User talk:Jdcrackers

Edit Summary Request
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 23:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:I Dream of Jeannie S4.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:I Dream of Jeannie S4.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image use
I've communicated with you regarding the policies supporting fair use image gallery removal from a large number of articles. I've directed you to those policies, explanation pages, and via them to past debates regarding this issue that have supported the removal. Despite this, you've continued reverting the removals. Why? Simply, this isn't acceptable behavior. The galleries are against policy and will remain removed. If you feel this is improper, then feel free to take it up at WP:AN/I. Continuing to edit war over this is not an option. If you have questions about this, I am happy to answer but continuing in the manner you are conducting this is inappropriate. Please reconsider your actions. Thank you, --Durin 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand if the images have sources to show where they come from (majority come from tvshowsondvd.com) then what is the big deal? People really enjoy visuals, it not only improves the site and makes it look neater, but enhances the article as a whole. Jdcrackers 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we are a free content encyclopedia. It's that simple. There isn't anything complex about this. Our purpose here is to create content under a free license. Copyrighted works detract from that mission. We thus use them as sparingly as we can. Liberal use of DVD covers in lists of DVD releases does little for the article. Most sets of DVD releases have covers that are virtually identical to one another. We don't need to see eleven slightly different covers for MASH for example; it's pointless. Focus on free content, not whether something looks pretty or not. --Durin 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So that being said does that mean we can no longer post any DVD cover art at all? What about Album, single, and Pictures of Celebrities? Jdcrackers 23:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bewitched S5.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bewitched S5.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode lists
Will you consider updating the Bewitched episode list to use the 'episode list' template? It recommended for it to be used at WikiProject Television and WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. You may even want to add User WP TV and/or User TV Eps to your user page to show your participation. I've also started a List of Green Acres episodes using a rainbow color sequence for the seasons. - Andyross 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:9.21.07 Alice Ghostley.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:9.21.07 Alice Ghostley.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:9.21.07 Alice Ghostley.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:9.21.07 Alice Ghostley.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Release date for Madonna's next album
Hi there, you recently edited the article on Madonna's forthcoming album, changing the release date to June 2008. Your edit note says this is based on info from Warner. I was interested to track down the source, and if somewhere on line, provide a link to it within the article itself. Thanks. JKW111 (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many Thanks. I wish it were earlier. No doubt Warner will take its time to make sure the new record will get them as much money as possible before she leaves them. JKW111 (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not sure about the 3cd thing - this has been a rumour for ages. At first it was that it woudl be released Sep this year, but that obviosuly never happened. In any case, Sept next year it really 25 years since the release fo the first album, so that woudl make sense. AS for content, there was an old post on a blog that said it would be a best of remixes album, with the follwoing included:

Hollywood (Blow Up Mix ) - Get Together (S-Man's Fired Up Remix) - American Life (Layo & Bushwaka Mix) - Sorry (Martijn Ten Velden Remix) - Jump (Stephan Grondin Stereo Mix) - Forbidden Love (Peter Rauhofer Forbidden Club) - Love Profusion (John Creamer & Stephane K Remix) - Future Lovers (Peter Rauhofer Reconstruction) - Hung Up (Ralphi Rosario Remix) - Vogue (Tracy Young's Aditude Mix) - Erotica (Peter Rauhofer Anthem) - Deeper And Deeper (David Morales Mix) - Secret (Paul Oakenfold Remix) - Bedtime Story (Victor Calderone Club Mix) - Frozen (Sebastian Leger Remix) - Ray Of Light (Axwell Remix) - Skin (The Collaboration Mix) - Music (Kobbe & Austin Leeds Remix) - Don't Tell Me (Starkillers Remix) - Impressive Instant (Rauhofer's Universal Club Mix)


 * At the time, and still now, I have some doubts about this - not inly becasue the songs all seem wrong for the full 25 years, but also way too early to be known i woudl think. I'm also not sure if a 3cd covering the entire career makes sense - presumably the first two discs would just be repeats of Immac Coll and GHV2??? I think maybe they woudl do something more interesting such as remixes, or amybe even one of the cd has all previosuly unreleased songs.


