Crakkerjakk

Welcome to Wikipedia from Eclipsed

Hi, Crakkerjakk. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome!     Eclipsed   (t)     08:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow!

Great job expanding the Chris Thompson page. :) QuasyBoy 1:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikia exist for you

I noticed that there is a wiki for the show Shake it Up, which you mentioned being a fan of. http://shakeitup.wikia.com/wiki/Shake_It_Up_Wiki There isn't an entry for Buddy yet. You can move your article over there, where fans would see it, and appreciate it. There is no logical reason to delete the article from Wikipedia, millions of fans do know who this person is which would logically be a reason for them to have an entry here, there no shortage of space, and its the sort of thing that used to bring people to the Wikipedia. But, as the situation now is, all the haters out there are just destroying all they can. The mood of Wikipedia went from constant enthusiasm to mostly dread, as instead of creating its more about destroying. A sad day for humanity really. Dream Focus 07:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Zendaya Coleman. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Confession0791 ^talk 03:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Woops, sorry about that. I was just reviewing some pages I'd put together a while back, and breaking things into paragraphs to make the pages easier to read, so I didn't even think to add an edit summary. I'll try and remember next time. Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bella Thorne - References

Hey! Thanks for helping me include a reference to Bella's (infamous) View from the Bay interview. I've taken your advice to heart and filled in a couple more references ... Thanks. Mariana. Mariana Binte Zainal (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for all your work on her page --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Bento00's talk page.

References problem

I took the liberty of changing the ' ' etc to 1, 2, 3... With a little luck there should be no problems, let me know if there are. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your help. I just left a message thanking you at my Village pump Merged Reflinks entry right before you left this message.  :-) Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

ABC Afterschool Special

Hello Crakkerjakk. I just saw your message on the Talk:ABC Afterschool Special page. I'm willing to split the work of a comprehensive episode list for the series, but am also willing to have you take the lead if you want to start right away. I'm in the middle of several other projects, which is why I noted it could take me a few months to get to this. (One of those projects is a listing of the Emmy awards the show earned.) I've been editing for a few years, but I've never worked with tables, so I was anticipating having to spend some time figuring out how they worked. The List of Drake & Josh episodes format looks good as it allows for listing guest stars. I would make one suggestion. Epguides.com is usually my resource for production codes (the last column in the table). But there are no production codes for this show (at least that I could find). I'd delete that column and make the Episode Title column wider. Another good format is the one used for the List of West Wing episodes page. Let me know on my talk page how you'd like to proceed. Jim. JimVC3 (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm also currently working on a few other pages (mainly focusing on former child stars and teen idols from the 70s and 80s), so it will take me a little time before I can devote myself to a big project like this, but I shouldn't take me too long to finish what I'm working on (a few weeks; maybe a month at most). As far as production codes - I kind of touched on this on the Talk:ABC Afterschool Special page (I answered two different posts of yours last night, so I don't know if you saw the other one) - since this was an "anthology" series showcasing what were essentially "short films", they were not produced in the same way that a regular network show is produced by a network. They were produced independently and then licensed by ABC - many were shown as stand-alone "short films" in their own right at various film festivals, as well as distributed (on 16mm in the early years) to schools for "educational" purposes, so I doubt there was a "production code" assigned to each one in the same way that most network produced series were numbered. The basic layout of the episode charts on the List of West Wing episodes page looks good, but as with most Wikipedia episode pages I see, it does not allow for linking to a specific episode the way the chart used for the List of Drake & Josh episodes page does. It will be easy to remove the "Production code" column from the chart, and the other columns will automatically redistribute to fit the page (if you stretch your page to the full-width of your computer screen and then narrow the page again, you'll see what I mean; basically the columns will automatically find their own "level". What I can do is I'll make a little mock-up chart of just two or three "test" episodes, so you can see the layout I have in mind, and let me know what changes you think need to be made. I'll try and get to that within the next couple of days and I'll contact you with a link to my sandbox, so you can take a look. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a little free time, so I just went ahead and made a small mock-up wikitable to give you an idea of what I had in mind. The first is a standard episode wikitable similar to those seen on most episode pages and the second is my idea for a more appropriate wikitable for this project. I've made some modifications from the standard format, since this is more a series of short "films" and not a regular series where the main cast, plot, production info, etc, can all be covered in the body of the main article of the page. I've listed the cast in a "column" formation (since I think it's easier to read when listing more than just one or two "guest-stars"), added the || Series # || Season # || Title || bar for every episode (since each episode section will probably be longer than the episode section for the average series), and created an extra section for "trivia" and "notes" (when necessary). I've also shown some different colors, obviously each season would be just one color, but I used some different colors to give you an idea of how we could make each season a different color, for easier navigation when the reader is scrolling down a long page looking for a particular season. You can view the mock-ups on my Sandbox page, and let me know when you've seen it and what you think, since I'll be needing my sandbox for some other editing I'll be doing. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I'm impressed. I like your modifications in the second wikitable style. Three thoughts...(1) Place the Notes section after the Cast section. I'm thinking that for the majority of the over 150 episodes, there won't be any notes. If the style permits, the section could be deleted for those episodes. As an "optional" section, it might look better as the bottom entry on only selected episodes. (2) I agree that the cast list is more readable in a column. I think it would also be okay to do something simpler, such as listing three or four of the top-billed stars (without their roles) across the table, e.g., Starring: Ross Martin, Ginny Tyler, Vincent Van Patten. But I didn't know about the complex production process for these episodes which makes them "mini-films", so your style is perfectly fine. (3) The wikistyle for episode titles is to put them in quotes, but not italics, so we should keep that in mind as we proceed. JimVC3 (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the same thing after I finished the mock-up. I think the notes belong at the bottom, and that section can easily be omitted for any episode that doesn't have any notes or trivia. I can also create an optional mini "awards" bar to fit below the notes that can also be easily added or eliminated. Basically, my idea for the episode chart for this show is to make the layout identical to a typical TV show page here on Wikipedia, but just in "miniature" for each episode. I wouldn't usually change the standard format, but I don't see this series the same way as most network shows that have a core "starring" and "recurring" cast, so I think giving each episode it's own "mini" page format would be nice. I also thought about including only the "starring" cast and going across horizontally with their names to save vertical space, like most TV show guides here do, but since these were "stand-alone" teleplays with a revolving-door "starring" cast, it would be nice to give a complete cast list at a glance. Plus, many of the early specials were filmed before the child actors became "stars", so some of the most notable stars today weren't given "star" billing in the episodes they appeared in. I usually cut-and-paste cast info from IMDb (so it doesn't take me very much extra time) and then just go back and backlink the names. After I'm finished, I double-check against other online sources like TV.com, etc, to make sure I haven't missed anything.. Most of the episodes didn't have that many actors to credit, so I thought it would be nice to list the full casts in a vertical column, to make it easier to "scan" as the reader goes down the list, that way the reader can see all the current celebrities who were on the show as children, before they were "stars" (that way, its an episode guide, but also an easy to read complete "cast" list at-a-glance when quickly scrolling down through all 25 seasons). Since you've had a chance to view the chart, I'll go ahead and take it down, and I'll work on another demo chart over the next week or two to see if I can add a little "Awards" bar, and then let you know what I come up with. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Davis Cleveland

