Talk:Davis Cleveland

Should not be deleted

I have rewritten the article, and since he has one of the starring roles on the Disney Channel series Shake It up (which has been picked up for a second season), I believe he absolutely meets Wikipedia's notability standard.

Reflink Removals

Please do not remove reflinks from the article page. You can't have it both ways - deleting source reflinks for "duplicating" information, or providing what you deem to be "trivial" information, and then turning around and claiming lack of "notability" because there are no references. The Gogirl reference is not simply a "blog". The blog is a subsidiary of the MAGAZINE, published in several countries including the U.K., Germany, and Indonesia. A simple Google search would have demonstrated this fact as is shown here > [1] and here> [2] I would suggest when you are not familiar with a source - do a little research before simply removing said source based on unverified assumptions. I realize there is not as much coverage of Cleveland in third party sources as there is of the other actors on the series, but keep in mind - this is an 8-year-old child, so while he is one of the "co-stars" of the series, he is not going to be interviewed by as many magazines, nor will he be invited to as many events as the older teen stars of the show, however, he most certainly is "notable" to the target Disney Channel audience that watches the series. I'm leaving the {primary sources} and {notability} tags on the page, but if the existing reliable reflinks are removed again, I'll be taking the matter to third party dispute resolution . --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Said 8 year old was also not likely interviewed in German for that blog. It might be in some way related to a magazine. It might undergo the same fact-checking that the magazine does. The magazine might undergo sufficient fact-checking that the magazine may have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" WP:RS. However, none of this is given. As it stands, it is a blog. If you would care to present an argument that the blog has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, please do.

I removed as trivial numerous sources that mentioned his name in passing. The cites of those trivial sources were being used to support facts that were not in the article. For example, I removed this "source", which is a blog printing a press release verbatum. The total on-topic content of that supposed source is, "and Davis Cleveland ("Good Luck Charlie," "Desperate Housewives") as Flynn Jones, CeCe's precocious younger brother." No topic is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Bare mentions are not substantial. Press releases are not independent of the subject. Blogs are not reliable. Blogs printing press releases with bare mentions of the topic are not substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.

When one source is being used to source an entire paragraph, listing it once is fine. Listing it three times in the same paragraph is pointless.

When using the <ref name=whatever>, you need only give the cite details the first time it is used. In fact, all further uses of details are ignored. The whole idea of using <ref name=whatever> instead of simply <ref> is for the ease of using simply <ref name=whatever/> for each subsequent use.