 * But in any case, apparently there will be something - this I think has been confirmed by M's publicist around the time of the Live Nation rumours ... technically M's contract with wanrer requires another 2 releases, and the plan it that the second of these will be a compliation work not a new studio material. But basically I think Warner will make the decision on whatever is in their interests. Apparently planning is already underway for a tour next year (latest i heard was to start in london in late May), so I woudlnt be surprised if the compliation was released during the tour to cash in.


 * A while ago I was thinking of starting a wiki page on the compliation album, but i think its too early at this stage, given anything coudl happen between now and then.


 * Cheers. JKW111 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure about video compilation. Maybe the 3 cds include a dvd. Here in Australia, our late night music program Rage about once every year or two plays every Madonna vid ever made - it goes for over six hours. The BA tour was screened by MTV back in 1990 (from barcelona) so is definitely around, probably on unofficial DVD by now. Actually i can vaguely recall seeing it on laser disc many many years ago. The only footage ive seen of complete RIT is on youtube filmed by audience. JKW111 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I like ... umm.. well.. I can't decide. no favourites. I am defintiely looking forward to next tour - supposedly she's coming back to Australia - the last time i saw her was in 93 in sydney, so yes, 15 years later i will get another chance. Im sure it will be worth the wait.JKW111 (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Licorice
Hey there - not sure which link you meant, maybe someone has fixed it. If not, let me know. On the new single, everything I know is on this blog site. Cheers, Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JKW111 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

more madonna music
Hey there - messages on christmas day?? you must be hardcore. Ive been away for 5 days. I think Im breathles is a studio album, but the consensus on wikipedia disagrees. i dont think its a soundtrack, as there was an official soundtrack to the movie, which didnt include any madonna songs. also, theres more non-movie songs than not, so ... in australia, american pie was included on 'music' and die another day was included on American life, so the mere inclusion of movie songs doesnt mae it a soundtrack - i think the thing that has got people worked up is the 'music from and inspred by' line. i think that was more of a marketing thing rather than classifying the album. but anyway, the jury has said no, so its included as a soundtrack on here. JKW111 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Madonna-Secret-37494.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Madonna-Secret-37494.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ohfathercover.jpeg
Thank you for uploading Image:Ohfathercover.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Join forces for editing
Hey, will you join forces with me for editing all the Madonna singles so that they comply with WP:SINGLE? I have already started doing it, and have done till "Cherish". Will you include your findings also? &quot;Legolas&quot; (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Bewitched episode list
Hello, would it be possible for you to add citations to the information about "Season 9" you have added back to the Bewitched episode list in the Season 9 section? Specifically, the following sentences have no cited facts: "This season would have had 26 more episodes had Elizabeth Montgomery came back in the spring of 1972. According to the writers, this season would have had Tabitha in 3rd grade with Mrs. Peabody and getting into trouble with her witchcraft, also Adam would have turned 3 and been more like his father only using his powers when needed. Elizabeth and her husband at the time William Asher were on the rocks and decided not to come back and instead she moved on to other projects." I haven't been able to find anything about 26 episodes or the writers' plans for this season from any third-party source. Thanks 71.236.235.204 (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have deleted this Season 9 section after posting on the WikiProject Television discussion page, where I was told only actual existing episodes should be listed on episode lists. I also deleted it, because those season 9 storyline plans have gone uncited and I have never read or heard about them from any Bewitched-related documentary, website or book. If you add them (the storyline plans) back to the article in the note after season 8 or in the opening paragraph, they must be cited. Gardn108 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Jdcrackers! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Erin Cardillo -

Erica Blasberg
The minimum criteria for inclusion in the Deaths section of recent year articles such as 2010 is that the individual has 9 non-English wiki articles. Erica Blasberg has 0 non-English articles therefore she does not get included. You can try starting a discussion on the talk page but as far more notable people (Billy Mays, Ed McMahon) have been excluded for not meeting the criteria I seriously doubt that there will be a consensus to include her. The reason for sub-articles such as 2010 in sports and 2010 in the United States is so that people and events not notable enough for the main article can be included somewhere, otherwise the main article would become far too large. (Talk Contribs) 02:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2010. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (Talk Contribs) 03:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