Hey Jakk. :) Yes I am familiar with SummerPhD's edits. He especially likes to put tags on pages for lesser known actors. For example, if take an actor's birthdate is taken from IMDb, he will probably remove it. Which is the reason why Drew Roy's page does not have a birthdate posted considering that there is a birthdate on his IMDb page. Frankly, I don't know why IMDb has such a bad reputation considering that there a number of actors that actually edit there own IMDb pages. IMDb is generally reliable about 98% of time that I have used it. But anyway, I spent a few minutes reading the Davis Cleveland talk page and boy did you and SummerPhD go at it. I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with your arguments. I have spent many years on Wikipedia editing actor's articles, and finding "reliable" information for lesser known actors is always a tough task. It is usually never a problem to find a unquestionable sources if an actor actually has the leading role in a project. But like you said given that Cleveland is a 9 years old and Shake It Up is a program geared to a young female audience, he is not going to get as much independent coverage as Bella Thorne and Zendaya, the show's leads. Lastly, the two tags that are on the page are not too much of a problem, Just be glad that the page is not under AFD at the moment. QuasyBoy 20:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem :), We are definitely on the same page on this issue. QuasyBoy 22:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Young Artist Award

Hey Crakkerjakk, thanks for adding the LIFE.com link to the 2011 page. Also, great job on the rewrite + expansion of the main article. It flows much better now :) Jusses2 (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a couple more references with more info that I'm planning to add to the main article page, but they're older stories, so they won't help on the 2011 page, but I think you have enough sources cited there now that you shouldn't have to worry. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: The Queen of Hearts

Hello, I'm not a Wikipedian, so I don't know whether I'm doing any of this correctly, but I added a comment onto the Origins section of the discussion about the Queen of Hearts (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

I thought I'd reproduce that message here, so that you would be sure to see it. (I hope that this isn't inappropriate.)

"I don't know if this qualifies as 'a reliable source' but there is an article by CW Giles, Punch, August 15, 1928 comparing the Queen of Hearts to Queen Margaret (and the Alice books to the Wars of the Roses.) You can see the relevant section of the article here: http://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/explain/alice808.html "

Thanks for your time

90.193.214.128 (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Monica Smalley

Question regarding use of a Wikipedia file

I have a somewhat detailed question regarding a file already being used here on Wikipedia that I would like to use on a second article page. I'm in need of assistance from an admin with specific detailed knowledge of Wikipedia's policies regarding images. If anyone reading this can help answer my questions or can point me to an admin with in-depth knowledge about the fair use of images, I'll be most grateful.

I'm in the process of writing a detailed article about the Academy Juvenile Award. I'm currently working on the project in my personal Sandbox page, so the Academy Juvenile Award article as it is now does not accurately reflect the article as it will appear once I'm finished. A mock-up of the page I'm working on can be viewed here. I'm still working on small rewrites and adding inline reflinks for all my sources (which I always do last), but this is a basic rough draft of what the page will be.

My question is regarding the image depicting Bobby Driscoll accepting the Award. I see the photo has been used on the Bobby Driscoll page for over 3 years, and I'd like to use this same photo on the Academy Juvenile Award page in order to depict the unique award and its small size as compared to the standard Oscar statue.

