Talk:Justin.tv

message: Who is Kappa and other guys? Justin.tv crew?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.228.3 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facecodes 

message: I am tired of having to delete this article. Please show that the subject is notable so that the article does not qualify for a speedy deletion. Please see WP:WEB for information on how to do this. Additionally, you will need to work on the article either on this page or in userspace before I will again remove protection. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: Here is an AP/Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032701220.html
I see no reason why you continue to block this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiGlory (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Deletion 

message: You know what's funny? I think Chris Griswold has something against the guys at Justin.tv. He's marked their other company, Kiko, for deletion too.
The completely bullshit thing about all of this, is that the damned Rules of Aquisition from Star Trek are on wikipedia and not considered TRIVIAL, yet Justin.tv, the first Web cam to go mobile is considered too trivial despite getting major press since before the site launched. This is another reason why wikipedia shouldn't allow nazi admins like Chris Griswold to run completely unchecked on the site.
When was the last time the Associated Press covered Rules of Aquisition?
How are the rules of Aquisition more trivial than this? They're both equally important.
:Write an article that explains that the subject is notable or stop whining. Three times the article was deleted because it could have been anything. I provided a link to information on how to do this. If anyone wants to work on this article and wants my help, I will be happy to provide it. --Chris Griswold  (☎☓) 02:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Deletion 

message: Now that this article has established itself and should no longer be in danger of deletion, perhaps it's time to clean up all the "deletion" "deletion" "deletion" talk entries? Anyone, anyone? --67.188.0.96 10:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page cleanup?

message: The article now includes reference to the article itself? I'm not suggesting the entries aren't worthy; rather, I'm just pointing out how strange it is to have a wikipedia article that is in part about itself.  That said, I've watched justin.tv and seen Justin request that users edit the article in certain ways--which invariably happens within minutes. Sometimes his suggestions are helpful, but isn't it getting much too close for comfort to have the subject of the article dictate the article's content?  And after that, entries to the article are made regarding entries to the article? My head is spinning. --67.188.0.96 10:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weirder than weird

message: * At last, a decent start that won't be deleted within 5 seconds. As soon as the media does something on this, there'll be an article for sure. Thanks, Zadernet 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hey, this is Emmett from the staff of Justin.TV. I don't mind the criticisms about it not being 24/7 (although it seems very POV and should probably from a source, rather than editorializing by whoever wrote it). However, I'm annoyed about the Anne Curry "bitch" comment inclusion. It's very POV, not cited, and it was in no way a significant event in the history of Justin.TV. It's true, but it was muttered under his breath after a hostile interview, and hasn't been featured in any significant press I know of. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eshear (talk • contribs) 07:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; I've removed the section.  This article may in the future have many edits based purely on Justin's video feed, but edits based only on that feed should be considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia, since they require the editor's interpretation.  Also, I suggest that you and the rest of the staff, if you haven't already, become familiar with the conflict of interest and autobiography guidelines.  --Brandon Dilbeck 13:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and relevancy 

message: I just noticed that there are numerous external links for this article, most of which seem to be various news articles.  Others are interviews.  Should we keep them all, or only keep the ones that seem more note-worthy? Yavoh 15:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should not be so many links.  Wikipedia is not a link repository.  If you'd like to check through them, please go ahead and remove all but the most important and relevant links.  --Brandon Dilbeck 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through and left only the more noteworthy links.  I left the cleanup tag in, however, as there may be some disagreement. Yavoh 18:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: A few points to consider:
*Citation #2 links to Justin.tv; where exactly is this information? Is there a secondary source available instead?
*"Justin.tv has been compared to Edtv, Being John Malkovich and The Truman Show." - needs a citation
*The list of similar projects is original research. Some of these could be appended under a "See also" heading.
*The list of channels replete with in-line links needs to go, there's no reason to advertise them by upping their googlerank and offering free traffic.
*The list of Television appearances may help substantiate the article in case of an AfD, but it adds no useful information.
*(It may seem from the above that I really don't like lists, it's rather that I think there should be a pragmatic basis for including them.) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert/refimprove tags 

message: Is Justin.tv down? it doesn't work 4 me.
~~Ryan~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.127.210 (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IS IT DOWN? 

message: Certain people have criticized the alleged use of the website by pedophiles, especially as it relates to underaged models being used for peep shows. This should probably be mentioned in the criticism section somehow. ADM (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pedophiles

message: With Thai internet, when going to justin.tv, Thai internet redirect to 203.113.26.78, that IP site is labelled "This website has been blocked by ICT" --118.172.210.122 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned by Thai ICT 

message: I must remove "decline in viewership" again. Someone left an unsigned comment on my talk page, which I will now address.
I do not have any personal invested interest in Justin.tv and was coming to Wikipedia as a first source of information about it. My objections to this section are twofold:
Your removal has been re-added back to the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.169.190 (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not intended as a platform for you to spread your own ethical views. Sign your comments with four tildes. Vanhedrarn (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

text: "Many of the blog creators, such as Mr. MacGregor and Anthony TT, are just as perverted as the registered users of the service they are trying to out. Anthony TT is a prime example of someone who needs to be outed himself."
"perverted" is a wildly subjective term to use, and saying that "Anthony TT [...] needs to be outed himself" belongs in your blog and not in an encyclopedia.Vanhedrarn (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

text: If you believe that people only contribute to Wikipedia for personal benefit, then you shouldn't be making any edits. Neither of these are the case. The section in question is an embarrassment to its author and should be at the very least cleaned up. Once again, I'll say: don't write what you can't cite and SIGN YOUR COMMENTS. Vanhedrarn (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline in viewership 

message: The point was made that certain claims cannot be cited because of the nature of the site. This may well be true, but in that case, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Saying that readers may verify it themselves is not an argument.
This most cetrainly belongs to provide relevant, factual information on the subject matter that people unfamiliar with Justin.tv should be aware of so their children do not get involved with this site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.169.190 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not intended as a platform for you to spread your own ethical views. Sign your comments with four tildes. Vanhedrarn (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1. Uncited claims

message: Regardless of whether the factual claims are objectively true, the manner in which it is written is unsuitable. The most egregious, perhaps, being
:"Many of the blog creators, such as Mr. MacGregor and Anthony TT, are just as perverted as the registered users of the service they are trying to out. Anthony TT is a prime example of someone who needs to be outed himself."
"perverted" is a wildly subjective term to use, and saying that "Anthony TT [...] needs to be outed himself" belongs in your blog and not in an encyclopedia.Vanhedrarn (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe that people only contribute to Wikipedia for personal benefit, then you shouldn't be making any edits. Neither of these are the case. The section in question is an embarrassment to its author and should be at the very least cleaned up. Once again, I'll say: don't write what you can't cite and SIGN YOUR COMMENTS. Vanhedrarn (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2. Writing style

message: I had to remove a line in the article which stated that Justin.tv's shutdown was caused by a lawsuit filed by The Hub, a cable TV network that no longer exists (channel was rebranded and renamed). Given the fact that there is practically nothing new to add, I suggest that this article should be locked to prevent others from adding their own theories as to why the website was shut down. Skraptix (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Locking this article 

message: As announced by Justin Kan today, Justin.tvv will relaunch as a Snapchat channel.  The article needs to be updated to reflect this. --Super3588 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Snapchat Era 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Justin.tv. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317192547/http://blog.justin.tv/2008/03/categories-and-chat-fixes.html to http://blog.justin.tv/2008/03/categories-and-chat-fixes.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Justin.tv. 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:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20081022071152/http://www.justin.tv/ to http://justin.tv/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified