User talk:Musdan77/Archive 5

Edit warring

Hello,

I am here to notify you that you are nearing to 3RR. Please see here the discussion I have just opened. Please discuss with others now. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, now you know full well that I never even came close to 3RR, and never would. But, thanks for letting me know about the discussion.

On a side note, to answer your question: "why was this ever removed?" A better question would be: "why was this ever added?" I see no reason (in fact, I think it's ridiculous) to have both the table and all of the text in it to be centered - especially the Notability column, where some are short and some are long (wide). It just looks stupid. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3] say otherwise. I said that because in the previous seasons, we've always centered the table. I was just following "tradition", if you will. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, like I said, not even close. Have you read WP:3RR? And why would you think I wouldn't know? I really don't appreciate being accused of something like that. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I probably didn't look into it properly. My apologies. However, it was nearly the same edit. It was the linking, the naming, etc. It would had been better to say something, no matter what the situation was. But yes I agree, Kiwi Jaden and the IP were the least helpful users in the edit wars. Again, I apologize. There was so much reverting going on, I lost focus. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the apology(ies). I know that these reality competition show articles can drive an editor crazy. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And you know it. Like the time, when I was new to Wikipedia, AldezD nominated all of the season pages for deletion then sources were added. I was upset by both, but what really pushed my buttons was the sudden change in templates and removal of content without any consensus at all and AldezD edit warred on keeping it that way. Man was that a lot of pressure for a new editor. I am not sure if you remember that? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Drew Lynch

Hi Musdan77. I apologize for being disrespectful to you. I found your insistence on keeping (what I believe to be) a pointless section disruptive, but I now understand the Wikipedia "consensus" policy, and I do hope we come to one. As a fan of Drew's and someone who has seen the video, I am completely against the section.

My points in the talk still stand: Nobody else is talking about this controversy besides one user and one playful tweet, the few times this has been discussed online people agree that it's a non-controversy since the jokes have different punchlines, and not ONE other website has reported on this as if it's a big deal. Even on the video used as a source, the only two comments compliment Drew on his ability. They also both mention that other people have asked questions to their dogs. It's a common dog owner happening, so this makes the "blatant copying" even less relevant. (Note the paragraph included the biased word "blatant"). If you watch the video, the jokes have completely different punchlines.

In the end, I cannot consider the paragraph any more than an upset fan trying to dig up dirt on Drew Lynch. Nobody else is treating this like a controversy. No news sites, no angry crowds, nothing. This is no "Tim Poe" or "Sharon Osbourne" controversy. The few people talking about it agree that it's a harmless coincidence. Even if Drew was inspired by the joke, the fact that the punchlines were completely different invalidates this entire subject.

Drew is an active competitor, and when this section is included on the site without any strong sourcing, I consider it unprofessional slander.

128.84.127.169 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I really have no opinion on the section, one way or the other. As long as no one has a problem with it being removed, there should be no more issue. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ray Stevens

Thank you for adding the recent Grammy Awards table to Ray Stevens. Please add references if you have them.----Design (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Phil Driscoll

After two weeks of full protection there was no productive discussion of the issues on the article talk page. I let the protection expire to see what happened. The edit warring started back up. I have been asked to fully protect the page again. I do not want to protect the article from all editing so I have decided to try a different tactic. First I am going to restore the article to the version that I had protected, I know, it is the wrong version. Now, you are warned that if you edit anything in the article concerning the tax evasion conviction without first getting a consensus on the talk page, I will block you. I recommend trying some form of Dispute resolution. If you question my actions you can discuss them at the Administrators' noticeboard. -- GB fan 11:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

winx?