I'll let this sit for a bit, to give you a chance to respond. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to assume you're serious, so I'll try and explain: Foreign news/magazine sources will interview American politicians/celebrties in English, and then translate the interview into their primary viewership/readership's native language. I assumed it would be obvious that he was not interviewed in German, but I personally don't find it that hard to believe they spent five minutes on the phone speaking to him in English. I'll be honest - I'm having trouble keeping this line of logic straight - first he's not notable, but as soon as a magazine you personally don't know anything about does a short article with him, then all of a sudden he's SO notable that an overseas magazine is taking the time to lie about interviewing him. I can't address reasoning that keeps changing. As far as the "blog" versus the published magazine, the U.K. source I cited for you (in english)[3], states clearly that the blog is part of the magazine, and if you'd clicked the banner at the top of the the original reflink you would have seen this [4]. The blog exists to cross-promote the magazine and the magazine cross-promotes the blog. Every news/magazine source has a "sister" website, so the idea that the blog is somehow some separate entity using the same name/logo, claiming to be an extension of the magazine, and reporting false information without having been shut down within a week is simply absurd. As far as the magazine itself, I agree it's really not much more than a light-weight "fluff" magazine aimed at teenage girls. I'd equate it as being the European equivalent of Seventeen magazine, primarily reporting on the newest makeup, movies, celebrities, etc, (however, I have never seen any one of the numerous celebrities who have been interviewed by them accuse them of misrepresenting the facts, or reporting unverified "gossip" either). I realize these types of "celebrity" magazines aren't the types of sources that win Pulitzer Prizes for journalism, however, these are the primary sources that report on 8-year-old Disney Channel celebrities. All this goes to the larger "notability" catch-22 that exists here on Wikipedia. An 8-year-old child actor is not considered "notable" until the 60-year-old men running The New York Times decide they are, regardless of how many millions of young viewers watch them every week. As we all know, child actors are practically never nominated in the same category against 40-year-old actors for an Emmy Award, so the only way for a young star to be "notable" by Wikipedia standards is to get arrested or check into rehab. I know this goes to a larger problem I have with Wikipedia's notability standards which are not specific enough and seem to be applied differently to different people, so I'm not blaming you, but he hasn't been photographed flashing himself or doing bong hits, so Reuters hasn't done any stories about him, and the hundreds of sources customized for teen and pre-teen readers that have reported extensively on him that I could cite aren't considered "hard-hitting" enough to be cited here. Therefore I think the sources I've cited (Variety, TVGuide, ABCNews, TheFutonCritic, etc) serve to verify that he is one of the lead characters on the show Shake It Up, and that Shake It Up is viewed by millions of viewers every week (in fact, according to the Nielsen ratings, the show is "the No. 1 cable series of all time" within it's target demographic [5]). I believe this, in and of itself, establishes notability as well as can be established for any 8-year-old child starring on a #1 Disney Channel series watched by millions of youngsters every week. I'll take the matter to dispute resolution, and let them decide what sources are hurting the article, and/or if the article itself should be deleted entirely. Whatever is decided by a third party - I'll accept that decision. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way - I agree with you it's over-kill and pointless to cite the same source over and over and over and over again in the same article, however, I have seen numerous articles here on Wikipedia that cite a source, and then a "well-meaning" editor will come along and tag "who says?" or "source?" a hundred times into the article, so I've just started citing a source for every single sentence in order to avoid the "who says?" littering of pages. And I'm aware that the entire reflink does not need to be used every time; as you already stated, it's simply easier to paste the full reflink however many times it's used within the article than it is to type a new "short-hand" version of it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You're arguing against a lot of things I haven't said. Additionally, you seem to be bothered by notability standards and who is notable. Luckily, all of this is moot.

I am concerned with A) the notability of the subject and B) the quality of the article.

The subject needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Numerous sources repeating that he is in the show are pointless: once the network says he's in the show, I find it hard to believe anyone would doubt it. Further, since every source cited mentions it and it is the basis of his claim to notability, it's pointless to argue the sources are needed for that. Finally, when sources are cited immediately after a sentence that they do not support, I will yank them.

I cannot answer for someone removing basic biographical info when an official biography is cited in the same paragraph. I prefer the ref names as it makes it far easier to read the article when editing.

Let's take these sources one-by-one.

