This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi MusikAnimal,

Sorry for the test/edit on the Haji's Kitchen page......I was attempting to link the text "Eumeria" to the new Eumeria wiki-page.

If you would do that for me, that'd be terrific! :)

Metalnu (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Metalnu

No worries! Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Adding Wikilinks is easy, learn how to do it at Help:Link. If you are using the VisualEditor, you simply select the text you would like to be linked, then use the live-search dialog that comes up to find the page you want to link to. I've added the link you spoke of for you. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm the marketing officer for The Story Museum, and was attempting to change the page to make the information accurate.

I am new to the Wikipedia editing world. Is there any guidance you can offer me? Should I footnote every sub-section, stating that it's sourced from our website, or is there another way of doing it?

Best wishes,

AlexandraCoke (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)AlexandraCoke

No problem, glad to help. First off, even if you are the copyright owner, it is highly recommended you reword the content (see WP:CV). Next, the content you added sounded almost entirely promotional, as with sentences like An exciting artistic collaboration turned the dilapidated building into a giant compendium of strange, amusing and haunting stories, etc. Furthermore, it is written from the perspective of the museum ("our", "we"), not the third-person. It is important to understand Wikipedia is not a place for promotion, advocacy, or opinions. Learn more at WP:SOAPBOX. Expanding on this principle, you should avoid conflict of interest, which may be the case since you work for the subject of this article. Referencing the official website means it is self-published, e.g. the content is likely too closely related with the subject and may not adhere to a neutral point of view, see WP:USESPS.

Lastly, let's make sure to add references. Wikipedia revolves around reliable, previously published information. Learn more about referencing practices at WP:REFBEGIN and WP:SOURCE.

Hopefully I haven't overwhelmed you here, and if you need anymore help don't hesitate to ask. I realize you are new and it may take some time to get acquainted with our practices. I've added a welcome template to your talk page to help get you started; So welcome, and happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Look at the page. It was a weird blend of Cesaro,m Damien Sandow, and a Diva's page. I undid all of the weird Sandow stuff on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.196.1 (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I searched and looks like this stuff exists in several other articles. It's up to you and other editors more familiar with Cesaro to make the call whether to retain this content; on that note you may want to start a discussion on the talk page. I merely reverted your edit as you didn't explain why you removed so much content, so remember to use an edit summary. Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey There,

The second time I changed the description, I actually did provide a reason for it, mainly relevancy. The previous description is old and doesn't have the newer accolades.

Let me know if we can keep the new one (just changed it again).

Thanks,

Faraz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farazfarazfaraz (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the issue I have is that you removed the infobox, which was well-sourced. You also reworded the lead section and broke it's formatting, see WP:LEAD. The introduction should be simple and to the point. E.g. I think the co-founder and CEO of FreshBooks, accidentally saved over an invoice back in 2003 should go under the company section. Lastly, your additions are unsourced, whereas the original content was sourced. Generally you should not replace sourced content with unsourced content. I think your additions are otherwise fine, just take a look at WP:RELY and WP:REFBEGIN on how to locate and add references. If further rearrangement or formatted is needed I will be happy to do it for you. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

You're all set. Just see if you can find a reference for the claims about Stevie Awards, IXDA Award, and that they serve 150 countries. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi I am so sorry i must have done something wrong. i posted 4 beautiful pictures of the building. I may not have entered them right, I thought i was helping I am sorry Clara Sister fadia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara sister fadia (talk • contribs) 18:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. What you saved was the default gallery code of example images. Can you provide me with the links to these four images you speak of? Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal,

hello! the edit I made on that page was simply to return it to its original page. as you can read, a lot of information were posted, which I believe came from the TV series Dong Yi. we can't put something to a page of a historical figure that came from a character from a tv series. I did not do any vandalism. I just don't want other people to confuse into two different people, the one from history and the one from tv drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.103.197 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the content you removed was sourced, which you replaced with unsourced content, and you didn't use an edit summary to give a valid reason why. I apologize for not explaining this to you on your talk page. It looks like a number of editors have been blanking/unblanking sections of the article for some time. I recommend starting a discussion on the talk page so that you can work with these other editors who are familiar with the subject in order to reach a consensus. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping make my Max Koeck post look tons better.

I accidentally spelled Joseph wrong on this post in the headline... how can that be fixed? The extra P is sorta embarrassing.

Jeffryobrien (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. No problem, glad to be of help :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't mean to be a pest, but I have an old political cartoon of him, but I am too new to post photos. Could you grab it and post it up? It is at the link below:

http://www.semissourian.com/gallery/5907

Thanks!

Jeffryobrien (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries, check your talk page where I've discussed this. We'll talk there from here on out. Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I take the point, you need more context to relate the subject matter ans reference. My point is this text, like the currently named dasam granth is also in general contradictory of sikh philosophy as per the Guru Granth Sahib Ji. However, the article is currently making unsubstantiated claims- so what do we do? On a broader point even following the good practice laid out in the policy, the articles can atill be biased. For example, common western academia may unintentionally mistake the strength of the argument for climate change. Jattnijj (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no knowledge on the subject of the article whatsoever, and have no input on any such issues. I patrol recent edits, and merely noticed you incorrectly references, as you were notified on your talk page. Again see WP:REFBEGIN on how to add references. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

MusikAnimal asked me to jump in here. When we have a bunch of unsourced info, and you're claiming it's disputed, then we can either just tag it as needing a reference (which we've already done with the templates at the top of the article), or we can remove those parts which are contentious until they can be verified. I've done the latter now, since as a religious matter I can see why have unsourced info could be a problem. Note that you do have to be careful not to remove other needed parts of the article like the categories when you remove unsourced content.

However, relating to your broader point, information does have to be sourced; ideally the sources should be in English, but they don't have to be. And they don't have to be from "western academia"--it's totally fine for them to come from Indian, Pakistani, etc. academia. But what they shouldn't come from are the religious organizations themselves (except for some basic factual information), and they certainly cant be sourced from the actual primary religious texts themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your assistance in reviewing Margaret Craig (artist). I created this page as Margaret Craig (artist), because there's another Margaret Craig on Wikipedia. The existing Margaret Craig page actually redirects to Margaret McNamara. In fact, Margaret McNamara's notable societal contributions occurred while she was Margaret McNamara, not while she lived with her maiden name, Margaret Craig. So - I'm not sure if the redirect is appropriate.

The editor who created the redirect is no longer registered, and I'm not sure what the proper edit should be. There seem to be a lot of choices.

What I'd really like is for the Margaret Craig page to have the Margaret Craig (artist) article (and to just delete the original Margaret Craig (artist)page), with a disambiguation link (hatnote?) to Margaret McNamara at the top.

Does that sound like the proper course of action, or is one stuck once a page is created?

Thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywhee (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey! If it were up to me, I'd do a move over redirect, but because the redirect page (Margaret Craig) was explicitly created by someone (and not created by a move), we will need an administrator to help us. The real issue is a matter of which subject is more notable under the name Margaret Craig. When I Google the text "Margaret Craig Reading is Fundamental" I only see entries with her full name, Margaret Craig McNamara, so there shouldn't be any dispute in reserving the page Margaret Craig for the artist. I was being bold and went ahead and requested a speedy move over redirect. I've also added the hatnotes atop both articles. We'll check back later and see if the move was successful.

Side note, remember to sign and date your posts by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your posts on talk pages. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your help. Hope the change goes through. Johnnywhee (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the original page, Margaret Craig, has had its contents deleted. Will an admin move the Margaret Craig (artist) article contents to Margaret Craig and delete Margaret Craig (artist)? Thanks, again! Johnnywhee (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done With the original page deleted I was able to move over Margaret Craig (artist). The artist page is now a redirect. Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic - thank you for your assistance. Johnnywhee (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal

Putting that page up was a mistake, couldn't get enough references to support it so was hoping for a deletion? - Brezzy85

• Not by blanking. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, there have been too many contributors to warrant author requested deletion – you did not even create this article, so proposing deletion is the best course of action. Another editor has since changed the article to a redirect anyway. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal, I am not looking to start an edit war but if you consult the talk section of the Suppressors page you will see that Mike Searson and I have agreed to conjunctively ameliorate the article. If you take the time to look through it you will see that it has a rating of C, which is, in our opinion, sub-par to the kind of quality Wikipedia articles should have; especially those that have such a vast amount of information widely available to the public (agreed much of it is clout with mis/disinformation). I have background in firearms and can sort this out.

