Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wildhartlivie (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 15 September 2009 (→Page Protection Request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Television Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Game (2006 TV series). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Game (2006 TV series) at the Reference desk.

Should it be included that this show is a ripoff of footballers wives--62.150.178.29 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Is this real? What came of the lawsuit? Or has the trial not happened yet? Maersayer (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a lawsuit filed back in September 2006 because of an author who felt as if the creator stole his/her idea and used it on the series. The defenders were CBS/CW and the author of the book Interceptions wanted to boycott The Game from airing Sunday, October 1, 2006 but it was since dropped. 75.24.216.137 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What's it about?

Shouldn't there be some description of what it's about early on? You have to go half way down the page before there's any discussion of the shows content or premise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"And Now she also Directed and returns but The Game original director"

Can anyone make sense of this line? Come to think about it, I might as well remove it... Retro Agnostic (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Game on DVD

Are there any plans to put the shows last couple of season on DVD. I missed the first season I really enjoy watching. 75.171.167.215 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

AOL As Source For BET renewing The Game

On June 16, 2009 Jawn Murray first reported about the game being shopped to BET, on his website AOL BV Buzz. Jawn Murray is a respected entertainment columnist who works for AOL, TVOne, Tom Joyner Morning Show, etc. http://www.bvbuzz.com/2009/06/16/game-time-could-canceled-sitcom-go-into-overtime-on-bet

2 weeks later Matt Mitovich reported the info: http://www.tvguide.com/News/BET-Saves-Game-1007605.aspx.

Murray too noticed the plagarism of his work:
(from http://twitter.com/JawnMurray/status/2444031516) So TV Guide online has an "exclusive" storyup written by Matt Mitovich about "The Game." Funny thing its basically my story from June 16!
(from http://t i n y u r l dot com/mzvhus http://twitter.com/JawnMurray/status/2444078379) Anyone know Matt Mitovich's email? Here's his story: http://t i n y u r l dot com/nqeoh6 & here is the one I did on June 16:http://www.bvbuzz.com/2009/06/16/game-time-could-canceled-sitcom-go-into-overtime-on-bet
Ive included both links. But to delete Murray's link is wrong. 70.108.104.200 17:51, 12 September 2009

Page Protection Request

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#The_Game_.28U.S._TV_series.29_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 .

Pink had the page protected does not address the issue. AOL reported it first and AOL is reputable. 70.108.70.197 03:27, 15 September 2009

No matter how many times you revert, the fact remains that the AOL page is a blog and is therefore not acceptable as a source. It's on AOL, it isn't "AOL reported". Beyond that, it doesn't matter who reported it first. It only matters that relevant content be sourced. The rest is not pertinent information for this article. In any case, unless you are Jawn Murray, or working for him, what does it matter what source is being used? Two different editors have challenged the use of the blog and the simple fact - that negotiations were underway to hopefully pick up the show elsewhere, is what matters. The only big issue is the use of the name "Jawn Murray", and that is irrelevant. Besides all of that, your reverts do much more than just change sources. An even bigger problem is that the page you keep sticking in as a reference does not contain the information you are inserting. That's included much, much later, and the page changes everyday because it's a blog. The source you want to use changes every day when a new blog posting is made. Your changes also contain grammatical omissions:

"As The CW moved to make its schedule free of, series creator Brock Akil attempted to convince the network to air the series as an hour-long, single-camera series like the other shows on CW..."

Notice anything missing? No? It's been missing since you started making the change. At this point, you're just edit warring to include a dynamic, blog-based source that doesn't meet standards for reliable soucing, it's pointy and not necessary. Give it up, this is not productive for a non-reliable source. Oh - and the plagiarism stuff? Doesn't belong here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh...first of all, if anyone has issues with any of my actions, I've got a talk page. Article talk pages are meant for discussion about the article which is what the anonymous IP editor should have been doing after revert number two last week. Second, anyone with limited knowledge of Misplaced Pages can look into any editor's actions so it's not like this talk page post is putting me on blast. I did indeed ask for protection of the page and will continue to do so as long as this behavior continues. This is the "my preferred version and I'll edit war until I win" game and I'm done playing. Pinkadelica 04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