What are yuo talking about that you say it: don't doing this [[]]. And why you say it zspecials? it is specials and why you delete caps lock letters?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, do not edit war. Do not revert back to incorrect style without consensus or you could be blocked. (1) Linking Italy is overlinking, (2) "Season" and "special" are not proper nouns so they are not capitalized, (3) MOS:HEADINGS says "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked", and (4) 2015 is present, so it's redundant to say "2015–present". Take the time to read the links I give you, and be careful who you revert. Look at the editor's user page. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian

Thank you for taking the time to edit Wikipedia: your copy-editing seems to be very helpful. In this edit [4], you removed 'Kim K Superstar' from the filmography. There has been previous consensus on the talk page for it to be included. Please may you revert this part of your edit? 31.54.159.233 (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I had to search the archives to find it, but I see that there was a discussion but no real consensus was found. If someone re-adds it, I may start another discussion. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The original question was asked here, and there were no objections to it being added. After being lost some months later, questions were placed on the talk page here and here, where, again, there were no objections. As described at bold, revert and discuss, it would be most appropriate if you revert your bold action and place a note on the talk page if you think it would be good to have another discussion. I would revert it myself, but I cannot do so because the page is protected. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC) [Edit: It looks as if my home router has updated its IP address. I am the same person who wrote the original comment above. :-) ]

Well, I suggest that register. I have no intention on adding something that I believe doesn't belong - not because of the content, but because this type of thing doesn't fit. If it was a professional video it would be different. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

That is very disappointing. I have objected to your change and you have refused to revert it for further discussion, contrary to WP:BRD. I shall open a request for comments on the talk page. Incidentally, the film is published by a professional distributor and Kardashian receives a direct income from it. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have started a request for comments. In the future, please try to gain consensus before making controversial edits, which includes those that have already been discussed multiple times on the talk page. The usual approach is bold, revert and discuss: bold edits, like yours, are to be reverted and then discussed. Not forced through by someone who refuses to revert, even after explicit complaints from other editors. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you don't seem to understand BRD. It's when one person makes an edit, then someone else reverts it (with a valid reason), then the person whose edit was reverted gives his case as to why it should be reinstated. Second, I had no idea it was "controversial" as you say, or that it had been discussed before. If there was consensus found for it then there should have been a hidden note saying so. Finally, please don't try to tell me (or another editor as experienced as me) how to edit. Musdan77 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You made a bold edit, I told you I would have reverted if I could have done (semi-protection). Refusing to revert it yourself just as bad. Missing something controversial is no problem at all, but ignoring it after a note and request has been placed on your talk page is a problem. Please remember that so-called 'experienced' editors should follow the same rules as everyone else. I do not intend to return here: the situation is now being resolved by others. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you've got it wrong. That would be forcing me to do something that was against my will/beliefs. And don't come to my talk page accusing me of things and thinking you're going to get the last word. That is not how to civilly get along with other editors. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "Mega Deal" details from "Let's Make a Deal" page

Granted this edit was removed quite sometime ago, it still was valid. The "Mega Deal" rules were observed from the telecast of the show during the featured week. There was no need to remove this content as it was valid, grammatically correct, and can be verified if you went to visit the CBS archives of the show during that week. Please consider re-adding the details of the "Mega Deal" as removing it for non-sourced content, but leaving the "Super Deal" content which is also non-sourced, isn't valid. I'll be glad to re-add it if anything. retched Additionally, it's explained here on their official YouTube page. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHhaVKxFBtg) (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You can re-add it with that YouTube reference (or another valid source). That's why it was removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

Hi I would like if you could write more stuff about Selena Gomez for example her parents what schools she attended her dating life thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.32.247 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE

Hi, Musdan77! I just want to drop you a note and let you know to be careful when you do "clean up" edits to filmography tables – I noticed that when you cleaned up Julie Bowen's Filmography, you changed some dateranges back to their non-MOS:DATERANGE compatible formats, so you might want to be aware of that... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, yes, when I edit a filmography, if there is year range that has "present", I make the others full year ranges because it's better aesthetically. Notice on MOS:DATERANGE that it says "usually". When it's in prose, that's one thing, but in a table, sometimes it depends on what looks best. When it causes too much empty space, then it's better to make it a complete range. And, of course, it goes by consensus on the individual article. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. But, FTR, I can't say I agree with your rationale on that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, IJBall, another way to go is to just remove the "present", leaving the year of origin and the endash. This is done in a lot of infoboxes and other places, but not really in filmographies. I tried doing it before, but it was reverted so I stopped. But, out of curiosity, which do you think is better? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your (current) way is probably better than that alternative (though the "[year]–present" stuff causes problems in its own right when people insist upon the nonsensical "2015–present" variation...). But on my end I plan on sticking to MOS:DATERANGE, even with "[year]–present" entries – sticking with the letter of the guideline is just the easiest defensible position to my mind; also, "white space" in table cells isn't the worst thing in the world IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Selena article

Can you elaborate on why the sentence you tagged on this article needs clarification? Best, jona^(talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

AJona1992, it doesn't explain what it means by "Hispanics reacted negatively to the news of her death". It's kind of oddly worded. I mean, would they have acted positively to the news? --Musdan77 (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well they sure was not proud or joyous of the event and acted in grief and disbelief of her death. Any way of rewording this into the section? Best, jona^(talk) 10:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

AJona1992, Something like: "Hispanics reacted... with shock and sorrow..." -- or a variation of those words ("disbelief and grief" works too). --Musdan77 (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Doubt

Hello. I saw you removed "JT" from alias in the Justin Timberlake article. In the 20/20 Experience credits he appears as JT, here a pic "All Vocals Produced and Arranged by JT". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cornerstonepicker, thanks for the pic, but this is what it says at Template:Infobox musical artist#alias: "official stage names for the artist" and "not for nicknames" (which is what JT is). --Musdan77 (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Karen Gillan

Hi! Umm... It says "3 episodes" in Notes. I couldn't find anything about it. And there is no citation, too. Can you remove it? 88.224.141.85 (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Alien contributions

Okay, I have a few comments about your last few edits. First of all, I should mention that it was unnecessary to revert me on the template page, as 20th Century Fox and Ridley Scott have been referring to the new films as being a part of a prequel trilogy and although only one film has fully gone through production, there are three planned. So, I don't see the necessity of adamantly calling it a series, rather than a planned trilogy.

With regards to your edit to the Alien (franchise) page, you incorrectly removed Sigourney Weaver's role from Alien: Resurrection, despite Ripley Clone 8 being present. I also don't think it was constructive to remove the mentions of Alien: Covenant from the tables, as Wikipedia:Notability (films) advises that while film articles shouldn't exist before production, coverage on series/franchise pages is encouraged.

You know, this is all my perspective and I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, as we're only a couple months away from production and the creation of the main space article for Alien: Covenant. However, I hope you do reconsider with regards to the franchise page and I will probably look for outside opinions. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DarthBotto, (1) For accuracy, trilogy is three (and only 3). With just one, it looks senseless. (2) First, your edit was bold by removing video games. I thought about just reverting it, but I don't really care whether VGs are there or not. But, it's fine to mention future productions in prose (if sourced), but shouldn't be in tables - especially without refs (WP:FUTURE). But, thanks for telling me about my mistake. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries; I'm not too caught up about the page. At the moment, I'm just thinking about what we should have for the infobox image. Maybe you'd like to chime in on the talk page? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope I didn't seem standoff-ish, by the way. You and I have worked on a lot of the same articles in the past, so I definitely respect you and your judgment. Just wanted to have my say and see how best to work with this page. ;) DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Dancing With The Stars reversions

Hello,

in reference to my reversion and hopefully avoiding an edit war (!) - Do we really need to add specific shows to the contestants field of employment as it generally shows dumbing down of the article and the whole point of Wikipedia is expansion of knowledge through reading and sometimes these artists listed have done more than just one specific role?

If you take the British actor Michael Crawford his career in film & stage is vast (the original Phantom in Lloyd Webber's: The Phantom of the Opera in both the West End and Broadway) yet he is also very well known for playing Frank Spencer in the BBC sitcom "Some mothers do ave 'em" which, he absolutely hates and refuses to even discuss his role as the main character when interviewed.