If you also take the time to read the article, you will notice that some of it appears to have been translated from an other language by google or some such application and Mike Searson and myself have agreed to better the quality of the writting. I reduced a ten-line section to 3 or 4 lines that were a component of an other section, imparting a bit more clarity unto the article. Please consult the talk page in the future before reverting edits that were agreed upon by people attempting to better it, and not contested by anyone else. If you feel you would like to take part in the betterment of the article, it would be appreciated that you do so on the talk page, as everyone wanting to take part in the process does. regards108.181.1.84 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the confusion. I patrol recent changes, and merely noticed you removed a substantial amount of sourced content without explaining why, as you were notified on your talk page. I have no knowledge about the subject of this article whatsoever. In the future, remember to always provide a valid edit summary so that other editors are aware of why you are blanking entire sections – preferably link to the discussion on the talk page. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

When did erik brown fly the doglas devastator? All devastaators were destroyed by 1944. No devastator ever criossed the atlantic. Ewbnever crossed the atlantic until after the wa. Qed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks I made a mistake and reverted your edit as vandalism when it was clearly in good faith, sorry about that! I think what you were looking for was the citation needed template. You can place ((fact|date=August 2013)) next to statements or claims in an article that you feel require verification. I went ahead and added this for you. In the future, simply use this template, and any additional commentary should go on the accompanying talk page. Let me know if you need anymore help! Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 13:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

ALL GOOD MAN thanks for making the change - i could be wrong, of course, but the claim that he flew in a devastator doesnt pass my 'smell test' by a long way. thanks for your great work and sorry for my lack of wiki skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You bet! I've added a welcome template on your talk page to help get you started with Wikipedia. You should also consider creating an account if you plan to be around for a while. Happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

When you reverted to an older revision you actually went to a bad revision. Check diff's. I am not reverting it back again yet. Thought to bring it to your notice.  A m i t  웃   23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah looks like my revert basically didn't change anything. I was trying to revert your revert – which looked like a mistake, something us RCPs are all occasionally guilty =P Anyways, I went back here, removed the extraneous "he" and fixed the grammar. Hopefully that's good. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

hi musikanimal

i know that i edit and add something, and im sorry about that, i just want to ask, where did you get the source about the nursing building article? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.196 (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, not sure what you are referring to. Reverting your edit is the only contribution I have made to the Laguna College article. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

the Planned Nursing Building, im very curious if its true? thanks for replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.181.196 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't a clue! Wikipedia articles are written by a community of editors, so the claims about the Nursing Building could have been written by anyone. I added a citation needed template, this tells the reader that these claims are of questionable accuracy and need a citation to a reliable source. Maybe we could find a reference ourselves to support it, learn more at WP:REFBEGIN. Thanks for your interest in improving Wikipedia. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

MusikAnimal,

I wanted to ask what qualified my post as promotional. I am new to Wiki editing and would like to know what I can do to keep my edits from getting deleted. I can see how certain sentences would be, but I thought there was a lot of other information in there that could have been left. Should I make a new page with Food Day as an organization? Maybe a Food Day.org entry?

Thank you,

Moligale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moligale (talk • contribs) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey! You essentially created a new article in an existing one, but the problems with your added content are common among many editors when writing their first article, so I'll explain those.

• Promotional tone – Basically you should make things more concise and stick to actual facts, rather than including mission statements (the goal is to Eat Real...) or listing the "five priority areas of concern" – when it would better be presented as prose. You certainly do not want to include things like sign up on the website, as this can be interpreted as spam. On Wikipedia we want to keep things neutral, and should be careful with our wording so as to not encourage people to take part in something, or side with a certain viewpoint.
• Primary sources – All references link to the official website. This is a problem because primary sources often don't include all viewpoints, and again are generally written to promote the subject. You should try to find some reliable secondary sources and base more of the article off those, learn more at WP:PRIMARY.
• Notability – I was not able to find many resources other than the official website. As per the last issue, we need independent sources to establish notability. More at WP:ORG.

I think FoodDay.org is a good name should you create a new article, as it sounds like this less of a holiday and more of an organizational effort. Make sure to review WP:YFA before getting started, and I also recommend submitting your article for review once you are done with it. You can use the article wizard to expedite this whole process.

