Talk:Tosh.0

Early conversation

The introduction sounds like it's a promotion of the show, Tosh.0. It should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.12.210 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it links to the right Mike Gibbons. That is, unless zombies are allowed to be executive producers nowadays. --76.117.110.236 (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree, i have removed the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.42.117 (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need several more "no sources" banners on this page. I didn't notice till... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.100.182 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the style of...

Currently the page states "In the style of Web Soup. This seems a bit inacurate considering Web Soup was developed completely independently and actually started days after Tosh.0? You could argue it's in the style of the original Soup show, or that around the net segment of Attack of the Show, but considering it started before and has signifigantly higher ratings than Web Soup, the description seems wrong. If no one objects, I'll change it. Iarann (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I did it for you. Dudewhiterussian (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DWR, your edit looks great. I was worried it was going to devolve into "A is better than B!" type content, which it didn't. Bueno. tedder (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This Page is about to get Covered in Shit Edits

See also: Talk:Daniel Tosh § Vandalism

On his show today the Tosh guy invited his viewers to edit the Tosh.0 Wikipedia page, and announced that he's going to read the funniest edits next week. Just giving you bros the heads up. 8bit (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it. It isn't as though there's actually good information to be found on Wikipedia anyway. I mean, really, who takes these pages seriously? Gingermint (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

He needs an Uncyclopedia.org page. Oh crap, now I'll probably get mentioned on television! --Randolf (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected in violation of policy

