 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Please note that there are a couple of discrepancies regarding air dates. Amazon lists air dates that are one day off from those listed on the Futon Critic and IMDb's Episode list. Given that there are 2 sources to 1, and that Amazon lists the premiere date as October 31 when many other media outlets have mentioned the date to be November 1, I think it's safe to assume Amazon is wrong and we should be consistent in following the Futon Critic and IMDb's Episode list for air dates. Webenji ( talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia's official description for ShortSummary, please make sure that episode summaries are written by yourself and not copied from a different source. For reference, "episode summaries must not be copied from other sources, as this violates WP:COPYRIGHT". The summaries for the following episode numbers have been copied and should be rewritten: 1-11, 16, and 17. Webenji ( talk) 23:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Webenji or KD0710, are either one of you able to track down ratings information or any data on viewership amount for each individual episode? I have been terribly unsuccessful trying to find this online. The New York Post claimed in an article that ratings are not publicly disclosed for streaming. With that being said, do either of you know how one could access this so that the article could highlight this as well? I think that would be a great added feature to the hard work you two are doing for this article. Thank you both by the way. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 04:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I don’t anticipate being able to find those. Most streaming services are very protective of the actual viewership numbers. If we ever do find anything, I would assume it would be in an average per episode format and not one broken down. KD0710 ( talk) 11:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my question. Unfortunately, I think you're right. Like you said, if anything, just an average per episode format and not broken down. Grr! Thanks KD0710. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 05:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with KD0710 - it is very unlikely we will find/get streaming viewership numbers for each episode. Webenji ( talk) 06:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your followup Webenji. You and KDO710 have made such a good team in building to this article. Looks like beyond calling up Amazon Studios, we're ____ out of luck on ratings. lol! Thanks you too! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 03:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
As a contributor to this page, I strongly oppose the copyvio-revdel placed on it by Onel5969. No, I am not (and have not been) paid for the episode summaries that I wrote myself while watching the episodes. I did notice that some contributors were copying verbatim the summaries from other pages and have made a point of mentioning it in this talk page (see Episode Summaries section above). I am happy to help restore this page, as I am sure is the case with other contributors KD0710 and JudgeJudyCourthouse25, including removing copyrighted summaries and other copyrighted materials from it. Hoping the Talk page is actually read (and used) so that we, as a community, can come up with an appropriate course of action. Webenji ( talk) 03:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything said by Webenji. I'll also praise him for his diplomacy. I think the copyvio-revdel is totally unwarranted One15969. And how did you arrive at us being paid editors? If someone's supposed to be paying the three of us for some Judy Justice edits, please point us in the direction of our boss so we can file a lawsuit with him/her being in arrears. Yes, Webenji is correct that there is room for improvement here, but that's a simple talkpage discussion and the three of us (myself, Webenji and KD0710) addressing whatever concern. It's not drastic moves, wild accusations and a failure to communicate. Thank you! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 07:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ JudgeJudyCourthouse25 and Webenji: I agree with the part regarding the UPE, and I will not evaluate that. That is however not the crux of the problem on this article.
- However, looking through the copyright problem - the ONLY way to address that is to delete all revisions which contain copyright problems. It is great if people would have addressed this from the start by deleting all copyvio material in a clean version and then asking for deletion of all of the previous versions that contain copyvio material. We do not resolve that through discussion while letting copyvio material stand, appropriate action is to make sure that all copyvio material is removed and all revisions that contain copyvio material are deleted. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, he had accused me of UPE for editing Judge Judy articles (despite also adding popular criticisms of her shows that happened in the media) so that was my beef.
- As for the problems with this article, I haven't actually edited this page beyond the opening paragraphs outside of the episodic description, so I can't corroborate or deny the nature of the sources or copyvio as I have not viewed them. That said, my understanding is that this was addressed from the start and presently being worked on tirelessly so by Webenji and
User:KD0710.