Regards

Pam-javelin (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pam-javelin, it really depends on the individual celebrity. Sometimes just "Actor" can or should be used; other times that's not enough. It's a judgment call, but not something that should cause edit warring - or unnecessary reversions. I personally think that the column isn't necessary and shouldn't have been used in the first place, but after 21 articles, we're stuck with it. I'm fine with not putting specific shows there. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please read the following paragraph without taking it personally.

That sounds quite reasonable and to not be patronising an adult response because this site is about knowledge and learning and dumbing it down because someone thinks that people might be interested because the person in question might have been yes a respected pop singer or worse a reality "star" (normally an utterly pointless person!) it does remove the quality of the content of the article or articles.

Regards

Pam-javelin (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

SNL

Hi, Musdan. I am undoing your changes in tense on the SNL season pages because media is summarized in the present tense. It's not a fiction vs. non-fiction issue (though I would hardly describe sketch comedy as non-fiction) but because the comedians/musicians will be performing in perpetuity when watching the show (similar to reading a book and describing plot/arguments in present tense). -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedical, you didn't give one reference to a WP page to support what you say (WP:REVEXP). Here's what it says at MOS:TENSE: "Generally, do not use past tense except for deceased subjects, past events..." When it's talking about a character in a sketch, that's one thing, but when it's dealing with a celebrity or musical act, that's like a historical event. We don't tell about history in present tense. That's not "encyclopedical". Now, if you can show an MOS that says there's an exception for media, I'd like to see it. Also, your reversions also reverted some incorrect grammar that I fixed. And, quoting WP:REVEXP: "It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately." --Musdan77 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedical, I've waited 24 hours for your reply. I'll give you some more time. If still no response, I will be reverting them back. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your patience, I've been away from my computer most of today. I have struggled to find a policy/guideline specifically discussing the tense of a plot summary for a variety series which includes non-narrative elements. But it is incorrect in my view to characterize live performances in summaries of television episodes as the "past events" discussed in MOS:TENSE. Talk show appearances, reality series, and stand-up comedy are also summarized in the historical present tense even though they are not works of "fiction" and not as televised past events, as your interpretation advocates, since the viewer of televised/filmed media always experiences works in the present (which is why TV as well as fiction/nonfiction books are summarized using the present). Perhaps we should open this conversation up to WP:TV for a clarification. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sister Sledge

The information is accurate please check this site http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074980,00.html

Their oldest sister Carol did sub for Debbie In the group so please fix the edit

http://articles.philly.com/2007-05-25/news/25228861_1_daughters-mother-anthem

Here's another source

http://www.gettyimages.com/photos/sister-sledge Rockercar32 (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Original artist / song notability column

Just started a discussion at Talk:Jordan Smith (musician). 142 and 99 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

In retrospect, your edits on the discography of Shaun Cassidy actually made it better. I fully admit you were right and I was wrong. Caden cool 21:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you and Merry Christmas to you. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Same to you. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

ER

Hi, i think the way that you started to modify looks bad in comparison with the last one, your way feels that is without importance, without the care to naming the episodes or remarking the Notes, for example in Season 15 in the guest stars section of past doctors was listed the doctor with the name of the episode, now is only a number that looks unprofesional. Sorry to bother you 189.222.17.118 (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, not a bother. It's very unnecessary to list the episode names – especially when many of them are the same ones over and over. It's simplifying to just put the episode numbers , and the reader can just scroll to that number. It would be a different thing if the episodes had their own article to link to. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, i thought it looks nicer the other way, and also looks better the word Note in bold when episode requires it, but well you´re the boss here 189.222.17.118 (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Mila Kunis

Hello. Just wondered why it doesn't show Mila Kunis as being in the the 1998 movie "Gia" with Angelina Jolie?

