WP:BADCHARTS

Please do not include charts from hot100brasil.com, or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, in any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 11:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about Manuel Esperón's page

Answered on my talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A disappointing answer

I've addressed your question re: the lyrics to "Ay, Jalisco". Be warned - it's not what you were hoping for. DS (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Jpcase, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((helpme)) on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  —cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lilongo

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lilongo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy reverts

Hi, I noticed you undid almost every revision by StaleCupcakes on the article Ed, Edd n Eddy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch without leaving any remarks. I do understand some of the reverts but try to assume the edits were in good faith, and not necessarily vandalism. A good way to learn the proper way of editing is for someone to point out the good and the bad things one might be contributing to an article. I also noticed that you hadn't explained your reverts to the user on their talk page, so they could better understand how to contribute to an article. Please consider these things before reverting good faith edits. At first glance, it seemed you purposely reverted all the edits by that user, but I assumed you were only acting in good faith to keep the article clean and well written. Thanks and happy editing. «»Who?¿? 01:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Yeah, sorry about that. Thanks a ton for teaching me a lesson, and I'm going to try and be the best editor I can and not do things like that. Thanks again StaleCupcakes (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Collab?

Hi, Jpcase! You know me, right? :) Since we've been working so well on the Ed, Edd n Eddy-related articles, and I plan to continue that, I was thinking about something. I recently beefed up the Lupo the Butcher article a bit, though not much, and thought I'd start editing Danny Antonucci's Wikipedia entry to bring it to GA-Class, and I thought we could work on it together. W wouldn't add to much info on cartoons that aren't his creation, so we'll only concentrate on Lupo and EEnE, and add a bit about The Brothers Grunt. The article'll still mostly concentrate on EEnE, and we'll somehow have to find a source for his early works, and the sentence which states he went to Sheridan College of Visual Arts. Besides that, finding sources won't be hard. I of course also plan to work on List of Ed, Edd n Eddy characters and make some more season articles, maybe episode articles. So, are you up for it? :) --Khanassassin ☪ 18:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd definately like to help out where I can. I've never actually seen Lupo the Butcher or The Brothers Grunt, so most of my focus will probably be on Ed, Edd n Eddy, and I'm not sure how much time I have at the moment to devote to this, but you can be sure that if I see anything that I can help with, I will. :) --Jpcase (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen Grunt (except for a few YouTube clips), but you can watch Lupo on YouTube, since it's only 3 minutes long. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 07:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Méliès

The information I found on Méliès is the on-line catalogue I linked in one of my answers on the Ref Desk. I'm not sure how reliable that web site is, but it seemed at first glance to be the work of serious film historians. You may want to poke around that site to check out exactly who the writers are. I also double-checked the information against the French-language wikipedia (for example, I was surprised that Méliès' production company had an English name, well before Hollywood had any role in the movie industry, but it was in fact the case). I'm not an expert on Méliès by any means, but I figured that I could try to answer your questions based on my ability to look up things in both French and English. Regards. --Xuxl (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My response was based on cross-referencing information between film net and the French wikipedia. I'm sorry that I don't have actual references for you. These don't seem to exist online. --Xuxl (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary?

I almost reverted your edit to Tangled because it was unexplained (had no Edit Summary) and appeared--at first--to be POV-pushing. A little more reading revealed the true story, of course, but it would be really nice if you would include an Edit Summary on each of your changes to help your fellow editors (and recent-change patrollers) understand what you did.

Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 23:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. I used to always include edit summaries, but lately I've fallen out of the habit. Thanks for the reminder! I'll try not to leave them out from now on. :) --Jpcase (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI

Yes, you did add the image correctly at Hoodwinked. :) --MASEM (t) 23:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's scheduled as TFA on 16 November, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jpcase. You have new messages at Ost316's talk page.
Message added 15:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Ost (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Precious

films
Thank you for quality articles on films, such as Georges Méliès filmography and Hoodwinked!, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 306th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Three Caballeros

Well, I haven't seen Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros recently, but I don't think that there is anyone speaking Italian in the original version. My first edit was to add that some voice actors also dubbed the Italian version, then I saw that the languages used in the template seemed to coincide with that of foreign editions dubbed dubbbed by the original voice actors and I added Italian. I guess I should have brought the topic in the talk page, as I also had a feeling that the language template wasn't for that purpose. Well, since my second edits are wrong, I am gonna revert them. Bye. --Newblackwhite (talk) 09:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In case you missed this elsewhere

Don't forget that in most cases the copyright to a picture is owned by the photographer and not the subject of the photograph. Most subjects don't know this because they paid for the picture to be taken, etc. None-the-less the photographer typically retains the rights to it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, if you put something, anything on your user page then your name will appear as a blue link and not a red link and you will appear to be an editor who plans to stay around. Secondly, since you are in contact with this Cory fellow, I would just continue in that route. If he says that you can use the image, use it. Just don't be too surprised if someone else brings this up. It will not be me, I have struggled with the USA's restrictive copyright stuff a lot and have learned to live with it. You are doing what you can and that's all you can do. Carptrash (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Help uploading an image

