Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Hey, Musdan77 – you may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns. IIRC, you prefer the "all 4-year" daterange format, so you may want to make your voice heard over there... Just so you know! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you —Musdan77 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK - let me ask you this...

When a sports team wins a championship, it is a collective accomplishment, but all the players, coaches, GMs, and owners are considered champions (example - LeBron James is considered a 3X NBA Champion, having won 2 titles with Miami, and 1 with Cleveland).

So when a show wins an Emmy for being Outstanding Comedy, aren't all involved credited with winning the award, as it was obviously a collaborative effort? That's like saying only Bob Kraft (owner) gets credit for the Patriots' 4 Super Bowl wins, and not Bill Belichick (head coach) or Tom Brady (quarterback) - you get what I'm trying to say?

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vjmlhds, I understand where your coming from, but it's sort of like comparing apples and oranges. You may think that's how it should be (and maybe there are awards that do it that way), but that's not how it's done for the Emmys. And if it did, there still would need to be a source that backs that up. —Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 12#Flatlist or comma separated lists?. Two editors specifically state "three or more" for flatlists, but the note words in the negative because enough editors stated that comma separated lists are more natural. As I stated: either take it up at the template's talk list, there are a few editors there who will side with you, or talk on the article's talk list, but don't edit war over your incorrect opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walter Görlitz, when I saw that there was message from you, I thought that maybe you were actually attempting to have a discussion, but no, of course it's a warning -- which is pretty ridiculous because you know that it takes two to edit war. I could just as well have given you the warning. You know that I am not one to engage in revert warring (normally), but I figured as long as you were doing it, why shouldn't I. And, you know that it does little to no good to try to start a discussion on the talk page of an article that gets very few editors. That's when it's much better to discuss it on the talk page of the editor you have the disagreement with. But of course, I tried that in the past on yours, and I got no reply and my post was just deleted -- which is very insulting. In fact, I think that's one of the worst things an editor can do to another. And when that editor calls himself a Christian, that's even worse! Maybe you should take some time away from WP and read the Bible to see how a Christian is supposed to act like.

After looking over the discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist, I don't see how the note came out of that. The result was: consensus is that "flatlists should be used" -- not how many items for commas or flatlists. But, the bottom line to me is that an infobox should not contain two different styles (if more than 2 items). It looks bad and is just makes no sense. And the fact remains that, as I said, individual article consensus takes precedence over a template note. And the fact that you say that you "helped write" it, shows that you are biased against any any effort to do anything contrary to the way you want it. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd. I was thinking that about your opinions about editing the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walter Görlitz, that response makes no sense. And still no sign of wanting to cooperate and get along, and (maybe more important) admitting to wrong-doing. There actually doesn't have to be an admission of guilt to acknowledge that you have offended and are sorry. Even Donald Trump has done that - and I don't know of anyone who believes that he is a Christian. I hate to say it, but if it wasn't for your userbox, no one would really know by your actions that you are supposedly a Christian. We are not supposed to act like the world does. A Christian is known by his fruit (Galatians 5:22-23). —Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking that you are showing page ownership. Local consensus is not a valid argument here as you're the only editor who wants it that way. Speaking of not cooperating, and since you tried to guilt me with scripture, I suggest you follow the plankeye principle yourself: Matthew 7:3-5. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There can't be "ownership" by me when I was completely willing to work together, while you refused to change from the way you want it. And the scripture certainly doesn't apply to me because I obviously am willing to discuss on my talk page - unlike you. If you don't humble yourself and accept the truth, we won't get over this. As far as I know I have not wronged you, but you do know that you have. Even though I forgive you, if you don't change your attitude, we'll still have problems in the future. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm having problems with another user on Talk:The Bachelor (season 21) and I was hoping you could help me with it. The users name is Starbucks6789. After both of us reverting each others edits back and forth, I went to the talk page and I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Could you please help resolve the discussion? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm not a sysop (admin), and I don't watch that show, so I don't think I can really help. Sorry. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on the Love Boat episodes page, which was a huge help in dating a fantastic youtube video of Ginger Rogers in her late sixties performing Love Will Keep Us Together. She and her backup dancers did a version (sadly much less colorful) on The Love Boat. Jillzilla (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I'm glad it was a help to you. —Musdan77 (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have an idea to resolve this problem. We can just create a separate article called List of Chicago Members. Yes, AC\DC, and Toto all format their personnel section like this. We would probably move the timeline and timetable to the new article and only retain the list of current members. Sound good?Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be great, Dobbyelf62. The problem is that currently the section has no references. I see that the Yes page has 4, AC\DC has a lot, and Toto has none(!). —Musdan77 (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have (finally) added citations to Chicago personnel section, and whole Chicago article. Would like you to look and decide if it is time to remove "needs additional citations" templates at top of page and at personnel section.Curious405 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry but just look Featured lists like List of awards and nominations received by Adele, Bruno Mars and Taylor Swift : a win is also count as a nomination in the infobox. All Featured lists about "awards won by artists" follow this method. - SennKev (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SennKev, well if so, they are wrong – according to Template:Infobox musician awards (MOS). Just because an article reaches featured status doesn't mean it's perfect. But thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll post a message on the template's talk page. At least now you are discussing and giving edit summaries. Keep it up (every edit should have a summary). —Musdan77 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three years ago ...