• disneychannelmedianet is apparently an official disney source. As such, I have zero problem citing it for non-controversial info. The facts in it seem to be basic bio and some kid-interest-bio stuff (hobbies, etc.). That said, it does nothing to establish notability.
• weblogs.variety. At the moment, my connection won't connect to this one. However, it is cited only for roles he has had, all of which are listed in the official bio. I see no reason to use this as A) it is for non-controversial info cited by another source and B) as a mere listing of roles it is certainly not substantial coverage. It does nothing to establish notability.
• thefutoncritic is a blog reproducing a press release that simply says Cleveland is in the show. Citing it shows that somebody got lazy writing their blog and yes, Disney confirms (again) that Cleveland is in the show. It does nothing to establish notability.
• tvguide is cited only for roles he has had, all of which are listed in the official bio. I see no reason to use this as A) it is for non-controversial info cited by another source and B) as a mere listing of roles it is certainly not substantial coverage. It does nothing to establish notability.
• gogirlblog.de. The question here is the reliability of the source in terms of notability. I am not saying the blog "made up" the interview. I'm saying I need to see some indication that this blog in some meaningful way demonstrates notability. That the interview apparently took place in English but is published in German makes this more important. Blogs often reproduce material from elsewhere. There may be a copyright issue (Wikipedia does not knowingly link to copyright violations), the translation may be less than reliable, the blog may be a minor source. I asked for an indication from you that this was a reliable source (I haven't fully examined your claim). I'm also looking for something to indicate this is, in some way, a "notable" source. The institution I work for has blogs where we generally discuss our research, tentative findings and up-coming publications. I'd use it (on Wikipedia) for non-controversial biographical info, but would not expect material in it to in any way support notability of a topic or interview subject in it. (The organization is unquestionably notable.)
• Variety article]. Total content: "... and Davis Cleveland round out the cast." As noted, he is in the show. This source is completely worthless, in all regards.
• Good Morning America is unquestionably a reliable source. However, it is used to cite: "In March 2011, Cleveland told Tanya Rivero on Good Morning America of his experience working on Shake It Up - "It's the best experience ever. It's like Disney World every morning."" If this is anything remotely like substantial coverage, I'm the pope.
• youngartistawards shows that he is part of the cast that was nominated for an award of questionable notability. If we ignore the notability of the award and assume it is a major award, we would establish that Cleveland is presumed to be notable, kicking us back to the GNG and the need for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, which we do not have. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I have problems with the vague notability guidelines and I also said you had nothing to do with that. My point is that 12-year-olds don't run "news" sources, and a young star's young fan base cannot be measured by news sources run by middle-aged men (which is what Wikipedia is looking for). What also bothers me is someone coming into an article, complaining about copyright violations, and then after being told by a third party that there wasn't one, deciding instead to complain that there aren't enough sources, and then deleting sources as soon as they are added without even taking the time to read them. The FutonCritic site lists a role NOT mentioned in the Medianet press-release (so much for your assertion that it was "lazy" and simply "reproducing" the press release). The TVGuide source lists more roles NOT listed in the Medianet source. And I guess your the Pope because The Good Morning America clip is a BACKSTAGE interview done after the cast were guests on the show that day. They didn't post the entire on-air segment, so that was the only portion I could cite here, but he was on the show and was interviewed on the air. The Young Artist Awards are yet another example of you talking about something you obviously know nothing about and/or have failed to even bother to do 2 minutes of research on. They have been awarding young actors for 32 years, and are the ONLY awards show that routinely nominate/award YOUNG artists - it's basically like the Emmy Award for young actors. As I stated above, you're rarely going to see a 9-year-old nominated for an Emmy Award alongside 30, 40, 50 year old actors (I can't think of one single example). You're flippant dismissal of the sources while demonstrating a complete lack of interest in bothering to read them basically serves to reinforce my original point about Wikipedia's notability standards - "notability" among a 9-year-old star's teen/pre-teen audience cannot be measured by what is considered "notable" to middle-aged men. I already said I don't have a problem with the tag staying on the page asking for more sources (I would like more sources too) and my only request was that the page be given more time to establish his notability before being completely removed, but basically - you've claimed copyright violation and were told you were wrong, and now you're removing sources without even reading them. I'm going to assume that you actually think you're trying to "help" and you may just be tired (I sometimes get tired when editing/reverting also), but you've demonstrated questionable judgement, so I've asked someone else to come in and make an impartial determination about which sources they believe belong on the page, and I've said I'll end it there - whatever they decide. I think that's being more than fair. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll speak to the rest of that later. For now, below is an explanation of my concerns re the copyright violation. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not out to get you, Cleveland or anyone else. Wikipedia, however, has standards that are apparently different that you assume and/or wish. FutonCritic is a blog that simply reproduced the press release, which the site makes plainly clear. I consider that lazy. You might not. Whatever.

Whatever the ABC interview may have included or said, none of it is included in the article. It's used to cite a throwaway quote. The coverage cited is not substantial.

Your belief about whether or not I know anything about the Young Artist Awards is moot. Yeah, they're basically like the Emmy Awards, except for the level of coverage they receive (which is how we determine notability.

Your points about Wikipedia's notability standard are not to be changed by discussing them here. Rather, I would suggest you take them to Wikipedia talk:Notability and/or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Until then, however, the guidelines are what they are, which may not be what you wish they were.

