Jump to content

Talk:Jennette McCurdy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DegrassiFreak (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 12 March 2012 (→‎Guest Appearances: Fixed unsourced content.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Birth date

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

Should be protected

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

Go to WP:RPP if you think the page needs protection. —FrehleySpace Ace 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography

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

 Done —FrehleySpace Ace 10:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Pictures must be released for other than Wikipedia. Wikipedia content is GFDL, and can therefore be disseminated everywhere, including into commercial ventures. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought twitter is a PD site.Neptune123456 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)"[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

American Idol

The TV list says she was on American Idol can someone cite it or at least tell me which episode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.231.82 (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having Issues

I am having issues with sorting out from Filmography down. The filmography table is interfering with the boxes holding her music information and iCarly information. Can anyone sort this out? I've tried everything I could. Thanks! --cypherninja (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problem with the table. Frehley 23:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --cypherninja (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Heritage?

I've heard that Jennette is fully Irish-American on some sites, but others are saying that she is Irish and Puerto Rican.. can anyone confirm her heritage?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.238.250 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any Puerto Rican in her. Maybe some Scandinavian or German though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChevyNazi (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish, French, Swedish, and Italian, according to her twitter 1 All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McCurdy is a surname of Scottish origin though. So maybe Scots-Irish and the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.214.80 (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Dawn

Resolved

Every time I click on Breaking Dawn in her Filmography it goes stright to the page for the Twilight Saga's Book : Breaking Dawn. If I am correct (and I'm always correct about Twilight)Breaking Dawn came out last year, not in 2004. She could not have been in a movie for that book. I have erased it from her info, until someone proves it to be correct. PLease notify me where you have gotten the information, and put it in the bottom of the page! THANKS!! Woot! Micsam77 (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikilink was an error. McCurdy was in a 2004 film called "Breaking Dawn", but the film is not related to Twilight. SeeIMDb's page for "Breaking Dawn". I've restored the info, directing the "Breaking Dawn" link to a redlink for Breaking Dawn (2004 film) so that if/when the Twilight novel is made into a film this page will not link to it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical data