welcome
... you were recipient no. 666 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks – but did it have to be 666??

Four years now, and no, I see the number only a year later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Musdan77, I see you have added RefImprove to the Cliff Richard discography. Can you please be more specific as to what you think is missing refs or what the problem is? Are you referring to the introduction paragraphs or other items? I've already added a large amount of refs, spent a lot of time researching refs to add, and included refs for some of the rarer or less well known albums that don't usually get ref'ed on discographies. Thank you. -- AusChartMan (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, AusChartMan, I appreciate the work you've done. The reason for the tag is that there are many albums listed that don't have articles (and aren't referenced). Also, the Music videos section has no cites. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Musdan77, In the sections with the rarer albums, there are references at the top of the columns. I haven't referenced the uncharted main record company (ie EMI etc) albums as I haven't noticed that anyone does that. I looked at Wikipedia:Featured lists articles like David Bowie discography and it is not done there. Articles for Cliff's main record company albums are slowly being added to Wikipedia by other editors. With the music videos (someone else added this section, I wouldn't have bothered as information is scant), it could be improved by adding some referenced directors names for early years, but the information is often very hard/impossible to find for later years as it is not always included on the retail products, and many music videos never even made it to retail products. Typically there was a music video for nearly every Cliff single for the 80's and 90's, but without the director information, I'm not sure what there is to reference. If you can dig up references for directors of Cliff music videos after 1983, let me know. Overall, I'm just not seeing much at all that needs to be referenced that can be. - AusChartMan (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, AusChartMan, for the info. I think what I'm going to do is remove the top template and add one to the Music videos section, and I think I'll go ahead and upgrade the page from start class to C. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Musdan77. I noticed you have recently inserted the |religion= field and related content in the Infobox for Nikki Haley with this edit. I've removed it, to comply with both Wikipedia established policy (see WP:BLPCAT) and with this RfC on Religion in Infoboxes.

Your edit summary stated (Once again, it is according to Template:Infobox_person#Parameters. There is a discussion. Do not rm without discussing.) You've been around a while, so I'm sure I don't need to remind you that contentious material is to be removed from Biographies of Living People, even without discussion. There are three sources presently cited in the article which discuss her religion (including one added by you containing self-identification), so coverage of her religious beliefs is appropriate in the body of the article. None of those three sources, however, convey that Nikki Haley is famous for being a Christian, so use of the |religion= field is inappropriate. Her religion is not a defining characteristic of her public notability. She's notable for her politics, not her religion (unless there are sources which clearly say otherwise of which I am unaware).

Your summary also said "There is a discussion", but when I checked the Talk page I didn't see one. I've now started one for you, located: here. Did you, by chance, mean this discussion we were having here? I don't see anything at that discussion that indicates justification for using the reserved parameter in the Infobox.

Your edit summary also referenced the Template:Infobox_person#Parameters, which states:

Per this RFC, this parameter should be included only when it is a defining characteristic of the article subject. For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT. Be sure to support with a citation in the article body to a reliable source showing self-identification. This parameter should include only religions (i.e. Hinduism, Christianity) and not denominations (i.e. Shi'ism, Digambara, Shengdao, Vaishnavism). For denominations use the parameter below.