Since the Juvenile Award was an exact miniature replica of the full-sized Oscar statue, a close-up photograph of one by itself would simply look like a full sized Oscar, therefore a photo showing one of the young recipients holding the statuette is required in order to give the reader an idea of its size, and the fact that in this particular image an adult is also pictured presenting the miniature statuette makes it the ideal photo to give the reader an idea of scale.

My question is in several parts - Do these reasons qualify as a legitimate fair-use rationale to use this image on the Academy Juvenile Award page? If not, is there some other formalized way I should be stating the rationale? And if so - Can I have some help writing a detailed rationale for the file's page? I also see the file page says a separate rationale is required for each additional page the image is being used on - Does this mean I need to create a second rationale template for the file's page?

I've uploaded and written fair-use rationales for several images here on Wikipedia in the past without any trouble, so I'm usually confidant providing a rationale for most images, but this is the first time I'm using this type of unique rationale for the use of an image that's already being used on Wikipedia, so I'd like some help writing a clear and concise rationale that will hold up before using the image on the finalized article page. Thanks in advance. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this from a "adminhelp" to an ordinary "helpme", because many of the NFCC experts who could help you are not admins; and many admins, like me, are not NFCC experts. My non-expert view is, yes, you do have to make another rationale for another page to use the image, and my suggestion is, read Wikipedia:Fixing non-free image problems, draft a Fair Use Rationale, and then ask someone on the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free#Editors willing to help. JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you will certainly need a second rationale. But the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free#Editors willing to help looks somewhat out of date, to me. I suggest that after you have drafted a second rationale - perhaps on this talk page - you post at Media copyright questions so that the active experts will see it. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert of FUR, so take this with a grain of salt. First, I agree with others that you need a separate rationale for each use. That is one of the things I do know about FUR. However, I am skeptical that you will be able to satisfy the "No free equivalent" criterion. While there haven't been many of these awards, there are (per the article) 14 or so in existence. so while it may be difficult to photograph one of these, it doesn't sound impossible. I grant that a photograph alone is not desired; as you note, but if a photograph could be arranged, it should not be difficult to arrange to have it held, or shown next to an object for size comparison purposes. Others may disagree, noting the rarity of the item, and the obvious difficulty of obtaining a photograph. I don't know how far along the continue from "easy" to "impossible" is required. The literal words of the rules suggest that it has to be "impossible" to satisfy, and I don't think it is.

BTW, nice work on the draft, it looks quite interesting.--SPhilbrickT 17:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is last such award was given out in the 1960's (so that is over 50 years ago) so finding such an award to take a photo of would be very hard to do. Also, if you look at http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm, many of the images from the 1930's and 1940's would be public domain due to lack of notice. (I even contend this current image is public domain due to lack of notice, but if this was from a personal collection, going to have to do some more research). My suggestion is to try and look for the awardees from the earlier periods and see what could be found. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's actually what I was thinking also. I would ideally like to use a picture of Judy Garland or Shirley Temple holding the Award since they're probably the two most well known stars to win it. I've actually found a good picture of Temple on the Oscar.org website that would be PERFECT for the page (since she was its first recipient and was also the youngest to win it). I didn't see any copyright info on it on the Oscar website, but I've been trying to finish up the article, so I haven't had a chance to look into it. I just thought I'd ask about the Bobby Driscoll picture since it's already being used here and I could get some info on it while I was finishing up the article. Thanks also to the other replies. I'm finishing things up right now, but I should be done in a day or two and will have more time to focus on the photo then. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of using one that is PD. If you have any questions about the status, the experts at MCQ are quite good.--SPhilbrickT 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - That's what I'm hoping for. Like Zscout said - the award's heyday was so long ago, that half the child star's who were awarded it are dead now (and the ones that are left aren't getting any younger) which just makes things that much harder (both Judy's awards are now locked up in vaults). Plus, I'm old school - I like movie stars to look like movie stars. I'd honestly rather not use any picture in the article than to use a pic of some aging child star posing with their award. It would just make it look like some former child star "lifetime achievement award" instead of what it was, so I'm hoping for a pic of one of the kids on the night they accepted their award (preferably a star as iconic as the Oscar itself). I admit Bobby Driscoll isn't exactly a household name to most people under the age of 70, but most people are likely to have at least heard of a couple of his movies. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ivan Jandl - Juvenile Oscar