Justification for protection and removal of edits has been explained multiple times. Take further discussion to WP:VPP, as instructed. GlassCobra 16:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
From Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection : "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred," So why is this page already protected when there has been no vandalism? kenj0418 (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC) There was vandalism, you just can't see it. It's been deleted. Q T C 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I saw vandalism before the lock was applied. Check the page history. 8bit (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC) An accurate but unsourced description of his wardrobe, a good faith typo that causes a problem with the citation displaying, and a the addition of a trivia section. Boy, is it just me or has the quality of "vandalism" really declined in Wikipedia recently?RevelationDirect (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC) It wasn't reverted. It was deleted. You won't find it in the history. --Onorem♠Dil 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification Onorem.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Why were the vandalism edits deleted instead of reverting the page and leaving them in history? Although I do agree with the need to prevent additional vandalism to this page, the fact remains that the host of the show asked his viewers to vandalise this page which, considering the viewership levels, is a fairly major media stunt and the resulting edit activity may have had some interesting historical value. By deleting those edits so they can't even be viewed in the page history it prevents any kind of analysis of that activity or info it contains. One reason I have always appreciated Wikipedia is the fact that I can view previous edits and/or vandalism that may contain politically/racially/etc charged options that can provide insight into various issues. Why delete these out of the history, they seem harmless considering the fact you can revert, protect, and control the content of the current revision? This is the same reason why we timestamp talk page edits and such, so we can look back and see the history, activity, mood, opinions, etc, of various pages and issues. (Pranakhan) (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC) In addition the fact that he asked for the action to take place on the show is relevent deserves mention in the article and outright deletion of the results instead of rollback or revert prevents any sort of interesting or detailed entry on the event. Nefariousski (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC) He asked us to vandalize it. I swear! user:waterygrave While that is true, he does not own this page. If there were facts/information on this page that he wanted removed, then he could do ask for them to be removed. But he is not allowed to ask people to vandalize "his" page. The Placebo Effect (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC) He did it though bud. This show is meant to piss off people who can't take a joke. Justhereforthelolz (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC) You don't understand. He asked people to edit the page humorously, like saying the name of the show should be pronounced "smeg-mah" and that he gave Jay Leno a blow-job. He says he's going to put the funniest ones on next week's show, though I think the fun got shut down too quick to make it worth his while. And, I gotta tell ya, he's not on wiki. He can do whatever he wants to do (as could we all actually.) And I'm sure that part of what he wants to do is lambaste us, Wikipedia, for removing even the history of what happened. Comes off kinda... wimpy... --Leodmacleod (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Of course he's allowed to ask people to vandalize his page. What are you going to do call the wikicops? I'm definately against vandalism and even as a big fan of his show would have never vandalized even in humor but the pre-emptive lockdown against policy is like the president declaring martial law because a talk show host in Saudi Arabia told his viewers to spraypaint the White House. Nefariousski (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC) That's nearly Godwins Law, Nefariousski. And it wasn't pre-emptive, the edits were deleted (AGF, probably because they were well over the WP:BLP line). This conversation, again, should be dealt with at WP:VPP. Improvements to the article, however, are encouraged! tedder (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC) My problem is not over the need to prevent vandalism through protection of this page, nor with the need to remove vandalism that isn't relevant accurate information. My problem is with deleting all history of those edits from the page history therefore preventing interested readers from seeing them, reviewing them to determine if they REALLY were vandalism or related, preventing peer-review of those edits which is an effective method of preventing editors with "agendas" from censoring possibly legitimate information they don't happen to personally agree with, etc. What is the point of maintaining the history of wikipedia pages if it can be ERASED, literally, from history? This seems to create a worrying precedent, doesn't it? Revert all you want, but how can anyone know what was actually put on the page? We just have to take the word of the deleter that it was actually "vandalism." In *this* case, it may have been harmless and even funny edits, but what about other pages convering controversial, political, religious, and racial issues? Is Wikipedia governed by the Chinese government? Reverting pages? Fine. Protecting pages? Fine. Completely erasing all record of prior edits? It just feels like something is very wrong about this. Pranakhan (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Common sense is the key factor here. We are (mostly) all adults here and can use it. Every page is evaluated on a case by case basis, and so this situation is unique, and the appropriate response was used. You need not worry that what happened here set precedent for else where. Beach drifter (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC) You've instantly earned respect in my book for the Godwin reference +1 internet for you. When it comes down to it I look at this like I look at WP:3RR. Suppose you are trying to reach consensus on a controversial topic and some random IP editor keeps coming in and making changes against consensus. Do we A. continually revert the edits in order to keep the article intact while we are discussing? or B. Cringe and let the edits take place, warn user and if they don't stop request they be blocked, roll back disruptive changes and get page protected for a period of time until consensus is reached? While A seems oh so tempting and far less complicated than B it is still not the correct way to go. We have tools at our disposal like Rollback, ANI etc... to deal with issues like this in the proper way. Unilateral decisions that make editing more difficult should be eschewed in favor of the normal mode for dealing with this issue. What happens if Tosh thinks this is all fun and games and continually encourages his viewers to edit? Do we have an eternally protected stub? The page Creation Myth and at least 3 others on my watchlist received Tosh.0 joke /vandal edits yesterday. Should we protect those too now that the precedent exists? What if Tosh tells his viewers to vandalize every page they can? I say this half jokingly but to the point. Standard operating procedures exist for a reason, I'm not advocating that there be a free for all or that we "let them have their fun" I'm just advocating that we treat the vandalism of this page like we treat any other page and go through the motions first. Nefariousski (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Godwin works for Wikimedia. I'd have a really hard time not yelling out Godwin references every few hours to get his attention. Anyhow, yes, it should be treated like other pages. Honestly, I'd prefer it only be semi-protected and immediately block autoconfirmed users who decide following Tosh is more important than respecting Wikipedia's roles. But, Tosh recommended BLP violations, and in the end, what does it matter? tedder (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The only reason that the edits were deleted was because it was in fact vandalism that was asked for by Tosh. The pages still exist, but they can only be seen by admins. Any other admin who reads those pages can confirm that it was just vandalism. By deleting the edits with the vandalism, we are trying to make a point that you can not ask people to vandalize Wikipedia for "fun" for a TV show, because it attempts to undermine what Wikipedia is about. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be perma-protected anyway

Seeing as this is a WP:BLP-related article, the page should be semi-protected indefinitely until flagged revisions are implemented. JBsupreme (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How is this wp:BLP related? it's a TV show with a host. Are we now considering every talk show or hosted show as falling under the umbrella of WP:BLP now? That's news to me. Nefariousski (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what "related" meant in "WP:BLP-related", yes. Fortunately for Wikipedia and its readership, BLP is being extended and applied to more and more articles each and every day. JBsupreme (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling Bullshit. There's absolutely no precedent for Talk shows, hosted shows, radio shows, etc... getting protection under the BLP umbrella. Nefariousski (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"perma-protection" or indef semi is only used for pages show repeated and ongoing high levels of vandalism- see WP:ROUGH. This show (and even Tosh's entry)? Not so much. tedder (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, lets see. He invited millions of viewers to vandalize his Wikipedia article(s). That particular cable network makes a habit of repeating his shows, and often. Why don't you talk to me after the protection of this article expires and let me know if you change your mind on that. ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Told you so. JBsupreme (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's how WP:ROUGH works. Leaving it at semi- allows trusted editors in, and lets us zot accounts that shouldn't be editing. tedder (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubted that the page would be vandalized. Vandalism has thus far been successfully reverted / rolled back, users should be warned / blocked per normal practice for blatant vandalism. The page has maintained a more or less stable state with vandalism being fixed almost immediately. Unless this page ends up being locked down for eternity there was bound to be a wave of vandals for a day or two after the unprotect. It'll get old after a little while and all will be well. If I'm wrong I'll buy you a beer. Nefariousski (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the makers of the show are interested in people messing with their page. They want to read the funniest edits on their show. So I say, NO WAY! In no way should this page be protected. Gingermint (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo request for unprotection