Let me know if I can be of any additional help. I'll watchlist this Talk page for now, but we should probably conduct discussions of specific relevance to Haley at the Talk page for that article. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) About the "sir/ma'am" thing: so you'd rather offend because it's convenient for you? That's really nice. If you don't care then why use any? (2) I didn't "insert" the parameter. It was there from the beginning (8 years!). I restored what you removed. Then, you violated WP:BRD by adding removing it again without discussion. (3) If you haven't been to my user page then how do you know that I've "been around a while"? It wasn't contentious until you removed it. (4) No, I was referring to the one called "Christian?", but it's good that you started a new one. Better late than never, I guess (although, it's really supposed to return to status quo during a discussion). (5) Of course I know what Template:Infobox_person#Parameters says (insult much?), that's why I gave the link. But, we obviously disagree with how it applies to that article. Blessings, Musdan77 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Musdan77. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware of what the article says (my only or main point was not just that EPs are "unqualified" as albums), but it also mentions singles in equal measure, and nothing in the prose suggests EPs are or should be considered the equivalent of albums. All through the prose, it distinguishes them from albums. "EPs tended to be album samplers or collections of singles", "In the United Kingdom, any record with more than four distinct tracks or with a playing time of more than 25 minutes is classified as an album for sales-chart purposes" and so on. It also mentions they are often called "EP albums" (presumably as a holdover from the vinyl era) and as because to some, anything more than one or a couple of songs is considered a collection, or "album".

Extended plays are as unique a format as an album or a single, and are lumped in with albums on most countries' charts because most countries do not have a separate EPs chart (although I am aware some did in the 1960s and such when vinyl was a relatively new format). The lead of that article also says EPs are generally considered longer than a single, but shorter than an album. So following that, how it can they be considered albums if one of the defining characteristics is that it's shorter than a full-length album, or LP? (Sorry if any of this seemed like I was telling you things you may already know, but I'm just explaining some of the truisms around EPs that the article also mentions.) Ss112 02:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Laura Ingalls. I see you're a fellow fan of Little House. You may want to participate in this discussion concerning whether Laura Ingalls should be a redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder. --Nevé–selbert 23:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Musdan77, I think we should refer to this Template:Awards table for the following article : List of awards and nominations received by Selena Gomez. I don't really understand why you don't want to follow this method. Several "list of awards and nominations received by..." follow this method. - SennKev (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SennKev, I know that "several" use that template – similar to several incorrectly doing the total nominations. This discussion should be on the article talk page so others can join in. Moving it there. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Musdan77, re: your reversion of my contribution to Taraji P. Henson's page: Using "The Pentagon" as a title is incorrect. It isn't "The Rock," it's "the Pentagon." Respectfully submitted, but I must support my choice of handles. Have a great weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustypup49 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating List of awards and nominations received by Blake Shelton, Musdan77!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks. Please note, though, that when splitting, credit should be given to the original page per WP:CORRECTSPLIT.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears a troll is intentionally vandalizing the filmography for this actor. Films like Zookeeper are now totally missing. Etc. This troll stalks me on many forums and even creates IDs to respond to his own posts. He was banned on here already as User:Escapement. Etc. Unfortunately, I ain't got a clue about table formatting, so I know you can get the info back from checking the older edits, but that's for someone else to attempt. It seems he is mass editing the page to make it harder to re-add the missing films. This is why I believe only "established" users should be able to edit pages like this.

Look at the IP address.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.43.150.69

This guy has actually been bothering me at many forums and on Wikipedia. I know what occurs at other sites has nothing to do with Wikipedia, but he has already threatened me on forums, and harassed my friend by sending people to his house. It's a shame there's no way to contact moderators anonymously, because he likes the attention he gets from me going on pages to say things about his antics. He's a very persistent troll who initially began harassing me on Resident Evil message boards. Even though he gets banned nearly every week now at one forum I go on, he has created so many accounts. Some users don't know why he spams, so having to explain the situation over and over again only feeds his fire.

