or Cnet will verify any of it. And since they won't verify, they'll push to have it removed at any cost. Think of Cnet as Enron three years before the scandle. Do you think any of them would have admitted to wrongdoing without the printed evidence? If you can't trust the very people who were involved, who can you trust? Deleting the info on this site would not only put another nail in the already buried coffin, but would show that a small group of people can dictate history any way they wish. And again, no offense, but you will have helped them. --GenuineMind--

WP:NOR is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Wikipedia is not here to report things first. Especially for controversial subjects, reliable sources are all you need for verification and avoiding revert wars. Cite a source and we're okay. -- Perfecto 03:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment- And I guess you can't count people who were actually there, people who can verify they worked there, have emails and posts to show they were ignored and banned, and evidence on the webpages themselves to show info was lost. Considering the situation, and the fact that it's a bad website with a corrupted server, how much more official can you get? --GenuineMind--

Emails, posts? Where? Do you have the URLs? -- Perfecto 04:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment- First, missing info. Check out the following guides from April-June of 2005. CSI, CSI Miami, Law & Order SVU, The Shield, The Simpsons, Will & Grace, Numb3rs, ER, Lost, and any other primetime show running new episodes between those two months. You'll find missing and inaccurate information listed on ALL epsidoes during this period. Why? Because updates were still being made to TvTome after the sale. Anything beyond the annoucnement and before the final day was lost and deleted by the engineers. PROFILES TO EXAMINE: ReachOut, John_Q_Public, Batman_Beyonder, Mr.Murdock, and Shadow just to name a few. Hard working editors who questioned the site's stability and loss of info, were either banned or left due to problems. The first two profiles you'll clearly see, they were still posting when banned, and eventually left their goodbyes in the only spot they could.

http://www.tv.com/users/John_Q_Public/profile.php http://www.tv.com/users/ReachOut-TvTome/profile.php http://www.tv.com/users/Batman_Beyonder/profile.php http://www.tv.com/users/TvTome_Murdok/profile.php?fpage=jnl_entry.php&board=17250&topic=137719 Are you going to tell me all this is just a cooidence? You want email, I'm going to have to ask for a private area or an email from you. I'm not posting that info up in a public place. Need more profiles, I can get them. --GenuineMind--

There you go. At last. What I ask you to do now is insert your links in the criticism section, like this [1] and this [2], where appropriate and proving your fact.[3] (I tried to do it, but I realised I had no idea what the issues really were.) FWIW, the exercise will help you identify fact from opinion. When you're done, please remove the {{original research}} tag. Thanks. -- Perfecto 05:15, 13 December 3878 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, I thought of visiting the TVrage forums, and I took a peek at what you guys are doing -- nice place you got there.  :) Good luck, guys. JQP, care to create an account?

• objection- First, sorry for deleting the warnings on both pages. I kept changing info from a copy and paste I had from before they were up. My bad, I'm very sorry! Now, everything posted up there is true. Former TV.com editor here, been removed because I complained too. I don't see CNET or TV.com providing you with any paperwork or websites or sources to prove it isn't true. If they're so confident it's a lie, where's their info? Plus TVrage has not been removed from Wikipedia yet, but they keep sending people here to specifically delete the link to it's Wikipedia page from their Wikipedia page. They don't delete every link like IMDb or TV IV, just the one for TVrage. Want proof there's a war between websites? There it is! If that's really John Q, he's completely right. He is one of the few honest people left from the old days of the Tome, and if you were removed the way he was, you'd be doing everything you could to make sure people knew the true story too.

• objection- Is citing peopple posting their opinion about why they were banned really "proof" that their opinions are fact? Is that really citing verifiable or reliable sources? "No offense, but how are we supposed to catalog, reference and research things that happened behind the scenes when the site was first starting?" Ummm, that's the whole point of having to prove what you say, isn't it? Otherwise it's just a small group remaking history. Here's some cited shows from the specified period that appear to have complete information: Lost [4]; ER [5]; CSI [6]; The Shield [7]. Funny, they look complete. So much for "evidence on the webpages themselves to show info was lost." Now, watch a small group of people try to rewrite history and claim cover-up... -Richard Corvus-