On his most recent show, Daniel Tosh apologized for his call to vandalize the page. See http://www.comedycentral.com/tosh.0/2010/02/03/your-wikipedia-entries/ for more. I would say to keep the protection where it is for a day or so, then drop it to semi and let it naturally expire. What do the rest of you think? NW (Talk) 04:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's one of the worst ideas I've heard all week. :D JBsupreme (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave it yet for a few days. Oops, I didn't notice that the expiration is inabout 24 hours. I think that'll be okay but maybe set it to semi-protection for 3 or 7 days. Though a fairly major waste of our time, sadly I confess I found some humor value in a request for BLP violations by the actual person instead of Colbert's "go turn me into a deity" instructions disrupting other biographies. Actually this is the only reason I watched tonight and I was floored by the straight-up 100% apology, humility, and very polite request to allow edits again. It's like what requests for unprotection and really any "un-" action should sound like. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The show has humor value to be sure, but if you thought the apology was sincere you're only kidding yourself. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

But he's usually so humble, sincere, apologetic, and polite! Those are so totally the 4 words I would use to describe him and his comedy style! Heh heh. VooLaLa (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

To JBSupreme: And this is why we need BLP protection for this article. Why would the man lie? Why accuse him of lying with no proof? Lots42 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll rephrase. The apology was as sincere as I've ever seen from him? Not even the typical exaggerated facial expression like his other "pity" moments. I do, however, think he did actually wanted the page unlocked but only he's to blame if it needs long-term protection. I do feel bad for the admins having to watch this though. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Soon enough we're going to have to protect this talk page, too. JBsupreme (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The sincerity of Mr. Tosh is irrelevant; it's a question of how his fans will react to an unprotected WP page. All normal policies regarding vandalism should apply.—Loadmaster (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In relation to the above topics, it is Wikipedia policy that if one is to convey negative information about living people, you gotta cite the -heck- out of it. Lots42 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for the full protection

My hat is off to those responsible (I MEAN THE SYSOPS). JBsupreme (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I did ad a slight vandalism to the page (one word) as an experiment. They did say on the show to vandalize the page and, no matter what may have subsequently been said or written by them or Comedy Central, they're still rerunning the episode where they invited the vandalism (although, in this case, that may be too strong a word). At any rate, there does not seem to be FULL protection and I do not know who would reverse my one word (comical) addition. Gingermint (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

of course, I would not be upset if it were, indeed, removed. I mean, that's part of the experiment and no one needs my sense of humor. Gingermint (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Change request

{{edit protected}}

Please remove the "summary" and "controversy" sections from the article; they are both drawn from original research and should be expeditiously removed, especially the unsourced and supposed controversy piece. Cheers, JBsupreme (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Removal

"The host of the show commonly "pushes the limits" often on the subjects of racism, sexuality and religion. The producers of the show faced a lawsuit after a segment called "Is it Racist", wherein Tosh.0 displayed a video of an African American male counting large sums of money and displaying gold chains while speaking ebonics, after which Tosh present a video of himself displaying his financial portfolia, ending the segment asking "Is it racist?" and inviting viewers to visit "comedeycentral.com/tosh.0/whitesrule". In a recent episode Tosh invited users to edit this Wikipedia entry, so I did."

Okay I understand why the "In a recent episode Tosh invited users to edit this Wikipedia entry, so I did." bit was removed but the rest DID NOT need to be removed as it was factual and informative. So trust me, soon as this is unlocked I am putting it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordpoee (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the following text and it was removed:

In a recent episode, Daniel Tosh requested that his viewers edit this wiki page after an apparent internet gag was revealed on Tosh.O showing a non-factual edit, targeted at Conan O'Brien's wiki page.