PeterMan844 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about the troubles you've been having. I have given a warning to the IP, and the filmography has been restored for now. —Musdan77 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. He just got me banned from a forum I'd been posting on for years, because they gave into his pathetic demands. What a sad world we're in!PeterMan844 (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Can you add Zookeeper back to his filmography? He voiced Joe, the lion.PeterMan844 (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done —Musdan77 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Can you set up Stallone's filmography page where only "established users" can edit it? A troll keeps on vandalizing it and I've had to report his abuse to the police in his state, as he kept cyber stalking me at other websites, as well as here at Wikipedia, because he kept on posting vile content that was highly illegal/obscene, and making threats.PeterMan844 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't, but you can request it by clicking on "rpp" at the top of the article page. —Musdan77 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I've made a request.PeterMan844 (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm Peter Anderson (XXXV) on IMDb.com and he even edits crap on there too. His first name is Chris.PeterMan844 (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure how I feel about this edit. I have read Template:Infobox musician awards#Nominations, but I am not sure if I entirely agree with it. An artist has to be nominated first in order to win a (competitive) award. Plus, I don't know if it is a good idea to have different numbers in infobox and lead. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi FrB.TG, yeah, that's how infoboxes for awards and nominations list articles are supposed to be (and I thought that Emma's was already like that - but I hadn't been there for quite awhile). There's a reason that these pages are color-coded. The colors (pink, green) in the infobox are to correspond with what's in the main article. Otherwise, there's no reason to have the same colors. The whole purpose of an infobox is summarize the article. In the lead, it says "from __ nominations" (some say "out of"), that's the distinction. (I guess that's for people want to know that, but don't want to do the math.) And, I used Template:Infobox musician awards, instead of Template:Infobox actor awards because the latter (1) doesn't have explanations of the parameters and (2) that's not what's used on the page anyway. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, that does make sense, but it is rarely practiced in a list, I should add. Thanks for the explanation. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FrB.TG, I know that a lot do have it that way. And I assume that it will be OK with you if I do the same on ones (others) that you have done work on. (?) —Musdan77 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, yes, all the reason, I will follow the manual of style but it does not make me correct or coherent to delete some things that should be, like some nominations for example. Aziel014 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in case you don't read my talk page. I couldn't read the source on my iPad but when I used my PC with a large screen monitor I could see that the source states "who appears to have been present at the encounter with the serpent" which seems to back the text you removed as unsourced.

The scientific consensus that humans evolved from earlier hominids still remains and your argument that it may have changed in 4 years is simply wrong. I'm not going to get into a debate over evolution and Creationism with you however, that would be a waste of time for both of us. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again, Musdan77. Is it your opinion that there are still not enough citations on the Chicago (band) wikipedia page to merit removal of the "needs additional citations" template at the top of the page? When I started editing the Chicago (band) page in January 2016, there were a total of 37 citations. Today there are 150 citations. If it doesn't seem adequately referenced to you, what sections need more citations?Curious405 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great job! --Musdan77 (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm gathering information to add to the song page for "Up Where We Belong", which was covered by Bebe & Cece Winans. I see on their biography page that you added some Peak chart positions to their list of Singles, which included that song reaching number 27. I was wondering if you could tell me where to find the source for this information so that I can cite it on the song page. Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Danaphile, here's the template: ^[1]

--Musdan77 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you check this user here in this link below, to see if this is another sleeper?

I think this account is a duck, because this user only edits pages that I created with my other ID.

I've had some guy stalking me for months, targeting many pages on here too.

He had previously been using names like Escapement, mangoclowns, etc. He harasses me on Wikia as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moon-Shot

ZombieFleshEater79 (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Dear Musdan77, I could use some direction from a more seasoned editor regarding the Peter Cetera Wikipedia article, which I have heavily edited over the past few years with text and citations. Editor 108.68.87.152 just went in and changed many, not all, citation date formats and added many ^{[citation needed]} templates to the page. I have been trying to keep all citation dates in the same format, mdy, per Wikipedia MOS, and would like to change them back. The one ^{[citation needed]} template I have most argument with is after the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead. The seventeen Chicago albums and eight solo studio albums are all covered in the body of the article, so I don't think it requires a citation in the lead. Editor 108.68.87.152 does not have a talk page, and the talk page for Peter Cetera is not active. Suggestions?