IMO, the best resolution to the issue discussed here so far would be to present significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as our policies demand. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I have expressed my views on the vague (and seemingly changeable) notability standards plenty of times (as have numerous other editors). I'm not interested in "changing" them to my liking, my problem is that there is too much within the standard that is left to "interpretation", and I've seen it applied differently to different actors. My point for bringing them up HERE is to make a case for leaving the tag on the page requesting more sources, but to not simply delete the page without giving more time for editors to add more sources. I think per Wikipedia's notability standards - demonstrating that he is one of the leads on Disney's #1 situation comedy [6] should show that it would be reasonable to leave the page for a few months and see if someone can add more sources as Cleveland is covered more in the next few months. You seem to be missing the point of this whole thread - You wiped out every single reflink, except one, which you then deemed as a "primary source" disregarding the fact that you had just deleted all the others. I'm not claiming that the sources prove notability, My point is that there is more than one reliable "primary" source, and deleting everything except one link was overkill. As far as the Young Artist Awards - if you don't believe they're "notable" enough for you either, then I would suggest you go to that page and see if you can get that deleted as well. And one question - Could you please explain why Wikipedia has created a special tag to link to IMDb in =External links= since the source is considered "unreliable"? I'm not arguing that it IS always reliable (except for certain sections such as their Awards information, which is NOT editable by users) - I would just like to know what the point is in creating a special tag for a website that should not be cited here. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is generally not acceptable as a source because, as you have indicated, most of the information is user edited. A template exists for it to be listed under external links because it is acceptable as an external link and would end up being link in most film/actor articles as a result. I removed most of the primary sources (those from Disney) as the bio alone seemed to provide all of the info sought for this article. As websites evolve over time (yes, even at a dinosaur like Disney), pages are reshuffled, deleted, merged, etc. In general, though, a bio page stays accessible for a while. Should it be deleted, we need only find an archive of that one page, rather than several. I have tagged the article for notability because I do not believe we have sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Leaving material sourced to unreliable sources and/or sources that do not establish notability, IMO, leaves little incentive for anyone to find such coverage or add it when they come across it. I often read a blurb of interest, come to Wikipedia looking for more and end up adding from the blurb when something is not sourced. A notability tag does not necessarily lead to deletion. It does, however, tend to put fans on notice that we need more than what we have. Including too many primary sources inhibits the growth of the article from independent sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can understand the logic behind providing a template to include it in =External links= in order to keep it from being cited as a =Reference=. I just think creating a custom {External link} template for it actually gives it an air of legitimacy and more than likely encourages editors to cite it as a source, but that basically answers the question. As far as "primary" sources - After I saw that the Disney Channel website character page was essentially the same information as the Medianet reflink (I had not compared them previously), I did not add it back after you deleted it, since I agree - they're basically the same source. However, I still believe there are several other reliable sources provided that add additional information (I admit, not necessarily proving indisputable notability, but verifying information not provided in the Medianet reflink), which are not "primary" sources, and should not be deleted. As I've said - If somebody else comes in and decides that all the but one of the reflinks should be wiped out then I'll leave it at that. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

- I won't comment as a specific third opinion as my comment is closer to WP:IAR than supported by specif policy. The BLP article seems completely uncontroversial to me, personally I wouldn't bother removing any of the externals, a couple of them are not the best but nothing worthy of instant removal, if must be the German one and the Variety one - The futon critic.com is a widely used external on over three thousand articles. So far this month the page has had over thirty eight thousand views. IMO its a tidy non controversial BLP that is totally fine and simply informative about a minor tv personality, there are many many articles that are much much more in need of assistance and attention. I think he would be a clear keeper at WP:AFD and that the notability template should be removed and you guys can move to the next project. Off2riorob (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested third party opinion