Please add this "FACTUAL" information. In fact a blurb regarding the moderation and protection of the wiki page is also in order. Adamlankford (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the claim is unsourced. Secondly, there is no reason to mention it at all, unless you plan to mention everything he has ever said on his show. There is nothing special or encyclopedic about his talking about Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 04:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism

I mentioned that Daniel tosh told people on air to alter the wiki, anyway they want, and then the subsquent lock of the page because of vandalism and his apology to wikipedia, all sourced to the actual video, on the Tosh blog, and the site run by Comedy central. but it was removed by someone, I don't know who because it just says an I.S.P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjawarriordex (talk • contribs) 11:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am saying that it would be nice for such statements be credited to a source independent of the show, such as a newspaper, magazine, or online reputable publication. Thanks. Beach drifter (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also I mentioned long term, meaning it should only be included in the article if sources can be found to show that the event has gotten significant media coverage to make this event notable in the long run, not just as a current news event. Beach drifter (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this information again. There is nothing novel or notable about his request for Wikipedia to be vandalized. I haven't seen any independent sources that commented on this, and don't see how it's any more notable than any other individual segment from the show. --Onorem♠Dil 13:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this is not more notable for inclusion simply because it involves this project. I do, however, suggest that Ninjawarrior add this incident here where it would be entirely appropriate. I'm actually amazed it has not been added yet. Beach drifter (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the old wikipedia circular logic thread: even though it's well known that something exists (the invite to "edit" this page), it cannot be acknowledged to exist because a source has not yet been found. The real amusing part is that if the people who keep deleting and arguing this point put half the energy into finding the sources they berate others for not having, the entire situation would be resolved. But its so much more satisfying to have the power trip than do something useful I guess. RoyBatty42 (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The same could be said (putting some effort in) of the people who keep adding things. But thank you for WP:SOAPBOXing. DP76764 (Talk) 01:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Onorem... who are you to decide what is and is not notable? [[[User:Creatox|Creatox]] (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)]

It's not a decision I made by myself. All previous discussions on this page led to the same conclusion. Nobody has provided an argument (or a reliable source) that anyone outside of bloggers and tosh's website cared about the incident. Should every segment he's ever done have a section in the article? --Onorem♠Dil 02:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

The Censorship section is not vandalism, its a perfectly valid post. stop removing it. [[[User:Creatox|Creatox]] (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)]

I didn't remove it as vandalism. I removed it because it's not notable, and no credible argument of any type that I recall has ever been produced by the (mostly troll or single purpose) accounts that argue that it belongs. Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BURDEN. If you want the material to be in the article, you should try to establish a new consensus on this page first. --Onorem♠Dil 02:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning

I think we should put a warning on this page saying something like, "Please Do not vandalism this page just because Daniel Tosh to you so" - It's for the Lutz (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that would just encourage people. Especially those who missed said episode. Lots42 (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but we have a warning on the Atlantic Records page saying "PLEASE stop trying to imitate the "Weird Al" Yankovic music video for "White & Nerdy" by replacing the text of this article with "YOU SUCK!" It is disruptive and considered vandalism, and will be dealt with appropriately. If you are that desperate to see if it can be done, please visit the Sandbox."

So why would not have a warning on this page? - It's for the Lutz (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a great idea. Lots42 (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The note should also warn that users will be blocked immediately (indefinite blockage for signed-in users). Otherwise I don't think it would have much of an effect. (Even with the blockage warning, it won't stop the vandalism, but perhaps lessen it.) ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Editnotice

I have created an editnotice for this article here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that a very well-made and acceptable warning. DanielDPeterson (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This show reran on Comedy Channel just now. Wnt (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, it looks like only one person in the world took him up on it this time. So much for the power of the media! And it was someone who'd been inactive on Wikipedia a whole year - though it doesn't look like Tosh kickstarted him into making any contributions beyond this one. Wnt (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make a sandbox page for vandalism of the article. Then create a notice for it, and drop the semi-protect. Just a thought. After all, that is the first thing Tosh requested, and after that he asked on his show for the page protection to be dropped.