Resolved

McCurdy's basic biographical details seem to be disputed.[5], [6], [7]. They are also not cited. McCurdy's official website (listed in the article) does not give any of the data, allmovie has no info (NYT movie data mirrors allmovie) and I can find no reliable sources for any of this. I've added tags for all of the info. If it isn't sourced soon, I'll remove it again. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is not a dispute. You were told one place you could find the info. I would encourage you to remove the {cn} tags, and you may add citations if you feel they are necessary, but removing the info would be destructive. Gimmetrow 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed unsourced info to different unsourced info. Not once, not twice, but several times. Maybe it's vandalism, maybe not. I have no way of knowing. I've checked the most obvious sources, as detailed above, and found nothing. You say you "told (me) one place" where the info can be found. I didn't find it there. I am now asking you or another editor to cite the info. If it is not cited in what I consider a reasonable period of time, I will remove the "material lacking a reliable source", as our core policy allows. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although you have not shown any evidence the material is actually disputed, nor shown any evidence of looking for sources yourself, you have been told where the info could be cited if you wanted. If you remove this info at this point, you will be destructive. Gimmetrow 03:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material is not cited. The material was changed several times. I checked reliable sources and found nothing. If you believe you have a reliable source cite it. Otherwise, I will remove the material. "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" WP:BURDEN - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material has been cited, therefore BURDEN has prima facie been met. If you believe the material needs not only citations, but footnotes, then you are welcome to add them. Gimmetrow 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations (from Yahoo! TV) to make it easier to verify the disputed information. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard also has this information.[8] 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Gimmetrow, the material was not cited until this edit where 青い(Aoi) added a citation, a "line of text that uniquely identifies a source." Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citations may be provided many ways. In-line citations are simply one form of them, and are only needed for material likely to be challenged. You failed to provide any evidence the material was likely to be challenged, so no in-line citation was necessary. On the other hand, you removed valid information from an article - which some might view as functionally equivalent to vandalism. You need to stop removing valid information simply because it doesn't have a footnote - something it appears you have been doing for some time. Gimmetrow 05:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reliable sources listed in the article in any way gave any of the info provided. The info was being changed repeatedly. Now that there are sources cited in the article, we can clearly identify any changes to the info as vandalism (unless they provide a reliable source, of course). Prior to that, the changes were something you considered to be vandalism. However, there was no confirmation of this. For all we knew, the editor(s) believed their edits were correct. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Nearly a month after the discussion ended, you come back to make a reply, and your reply still misses the point. You removed valid information from an article solely because it didn't have a footnote, and apparently without performing sufficient research on your own to verify the info. In the future, if you want a footnote that other editors don't consider necessary, then do your research and add it yourself rather than disrupt the article. Gimmetrow 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting? Yeah, I missed it the first time around. Sue me. Is your 2+ week delay in replying "interesting" as well? I removed information from the article that had been changed several times and was not supported. You consider the changes vandalism, though, lacking a cite, there was no indication this was the case. I searched all of the sources in the article and found nothing. You repeatedly said that I was told where the information could be found. I could not find it. I suggested you cite it. You refused. You said it was cited when it was not. You considered the information "valid" and any other information "vandalism" with no evidence to support your belief. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you removed valid information from the article, apparently disrupting wikipedia to prove some point. You have done this before. Do not do it again. Gimmetrow 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your insistence that it was "valid" information flies in the face of common sense. Again, how was the uncited information as it stood that you considered "valid" more valid than the equally uncited information that you considered "vandalism"? (I removed unsourced challenged information because it was unsourced and challenged. If you believe otherwise, please support your accusation.) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You provided no evidence the information was actually disputed when I asked, and you still have not. Gimmetrow 05:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Again: How was the "valid" information, as it stood, more valid than the "vandalism"? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not evidence anything is actually disputed. I could change the Angelina Jolie article to say her birth name was Angela Voight Jolie, but that wouldn't on its own be evidence of any actual dispute. Gimmetrow 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was either disputing the date or vandalism. Given no evidence of vandalism, we assume good faith: it was disputed. Again: How was the "valid" information, as it stood, more valid than the "vandalism"? - 05:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop arguing over this. Both of you were acting in good faith, from what I can tell. And, I see nothing wrong with SummerPhD bringing up concerns, IMO, as WP:BLP clearly states: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. [...] Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith..." Thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP policy says that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material may be removed. At this point, not only has the material not been shown to be contentious, it hasn't even been shown to be unverifiable. This is a fairly serious point, if Summer has been removing other valid info from articles simply because it doesn't have a footnote, if Summer is unwilling even to add the footnotes that Summer wants when the references are provided. I'm finding it difficult to understand Summer's actions as not destructive. Gimmetrow 01:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the last freakin time: Despite your repeated claim to the contrary, none of the sources provided included the birth date. You said you provided a source. I asked you to repeat it or add it, you would not. Despite your claim to the contrary, other editors had challenged the information. I am through "discussing" this. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have not shown the information was in any way challenged or contentious. Unsourced changes to an article which run contrary to available web sources, are not, in my view, any evidence of a challenge. Even if no sources were indicated, you removed basic biographical information from an article simply because it didn't have a silly little footnote. Apparently also without doing much research. And, indeed, sources were provided. If you actually want every single word of every article to have a silly little footnote attached, then do it yourself, and do not go about demanding other editors do work they don't agree with to meet your arbitrary requirements. Gimmetrow 05:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the last freakin time: Despite your repeated claim to the contrary, none of the sources provided included the birth date. You said you provided a source. I asked you to repeat it or add it, you would not. Despite your claim to the contrary, other editors had challenged the information. I am through "discussing" this. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television

Why are American Idol,TCA awards 2008 and 2009,The Ellen Degeneres Show and The Bonnie Hunt Show listed there? I don't think those are considered "roles" and shouldn't be there in the first place.Unless you think it there is a need to put there, I'm removing them. CrystalicIsMe (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they should be removed. Personal appearances (barring cameos and actual contestants on reality shows) should not be included in filmographies. Notable appearances can be covered in prose. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be semi-protected

This article is getting vandalized several times a day. I think its time to reconsider protecting it. --Confession0791 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to my watch list, but I don't think there's enough vandalism to warrant protection yet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennette was on MadTV

Jennette actually did have her debut on an episode on MadTV, but so far the only proof of this seems to be IMDb and similar sites, and semi-legal copies of the show on YouTube(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWnFChGOD64). So what else do we have as a source? ----DanTD (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh

I removed the iCarly template because it is unnecessary, as even though Jennette is part of iCarly, we don't have the other show's templates there, so it's worthless. Any thoughts? Only the best, Aimsplode (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary: McCurdy is listed in the iCarly navbox, so it should be present on her article. See WP:Navigation templates. The underlying question is, would a reader of this article want to read about other iCarly-related topics? Since the answer is yes, the navbox should be here. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, {{iCarly}} is the only navbox that McCurdy is listed in, per a What links here search restricted to the Template: space. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have way too much time on your hands. Aimsplode (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murdering her actual discography