Hi, - I noticed that you used my Bobby Driscoll-Oscar Photograph of for the article on the Juvenile Oscars. Now I found a website on Ivan Jandl, who, just one year before, won the same minature Oscar for his performance in the post-war drama "The Search", 1948, starring Montgomery Clift. It includes photographs of him with his Oscar and Golden Globe, once as a child and once as an adult, but decide yourself, wether you want/can use it for the Wikipedia, or wether not. It then would be the second ones, depicting this rare minature stauette. http://drziteleoscara.blog.cz/0911/prvni-ceskoslovensky-oscar regards --Bylot (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen those photos of Ivan before. I think Bobby Driscoll is probably more recognizable to readers of the English Wikipedia, so I'd rather keep the picture of Bobby as the infobox image for now. I'd like to find more pictures of the award's recipients, but I don't think I'd add more photos to the body of the article until I can find photos representing a wider variety of honorees (male & female; 30s, 40s & 50s, etc). I was originally hoping to find a free-license photo of Shirley Temple or Judy Garland on the night they accepted their Juvenile Awards to use in the infobox (since they're probably the two most famous recipients), but I couldn't find any good pictures of them with their awards that I thought would be free-license, so I was happy to find the picture of Bobby since he and Mickey Rooney are probably the two most famous boys to receive it. Nice work on the Bobby Driscoll page by the way. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Crakkerjakk! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Or not? :p. If you want me to wander off, just say the word - I'm only asking because you seemed very clued-in in your past comments over the tool, and we're trying to build a new version that will take into account the community's concerns. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry it's taken me so long to reply. As you probably noticed, I was involved in several heated discussions regarding the AFT and I'd just grown tired of the subject. However, I do have opinions about how the tool is working (or not working) and I've gone ahead and posted my opinions here. I realize a whole new update is already in the works, but I don't have the time or inclination to read all of the recent discussions on the subject, so I just wanted to throw in my two-cents (although I'm sure most of my concerns have already either been incorporated into the update and/or disregarded by now). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much :). So, I'm planning on writing a little newsletter once a week, or once every two weeks, just to summarise what's been done in that time period and what is under discussion. That way, users without the time or energy to engage en masse can comment on the bits that pique their interest without having to follow it like a hawk. Would you be interested in that sort of thing? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the articles can I ask a favour?

Thank you for improving Timm Thaler (1979 TV miniseries) and Thomas Ohrner you improvements are to be commended. Could you do me a favour and archive my talk page as I dunno how to do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I'm not exactly sure how to archive talk pages either. If you want, I can ask an admin who is usually helpful when I have questions (when he's not too busy). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes that would be great thank if you could do that. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again

The archive box is good enough for me I am satisfied with as it. Thanks for the assist. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Young Artists Awards

The website seemed to have gone down sometime around Friday. I haven't been able to access the site since. When you click on the link, it just shows something for the LA Mission which has absolutely nothing to do with the Young Artists Awards. I'm using IMDB because as of right now, it seems to be the only help I can get for editing the pages. I'll keep my eye on whether the Young Artists website will be available.LuckyBluJay05 (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have something like this happen right in the middle of working on so many pages. I've never seen the youngartistawards.org site go down like this before so I have no idea what's going on. Hopefully the site is just down temporarily for maintenance and will be back up soon, but yes, it's a good idea to use IMDb for now so we at least have something on the pages to keep them from being deleted (if they're left blank for too long, an admin will tag and eventually delete them). The only thing I will suggest is that when the official site is back up (right now I'm assuming it will be back sooner rather than later), we most definitely should check each page against the info we use from IMDb. I know that's like doing the work twice, so let me know if/when you see the official website is back up and possibly we can split the work by taking 7-or-so pages each to cut your work in half. I've been in touch with Maureen Dragone (YAA founder) in the past as well as the head of their publicity department (I can't remember his name off the top of my head at the moment), so we can give it a few weeks (hopefully it won't take that long), and if the offical website still isn't back up, I can try to get in touch with someone using the contact info I have for them. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Just a follow-up note to let you know that the youngartistawards.org website appears to be back up. If you still get the error pages (which happened to me at first), just make sure to refresh the page in your browser. A couple of additional notes about blue-linking to the actors' bio pages - after you're finished, you might also want to check each link and make sure they direct to the appropriate page (since there is often more than one person/movie/show with the same name that may have a Wikipedia article). Another note about red-links - While it's Wikipedia's policy to avoid red-linking in articles, in the case of "list" pages like these, red-links are ok - that way, if/when those pages are created, they're automatically blue-linked. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you appear to share an interest in the Young Artists Awards page and categories, is there a possibility you might be able to help me fill in the remaining categories if possible? If you can, that would be great. If not, I understand. Sometimes it's hard for one person to do all the work if you know what I mean.LuckyBluJay05 (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely do know what you mean. I had planned to start working on creating the rest of the pages, but I'm also watching a lot of pages (reverting vandalism), so I never get enough free time to work on the YAA ceremonies. I started working on the list of 12th annual ceremony winners/nominees in my personal sandbox a few months ago as you can see here, but I only got about halfway through re-directing all the blue-links and it became so time consuming that I never had a chance to finish. I can't promise that I can devote a lot of time to helping with the pages right now with the holidays coming up, but one thing I can suggest - If you want to make your work faster, you might want to just skip the blue-linking of all the names/films/shows and just create black and white articles for now without the wikilinks. That should save you quite a bit of time for now, and then we can go back in and work on blue-linking the names/titles later on when we have more time. I've noticed that some editors who have created some of the other pages never really bothered to make them complete (only listing the winners in film or the categories where their "favorite" star won, etc) so quite a few of the ones created before you started also need to be re-done properly as well. I know you haven't done this on the pages you've created, but the incomplete pre-existing pages combined with the new pages is quite a lot of work so I can't promise that I would be a lot of help right now. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a follow-up note to let you know I had a little extra time so I went ahead and completed the list of winners/nominees on the 24th Young Artist Awards page. For formatting preferences, the layout of the article page differs slightly from the official website (as you can see in the article), but all the information is there. I haven't blue-linked any of the names/titles yet, in order to save time, but everything can be blue-linked at a later time after we have all the pages completed. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I finished adding complete lists of winners/nominees to the rest of the awards pages you created. I know linking all the names/titles is a lot of work, but if you want to blue-link just the winning actors/films/shows that would be great. I've also created a sandbox page for you at User:LuckyBluJay05/Sandbox. You can work on articles there and then create the article pages when you have them ready. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Request an opinion