Let me know if you need more help, cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about the Emmanuel Ray article. The issue that I was dealing with before was an attempt by what appeared to be one editor trying to turn this into a promotional piece for its subject. That hasn't happened for over a year now, so I think that permanent protection is unnecessary despite the couple of vandalism incidents since then. The real question is whether there should be an article about him at all, given that the only reference is to an on-line fan magazine. However, I don't want to spend my time on Wikipedia deleting articles, so I am not inclined to start the process. Regards, Ground Zero | t 01:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

hi MusikAnimal...thanks for your suggestion. I have included the source of edit. Hope the insertion is alright now.Jayshukla2006 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, this is not by any means a reliable source, and the linked page does not mention Lodha. I don't think your contribution is contentious, but it may violate WP:BLPNAME. The issue here revolves around our strict policies regarding biographies on living persons, see WP:BLP for more information. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MusikAnimal. You have new messages at Insulam Simia's talk page.
Message added 18:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent visit to the Prometheus page, and your edit revert. During the past month I have been making a thirty-day effort to prepare the Prometheus page for a possible page upgrade. Page oversight there has also been helping to revert the unexpected amount of vandalism while i have been bringing in the upgrade edits. The memorable one was to credit Prometheus with the invention of ham sandwiches!

Given your recent visit, and the current upgrade attempt, if you could possibly try to make a top 5 list of things you believe would help the Prometheus wikipage this would be much appreciated. The page is presently at about 2000 on the wiki list of most visited pages and deserves a try at something better than its low page rating. Once again, thanks for your recent visit to the page! LittleIPEditor (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, I'd love to help but unfortunately I have little time to devote to the subject. I patrol recent changes and merely noticed the vandalistic edit to the article, and reverted it. Best of luck, and thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU MusikAnimal! Much appreciated!

Now if I could only figure out how to get my article out of the sandbox and published!!!

Kind regards, Bill

Bill Weil— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickshunary (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've added back the header to your sandbox. If you think your article is ready, I recommend submitting it for review by clicking the provided link at the top of your sandbox. Once approved, you will be notified and the article will be moved to the mainspace. Cheers! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that I don't know what happened. I didn't mean to vandalize wikipedia I assume something happened with the anti vandal tool that I was using. This is A huge embarrassment to me And I never mean to Vandalize wikipedia. So My Mistake I Will work to Make sure this doesn't happen again. Sorry and thanks --Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Honest mistake – no problem. I've never used Igloo, but I can tell you it is not as popular as STiki or Huggle. Huggle shows changes in realtime so you know what you're reverting, while with STiki, if the target revision is not the most recent, it will simply not revert at all. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Seabass is the polish powder cannon, but sorry for the other cat edit. that was a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.145.233.1 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How is it vandalism when I added a credible source to his page? 173.171.118.119 (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism! I've restored your changes. I patrol recent changes, and to me it looked like your edit was pure gibberish, when it was actually the name of a legitimate move. The other patrollers likely reverted it for the same reason. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the mistake. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Peace out. 173.171.118.119 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not post incorrect and unnecessay notifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.78.199 (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I patrol recent changes and being human I do make mistakes. I apologize as the notice did not apply in your situation, and does seem to read as a warning. It is not. Your change was not reverted, and is clearly constructive. Thanks for letting me know :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the history of your talk pages it appears you make a habit of posting inappropriate "notifications" and "warnings": a more cautious approach in the future will avoid such unconstructive behaviour, which only annoys people and consequently drives them away from contributing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.78.199 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. On a typical day of patrolling, I may go through hundreds of recent changes, with one reported mistake in the month of September – and in that case the same edit was also reverted by two other patrollers. Nonetheless, you are correct in that such mistakes may discourage valuable editors from contributing. I want to make it clear that I'm not here to give anyone a hard time, and do my best to assume good faith. Your opinion is helpful and appreciated. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I was just joking around I was going to change it back then you had already changed it. Derick_Kyja 10/3/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.19.6 (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The article mainspace is not for jokes. Feel free to mess around and experiment in the sandbox. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry I was going to change it right back. Then you had already deleted it. I am sorry. 16 hours of school per day can make you go crazy. Plus at least I didn't use profanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.19.6 (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