I asked this question at the Help Desk and although no one was able to help me, I was advised to add this tag to my talk page. I want to have the image that I found at this webpage [1] added to the Animation section of the article Hoodwinked! I think that the image would be considered fair use since it provides an example of Rankin/Bass' visual style, which the director of Hoodwinked! has specifically cited as being a significant inspiration on his film's design. I am utterly helpless though, when it comes to filling out the necessasry form for uploading copyrighted images. Is there anyone who would be willing to upload this image for me? --Jpcase (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're talking about the stop-frame Rudolph picture at the top, it won't work as fair use for that article as it isn't of the movie itself. Also, putting that picture would raise the article to its 'no more than 2 fair use images per article' limit, which means a fair use image of the actual movie wouldn't be able to be added after this. That's just my opinion on it though, others may feel differently. gwickwiretalkedits 21:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think that the limit on fair use images is a problem in this case. I can think of no reason to include a second picture of Hoodwinked! in the article and if any image is added, I feel that the most beneficial would be one illustrating the visual style of Rankin/Bass. As I said, I think that this could be very useful for readers, since Hoodwinked!'s director has cited the company as being a significant influence on the film's design. I notice that the upload form says the image should "support a piece of explicit critical discussion in an article related to that work or its creator(s)," so I suppose that you have a point about the image not being of the film the article focuses on, but I do feel that the image "supports a piece of explicit critical discussion." Is there absolutely no precedent for Wikipedia allowing an image from a film to be used in an article about another film, when the film that the image was taken from (or in this case, the studio that produced the film that the image was taken from) is discussed in the article? --Jpcase (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the later reply, but here goes:
The limit on fair use images could be a problem if an editor finds a good image of the style in the movie itself. The only current picture I could see was of the poster, and if there's one to be found that has an action scene, or something else such as the image you're trying to add, then it would trump this one. Such an image must be avaliable somewhere, or if it isn't will be eventually.
To your comment on the specific criteria "support a piece...creator(s)". I'm not totally sure on the precedent, but I myself am a little leery, as it doesn't matter about our precedent, it matters what WMF Legal and the copyright laws of the USA tell us we can do. This may cross the line into not being needed in this specific article. However, you may wish to add the image to the article of the movie it's over, and then maybe talk about this film in that article as well.
I'll leave the ((helpme)) here so others can comment if they wish to do so. gwickwiretalkedits 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I'm leery that the image would be used on an article that is not directly related to it aside from influence. As such the textual wording demonstrates that and an image of story boards or concept sketches from the actual production may be more suitable in both direct significance and example of style. Mkdwtalk 04:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


Ed, Edd n Eddy work group

Film Studio Template

What I meant by "producer-owned studios" are major film studios that are owned and operated by an active filmmaker. For instance, Platinum Dunes is owned by Michael Bay, Amblin Entertainment is owned by Steven Spielberg (as distinct from Dreamworks), Skydance is owned by Tom Cruise, Bad Robot is owned by J.J. Abrams, and Silver Pictures is owned by producer Joel Silver. These are studios that are commonly associated with a certain filmmaker, and his involvement with a certain picture can often be indicated by one of these studios being credited.

The "Other independent studios" are studios not associated with a certain filmmaker, usually owned by executives or venture capitalists. Kanbar Entertainment would probably qualify as an "other studio" because its primary owner is a venture capitalist named Maurice Kenbar. Thanks for your question, I hope I was able to help. --UberMan5000 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hoodwinked

Hi, Jpcase. Specifically, which aspects of the change were you referring to? The removal of the line breaks? Or the change in the parameters/values in the citation templates? Nightscream (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the line breaks because most citations do not employ them, because I find it easier to scroll through the edit field without them, and I've also been told that having that much excess space slows down load times for those with slower connection speeds.
A parameter is one of the individual parts of a citation template, each one of which is separated by pipe dividers, in which we add the publication info about the source being cited (author, date, page, title, name of publisher, etc.). The value is the actual information that goes into the parameter, after the equal sign. Nightscream (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the belated reply; I've been juggling several things since yesterday.
The changes were minute: Changing the "work" parameter to the "newspaper" parameter in the cite news template, changing the wikilink on Time magazine from [[Time Magazine]] to [[Time (magazine)|Time]], since that publication doesn't really have the capitalized word "magazine" in its title; etc.
Time and work limitations, and the sheer number of line breaks in the article prevent me from removing all of them at once. Hopefully I'll get to it eventually, or some other editor may take the initiative. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It's no problem. I dislike it when editors do not commit to seeing a discussion or other matter through to its resolution, so I make it a point maintain as much of a sense of transparency and openness as reasonably possible.
The fact that I talk too much probably has something to do with it too. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Am I being unreasonable?

I brought up the issue of whether cracked.com would be an acceptable reference on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cracked.com. Many editors opposed the idea, but used misinformation to justify their viewpoints. Although I was the only editor who supported the website, I pointed out the mistakes in their reasoning and gave an explanation for why I felt that it might possibly meet Wikipedia's typical criteria for reliability. Even though these points were never addressed, one of the opposing editors decided to close the discussion.