Requesting a third party to review the main article page and discern which reflinks should be removed. I agree they're not all necessary, but a {notability} tag was added to the page, so I added all reliable sources about the actor and his roles that I could find. Some "duplicate" the same information provided in the Medianet reflink, however, I believe some of the additional reflinks establish verifiability of his leading role outside of just one press-release (which was the only reflink that was left after the rest were systematically removed). I don't have any problems with the {notability} tag being left on the page, and possibly the {primary source} tag if the third party decision is to remove all but one single reflink. My personal feeling is that something between the 1 reflink the page was edited down to and the 8 reflinks on the page now, would be the right number (4 or 5). However, I'm willing to accept whatever decision - if it's stripped back down to just one source, then I'll leave it at that. My one request is that the article page should be given at least a few months before being deleted entirely - providing enough time for more sources to be found, since I think it's obvious that he's one of the leading stars on the Disney Channel's #1 show. This should allow enough time for more sources to be cited, and avoid 100 kids trying to restart the page with completely unverified information (the page has had over 190,000 hits since the show started in mid-November [7] and I guarantee you 95% of that is kids who would not be citing any sources if/when they inevitably try to restart the page). If his "notability" cannot be established in any "reliable" sources within the next several months then I'll agree the page should be deleted. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion:

• There is no need for more than one source on things that are uncontroversial. However, I have no problems with any of the mentioned sources as sources for uncontroversial info, except Young artist awards which has no info whatsoever on it about the site, and likely is a complete sham. But one source is enough, and the most reliable should be kept.
• The gogirl blog helps establish some notability, but admittedly not much. But that's a separate issue from the issue if the reference should stay or not, and I think it can.

--OpenFuture (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. That's pretty much my opinion. I didn't feel it was necessary to cite multiple references verifying the legitimacy of the Young Artist Awards, since it's a well-known award ceremony that was established over 32 years ago and partially funded by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association [8], but it's definitely not a sham. I can add third party references for it dating back 32 years on this page if it's deemed necessary, but I personally don't think it should be. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation cleaned up

I marked and partially corrected a copyright violation in this article. For those who doubt there was such a violation, please compare the source ("S") with the Wikipedia version ("W") below. Identical text is bolded. The violation has been corrected.

S: The talented young actor has guest-starred in a slew of hit television shows including "Hannah Montana," "Desperate Housewives," "How I Met Your Mother," and "Ghost Whisperer." In 2009, he starred in the FOX comedy pilot "Sons of Tuscon."

Cleveland was born February 5, 2002, in Houston, Texas. He is a great fan of video games, skateboarding and rollerblading. He also enjoys martial arts, and playing guitar.

Clevland discovered that he had a passion for acting after doing commercial work in Texas. Once he moved to Los Angeles, he appeared in spots for McDonalds, Nissan, Kmart, Nintendo, Microsoft and Honey Baked Ham.

W:

The talented young actor has guest-starred in a slew of hit television shows including "Hannah Montana," "Desperate Housewives," "How I Met Your Mother," and "Ghost Whisperer." In 2009, he starred in the FOX comedy pilot "Sons of Tuscon."

Davis Cleveland was born February 5, 2002, in Houston, Texas. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California and is a fan of video games, skateboarding and rollerblading. He also enjoys martial arts, and playing guitar.

Davis Cleveland discovered that he had a passion for acting after doing commercial work in Texas. Once he moved to Los Angeles, he appeared in commercials for McDonalds, Nissan, Kmart, Nintendo, Microsoft, Bounty, Hefty, and Honey Baked Ham.

Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you're either not reading or else you're deliberately misrepresenting. Yes I rewrote the article after you tagged it, but a third party stated that it didn't look like a copyright violation even BEFORE the rewrite. I guess I should have reshuffled the lists of his commercials, roles, and hobbies a little better, but I didn't think it was important to simply rearrange the lists, (which is 90% of what you're citing), since this was from a press-release that disney wants re-distributed. Standard sentences like - So-and-so was born on (Date) in (Location) are used ALL the time. The one line that was similar (that wasn't a standard sentence used ALL the time) that really should have been changed was the "discovered he had a passion for acting" line, which I rewrote after you tagged the page for deletion.

The entire page as it appeared on March 24, 2011 [9]:

Davis Cleveland (born February 5, 2002) is an American actor. He stars as the mischievous little brother Flynn Jones on the Disney Channel original series Shake It Up!.