2 HNO2 + 6 H2O + 4 SO2 → 3 H2SO4 + K2SO4 + 2 NH2OH this reaction simply violates the basic principles of chemistry.....with no potassium containing substance on the L.H.S. how can there be a potassium containig compound on the R.H.S.? simply you are wrong.... (120.61.189.54 (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.189.54 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, I patrol recent changes, and I noticed that with your edit you changed the name properties of a citation – both first and last names – to "Hitesh". If you look at source this is clearly not the case. Also, your edit summary just said COOL. This was interpreted by me as vandalism, which is why I reverted it. Based on what you are saying, I'm assuming the name changes were a mistake, and I have again restored the citation as it was before. Your change to line 132 is still intact. Next time please be careful not to erroneously change other fields, and be more descriptive with your edit summary so other editors are aware of what you were trying to do. Let me know if you need any help. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The name is not worded properly.There has to be an extra 'a' there...like in carbon 'tetra' chloride , the same applies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.189.54 (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That edit was reverted by A.amitkumar, not me. You should consult him, however I can tell you that you are renaming the subject of the article, which should be done through consensus. I recommend starting a discussion on the talk page before making such changes. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the entire "Broken fm" redirect page and am planning to recreate it with the title "Broken FM" with capitals. Hope this clarifies things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhettGedies (talk • contribs) 17:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I would recommend first readying your new article, use your sandbox. Once the article is complete, you may paste it in Broken fm, replacing the redirect. Then you can move the page to Broken FM. Also try to remember to add an edit summary so it's clear to others what you're trying to do, and lastly please sign your posts on talk pages by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Hope this helps. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed your summary of the book "Ameritopia" because it was not an accurate representation of the book's content. It was obvious from the full review in the Chronicle that the reviewer hadn't read the book, and that the reviewer was prejudiced by Levin's conservatism. There were numerous reviews of Levin's book and most were overwhelmingly positive. You found one of the only negative reviews and placed it first in your summary. That was very unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericcva (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ericcva, this is not my summary nor do I know anything about Mr. Levin. I am a patroller and noticed you removed a large amount of sourced content without explaining why – as you were notified on your talk page. Regarding your argument, it is important to understand that on Wikipedia we want to take into account all viewpoints, negative and positive, provided it is supported by reliable sources. You should not remove well-sourced content just because you disagree with it, you should first attempt to reach a consensus on the accompanying talk page. See WP:REMOVAL for more information. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for messaging me, and hopefully you can help me. I've been searching for answer. We sponsor a webcam overlooking the West Side Market. Permission for use of our webcam is given free, at no cost or charge, provided camera is attributed to us - the sponsor and entity paying for the cam. When does something qualify to be named after their sponsor? Crains Cleveland Business has web page right above our webcam link. Why can't we have a link called "InsureCLE's West Side Market" webcam, or other attribution to our sponsorship? Why do editors feel Crains - a private company - or any other company or private entity - qualify to be designated on Wiki... but others not??? Thanks for your help! -PHIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavmaner (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia should not be used as a means of promotion, in any fashion, see WP:SOAPBOX. The link to the live web cam is constructive as it is directly relevant to the subject of the article. Who provides the webcam service or sponsors may be considered unencyclopedic, and generally does not belong in the article. This information is divulged on the target page anyway. At any rate, if you want to discuss such matters with other editors, do not do so in the article itself, as you did with this edit. Instead use the accompanying talk page. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK- thanks for your time! Still don't completely understand when source of information elevates to level of mention of source in Wiki article, seems nothing other than subjective notoriety. I see many many wiki articles that mention privately owned entities. Perhaps those editors just aren't following the rules. In any case, won't bother you with this again. I've been reading up on WIKI... even know how to use TALK page instead of article, and sign now.. .maybe ... :) Pavmaner (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, let me know if you need anymore help. There's definitely a threshold to which we draw the line on what's considered promotional tone, and in this case that call was made by another patroller. You're also right that not everyone abides by policies, and the community doesn't always catch the mistakes, but we try. Thanks for your understanding. I've left a welcome template on your talk page to get your started with Wikipedia. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, there are a mistake in this page. In the top of the page they say 70 fighters, and 8 civilians were killed. Then in the buttom of the page they say the oppopsite.:

"Aftermath About seventy Palestinian civilians and eight fighters were killed.".

I would like if you change this mistake to "Eight Palestinian civilians and seventy fighters were killed". Thanks and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.66.139 (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes apparently another IP user switch it around with this edit, so I simply reverted it. Thanks for catching that, but please note the term terrorist is not used anywhere in the article, so you should not add it without providing a reliable source to back it up. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I see you changed some info on the Alannah Currie bio page to state that she no longer works as Miss Pokeno:

Currie made sculptural art-furniture under the name Miss Pokeno, but that enterprise has ceased trading.