There is an edit conflict being discussed at Talk:List of Austin & Ally episodes. I don't know whether or not you watch this show but would appreciate any thoughts you might have as an experienced TV show article editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted over there and added a note in the table (for however long it lasts), so you might want to add that TVGuide reflink to it. I'm busy with a big project right now, so I haven't even wanted to look at the Austin & Ally page (I can just imagine the childish drama that show is going to ignite), but let me know if you have any troubles on the main article (or it's "daughter" pages) and I'll be happy take a look. I might take a look after a few weeks to see if the article needs to be reworked/improved, but I'll probably be working on this huge Young Artist Awards project in my free time for the next few weeks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and inputs on this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Judy Garland image

Okay well at least I have provided a sensible reason for the image I selected: Garland is clearly recognisable in it. What is the reasoning for your preference, just that you think she looks prettier? The purpose of a main image should surely be for quick identifiation of the subject. Main images are almost always (basically whenever they can be) a close-up of the face. The Garland one you want is taken from quite far off, and you can barely even tell it's her... --Lobo512 (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, an infobox image on a bio page should be easily recognizable of the subject - which I believe both images are - the only difference being that I believe the Lily Mars image is more flattering. I don't have a problem with the image being switched for another clear image of her (such as the one you've suggested) if there is a consensus by a majority of editors to change it. I don't think the image you've selected is bad (both are far better than the trailer screencap that was on the page when I reverted it), but as I've stated - as of now it's a vote of 2 to 1. Feel free to bring it up on the Judy Garland talk page. If a majority of editors agree with your choice then I don't have any problem with the image you've selected. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not gooing to bother asking for other users opinions, that seems excessive, but I'll just quote this from Wikipedia:Images#Images_for_the_lead: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Do you not think a straight-on image of her face fits this better than a rather fancy, photoshoot-style image? --Lobo512 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've indicated - I think both photos would make good infobox images. The only difference being that I personally think movie stars should look like movie stars (when the images are available) and the Lily Mars image shows her at her absolute best. Granted, it's a high glamour shot, but not so glamourous that she doesn't look like herself. There appears to be several nice images of her added to Commons since the last discussion of an infobox image on her talk page a couple of years ago, so a new talk page discussion about which image would be ideal for her article might be a good idea if you wanted to start one. At this point it looks like it would be a decision between several nice shots of her (a problem I only wish we had on the vast majority of bio articles on Wikipedia). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Crakkerjakk. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Carmen Carrera

I would like your feedback on the article for Carmen Carrera. Please see the article's talk page to see issue. In order to avoid libel what I am requesting is a self-declaration from Carrera where he states that people should view and address him as a female. Third person perspective as in the article I referenced for his appears on "What Would You Do?" is not valid enough because episode has not aired, and Carrera's website is presently down. Wikipedia had a similar policy way back when dealing with Ricky Martin's sexual orientation. His article was changed after he declared on his website that he was gay (first person - self declaration) and not to hearsay or an article. I think the same route should be applied to Carrera's article until an interview or reference (YouTube video?) where he discusses any gender identifcation. Please take a look at provide your feedback. I don't want to move this to escalation on the edit war boards until I get a third opinion. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've posted my opinion on the talk page. I understand your point, but ABC News is considered one of the most reliable sources in the American Media, so in my opinion the report is most definitely true, and the page should be re-worded. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've left feedback to your opinion the article's talk page. Take a look and let me know what you think. --XLR8TION (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

On Greg Heffley

Hi. I noticed you reverted the edit(s) I made to Greg Heffley. I fixed the spelling errors, but left the ref tags alone. But I was wondering, is it not redundant to state that a character appears in all the books in the series if it is already stated that he is the main character of the series? (That's why I removed such a statement and its references from the article in the first place).

Thanks,

^King Jakob _C 16:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It could be considered redundant, but the way the sentence is worded to include other adaptations in addition to the book series, it doesn't seem like a big problem. Don't get me wrong, I can see how the entire page could use a rewrite. However, in that case, the references should be moved to another point in the lede rather than removing them. Of course anyone familiar with the book and/or film series knows he's the main character, but if the references are removed, another editor could come along and tag the claim (and in this case possibly even the entire page) for deletion, based on the fact that there are no references supporting the character's primary notability, so it's always best to err on the side of keeping references (even when citing that the sky is blue). One additional note: I didn't mean to sound threatening in my edit summary. I could tell you were editing in good faith and I only meant to say "please do not remove ref tags to avoid being reverted again". Re-reading my edit summary again, I see that my comment sounded terse, but I didn't mean it to sound that way.  :) --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I only removed the references, because I was going to remove the sentence stating that Greg Heffley appeared in all the books (leaving the statement that he appeared in the spin-offs), because I assumed that any reader would know that the main character of a series appears in all the books.