2010
Please stop adding Erica Blasberg to the article. It does not meet the requirements for inclusion as defined in WP:RY.  ttonyb (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not stop adding her to the Twenty Ten Deaths! She died on May 9th and deserves to be there. She is a very important part of Golf. Why don't you people understand that?Jdcrackers (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * JD, it was clearly pointed out to you in the section above this why Blasberg does not qualify for inclusion. If you continue to add her name, expect to be blocked from editing Wiki. Moriori (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * JD, I would listen to Moriori's advice and realize that you are only jeopardizing your own ability to edit and create articles if you continue this behavior. As has been suggested to you, if you wish, you can try to get consensus to add this person.  To do this you should add a comment to the 2010 talk page and request that she be added in spite of the fact that she does not meet the criteria in WP:RY.  I suggest you be very clear in your reasons for doing so.   ttonyb  (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record:
 * Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2010. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
 * Even if you were justified in your addition (which, as has been pointed out by many editors, you are not), you've added it more than 4 times, and the re-additions are "reverts". — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 - Redux
You have been warned about adding individuals to the 2010 page that do not meet the criteria in WP:RY. Please stop your disruptive edits.  ttonyb (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Message
If you wish to leave me a message use my talk page not my user page.  ttonyb (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of Medium episodes (season 7). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Episode summaries copied from various other sources. These must be in your own words. http://www.tv.com/medium/show/22414/episode.html?q=medium&tag=search_results;eps;1 http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/medium/listings/ http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/medium/?ipp=25&ptid=2667ec03-6921-4016-b5be-65465d6eabe9&silentchk=1&wa=wsignin1.0 '' Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So editing summaries must be in the users own words I understand!Jdcrackers (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Medium
--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Writing
For some reason, I love to edit, but when I do it seems like people like to always call it vandalism or just non-sense. I have resources and as much time as I spend on the topics that interest me please contact me before you label it as vandalism so we can work out something. Thank You Jdcrackers (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Bewitched changes
Dear Sir or Madam, I am not interested in an edit war with you. You continue to place completely unsourced information in the Bewitched article. You continue to put information in non-standard and incorrect formats. You continue to insist that ABC was desperate to create a 9th season for a show that had fallen to 72nd(!) place in the ratings. I will be frank: If you put any of this nonsense in the article again I will be contacting administration about your disruptive editing. I will be more than happy to see reliable sources properly cited in the article, but so far your claims have been unbelievable and disruptive. Njsustain (talk) 12:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your only alleged source is an out of print fan-based book of dubious authority. You haven't quoted anything from the book, and continue to make the unvelievable claim that one of the worst rated shows on ABC would be renewed for not one but an unprecedented then and now THREE years. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, NOT A FAN SITE. Please don't make any of your ridiculous edits. It will be looked into by administration. The number of years you have spent trying to push your unfounded opinions and agenda on Wikipedia is completely irrelevent to the fact that your edits are disruptive, and that your continued insistence on making them regardless is vandalism.


 * Please do not write anything on my talk page again. I will consider it harassment.Njsustain (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:--FileMedium season 7 DVD.png200px--.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:--FileMedium season 7 DVD.png200px--.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:--FileMedium season 7 DVD.png200px--.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:--FileMedium season 7 DVD.png200px--.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to American Pie (song). Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

At it again, huh?
Dear, Could you please stop trying to promote this totally unreferenced and silly idea that there was going to be another season of Bewitched? It was forty years ago. It's over. It's done. Get over it. No one is interested in hearing your theories on what might have happened in an alternate universe in which Bewitched was not at 72nd place in the ratings. Attempting to add this nonsense about a 9th season anonymously does not hide who did it. Please find a new hobby, hon. (And I'm still waiting to hear what ABC said when you contacted them about their plans for another season... the entire WP community has been on pins and needles for months.) Njsustain (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Television episode and season articles badly needed
Based on your userbox display, I thought you might be interested in the lists at Television_episodes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!