Hi, Curious405. I don't watch that page and haven't edited it, but when I looked at the article, the first thing I noticed was that the lead is way too long. Except in very rare cases, the lead should not have more than 4 paragraphs. Some can be merged or removed. Anyway, if I were you, I'd just revert the IP's edit - especially since they didn't give any explanation. And you're right about the changes made. Any user can have a talk page, and if there isn't one, you can just start it. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Musdan77. Sorry I forgot to sign my note.Curious405 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can I add also video clip in table with films ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's possible. See: [1], WP:CMF, WP:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Video. Musdan77 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope to find ref. for movie MASH is very rare i am sure Stallone was extra in film — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you see Dolph Lundgren page of wikipedia ? and tell if everything is fine with tables — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I were you, I'd move the "Actor" column to be first in the sub-columns of the film table -- but I know that's a lot of work. Musdan77 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yes i know for this is good but true is very work .. maybe in next days i will make — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

do we have the right to write which film is a "independent film" in Films table: notes or not ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's sourced either in the table or in the main text. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this also applies to "documentary film" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that would be necessary -- but it wouldn't hurt. Musdan77 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please see Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography you like how i make ? with blue i target documentary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

also i have problem... some admins of pages of movies not give me to add full name of some character in page of Spy-Kids 3-D: Game Over name of Stallone character is Sebastian "The Toymaker" and admins erased Sebastian and just and just nickname Toymaker leave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does it say Sebastian in the credits of the movie? --Musdan77 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not but in the movie it says Sebastian is name it's famous with his nicknamen Toymaker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's not in the closing credits then there would need to be a source for it. Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cool i like your new style of Stallone table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.253.29 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Musdan77. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source for biographical information in Lauren Holly. Please note that there is general consensus that thefamouspeople.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. (Discussions here and here). Similarly, 24smi.org appears unreliable as well. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronz, why would you just change it back to basically how it was before? I don't know if you were the one who hid the info before, but a good editor doesn't just hide important bio information and leave it like that for years, and also not remove (or hide) that info from the infobox. A good editor would at least try to find one reliable source. And it's not like I just picked two websites. I searched though many to find what I thought were reliable. Musdan77 (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit that you reverted was correct, so why did you revert it? If you read the Manual of Style, everything you capitalized was supposed to be lower case. Bob Roberts 01:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob Roberts14, first, don't revert an edit by an experienced editor then ask why. Second, your edit summary goes against WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:ESDONTS.