Digital singles or not they should be mention. This is why i say other records and dicttionaries are better.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

What the point in noting that Generation Love is her "current single"? How is that encyclopedic?Other dictionaries are better (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Love

While this isn't about her page here, I feel someone should create the page for Generation Love and not make it a redirect. #50 on country music charts is notable enough.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Love 23/05

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/billboardbiz/photos/pdf/country_update_0523.pdf dropped to #45.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't put the citation needed tag, no of you esteemed contributors would have updated it.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may also add the citation yourself. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no one did bother to.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for the cite, the cite was added. Then you came here to complain that you had to ask for the cite. It was a trivial matter to verify and copy the cite from the Generation Love article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a trivial matter. No one ever bother to add it in the first place.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verifying and copying it was a trivial amount of work. The cite you wanted is there. Move on. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 99.8.125.75, 26 June 2011


99.8.125.75 (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC) i am bou to edit[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing request

"McCurdy's second single, "Generation Love", was released as..." This should be third single ;-) because Homeless Heart was her second single! And also, can someone exlpain why I can't edit this myself? I know it's protected, but I already edited 10 articles on the Dutch version of Wikipedia (look at My Contributions). --- XX BART Xx (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done — "So Close" and "Homeless Heart" were not officially released singles (e.g. for radio) or a charting single. That's why they are not listed in Jennette's discography as a single. Therefore, "Not That Far Away" is her debut single, with "Generation Love" being her second single under Capitol Records Nashville. I have now clarified this in her music section. -- DegrassiFreak (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial

http://www.youtube.com/user/HEB?blend=3&ob=5#p/u/0/IV7YQJa1xRE

She is currently doing a commercial for H.E.B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.80.43 (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McCurdian Country Radio

"McCurdian Country Radio" brings via radio to the proud McCurdians the best of country and Jennette McCurdy's music hits, Jennette McCurdy's interviews, Jennette McCurdy's favourite music like Rascal Flatts-Lady Antebellum and so on! Enjoy being a true McCurdian! KirillChumatov (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this link as it was inserted with an advertising/spam prose that is unappropraite for this article. Unless Jennette runs this radio station herself, I see no reason to have this linked in this article. AngelOfSadness talk 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whaaat? "McCurdian Country Radio" is commercial free. It has nothing to do with spam or advertising. Of course, Jennette McCurdy does not run that radiostation herself. That radiostation is run by the McCurdian Fan Movement. "McCurdian Country Radio" has been launched by the international McCurdian Fan Movement to celebrate the release of Jennette McCurdy's new album. I don't think that "McCurdian Country Radio" is unappropriate for Jennette McCurdy herself or for her article of for her fans. Besides, that article really lacks section about growing worldwide McCurdian Fan movement including fan websites or fan webradios, I guess... KirillChumatov (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the radio station was spam. I said the addition of it on wikipedia is spam. Per WP:SPAM the link is inappropraite as it is not an official link: it's essentially a fan site in radio station form. AngelOfSadness talk 14:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It violates WP:SPAM per #11 of Wikipedia:FANSITE#Links_normally_to_be_avoided as it is a fan created site hence is inappropraite. AngelOfSadness talk 14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release date for album

Since her album is apparently not available in Justice stores from last Tuesday, what do we need to do with the release date? Do we need to change the parenthetical note to (planned date; album delayed) or the like? —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Appearances

Jennette has confirmed herself that she will be guest starring in a "Bucket and Skinner : Epic Adventures" and in a "Victorious" episodes. twitter.com/jennettemccurdy/status/100593365745270784 twitter.com/jennettemccurdy/status/160080354097627139

The one appearance that the mods are not deleting, on "The Vampire Diaries" has no credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.20.206 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed —It should've been taken off as soon as it was added without a source. Not sure why it wasn't sooner. -DegrassiFreak (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political Beliefs

Shall this be added?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/jennette-mccurdy-star-of-icarly-gives-endorsement-to-green-party-hopeful-roseanne-barr/

Phd8511 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My gut says a lot is being read into that tweet. I'd like to see more before I'd include anything on her political stance. —C.Fred (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your gut is not the pot of all knowledge.Phd8511 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's one tweet. If independent reliable sources discussed it, we might have something. Right now, including it would call for us selecting that one tweet over hundreds of others she's made. I see nothing to justify that. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jennette_McCurdy&oldid=481598761"