User:KD0710, the editor to make the edits you're taking issue with was unaware that he/she could not jot down from a source word for word and had to make it into his/her own words. As shown here
[1],
Webenji clarifies that to the editor, at that point assisting him/her with the edits so that this article would not be in violation. This was a work in progress, and I thought they were doing exceptionally well. But now weeks of their work are all gone. Hopefully, KD0710 contributes his opinion. Cheers!
JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (
talk)
14:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe I was unclear, I agree with you two that the UPE/COI is likely wrong. But that does not take away the copyvio problem.
The copyvio was there since the beginning, otherwise I would not have revdelled all.
The copyvio was being worked on? It was noticed (on Nov 18, 2021), but not removed. It should have been blanked directly and those revisions deleted. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe I was unclear, I agree with you two that the UPE/COI is likely wrong. But that does not take away the copyvio problem.
Looking at this situation, it appears that Onel5969 is over policing. To make claims with no basis such as “probable paid editing” is an abuse of power. May there have been some issues with copyright, sure. None of which were current and not actively being corrected or patrolled by the three of us making daily edits. The page should be restored given the information we have. KD0710 ( talk) 15:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wow. Abuse of power! I’m yet to see their powers.
‘None of which were current’? They were there from the start, they were there until the end. You were patrolling (seen the statement in an earlier thread), but not being resolved. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC) - Just to be sure: the description of Episode 1 “Girlfriend demands payback” in
this first revid of the page (admin only) by
User:JudgeJudyCourthouse25 is exactly the same as in
the last revid before blanking (admin only), and that description is exactly the same as in
this list of episodes on imdb. The same is true for the descriptions for episodes 2-8 (the only 8 episodes with description in the first revid. On the other hand, the descriptions for episodes 14 and 15 added
here (admin only) by
user:Webenji are rewritten. But then, the description of episode 16, added
here by
user:KD0710 is again literally copied (and not resolved in the last revid before blanking).
this revid for episode 19 (with copied descrption) was
reverted. From then it goes OK, but the original copyvio is never resolved and that remains throughout.
Dirk Beetstra
T
C
19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
Dirk Beetstra, don't bring up my name or post a bunch of jazz to my page because I don't know what in tarnation you're talking about. What I do know is that while you were trying to put the correct on
KD0710 over "power abuse," you made the sad mistake of sending us links to edits that cannot even be viewed nor verified, so correct yourself. Lol! You seemed to have forgotten that because of the mindless act of discarding of a full page of material without first bothering to discuss, nobody has the ability to see whatever links it is you're trying to use to support yourself. Right now your links are a trip to nowhere land because of the act of discarding of a page without bothering to discuss so I would stop throwing out editor names until you can actually back it up with an actual link that doesn't blatantly say "FOR ADMINS ONLY." Might I remind you as well that as it stands it's a 3 vs 1 consensus. Your friend Onel5969 has yet to come here and help you as you duke it out against 3 people. You better log off and e-mail some wikifriends to come here and help you.
JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (
talk)
21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ JudgeJudyCourthouse25: you are talking about consensus while you violate copyrights. I hope you understand that a local consensus is then meaningless. — Dirk Beetstra T C 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
-
Dirk Beetstra, don't bring up my name or post a bunch of jazz to my page because I don't know what in tarnation you're talking about. What I do know is that while you were trying to put the correct on
KD0710 over "power abuse," you made the sad mistake of sending us links to edits that cannot even be viewed nor verified, so correct yourself. Lol! You seemed to have forgotten that because of the mindless act of discarding of a full page of material without first bothering to discuss, nobody has the ability to see whatever links it is you're trying to use to support yourself. Right now your links are a trip to nowhere land because of the act of discarding of a page without bothering to discuss so I would stop throwing out editor names until you can actually back it up with an actual link that doesn't blatantly say "FOR ADMINS ONLY." Might I remind you as well that as it stands it's a 3 vs 1 consensus. Your friend Onel5969 has yet to come here and help you as you duke it out against 3 people. You better log off and e-mail some wikifriends to come here and help you.
JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (
talk)
21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Please note that there are a couple of discrepancies regarding air dates. Amazon lists air dates that are one day off from those listed on the Futon Critic and IMDb's Episode list. Given that there are 2 sources to 1, and that Amazon lists the premiere date as October 31 when many other media outlets have mentioned the date to be November 1, I think it's safe to assume Amazon is wrong and we should be consistent in following the Futon Critic and IMDb's Episode list for air dates. Webenji ( talk) 22:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia's official description for ShortSummary, please make sure that episode summaries are written by yourself and not copied from a different source. For reference, "episode summaries must not be copied from other sources, as this violates WP:COPYRIGHT". The summaries for the following episode numbers have been copied and should be rewritten: 1-11, 16, and 17. Webenji ( talk) 23:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Webenji or KD0710, are either one of you able to track down ratings information or any data on viewership amount for each individual episode? I have been terribly unsuccessful trying to find this online. The New York Post claimed in an article that ratings are not publicly disclosed for streaming. With that being said, do either of you know how one could access this so that the article could highlight this as well? I think that would be a great added feature to the hard work you two are doing for this article. Thank you both by the way. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 04:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I don’t anticipate being able to find those. Most streaming services are very protective of the actual viewership numbers. If we ever do find anything, I would assume it would be in an average per episode format and not one broken down. KD0710 ( talk) 11:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my question. Unfortunately, I think you're right. Like you said, if anything, just an average per episode format and not broken down. Grr! Thanks KD0710. JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 05:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with KD0710 - it is very unlikely we will find/get streaming viewership numbers for each episode. Webenji ( talk) 06:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your followup Webenji. You and KDO710 have made such a good team in building to this article. Looks like beyond calling up Amazon Studios, we're ____ out of luck on ratings. lol! Thanks you too! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 03:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
As a contributor to this page, I strongly oppose the copyvio-revdel placed on it by Onel5969. No, I am not (and have not been) paid for the episode summaries that I wrote myself while watching the episodes. I did notice that some contributors were copying verbatim the summaries from other pages and have made a point of mentioning it in this talk page (see Episode Summaries section above). I am happy to help restore this page, as I am sure is the case with other contributors KD0710 and JudgeJudyCourthouse25, including removing copyrighted summaries and other copyrighted materials from it. Hoping the Talk page is actually read (and used) so that we, as a community, can come up with an appropriate course of action. Webenji ( talk) 03:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Completely and wholeheartedly agree with everything said by Webenji. I'll also praise him for his diplomacy. I think the copyvio-revdel is totally unwarranted One15969. And how did you arrive at us being paid editors? If someone's supposed to be paying the three of us for some Judy Justice edits, please point us in the direction of our boss so we can file a lawsuit with him/her being in arrears. Yes, Webenji is correct that there is room for improvement here, but that's a simple talkpage discussion and the three of us (myself, Webenji and KD0710) addressing whatever concern. It's not drastic moves, wild accusations and a failure to communicate. Thank you! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 ( talk) 07:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ JudgeJudyCourthouse25 and Webenji: I agree with the part regarding the UPE, and I will not evaluate that. That is however not the crux of the problem on this article.
- However, looking through the copyright problem - the ONLY way to address that is to delete all revisions which contain copyright problems. It is great if people would have addressed this from the start by deleting all copyvio material in a clean version and then asking for deletion of all of the previous versions that contain copyvio material. We do not resolve that through discussion while letting copyvio material stand, appropriate action is to make sure that all copyvio material is removed and all revisions that contain copyvio material are deleted. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, he had accused me of UPE for editing Judge Judy articles (despite also adding popular criticisms of her shows that happened in the media) so that was my beef.
- As for the problems with this article, I haven't actually edited this page beyond the opening paragraphs outside of the episodic description, so I can't corroborate or deny the nature of the sources or copyvio as I have not viewed them. That said, my understanding is that this was addressed from the start and presently being worked on tirelessly so by Webenji and
User:KD0710.