^King Jakob _C 13:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the average reader would understand that. However, as previously stated, given that the sentence simply reframes that fact while simultaneously expanding the assertion to include other adaptations doesn't make the sentence a huge problem for me. But again, regardless of how this information is worded, the references would need to be moved support the information, not removed altogether (for the reasons I previously outlined above). The removal of references wasn't the only problem; there was also the issue of reference #1 being changed from "Kinney, Jeff (2009). Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days. Abrams Books. p. 217." to simply "Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days" since a reader who is not familiar with the book series has no way of understanding what is being referenced and even those who are familiar have no way to distinguish whether the source was the book or the film of the same name. I know you weren't deliberately trying to create problems and I realize template syntax can be confusing, which is why it's best not to edit ref tags or any other templates, until one has familiarized themselves with template syntax, manual of style, etc, required to do so before undertaking the task. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I offer this olive branch to you regarding our posts on American Horror Story's talkpage, regardless of the comments you made on Edgar181's talk page. Funny thing: we agreed on the AHS's main page layout all season long, but this issue put a divide between us. My New Year's resolution was to not sweat the small stuff, which is what that was, and I won't anymore. That was just unfinished business, which you thought I messed up even more. — ^Wylie_Coyote 14:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize. Honestly, if you'd just posted in the thread saying you thought it had been long enough, I would have agreed with you and would have been happy to ask an admin about it. I don't always have to be "right" (despite the fact that the thread become so long, the purpose was to clarify my reasoning, not to turn it into a "fight"), so I would have been happy to help get the pages moved. My main worry was that once the one page had already been moved, the issue of consensus might prevent an admin from being willing to perform the rest of the moves for us (luckily it didn't). I completely understand how Wikipedia can suck the life out of editors, but next time just tack a message at the bottom of the discussion and say "I think it's been long enough. Do we think we have enough consensus to get 'XYZ' done now?" You'll find I'm more than willing to concede after a fair amount of time has passed and I'm the lone holdout blocking a consensus. I'm also friends with several admins who are great about helping out when they can, so when there's some "red tape" issue like this that you don't feel like dealing with, just let me know (preferably beforehand), and I can usually get it taken care of fairly painlessly. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That was my problem, I think: The pain of adding templates for move/merge requests. I don't have any admin friends, or at least I've not noticed any. One time I asked a guy to close an AfD discussion for an episode that I could not work on 'cause of technical issues. He's been 'pedian for 10 years or so and still didn't know how to do that. (Guess who taught him?) In retrospect, our time with back & forths on that thread and I could've templated those two little articles. As for voting, for a popular TV show, it appears not many care about reading its talkpages. Still, my view stands: no article pages for me, next season. More hassle than their worth, even with my attempts to make them notable. Settled dust: Happy New Year! — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the same thing. Even popular GA articles don't get much traffic on their talk pages (the only exception I can think of where discussions don't literally take months is the Barack Obama article). In fact, believe it or not the AHS talk page actually gets more intelligent participation than most. I'm just getting ready to sign off in a minute, but I'll take a look at the Categories for discussion page possibly tomorrow. Categories aren't my field of expertise, so I don't know if I could be of much help, but I'll take a look tomorrow and see if there is anything I can add to the discussion. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way...

You do not have to weigh in on this, but here's my current beef with the Wikiworld. Why I'm tired and stressed: I spent a week (as in 4 hours a day) on those categories and they want to delete them. Boy howdy! — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Young Artist Award

Crakkerjakk, it's really not as confusing as you're making it out to be. Right now, I'm in the process of doing some copyediting to the article, and making it look a lot more readable, possibly allowing it to go up a grade in some of the WikiProjects. However, it does help when the subjects are labeled correctly when a copyeditor starts helping out with an article; when I first started editing the article, the subject in the opening sentence was "Young Artist Foundation", NOT "Young Artist Association"; you made that fix yourself amongst the edits I'm making.

Anyways, I'm going to do some more edits on that article to clean it up. I know you've had a lot of involvement in these articles, even creating the infobox templates that are on these articles. My goal is to get them a bit more "Wiki-fied". Steel1943 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I changed the lede from Foundation to Association. I wasn't objecting to what you were doing (I completely understand how you arrived at the edits you'd made); the problem was with how many in the media would use Foundation and Association interchangably, so I wasn't blaming you. There was just some info removed and some incorrect info in your edits (again, not your fault at all), so the easiest thing to do was revert (with the change from "Foundation" to "Association"). I didn't create most of the ceremony pages (I don't think I created any of them), but I was the one to bring them up to something cohesive (I'm currently in the process of applying some minor formatting fixes to them, but it's slow going). Please don't think I object to what you're doing. I know you're trying in good faith. It will just be much more clear after I have a chance to update the article with all the clarifications provided in the media recently. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I know you're not objecting, and I know you're not trying to start an edit war. I'm just stating that as a copy-editor trying to "wiki-fi" the articles, my actual interest in what subject is what is very low, so it really helps me to have the subjects named correctly in the correct places upon my arrival. It could have been possible that I would have eventually made the realization that one of the subjects was labeled incorrectly upon arrival, so I thank you for clarifying that, instead of me realizing that at a later point amongst the edits I have been making. Also, you may or may not have noticed that I have created at least one redirect towards every article in sequence 21st and greater up to 34th. I'm trying to do what I can to make these articles a lot cleaner, and make sure that links go to proper articles and do not have unnecessary piping. In fact, I would not be surprised if another editor at some point comes up with the idea to merge some of these articles, but that's neither my goal, nor a discussion that I desire to initiate (considering that there would be more than 30 articles to merge together). I'd rather make what we have now look clean so that if a merger is proposed later, it will only be a matter of copy-paste. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I've done everything I can for the time being. Since you seem to know more about this topic than myself, the two problems that might need to still be fixed, that I can see, are the following:

1. The section Young Artist Award#Young Artist Foundation may or may not have correct information; I was going by what the description for that topic was when I was in the process of moving the information around in the article to make more sense.
2. In articles 21st Young Artist Awards all the way chronologically until 34th Young Artist Awards, there is a sentence that reads:

"Established in 1978, the Young Artist Foundation was the first organization to establish an awards ceremony specifically set to recognize and award the contributions of performers under the age of 18 in the fields of film, television, theater and music."

In that sentence, I'm thinking that "Young Artist Foundation" is supposed to be "Young Artist Association", but I am not 100% sure with the way it reads.

Anyways Crakkerjakk, it's been a pleasure. Maybe our paths will cross again someday, most likely on these articles, or maybe even the WP:RFD you submitted. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to be so slow in replying; I was on the phone. Yes, there is still confusion on quite a few of the pages. As I said, I'm currently in the process of reformatting the ceremony pages, which is taking me some time (I haven't been able to get AWB up and running on my Mac, so thousands of repeated "formatting" edits is triggering my carpel tunnel). What I'll do is just go ahead and fix the information, differentiating Young Artist Association from Young Artist Foundation on the ceremony pages tonight and then go back and work on the formatting issues later which will take more time. I also planned to work on the main page. A lot of information needs to be clarified, since, as you can probably imagine, there has been some conflicting information provided in the media over the last 35 years (nothing crucial, but just a million little things which has caused the confusion). Numerous news agencies have mistakenly reported the purpose of the award is to recognize child stars under 18 (the eligibility age is actually 21, but 18 stems from reports in years where nobody over 18 was nominated in that particular year); the Young Artist Association mistakenly being referred to as the Young Artist Foundation, and a million other little discrepancies that I'm sure you don't want to hear about. lol..

As I said, I didn't create the ceremony pages (except the last one, which I decided to go ahead and create when nominees were announced last year before some 12yo kid created it with "wishful edits" declaring their favorite "teen idol" the winner of an award they were never even nominated for, etc), however, I would definitely object to merging them. Almost every year had it's share of media coverage (another issue which takes some time to source as a result of numerous news agencies using varying keywords to describe the awards, etc). In addition, after the first few ceremonies, many of the categories were "split" (leading, supporting, recurring, guest starring, ensemble, etc) as well as additional splits for age groups (ages 5–10; ages 11–15; ages 16–21, etc), so merging would result in pages that were a mile long, which would be an absolute nightmare. I also plan on citing superlatives/anomalies for certain years (eldest winners, youngest winners, the relatively rare "sweep", etc), so I just need a few weeks to pull things together and then I'll be happy for editors to add what they can once things I get everything straightened out.

For now, I'll go ahead and correct the basic info on the ceremony pages that still need it (I was just doing it as I formatted each page, but I can fast track it) and then I'll get to work on the main Young Artist Awards "mother" page over the next week. One question: Do you use AWB on a Mac? Or do you have AWB rights? Just curious since I need a Mac user who has AWB rights to explain how to install it on my Mac (yes I'm technically challenged when it comes to that kind of thing. lol..) --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Crakkerjakk; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Adam Lambert GLAAD