{{tmbox||type = notice|text= <div>[[Tosh.0/sandbox|This]] is a page for the content Daniel Tosh
requested be put on his article in one episode of his show.</div>}}

mystery (talk) 01:24, August 8^th, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Wikipedia doesn't condone vandalism in any form on the website. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it was worth a shot. But are you sure this isnt an exception? Im assuming dups means duplicates, but what about r^{(requested, maybe?})mv? mystery (talk) 01:37, August 8^th, 2011 (UTC)

The sandbox you are proposing is still in the mainspace of Wikipedia and could still be treated as an article. Furthermore, even "vandalism welcome" pages within a user's userspace are typically frowned upon within the community. Apologies for the edit summaries, "rmv" is short for "remove," and "dups" is short for "duplicates." Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked the Wikipedia:About the Sandbox, and your right. Bye ^{(I still think it was worth a shot)}. mystery (talk) 02:22, August 8^th, 2011 (UTC)

Better than you

This article is very thorough in its description of different segments on the show. However, I noticed that his frequent bit "I'm better than you, na-na na-na boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo" wasn't included. May I suggest it be added? Dukeofwulf (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fitting. Sean199813 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Fight Club homage?

Recently, in the very final moments of the episode the video is interrupted momentarily by a single frame of someone's anatomy photographed from very close up. Asat (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2013

i only would like to and the amount of episodes daniel tosh has made threw out the years. Wilmerhernan (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The infobox says 106 and links to List of Tosh.0 episodes. --Onorem♠Dil 17:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

It should be noted Lindsay Lohan provides the voiceover for the warning intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.10.85 (talk)

Not done: We'd need a reliable source for it. I've seen plenty of forums where people say that it is her, but there's no official credit that I know of. --Onorem (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It was alluded to in a November 2011 episode. Something to the effect of, the voice-over who "may or may not be in jail at this time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.10.85 (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Waldo In Season 5

Under format I think it should be noted that in Season 5, Tosh would dress as Waldo and "hide" somewhere on the set or in the audience at the very end of the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.148.138 (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Web Soup

"sharing a set-up similar to that of Web Soup."

This is a little pointless to mention. There is no mention of Tosh.0 in the Web Soup article and the air dates for both articles state Tosh.0 was aired before Web Soup.

98.16.174.144 (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement is referring to the format of both shows are similar as both hosts critiques videos online. It is not implying that Web Soup aired before Tosh.0. Tyman222 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2014

173.49.141.62 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)I request that "Tosh.O" be changed to "Josh.O".

Because "Josh" is not his real name. That's it. I'd say something funny, but you're spying on me because I don't have a Wikipedia account. Way to stifle free expression Internet. Way to go. 173.49.141.62 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ... discospinster _talk 04:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

History section needs rewriting

This section constains six date-based sentences, all starting "on [date xx.xx.xxxx, announced/ was announced/ was confirmed ....... season". Do we need all needs dates about when it was announced that another season was in the offing? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Season 6 ending date

On the list of episodes for the Tosh.0 TV Series page, it states that the final episode is TBA or To be Announced although the season is over the last day was May 27th. Also there is no information on when the next season is starting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndavidfeldman (talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Real name

Daniel Tosh real name is Jason bailey AKA ODB

107.72.164.125 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And your source is? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Tosh.0 is syndicated by Debmar-Mercury with ad-sales by Twentieth Television. Guide26 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
• In addition, the syndication of the show is already mentioned in the History section of the article. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

Daniel Tosh Mr.Derushia (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

New Section

Should add a controversy section regarding his rape comment and other "jokes" he had to apologize for: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/daniel-tosh-rape-joke-laugh-factory_n_1662882.html https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-daniel-toshs-rape-joke-at-the-laugh-factory-wasnt-funny?ref=scroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.52.100 (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the incident occured during one of his comedy shows and not on Tosh.0, I think this information is more appropriately listed at Daniel Tosh#Career. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

I want to edit the number of episodes for tosh.0 please Rockinwill123 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2019

"I would like to update the directors, since more than one director has been responsible for the series."

| directors =

• Scott Zabielski
• John Elerick
• Brit McAdams
• James Patton
• Payman Benz
• Ewan Gotfryd
• Jonathan Judge

"Reference can be found here "

ExtremeRX (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDB is not a reliable source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2019 / fix broken website link

PLEASE Change broken external weblink from http://tosh.cc.com/ to http://www.cc.com/shows/46cb1062-ffcd-4943-9ee2-9eda771410cf. The current link http://tosh.cc.com/ redirects to http://www.cc.com/shows/tosh and returns a 500 error. UPDATE: It appears Comedy Central fixed the issue of the 500 error, but I still think the link should be updated to the redirect which is now http://www.cc.com/shows/tosh Qkerby (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 January 2020

Under "Series Overview" season 10 and 11 should be updated to 20 episodes, with season 11 final air date being November 19, 2019. Kk0710 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)