I am willing to accept that Cracked may not be an acceptable reference for Wikipedia, but expect that decision to be based on firm reasoning, not just a majority opinion. I went to the talk page of the editor who closed the discussion and simply requested that they re-open it, so that the matter could be further discussed. The editor then proceeded to delete my post, without even acknowledging me. So I left another post on their talk page, explaining that I had not been trying to start an argument or stir up trouble, but that I had at least expected to be shown enough respect to receive a reply. They then deleted that post as well.

Was I wrong to request that the discussion be allowed to continue? If not, should I just drop the matter anyway or is there something else that I can do? --Jpcase (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We would be glad to check into this for you, Jpcase. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
First of all, what you seem to be fighting is something that will only change with time. The editors in your discussion who did not consider Cracked.com as a reliable source made a fair argument, in my opinion, so you can expect an uphill climb. As for the closer who deleted your posts, he/she seems to like to put on the face of an inexperienced editor even though there is evidence that he/she is by no means inexperienced. That editor regularly clears his talk page rather than archive it as most experienced editors do. He hasn't yet come across the very good reasons to archive one's talk page, yet. It's likely that he is just ignoring you in hopes that you will go away.
My suggestion to you, especially if you feel as strongly about this issue as you appear, would be to begin with the talk page of the article you cited at first in the discussion. See if you can garner support for Cracked as a reliable source. Then take your argument to other talk pages of relevant articles. Then try again at the RS/Noticeboard. If talks go well, you will be able to cite those discussions to the Noticeboard and re-introduce their arguments. And you will have other editors who support the issue who will make the discussion less one-sided. As I said, it will be an uphill climb if you're willing to make it. It is not "reason" you are fighting, per se. What you are really fighting is the "status quo" – also see Status quo. Best of good fortune and everything to you and yours! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Paine for your help and Fladrif, I appreciate the reply and the apology. Honestly, I don't feel so strongly about this that I would spend a great deal of my time on it. I just enjoy a good debate and since others have asked about the reliability of cracked before, I thought that it would be good to see the conversation through to the end for the sake of future editors. If I got too carried away with the debate, than I am sorry. I am being completely honest though, when I say that I see very few valid reasons for the unreliability of Cracked given in the discussion. I don't mean this as a slight on any of the editors who voiced opposition. The mistakes they made were understandable, but they were mistakes nonetheless. These were the arguments that I saw used against Cracked:
1. Cracked articles do not have attributed authors - This is demonstrably untrue. All Cracked articles have attributed authors.
2. Cracked does not have editorial control - Also untrue, as can be seen here [2]
3. Cracked contains false information - I have never come across an article on the website that contained false information and no editor was able to provide an example of a time that they did.
4. It is difficult to distinguish between Cracked making a joke and being serious - I have never had trouble distinguishing the difference. I asked for someone to provide an example of an instance where it is unclear and nobody did so.
5. Cracked does not provide sources for any of their information - This is also untrue. I provided examples of well-regarded sources used by the website.
6. Cracked has not been cited as a source by other professional publications. - Admittedly, I did not respond to this one. I did not realize though, that it is a necessary qualification that all sources must meet in order to be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Having just taken a little bit of time researching this, I discovered these:

I only did a fairly brief search, so there are likely numerous more. Did I miss any of the opposing arguments? I admit that I might have. If so, I would be interested to know what I have skipped over. --Jpcase (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From Fladrif... Here's the sort of thing that would be persuasive in that regard: Find multiple examples of other, independent, clearly reliable sources like mainstream news organizations, that are citing Cracked as a reliable source with a reputation for accuracy.
It appears that you are on your way to satifying this need. While I agree that this is important, it may still be of little help if you want to subdue the status quo. That will take the support of more editors who are interested in the articles for which Cracked may be a source of information. There are probably several potential reliable sources that would fall into this category of article-specific references. If, like Cracked, they suffer from the widespread belief that they are not so reliable, then they cannot be cited until and unless there is a community CONSENSUS that would allow it. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 01:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
You're on the right track as to how to go about this. I'm not sure that any of those cites to newspapers are really cases of them endorsing the reliability of Cracked.com as opposed to just saying: "Here's something amusing...", but that's a start. I would need quite a bit more to be convinced, but keep it up. I confess to proceeding from the position of remembering Cracked as a second-rate rip-off of Mad over 50 years ago when mom would have confiscated either had she found an issue in my possession. Yeah, I know. It's a different company now. I'm open to being convinced, but skeptical. Others be more readily convinced. Fladrif (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Spend some time doing more research. Just start a new post at RSN in a couple of weeks when you've got your ducks in a row, and when you do, reference the earlier discussion. Recognize that this is an uphill climb. There is no rush. Wikipedia will still be here in a month or a year. Nothing has to be fixed today. It isn't a race. There are no deadlines. Fladrif (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Animation Barnstar

responding from the Family Guy group, I think it is a fantastic idea, and you should go ahead and pitch it to the Barnstar group. Pedro J. the rookie 04:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

More