User talk:DanCherek

DanCherek, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DanCherek! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

im sorry

im new to wikipedia and im sorry for changing the muskrat pagePloopy1234 (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mike Sprayberry

Your draft is gonna be approved. The hold up though is that the page Mike Sprayberry already exists as a redirect, so I need to wait for an admin to delete it so I can approve your draft. Just letting you know your draft will be marked as under review until then. Curbon7 (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks for reviewing it and for letting me know! It's my first new article so I'm super jazzed; no rush obviously. DanCherek (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mike Sprayberry has been accepted

Mike Sprayberry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Curbon7 (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm Thanoscar21. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Curious George (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 14:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thanoscar21: Hi there! I noticed you reverted my edits to Curious George (film). There were three edits affected by this revert: (1) revising the film's plot summary; (2) slight modification to the character list; and (3) and adding sourced information about the film's premiere.

For (1): per WP:FILMPLOT, "[s]ince films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source."

For (2): this edit was made based on WP:CASTLIST, which advises that we should "name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film." If this is a sourcing issue, I would note that like the plot section, casts are often just listed plainly, even in featured articles (e.g. Hoodwinked! and Sense and Sensibility).

For (3): The information about the film's premiere was included with a link to CBS News, which should certainly be a reliable source.

Could I get a second look here? Thanks in advance. DanCherek (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, right I completely forgot about that rule! I didn't see the four edits you made, I only saw that one most recent edit, so thanks for telling me. I've reverted my revert. Thanks again, Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 15:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I can definitely see why that one edit would have looked suspicious on its own; regardless, thank you! I appreciate the quick reply. DanCherek (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Curious George 2006 storyboard.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Curious George 2006 storyboard.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Curious George (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dana Stevens.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your efforts in combating vandalism. Keep up the good work. :) Ashleyyoursmile! 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: Thank you so much—this means a lot and I appreciate it greatly! —DanCherek (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Curious George (film)

Please do not remove sourced content and citations, then replace them with your own original research, as you did in this edit. The source clearly says that the film is an American and German co-production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks for the message! I'm just not sure (but certainly open to being convinced) that the claimant section of the AFI catalog is the determinant of a film's country we should use. To take some featured articles as examples, should Evita be listed as a British-American film and Fight Club as a German-American film? (I see that in the Fight Club infobox the German listing is noted as a source of international funding, but it's referred to as an American film in the first sentence of the article.) Any insight would be appreciated, and you certainly have more experience with film articles than me! It's not something I'll dig my heels in for, just want to get it right. —DanCherek (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what the sources say. It doesn't really matter if any of us is convinced that they're right. If the weight of sources says something else, that's something to consider, of course. The American Film Institute catalogs theatrically-released American films, which makes it one of the easiest sources to cite. There are a few others in Europe that get used regularly, such as Lumiere (which calls it "American") and the British Film Institute (which calls it "American-German"). Trade magazines, such as Variety, are also a common source for Hollywood films, but they're sometimes paywalled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks! Yeah, "convinced" was a poor choice of words on my part—I wasn't doubting the veracity of AFI, but merely meant that I wasn't familiar with what a film claimant was and how that related to a film's country of origin. In any case, thank you for the helpful explanation! Hoping to eventually get Curious George (film) to GA... —DanCherek (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. FASTILY 07:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —DanCherek (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, DanCherek, and welcome to Women in Red. As a fairly recent contributor, you certainly seemed to have grasped the essentials of Wikipedia editing very quickly as can be seen in your articles on Mike Sprayberry and Josephine Dobbs Clement. If you have not already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Primer for creating women's biographies. You will see our priorities for January below but you are of course always welcome to write about women from any sphere of interest under #1day1woman. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! —DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red priorities for January 2021

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Our project

Good afternoon DanCherek. I noted a recent edit you made to the Delta Delta Delta page, reverting vandalism. Thanks for that.

Should you have further interest in Greek societies, we'd welcome your participation on our shared project, the Fraternities and Sororities Project.

For many of us, these institutions represent a very impactful period in our lives. I know of several chapter advisors among the regular 300 participants, along with general alumni and undergrads that are Wiki-savvy. We presently keep an eye on 1,500 or so Greek pages, while a fairly substantial number of recent or dormant local chapters don't make the cut. There are perhaps 6,000 locals that do not have a Wikipedia article, and maybe 50 that do - mostly at Ivy League schools. Long ago, the Baird's Manual editors decided to include as national groups those societies that had three or more chapters, or locals that met a certain bar of longevity: ten years or more. We follow that same logic.

The Project page lists several items on our To Do list, but among them are:

1. Review any of our watched pages for vandalism.
2. Update chapter information for the many lists of chapters.
3. Write an article to list the Greeks on a particular campus. 50 of these have been done, so far.
4. Research a new article for a page that is missing. On our watchlist, these show up as red links.
5. Vote on whether to keep a contested page or not.

There is a debate among editors on Wikipedia about whether to aggressively delete articles or allow their inclusion, based on a notoriously fickle determination of NOTIBILITY. Once an article is factually and cleanly written, I personally favor Inclusion, in order to make life easier for future researchers. Especially for fraternity, sorority and collegiate society articles.

If this last issue is of interest, you may wish to weigh in on a recent discussion of an "Article for Deletion" or AfD: Two or three of these crop up each month. One we are currently discussing is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Beta Phi. Voting is simple, and the instructions are at the top. Just add a line, with your vote, to Keep or Delete (or some other option) bolded at the start of the line.

Whatever you choose to do, we would welcome your participation in this Greek-friendly project. Join by adding your name here.
Jax MN (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jax MN: Hey there! I don't have the capacity to contribute to the WikiProject, but thanks for reaching out and for all the work that y'all are doing. Best of luck. DanCherek (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)