Hi Crakkerjakk. Thanks for adding the award to the first section AL bio, but as long as you did i have a question or two. first, i recoded it because i'd already used the ref, posting it the day it was written on 3/28, but in the LGBT Advocacy section. -- placed it here only, bec he had not yet received the award (but thought it was important enough to note ASAP). i was hesitant to post about events not yet having occurred in the first section, it's written in the past tense of course, but also so much more prominent. so my first question has to do with posting about things that have not yet occurred. is there a rule of thumb on this (and am i nit-picking)? i have a few now in advocacy (including this, in future tense) -- understanding i would re-write them as they passed, which will be very shortly. second question is why you entered it as Honorary GMA as opposed to the actual award name, Davidson/Valentini? would appreciate it if you would clarify. there's certainly going to be much more press around the ceremony so i'd like to know. also about the past/future thing. ok thank you Jordan200 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realized the article already cited the same source after you pointed it out (I didn't read the entire article to check prior to citing it, so I didn't have any problem with you merging the two reflinks). As far as mentioning it now, as opposed to waiting for the actual ceremony - It's true he hasn't actually received the statuette, however, as with most awards, the honor is in being "named/recognized", which seems sufficiently established, although the ceremony has not taken place yet (Anderson Cooper's page read similarly prior to him actually accepting the statuette this year as well). With regards to saying "Honorary" instead of "GLAAD Davidson/Valentini Award" – That was simply a case of trying to be succinct in the lede of the article, since many readers may not be familiar with the nature of that particular award by name alone. GLAAD bestows approximately half-a-dozen "Special" awards annually, which do not undergo the standard "nomination"/"voting" process (resulting in "nominees" vs. "winners"), so it was just a way of disambiguating between GLAAD's "competitive" awards and the "honorary" award he received (or will receive, depending upon how you perceive it). I won't be offended if you think there's a better way of wording the information (from past to future tense; from "honorary" to the specific name of the award, etc). Aside from reverting vandalism (obviously not the case here), my particular specialty is awards articles (and making notes on recipients' pages when the accolade is notable), and the honorary GLAAD Awards are usually held in high esteem by most recipients (particularly those who identify as LGBT), so I thought it merited a mention in the lede, but you can revert or reword it until after the ceremony. I won't be offended. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the clarifications. i'm glad you entered it in the lede actually -- as you know i'd entered it, but wouldn't have felt comfortable putting it up top until the ceremony; plus now there's no thought involved as to the 'whether' it belongs there. as for the re-wording, i think once it's passed -- i agree it should be simple, exactly as you did the first time. it's more accurate now but also a little more awkward. (my fault!) -- as for your reasoning about calling it an honorary award vs. naming it: i'm not sure what my opinion is yet. i understand the difference between the honoraries and the others -- adam's been up for outstanding music artist twice, including this year -- but i'm not certain people might not just go right by the word 'honorary'. -- if it were named, of course, very few would know what that meant, but it would be easy to find out -- and hard not to note that it is distinguished. the award could be defined, as it is now, in the LGBT advocacy section, still keeping the lede succinct. so thank you for the help Crakkerjakk, let's wait and see. Jordan200 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 33rd British Academy Film Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page That Summer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Injury Count

See article talk page - we're saying 51 from Reuters report Oddbodz (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You do not have consensus on the talk page, Oddbodz. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither did Oddbodz when he repeatedly reverted to 23.. Either follow the history of the interaction or don't inject yourself.. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I was telling Oddbodz he didn't have consensus.AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry, I misread your message. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it has been changed to 73 now following a Boston Police source (not my edit). Oddbodz (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You've apparently been overruled by the reliable source that was there all along. The number is over 100, just as it has been since you began edit warring. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Collins and "active"

Discussion was getting more sports related than article, so I thought I'd move it to your page for some final thoughts. There is revenue from ad hits on SI.com, even though it's "free". The thought was posed that he was at the twilight of his career, may not have gotten a contract anyways, so didn't have much to lose. Of course his decision could have had nothing to do with his career, but only he will ever know. In the meantime, it's talk show fodder. Anyhow, just reaffirming I did not think it's worth adding to the article, it's just what's out there if someone wants to dig and finds more. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

True. Some websites generate ad revenue on a "per click" basis, while others sell ad space based on a broader calculation of traffic stats. That aside, it doesn't seem likely that a major magazine like Sports Illustrated would compromise their integrity just to generate a 2 or 3 day spike in traffic, but I suppose anything is possible (although not probable). As has been outlined previously, it's not just SI, but it's also every other reliable source (that I've seen), however, as I said, I wouldn't object to possibly reformatting the info that's already on the page, but I don't see it as an issue that requires "in-depth" coverage from all perspectives, etc. Although, I'm not a big sports fan, so it's possible I'm just not as consumed with the literal interpretation of "active" as others seem to be. He wants to keep playing and (quite possibly because of yesterday's announcement) appears to have a decent chance of another season somewhere, which, as I've said, appears to be the definition that the reliable sources are using. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:James 2008 film.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:James 2008 film.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by the Degrassi franchise

In reply to your comments at List of awards and nominations received by the Degrassi franchise, is there a specific MOS I should read? When a "nomination" becomes a win, the nomination count will go down. The count should never go down, because that would be a WP:CRYSTAL violation. This is the same reason why we say pending before an awards show, not nominated. 117Avenue (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

I have indefinitely blocked your account. This action was made in my role as a Wikipedia administrator, but if you think you should be unblocked, you will need to send an appeal by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee. (Other administrators will please not revert this block under any circumstances because it has been made for very good reasons.) AGK [•] 13:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Youth In Film Awards

Template:Infobox Youth In Film Awards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Young Artist Awards

Template:Infobox Young Artist Awards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of JacksGap for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JacksGap is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JacksGap until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Benboy00 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tiger Beat debut issue.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tiger Beat debut issue.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. IPadPerson (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Flipper and Lopaka.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flipper and Lopaka.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Maya 1967 TV series.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Maya 1967 TV series.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:How to Eat Like a Child original cast.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:How to Eat Like a Child original cast.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Golden Globe Trophy.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Golden Globe Trophy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Richie Rich comic No 1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Richie Rich comic No 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:GLAADMediaAwardTrophy.png

Thanks for uploading File:GLAADMediaAwardTrophy.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fourth of July - Days of Summer DVD cover-2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fourth of July - Days of Summer DVD cover-2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Little Dragons VHS cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Little Dragons VHS cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Humanitas Prize.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Humanitas Prize.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Humanitas Prize.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Humanitas Prize.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:B martha01.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:B martha01.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bewitched color title card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bewitched color title card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bewitched color title card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bewitched color title card.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)