Talk:Jennette McCurdy

This article was nominated for deletion on February 6, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Template:WikiProject Nickelodeon

I had no idea CSI: Crime Scene Investigation was a 2984 TV show

for a girl from the future Jennette is pretty hot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.59.106.63 (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is not a forum! Paycheckgurl (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop erasing cited info

The other day I found an article talking about the movie 'Minor Details' (which Jennette is in). The article also revealed that Jennette is a Latter Day Saint. Also, in an interview on fansofdavid.com, Jennette said that, contrary to popular belief, she was actually born in Long Beach. I have added this information to her Wiki page several times, however someone keeps erasing it. Whoever keeps erasing this info, please stop as I have legitimate sources on this information. Thank you.--5ahupt (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You should add links to the sources to the article here. Gimmetrow 12:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, simply siting that there is an article is not good enough, it has to be seen by the rest of us and then the sources for that article must be checked out. The info you give about her being a Latter Day Saint and in particular being born in Long Beach contradicts what IMDb says about her, and I'll trust their sources sooner than Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And the article also says she has a lisp. This is completely wrong, she has stated at least twice in her own personal videos that the lisp effect is caused by the poor audio qualities of her camcorder, she completely denies that she has a lisp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.191.204 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The article claims that Jennette is LDS, but they didn't have their facts straight. Here's another article: http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/297303/149/ The article states that most of the families involved with the movie are LDS. Most, not all. There was also a comment at the end by someone who knows, or has some sort of contact with Jennette, and they stated that the information about her being LDS was incorrect, and that Jennette attends a Methodist church in LA. So the person who wrote the article just didn't have their facts completely straight - Just because she had a role in a movie directed by a Mormon and who's majority of people involved with the movie are Mormon, doesn't make her Mormon. Hope this helps!

Thanks for clearing this up!--5ahupt (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

She was born in Long Beach, Cali?

For a while, it said on here that she was born in Garden Grove, CA and now it says Long Beach...is this confirmed? Any source? Give me feedback here. Justme89 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jennette said that she was born in Long Beach in a live interview on fansofdavid.com around early December. I don't if they have posted the video yet but they will probably soon.--5ahupt (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Jennette is awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.42.229 (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Birth date

Please DO NOT change her birthdate to that of Sam Puckett's.Jeneral28 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Should be protected

...Jeneral28 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:RPP if you think the page needs protection. —Frehley^{Space Ace} 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Filmography

Should be in columns. Someone please helpJeneral28 (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done —Frehley^{Space Ace} 10:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Not done. Would prefer if people help find a picture that can remainJeneral28 (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked Flickr but there aren't any free images available. Frehley 09:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Flickr.Jeneral28 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not Flickr? It would be the best place to find the image, because it has a creative commons only option in the advanced search (even though some images are licensed wrong). Frehley 09:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's another source but haven't uploaded it yet.Jeneral28 (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Frehley is correct. The image on the page right now fails Wikipedia's non-free content policy (see Item 12). Non-free images cannot be used to represent living people except under very limited circumstances. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

DISAGREEJeneral28 (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

New Picture is released and approved by @DanWarp to be used on Wikipedia. Only change it if you can find another better picture.Jeneral28 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest adding a link to the twitter post on the image page. That way other users can confirm this, the message is at the top of the Twitter feed for now but once more "tweets" are posted it will be extremely difficult to find. Frehley 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is there darn itJeneral28 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No its not. The only link is to the image, the is no link to the actual post by "DanWarp". Frehley 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UT

I GIVE UP ON YOU.Jeneral28 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Frehley, the actual post is right here; the link is there, just not on the talk page. Jeneral28, stop getting upset over such small things. We're all acting in good faith here; there's no need to yell at us in caps lock whenever we try to improve one of your articles.

I noticed that the user gave you permission to use the image here. Has he specifically allowed the image to be put into the public domain? Please make sure he has, because otherwise it is still in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing else to say.Jeneral28 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection request declined (now accepted for three days)

Jeneral28 (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I'm copying this discussion from my talk page, partly because I'm guessing that a few months from now, this page might qualify for protection.

Can you help lock the Jennette McCurdy article to only established users. People have been vandalising it. ThanksJeneral28 (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I can make the proposal, or you can. Before that, have a quick look at pages about protection. My guess is that protection for Jennette McCurdy is a *little* iffy, but probably will be accepted by the administrators.

1) This page describes "semi-protection" [1]. Notice that one of the criteria is whether the article is "high-profile". I would say "yes" Jennette McCurdy is high-profile, because it's getting over 2,000 views a day. [2].

2) This is where the request is made [3]. Have a look, especially at the "Declined" requests. Those are reasons we do not want to use. For example, on a Lady Gaga song Paparazzi, the protection was declined because it was a content dispute. So we want to make it clear we're talking about anonymous IP vandalism, not a content dispute. But also notice...a lot of the page protections are only for a few days. And that's not really going to help us much.

Since you are most familiar with the subject and the article's editing history, you might want to consider whether what the most important issues are. Notice that the requests are just a sentence or two. I'd be inclined to shoot for something such as:

"This high-profile article -- over 2,000 views per day -- is regularly vandalized by a number of anonymous IP's."

Anything that I'm missing?

If the protection request is declined...the administrators might point out that between you, Aoi, Frehley and me, the vandalism edits are being reverted within a few hours...sometimes within a few minutes. The better work we do, the less reason there is for protection. Ha, ha. But I still think it's worth a try. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather busy, but her article, as well as many other teen actresses have been vandalised but various unregistered users. Being new to wiki, I'm hoping you could help me out with that--since her fell co star's article is semi protected. Thanks.Jeneral28 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it's done [4]. I added that Miranda Cosgrove is semi-protected. Let's see what happens. Cheers, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the answer. It's reasonable: there are articles that are so heavily vandalized hundreds of readers a day would look at them and be shocked. Jennette McCurdy's article not in that league. Lucky for her!

" Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I'm sympathetic to this request in general, but I only see a couple vandal edits over the last five days. There is a good amount of link spamming, and I would be willing to reconsider if things get much worse. Feel free to relist or request on my talk page as need be. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)"

Piano non troppo (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not fair; some unknown people keep changing her birth date and add ridiculous info. If Cso grove is locked why not Jennette?Jeneral28 (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cosgrove's page is protected because vandal edits like these: 1, 2, & 3 happen all the time when the page isn't protected, Jennette's page hasn't had any RECENT vandalism like that, so there is no need to protect the page. Frehley 12:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I see people changing her birth date to her character's birth date several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

YOU moderators are so restrictiveJeneral28 (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As if there's no "constant" vandalism on this pageJeneral28 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)