• Objection to above objection- Looks can be deceiving. A check of the info and addition dates and logs will find that the majority of the information from Lost was added AFTER the sale. That is, if they will provide those logs. In other words, it was not the original information. And if it was, it was added after it was deleted. ER has been taken from a fansite, also added after the sale. CSI's information is mostly pooled from CBS's material, in which you do have a deal with Viacom. Again, added after the sale. And finally, you weren't so clever with The Shield. You picked the very last episode to have any data added to it at all (which I might add, has little info). Click the NEXT EPISODE button, and it will take you to the next episode "A Thousand Deaths." Except for the cast added from IMDb, it's empty. Click to the episode after called "Judis Priest", also empty. Click the next episode "Ain't It A Shame." Some info, but all of it taken from The Futon Critic months ago, after the sale. Click the next, and we find you have no info for Season 5, which I might add, starts in 3 weeks. Plus, you decided NOT to include certain shows on my list. You carefully reviewed and picked shows that looked full of info from TvTome, when in reality you have empty episodes or material added after the sale. I have to agree with the no-named guy above you. I'm providing info to prove my case. Where's Tv.com's records to disprove it? I wouldn't mind seeing a server log showing the full transfer of info. What info was added when and by who. AND ON TOP OF THAT, no argument to the fact that you banned members for questioning the bugs and missing info. I see no dispute to that argument, not even the weak defense of "we were told to." You want to talk about a small group re-writing history? Dare I say it... "History is written by the victors." I can't think of a smaller group than the modirators and directors at CNET who have convinced you they can do no wrong. Prove I'm lying. --GenuineMind--

• objection- Ummm, the "Judas Priest" episode aired in June - wasn't it after the sale? If The Shield had no info back in...June? on season 5, how does the lack of info now prove information six months ago was lost. I believe Perfecto is asking for the "info and addition dates and logs" from a verifiable/reliable source - I don't think Wikipedia is going to serve a warrant against TV.com to get them. Otherwise, no "facts" have been presented - just links to the opinions of the people involved, and random assertions that seem to be true just because some folks say it is. Presumably Wikipedia requires people to prove what they're saying using verifiable sources, as Perfecto noted above - not a chain of circumstantial (at best) evidence. If he's satisfied by the "proof" above, so be it. Don't know about the facts behind any banned members, and no facts were presented here. If you look at http://www.tv.com/users/ReachOut-TvTome/profile.php he says he plans to continue editing. http://www.tv.com/users/Batman_Beyonder/profile.php says "TV.com is pretty good". And one person (Murdock) doesn't even appear to be banned and is listed as editor for 12 shows - when you're banned, don't they retire you from editing? If he left himself, wouldn't he have retired himself? So what's to respond to? On the banning, presumably Wikipedia needs actual "proof" and so far the only "proof" is basically one guy who was banned saying he was unfairly banned. Are they a verifiable and reliable source? It doesn't read that way. I think you're just going to have to get some better proof from verifiable sources to prove your case here. You can't just say people were banned - that happens at any site. You need a reliable source to show they were unfairly banned. Hope you find it. I just don't think "I say it's true - prove me wrong" works on here. --Richard Corvus--
• Objection- But on the same token, it's pretty shifty that you would select certain episodes from certain shows to go to. Why pick "A Thousand Deaths"? A show well into the 4th season, and then exclude the rest of the list? I think you underestimate the idea that they might be interested to check out other areas, othen than the one episode link you provide. Plus, the guide looks complete up until that episode. Are you saying the editor just up and quit? Deciding not to continue making updates? I highly doubt it. There is clear evidence that info is missing, as well as info being added after the sale to areas completed before the changeover. Wikipedia may not "serve a warrant", but these are pretty big issues being brought up. We know full well this site is being checked up on and reported back to people at TV.com. You being here is evidence of that. But you can't really deny that if they have nothing to hide, then they wouldn't mind providing the information necessary to discredit the info posted. If I accused you of theft, wouldn't you yourself be apt to provide some kind of alibi or evidence to show you didn't do it? I highly doubt you'd let some random buddy come by and just deny it with what little knowledge he has. Next, these aren't just random people. These are highly respected editors and contributors. People who gave up their free time to a website they loved with people they trusted, only to be shafted by a management team that not only doesn't know how to run the place properly, but doesn't care about the people helping them. It is no secret they think anyone who isn't being paid to be there is lower than them. You want banned names? How about this list: B-radG, Bo, Sailor_Yue, Shadow, WiseCrack, KingJohn23, The_Bat, Agent0042, TonyOctober, Gino, ImDaLittleMan, Lenore, Quint, Moriarty, Stogster, sbarasch, Zion333, VASH_BDN, edonuttv, Eric_Bow, and a ton more where that little list came from. I honestly don't see how you can blindly defend the site. Especially when they themselves refuse to say anything here, and instead, have you running defense for them. If they were to present all their info honestly with some kind of hard copy backup, I'm sure no one would want to stick around for the shere fact that they'd be disgusted with the results. To quote Pascal, "The last act is bloody, no matter how fine the play." You and I can keep doing these scenes if you want, but it's up to them to end it. And I say if they refuse to send someone official or provide info to defend their site and it's practices, then not only should the info remain up, but it should be added that all attempts to get an official statement from CNET or officlas at TV.com on the issue went unanswered. --GenuineMind--
• Comment- Three whole days since this started, no rebuttle, and no official word or evidence from CNET or TV.com management to disprove the information provided. I think the point has been proven. The text should stay the way it currently is, and this warning should come down. PLUS, the following text, or something to this effect, should be added: "Both CNET and TV.com's officials have refused to comment on these criticisims, and have refused to give any evidence to credit or discredit the information provided." --GenuineMind--
• Further Comment- It's now been SIX days since this opened, and no proof to condradict what's been writen on the front. And no one has bothered to offer any further objections to change it. I think that's game over. It should stay the way it is.