wildhart : 1)Pls look at the page. It is part of AOL's AfrAm portion of their website. Info there has to be verified. It is run by professional journalists. If anything, let us get a consensus about the reliability or reputability of this website.
1a)& if it doesnt matter who reported it first, why is the source repeatedly deleted? As a compromise I included the AOL & copycat TVG sources. It was pink who kept deleting the AOL source.
2) Yes my edit did do/was more than just the lead. I also made columns of the list of guest stars.
3)Pls look, the link does indeed go to the specific article on The Game:
(http://www.bvbuzz.com/2009/06/16/game-time-could-canceled-sitcom-go-into-overtime-on-bet) , not the main page of the website.
4)For this the correct thing to do is add 'half-hour comedies', not hit revert. You all just trying to get your edit count up.
5)I am not edit warring. I revert to the better version.
6)Duh! That is why I agreed w pink & again compromised & and deleted the plagarism info from the article, leaving just the AOL link.
7)I wont give up. While this may be sexual pleasure for you, I want this article to be the best it may be. 70.108.61.231 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

pink: 1)So why didnt you use that talk page to discuss the lead? You instead asked 4 the page to be locked.
2) That is why I made the post that I did. Did you post a comment? No, you didnt. You reverted then had the page locked. What I shoulda done? Why didnt you start the discussion then?
3)Guilty conscience huh? I didnt say you were being put on blast. If I was lighting your *ss up, believe me you'd know.
4)I dont know what behaviour you're talking about.
5)Wiki is a COLLABORATIVE encyclopedia. It isnt about you wanting your preferred version, it is about consensus. 70.108.61.231 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One, my screen name is P-i-n-k-a-d-e-l-i-c-a. Not Pink. If you can't be bothered to type out an additional seven letters, don't bother at all. Two, I didn't take to the talk page to "compromise" because I do not compromise when it comes to unreliable sources. Blogs, Twitter and the like will not be used and there's no wiggle room there. Truth be told, you want the content in so the burden of proof lies with you to prove why it should be in. So far, you've not attempted to convince me why we should throw out a perfectly acceptable policy like WP:RS just so Jawn Murray can get his name on a Misplaced Pages article or whatever the hell your goal here is. Three, if I had a guilty conscience, I think I'm capable enough of hiding the fact online. I was pointing out the fact that if you had issue with my actions, you should have posted on my talk page like you did when you claimed I was being unfair and that Twitter links are strewn throughout Misplaced Pages. It's quite difficult to "light someone's ass" up (as you so eloquently put it) when there's nothing to light up. Four, the behavior I speak of is your repeated disregard for policy and the preferred version game. I addressed some of that behavior in this post which you never acknowledged. Finally, I'm fully aware what the project is about but thanks for the reminder. Since you're aware of what consensus is, you should be aware that it is currently against you. I appreciate the fact that you were considerate enough to announce that you were going to continue to edit war against consensus though. It makes requesting additional protection that much easier. Pinkadelica 14:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You crossed a line that is absolutely inappropriate with this: "I wont give up. While this may be sexual pleasure for you, I want this article to be the best it may be." What the hell is wrong with you? Such comments are completely incivil and inappropriate and I would advise you post haste to remove it or I will report it to WP:AN/I. The link you posted above does not go to the article you think it does. At this writing, the posts are all from the last two weeks or so, not June 16, 2009. It's a compilation blog, each new posting pushes the one you want to use back further in the list. It goes to the most recent page of the blog - which is not acceptable per Misplaced Pages policy. The TV guide source is stable and is considered a reliable source. My edit count is inconsequential and believe me, this page does nothing for it. The point I was making was that you were just reverting to a deficient version, with a non-reliable source and more than once, you claimed that the columns were being removed when that absolutely was not the case. That you used non-standard mark-up doesn't make it okay. There will be no consensus to include a blog as a reference, it's against policy. Your actions are not acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Start-Class television articles
• Low-importance television articles
• WikiProject Television articles