Davis Cleveland discovered that he had a passion for acting after doing commercial work in Texas. Once he moved to Los Angeles, he appeared in commercials for McDonalds, Nissan, Kmart, Nintendo, Microsoft and Honey Baked Ham.[1] He has guest-starred in numerous television shows including Hannah Montana, Good Luck Charlie, Pair of Kings, Desperate Housewives, How I Met Your Mother, and The Ghost Whisperer.[2] In 2009, he starred in the Fox comedy pilot Sons of Tucson.[1] Cleveland currently co-stars on the Disney Channel original series Shake It Up! as Flynn Jones, the precocious little brother of CeCe (Bella Thorne).[3]

Davis Cleveland was born February 5, 2002, in Houston, Texas.[1] He currently lives in Los Angeles and is a fan of video games, skateboarding and rollerblading. He also enjoys martial arts, and playing guitar.[1]

--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If "The talented young actor has guest-starred in a slew of hit television shows" is a "standard sentence used ALL the time", I'm not just the pope, I'm also the king of Spain. Like I said, the copyright violation has been corrected. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was referring to when I said you either weren't reading or else you were deliberately misrepresenting the facts. YOU transcribed that line that way. The line did not appear that way (and does not appear that way in the edit history, even in the link YOU cited [10]). Nice try though. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And just in case anyone is mislead by your revised version of the facts. I was the one who rewrote the page. You didn't make any effort to rewrite it, instead you simply tagged the page for immediate deletion. When I see a problem I try to FIX it. If someone adds an unsourced fact to a page - I try and do a quick google search to see if I can find the source to add to the page before I simply delete the information. If someone has a problem with how a page is written, I try and rewrite it instead of tagging the page for deletion. Anyone can check the edit history page and see the third party's view on the alleged "copyright violation" for themselves [11].

I apparently made an error in my copy/pastes of the article and the source. My mistake. I did not say, nor did I mean to imply that I cleaned up the copyright violation. Further, I did not "simply tag the page for immediate deletion". Rather, I removed one section that I first thought was the problem. Spotting what I felt was more problematic text ("text copied with some changes" WP:CV), I tagged the page as an apparent copyright violation and awaited the attention/opinion of an admin. The person responding did not feel there was a copyright violation. I disagree as the degree of similarity was certainly enough for me to address the issue as plagiarism, if submitted by one of my students. In any case, the issue has been resolved. The text has been changed to a degree that I am no longer concerned that a copyright violation exists. If you feel my actions were in bad faith or otherwise problematic, we are well beyond the scope of this article's talk page and I would recommend you address the issue through our normal dispute resolution procedures. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You started this thread here, and I'm correcting the misinformation you provided here. The page WAS tagged for speedy deletion [12]. Please don't misrepresent the way the article was written here and then tell me to take the matter somewhere else. If you want to remove this pointless thread you started and/or move it somewhere else then that's fine with me. I've already corrected your inaccuracies. I admit the basic information was similar - I was approaching the Disney Channel press release as something they would ideally WANT quoted verbatim, so I admit I didn't make much effort to change it a whole lot. That was my mistake - and something I would have gladly corrected without the page being tagged for speedy deletion. As you said, the issue has long-since been settled by a third party, so I didn't see your point in creating a thread replete with misinformation for it here in the first place. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