No one has cited relevant references or sources to back it up, so I conclude that all of it is opinion. To improve this encyclopedia, I'm removing the entire section tomorrow. Opinions are not facts, and facts are not opinions. When the time comes that you have facts from reliable sources, not your own observations and experiences, you're welcome to add factual information to Wikipedia. -- Perfecto 00:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment- You know, I'm sorry to get a little mean, but this is bulls&%#. You preach that you want all the information you can get on a topic, and then when one person complains, you deem it suspect. Then you go through this process where unless you have a holy documented record of everything that transpired, it's deleted. I'm sorry, but I'm not using a website that's going to be so biast towards certain people. Go right ahead and delete it, it's just confirmation that this place would rather have the POV of the people in charge and not the people who lived it.
  • We're biased towards people who document their claims. How shameful of us. Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

• • Indeed, its' called "corporate spite", look it up toots

• From what I can tell the only part of the criticism section that belongs here is the first sentence. The rest sounds like ramblings from a mad TVTome fan. It certainly violates the NPOV and no original research policies. I think this should be removed ASAP. Jtrost 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Flame war removed

The entire section about the forums was one giant flame war and "bad people list" and I have removed it. If there is encyclopedic, sourced information we can add here, please do. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with you. The simple and cleaner it is, the better for all the people. Pedro.Moreira 01:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Tv.com news

Umm, thanks. Us tvrage.com members check wiki out once and a while, and I want you to know that everything here is public, and not your little spy meeting place. This page should be removed because its not neutral enough. Andrew120 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, yeah, and your basis for that claim is. Oh, and don't start with that stuff about not having criticisms or whatever, because just because having or not having Criticisms has nothing to do with whether or not the content of an article is neutral. Agent0042 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Tvrage article

I looked up that "AFD" for the sites' recent article deletion and it was HARDLY a "negative" consensus, there were more pros than cons from a good number of voters, methinks it was a question of netural POV...that, and maybe just some people are too corporate for their own good User: Dr. R.K.Z

Looks like you forgot to read the discussion page for that AFD:

"Evidence of that can be had by counting noses, above... a strict count shows more keeps than deletes. But the consensus here is nevertheless delete as many of the keeps aren't "real" participants." Agent0042 02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

April 2006 cleanup

This article is a messy jumble of copied-and-pasted content. It's one step away from being in need of a complete rewrite. Sean Hayford O'Leary 03:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It was better when it was just criticism, at least it didn't feel like a CNET press release about their site. Badlands17 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that tag still necessary, or the article is OK now?

Posting on the site

If you can't post when you first join, what do you have to do to be able to post?132.235.120.44 18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to contribute and review shows until your level 2 and then you can post. Da bomba3 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've just eradicated several sections from the article (the end result is only a few paragraphs left). Hopefully what's left can be used as the building blocks to create a decent article. (note: The content should not be restored, it's had ample time to be sourced...) Matthew 09:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

One problem I'm finding is actually finding secondary sources, this should be helpful in finding some. Matthew 09:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the entire article is unsourced. Anthony Rupert 10:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. The lead-in content looks like it could be sourced though, thus why I didn't stubify the article, hehe. Matthew 10:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

list of Croc Files episodes

Here is a list if Steve irwins Croc Files episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.217.96 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Badges Earned

As of 3/15/13, badges are no longer earned on the site. The only remaining publicly active staff member says that they will eventually be replaced with some other form of user recognition. 173.26.212.73 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TV.com. 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/20110511154710/http://paidcontent.org/article/cnet-launches-tvcom/ to http://paidcontent.org/article/cnet-launches-tvcom/

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} 12:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TV.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://paidcontent.org/article/cnet-launches-tvcom/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• 超人和我寫的太陽系的宇宙史,比較接近,蝙蝠俠和復健醫學比較有關.36.233.120.58 (talk)李肖先 April 3,2016.

Forums gone

All of the site's forum's appear to have been abolished. Any link going to a forum will take you to "communities" instead. I haven't found explanations about this internally or on any other site. If anyone has a verifiable explanation I'd be interested to know about it.Bjones (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)