User:KD0710, the editor to make the edits you're taking issue with was unaware that he/she could not jot down from a source word for word and had to make it into his/her own words. As shown here
[1],
Webenji clarifies that to the editor, at that point assisting him/her with the edits so that this article would not be in violation. This was a work in progress, and I thought they were doing exceptionally well. But now weeks of their work are all gone. Hopefully, KD0710 contributes his opinion. Cheers!
JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (
talk)
14:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe I was unclear, I agree with you two that the UPE/COI is likely wrong. But that does not take away the copyvio problem.
The copyvio was there since the beginning, otherwise I would not have revdelled all.
The copyvio was being worked on? It was noticed (on Nov 18, 2021), but not removed. It should have been blanked directly and those revisions deleted. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, maybe I was unclear, I agree with you two that the UPE/COI is likely wrong. But that does not take away the copyvio problem.
Looking at this situation, it appears that Onel5969 is over policing. To make claims with no basis such as “probable paid editing” is an abuse of power. May there have been some issues with copyright, sure. None of which were current and not actively being corrected or patrolled by the three of us making daily edits. The page should be restored given the information we have. KD0710 ( talk) 15:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wow. Abuse of power! I’m yet to see their powers.
‘None of which were current’? They were there from the start, they were there until the end. You were patrolling (seen the statement in an earlier thread), but not being resolved. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC) - Just to be sure: the description of Episode 1 “Girlfriend demands payback” in
this first revid of the page (admin only) by
User:JudgeJudyCourthouse25 is exactly the same as in
the last revid before blanking (admin only), and that description is exactly the same as in
this list of episodes on imdb. The same is true for the descriptions for episodes 2-8 (the only 8 episodes with description in the first revid. On the other hand, the descriptions for episodes 14 and 15 added
here (admin only) by
user:Webenji are rewritten. But then, the description of episode 16, added
here by
user:KD0710 is again literally copied (and not resolved in the last revid before blanking).
this revid for episode 19 (with copied descrption) was
reverted. From then it goes OK, but the original copyvio is never resolved and that remains throughout.
Dirk Beetstra
T
C
19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
-
Dirk Beetstra, don't bring up my name or post a bunch of jazz to my page because I don't know what in tarnation you're talking about. What I do know is that while you were trying to put the correct on
KD0710 over "power abuse," you made the sad mistake of sending us links to edits that cannot even be viewed nor verified, so correct yourself. Lol! You seemed to have forgotten that because of the mindless act of discarding of a full page of material without first bothering to discuss, nobody has the ability to see whatever links it is you're trying to use to support yourself. Right now your links are a trip to nowhere land because of the act of discarding of a page without bothering to discuss so I would stop throwing out editor names until you can actually back it up with an actual link that doesn't blatantly say "FOR ADMINS ONLY." Might I remind you as well that as it stands it's a 3 vs 1 consensus. Your friend Onel5969 has yet to come here and help you as you duke it out against 3 people. You better log off and e-mail some wikifriends to come here and help you.
JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (
talk)
21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ JudgeJudyCourthouse25: you are talking about consensus while you violate copyrights. I hope you understand that a local consensus is then meaningless. — Dirk Beetstra T C 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
-
Dirk Beetstra, don't bring up my name or post a bunch of jazz to my page because I don't know what in tarnation you're talking about. What I do know is that while you were trying to put the correct on
KD0710 over "power abuse," you made the sad mistake of sending us links to edits that cannot even be viewed nor verified, so correct yourself. Lol! You seemed to have forgotten that because of the mindless act of discarding of a full page of material without first bothering to discuss, nobody has the ability to see whatever links it is you're trying to use to support yourself. Right now your links are a trip to nowhere land because of the act of discarding of a page without bothering to discuss so I would stop throwing out editor names until you can actually back it up with an actual link that doesn't blatantly say "FOR ADMINS ONLY." Might I remind you as well that as it stands it's a 3 vs 1 consensus. Your friend Onel5969 has yet to come here and help you as you duke it out against 3 people. You better log off and e-mail some wikifriends to come here and help you.
JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (
talk)
21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)