When I saw all of the changes made since my last edit a couple of days ago, I saw many incorrect changes. I saw that the best version was by another reviewer Zingarese, although one of his changes was not right. I was almost finished making that change plus some other copy edits when you reverted my last submission. Many of your (and Eyer's) changes are not according to MOS:JOBTITLES. Zingarese's ES was correct – except for being too long (again per WP:SUMMARYNO), and he (or someone else) should have started a discussion about this on the article's talk page. I considered moving this discussion there – but maybe Zingarese or another experienced editor will get involved. Musdan77 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple people, including Eyer, agreed that your edits were incorrect and the old ones were right. For example, you wrote the sentence "and was Speaker for two years," but "speaker" should not have been capitalized. It was being referred to as an office, not as a title (i.e. in place of his name or as part of his name). You also wrote "Senate President Ken Pruitt", even though "Senate President" should be "Senate president", because it is referring to his office. In the Manual it states a correctly capitalized example, "Mao met with American president Richard Nixon in 1972," where "president" is not capitalized because it is not used as part of his name, but instead referring to his office. Did you actually read the MOS? Bob Roberts 03:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Multiple people"? Two inexperienced editors are "multiple people"? Why are you annoying me? Like I said, I just reverted back to Zingarese's edit, so why didn't you complain to him?? Of course I read MOS:JOBTITLES. Did you read WP:SUMMARYNO and WP:ESDONTS? I could say more, but... Musdan77 (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoa, you've been editing Wikipedia for about ten years! I couldn't care less. You still don't know what you are talking about. Eyer has has been editing for about ten years as well, so he isn't inexperienced. Why don't you respond to the two edits of yours that I pointed out? Both were wrong, but you just don't want to admit it. Bob Roberts 04:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you see Eyer's edit count? You're actually more experienced than him. As I indicated, I won't discuss this in detail unless/until it's on the article's talk page or maybe if an experienced editor gets involved here. But, you haven't answered my questions. And can you not take a hint from me saying "you annoying me" and "I could say more"? You're getting awfully close to being WP:UNCIVIL. Musdan77 (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BobRoberts14, thanks for being an ally. Eyer (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. At first I thought you were wrong, mainly because I am super inexperienced and just started editing three days ago, but I read through the manaul's guide on capitalization and analyzed your edits, learning that you only capitalize titles when: they are used in place of the person's name, or used as part of the person's name (and some other, rarer scenarios). Bob Roberts 01:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the recent edit I changed involving Scott Voss on the Kevin James article. someone had changed the name to Scott Ross on the movie's own wikipedia article (since been reverted 17/06/19) so sorry for any confusion it may have caused. Kind regards, TheBestEditorInEngland (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah. An anonymous IP changed it on both articles (twice). I checked the history page of the movie's article because I had suspected it. It's something that comes with experience. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huckabee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBN. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Musdan77. Why did you accept this edit to the Katrina Pierson article which removed unfavorable but sourced material? Our BLP policy about controversial material doesn't seem apply here. If you believe otherwise, elaboration should have been given. I noticed the title link wasn't working but the archive link was working just fine. And the title link was easily rescued with minimal effort. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My mistake. Thanks for correcting. Musdan77 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. I accepted this review which you previously declined. Feel free to revert me if you don't think the edit is appropriate :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I've always encountered sentence case ... but I'm blind so I don't notice capital letters with my screen reader unless I intentionally check if they're there. In general we prefer as few caps as possible. Graham87 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted many of my edits of changing entitled to titled with reference to the names of episodes or TV shows. The definition of entitled is to deserve or give something. An episode of a TV show cannot be "entitled" the name. The correct word when referencing to the title of something is "titled." Example: "coffee table book entitled Love to Love You Bradys" should be "coffee table book titled Love to Love You Bradys." The title of the book is Love to Love You Brady, so "titled" is correct. Entitled would imply some sort of entitlement, which does not make sense.Entitled2Titled (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. First of all, I didn't revert "many"; just 3 of the many changes that you made.
2. Your definition is just one of the definitions for the word. I don't know what dictionary you looked at but apparently it doesn't include all definitions. Other dictionaries not only include other definitions but list this first (which usually means that it's the most common usage of the word) including Wiktionary (an extension of WP): wiktionary:entitled — see also wiktionary:entitle.
3. Did you really think you know better than all of WP editors that have gone before you? – the many who wrote those particular sentences long ago? And no one else but you thought they should be changed??
4. Right after you posted this, you reverted my reversions – which is before any discussion could have taken place.

--Musdan77 (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right and the OP is wrong. Entitle meaning "to bestow a title" has been used in that context since Chaucer in the 14th Century, and remains the more common usage certainly in British English. This editor should not be swapping one for the other, particularly in articles relating to British subjects. The prefix 'en-' (or sometimes 'em-') is used to form a verb from a noun, and is a similar construction to enable, enbalm, emboss, entangle, envisage, enlarge, etc. MapReader (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what was up with this but it's clearly not what the edit summary implied and not easily revertible. Can you take another look? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So sorry. Thanks for notifying me. I'm not sure how I did that. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kim Komando, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phoenix and Santa Barbara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I see you are a member of WikiProject Awards. I’m seeking feedback on some suggested updates to the Academy of Achievement page. I have a conflict of interest, would you be able to do a review? Jarc12030 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On this date (06 December 2023) I had made some contributions to "The Witches (novel) as to audiobook adaptations of the novel in question, only to find that User Nyxaros had deleted them, claiming that they were unsourced: "Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Witches (novel), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also, pay attention to what you are writing in edit summaries because you didn't actually undo my revision."

The information I had added contained ISBN numbers, which I considered reliable source information. I did later add webpage sources, though I did not at the time believe them necessary.

I would ask that this incident be reviewed for possible vandalism of my contribution.TonyPS214 (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]