This is wrong as her website makes clear she is still working as an artist under this name and in fact has an upcoming exhibition in London November 2013.

www.misspokeno.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.131.155 (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved the the external link to the external links section of the article. This is in accordance with our content guideline. Such links should not normally go in the body of the article, see WP:EL for more information. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You also changed 'makes' to 'made' art furniture, and you clearly stated that the enterprise has ceased trading although it hasn't. The external link was there to prove to anyone who wanted to check that she is still making and trading under the name Miss Pokeno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.28.215 (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry that the good faith revert also changed the tense of the sentence. Sounds like your intention is to use the external link as a reference, see WP:REFBEGIN on how to do this. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal-I made some changes on Quentin Tarantino's Page that you changed back-stating that "they were not constructive." Because they were changes to his marital status,many updates on his Personal Life, (including his religion-he is wrongly identified as Atheist-he wanted his specific religion to be True Romance)I am challenging that ruling-it doesn't make much sense-these are black and white issues that I changed. Also, I removed some controversial material that has recently been cleared up. Most importantly Mr.Tarantino ASKED that I do these changes for him. I haven't done them again because I wanted to wait and hear from you about what else I might need to provide to keep the changes in place,as Mr. Tarantino was more than happy with them and rather angry with the fact that they were switched back without asking HIM. Let me know!!! Thanks!! Alabama32 (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, no one owns articles, including Mr. Tarantino himself. All content displayed on Wikipedia is at the discretion of the community, not a single person or group. You generally cannot remove content just because you find it controversial, as we prefer to take into account all viewpoints. That being said, this is a biography on a living person, and as such there is a very strict policy that must be followed. Contentious material about Mr. Tarantino that is not supported by reliable, secondary sources must be removed, but at first glance it looks like the material you removed was well-sourced. I do not have the time to examine it right now, so I recommend starting a discussion on the talk page before removing it again. Per the same policy, it's important to understand that any information you add, such as his "true love" faith, must be verifiable through accompanying sources. If editing on behalf of Mr. Tarantino, you are still unable to get help through the talk page, you may contact Wikipedia for further assistance. Hope this helps. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, remember to provide an edit summary when you make such drastic changes, that way we're all aware of what you're trying to do, and lastly please sign your posts on talk pages by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You wrote me about minor changes I made to the Wiki page Diane Dimond.

I am Diane Dimond and I noticed that some of my resume was missing. So I added a couple other places where I have worked. That was it.

Here is a link to my official bio [1]

This information also lives on my pages at Linked In, Facebook and various other locations.

So, now what do I do?

Diane Dimond Journalist/Author/Syndicated Columnist www.DianeDimond.com

www.NewsweekDailyBeast.com/DianeDimond www.CreatorsSyndicate.com/DianeDimond

BSF (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, first off it is important to understand that writing about yourself on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged (see WP:AUTO), as oftentimes you may exert a conflict of interest.

But in explanation, I reverted your changes because you added School of Hard Knocks as Diamond's education, which is a phrase for a harsh upbringing. This violates our policy on biographies of living persons because it sounds opinionated, is unsourced, and can be considered contentious. Furthermore, it's not the name of a school, and therefore is simply a factual error. I'm afraid that even if you are Diane Diamond these changes can still not be made in the fashion presented.

Your other changes (who she has worked for) seemed fine, although still unsourced. LinkedIn is not considered that reliable, as it is user-created content, so it would be best to look for sources elsewhere. See WP:RELY for more information on what's considered good sources.

Let me know if you need anymore help. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am getting vandalism on my user page and talk page from 92.25.183.107 (I have warned them, so have you, have a bit of a look in some page histories). You have already reported them, I have noticed, but that's 3 more vandalism edits. (See here, here and here.) George8211 ^{conversations} 21:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I am unable to do anything. An administrator will block him before too long, and looks like he hasn't made an edit an almost 10 minutes so I wouldn't consider this urgent. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. George8211 ^{conversations} 21:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And just for the sake of it, I'm mentioning this. I just caught 206.78.66.45 vandalizing this page. They've gone to AIV. George8211 ^{conversations} 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello I'm Jeffrd10 Over my time on wikipedia I've never seen such a hard, fare, and persistent vandal fighter. Looking over all your edits to wikipedia I'm surprised you haven't been nominated before. Seeing your hard and persistent work I believe that you are a prime candidate to be an administrator and with your permission I would like to Nominate you for adminship . Thank you.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jeffrd10, I appreciate your kind words. While I honestly feel like I could exert good judgement with administrative tools and am confident in my understanding of policy, I simply don't feel that it's my time yet. I've only been actively editing since March or so, and I'd prefer to get a few good articles under my belt, gain more experience and build a stronger presence in the community before being handed a mop. Thank you very much for the offer :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.