One simple mistake = "misinformation", ""inaccuracies" and "replete with misinformation"? Whatever. No, we cannot (nor would we want to) quote press releases verbatim. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You can "whatever" all you want. I've already pointed out your numerous inaccuracies in this section. And once again - trying reading instead of condescending. I said I thought Disney wanted the press release redistributed and quoted. I did not say that I quoted it verbatim. After you tried to get the page deleted, I re-wrote the page. And then it was decided by a third party that the original page was NOT a copyright violation, despite your subsequent attempt at misrepresentation of the article on this talk page. You can attempt to take me out of context, but I'm not one of your little "students" who will tolerate it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I neither attempted to misrepresent the article, nor attempted to take you out of context. I am sorry if by "quoted verbatim" you did not mean anything having to do with quoting verbatim. I did not say you quoted it verbatim, only that "we cannot (nor would we want to) quote press releases verbatim". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that the implication of your comment was that I was "confused" as to whether I should quote verbatim, which I clearly was not. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A list of possibilities: 1) I misunderstood why you were discussing Disney wanting a verbatim quote -or- 2) you misunderstood why I clarified that we would not/should not quote a press release verbatim -or- 3) I implied that you were confused (and we both know it). I cannot guess what you are thinking or why. I responded to a mention of quoting a press release verbatim by saying we cannot/should not do so. I am attempting to get this article cleaned up. That is all. Please do not assume otherwise. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to "guess". My original reference to Disney's desire to have the press-release redistributed verbatim was clear. I'm willing to "assume" that you were editing in good faith, but I cannot guess what you are thinking or why. I was more than happy to rewrite the page after the page was nominated for "speedy deletion", but I've honestly never seen someone then turn right around remove all but one of the reliable sources on a page, and then proceed to tag it for deletion again as only having one "primary source" (and I've dealt with a lot of vandals and admins for years before I ever registered), so it was shocking to say the least. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Alleged kiss

An IP editor has repeatedly added (sometimes with a youtube link) that Cleveland kissed someone. It has repeatedly been reverted. Whether or not the kiss happened is a moot point. If the kiss occurred, it simply has no place in this article as it is a minor, trivial event unless it is discussed in independent reliable sources. It does not seem to have been. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen a link provided with the edit, however, these are two eight year old boys - I hardly think this type of aspect of their "personal" life should be notable here even if CNN reported on it. I've already contacted an admin about this a few days ago who has stated that he will "watch" this users edits, but I'm sure he has more important things to occupy himself with, so if it happens again, I'll bring it to the admins attention once more. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, its irrelevance with policy violation issues - template them and report them and block them if they continue to insert. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was just my impression that this editor is most likely a youngster themselves (I think most of us can usually tell), so I wasn't in a big hurry to report them or have them blocked - thinking I could instead just "wait them out" and they would eventually get tired, but if this persists, I'll let you or the other admin know. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Edger181 blocked the IP for 24hours. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok yeah, Edger181 is the admin I contacted originally. I don't like to bug him with this kind of thing all the time because I know he's pretty busy, so it probably just took him a while to notice the most recent edits and then block. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

new image to the article

i added the latest pic for Dave, I hope it doesn't violate any terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliezailah (talk • contribs) 16:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I put it as my own work!!!! Why you delete it? If ur happy pushing the button, well that's stupid! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliezailah (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Own work = you created the image and therefore own the copyright. Copying the image from elsewhere and upload it to Commons does not make you the copyright holder. --Denniss (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

well can you please reupload it and put it with the right license as i am not too familiar with them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliezailah (talk • contribs) 07:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no "right license", Eliezailah. I assume you are referrring to this photo or a copy of it. It is clearly marked:

Photo by dylanpatrickphotography.com - © Dylan Patrick.

You would need to write to Dylan Patrick and ask him to release that image under a free license which allows anyone to freely re-use or alter that image, even for their own financial gain without paying a penny to him. Neither you nor anyone else here can steal the intellectual property of others and release it under a license which deprives them of their potential income without their consent. Voceditenore (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ok took his permission and you still delete it, anything else u want?!

adding a pic to article

Sorry about the previous argument. Guess i am not that smart for uploading images with taking permissions and stuff. Can you please add a current image of Dave? thanks in advance Eliezailah (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliezailah (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Davis Cleveland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710134104/http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=3129298&type=cleveland to http://www.disneychannelmedianet.com/web/showpage/showpage.aspx?program_id=3129298&type=cleveland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724000532/http://weblogs.wpix.com/news/local/morningnews/blogs/2011/03/shake_it_up_cast.html to http://weblogs.wpix.com/news/local/morningnews/blogs/2011/03/shake_it_up_cast.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404162133/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms33.html to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms33.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)