Thanks, dcarpenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.168.119 (talk) 09:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I think it's because it's a TV movie, and some editors just want features listed on the bio page. Personally, I think just the link to the filmography page is good enough. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz article and religion

Good morning Musdan77. I noticed your recent edit summary "Southern Baptist is not a religion; it's a denomination. There used to be a denomination parameter. I don't know why it was removed."

The |denomination= parameter is on {{infobox person}} but not on {{infobox officeholder}}. I discovered this yesterday and have proposed at Talk:Ted Cruz#Infobox to convert the article from officeholder to person, complete with a sample that uses denomination.

I agree with your sentiment. There have also been discussions on template talk:infobox that included an RfC that seems to have decided that only one word should be in |religion=, and that religion, denomination and sect all mean the same thing for the purpose. There is a new proposal there in the last few hours to render denomination on the same line as the religion, and I have suggested adding it to officeholder as well. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi ScottDavis, (re: para. 2) I realized that after I submitted it. I'll reply to that there. (3) You may have noticed (or not) that I did contribute to that discussion, and I have read some recent adds, but I didn't see a consensus that only one word should be used. I did start a discussion (maybe at the same time as the one you mentioned) at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Denomination. —Musdan77 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Musdan77. My apologies for not checking your timezone before bidding you "good morning". Enjoy the rest of your day. No, I had not noticed you had contributed to that RfC, but I see now that you were broadly on the same "side" as I was. I thought I read something to the effect that only one thing (religion/denomination) should be in the religion field now. I can't see it there now, but the Stripping out parentheticals thread suggests I wasn't the only one who saw it. Using the denomination field is a better solution anyway as it potentially enables automated processing in future. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of Just like Heaven, a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 16:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Alien (franchise) content

An IP added Jones the Cat to the cast list. Considering the character was created using five different animal performers, do you think it's a valid inclusion? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think not. Thanks for the message. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. This IP user previously levied some ridiculous accusations in the past, so out of a sensitivity for a conflict of interest, I wanted to check with you before removing content of theirs. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Penrod

The information provided Guy Penrod's new video reaching the number one sales position was supported by a direct link to billboard.com. Not sure how it can be sourced better than that but obviously you are the gatekeeper and therefore I will no longer waste my time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.236.46 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A bot removed it, but I have restored it (with some improvement). Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (List of awards and nominations received by Liza Minnelli) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating List of awards and nominations received by Liza Minnelli, Musdan77!

Wikipedia editor Garagepunk66 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I enjoyed reading the list on Liza Minnelli's awards. Very well done!

To reply, leave a comment on Garagepunk66's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Family Feud

Please stop re-adding this to the article. See Talk:Family Feud#Timeline. AldezD (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Keyboards

Perhaps you'd like to check out this article before reverting the keyboardists category on Phil Collins again.

http://i.korg.com/Artist.aspx?artist=125

Or even just check out a few of his live television performances when he played various keyboards, synths and piano? Rodericksilly (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Rodericksilly, why not put a small part of it onto the Collins article? -- then I wouldn't have to remove unsupported cat(s). And I wasn't aware of the others that you mentioned in your ES, but now that I know, if those aren't supported in the article, they would need to be removed as well. And you should already know about WP:BRD. —Musdan77 (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

American Idol (season 15)

Just a note to say the names under the Finalists section are essentially a list, and without other means of separating them such as images or bolding, it will make it just a series of short paragraphs that not only make the section look ungainly, but also makes it harder to read. Please leave it as a list per MOS:LIST (that was the reason why it was bolded, although bulleted list need not be bolded). Hzh (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hzh, I do not agree at all. Bullet points aren't needed, and shouldn't be used because it is not actually a list -- not the way it is -- mainly because most of the paragraphs aren't short. Even WP:Manual of Style/Embedded lists says that prose is preferred. A list should really only have no more than a few lines, but even if this was considered a list, the aforementioned MOS says that it can be "with and without the bullets". It is not hard to read because all of the paragraphs start with names that have (blue) links. There is another option, which is to have the names as a list, but have the descriptions collapsed. But, since they all have their own bio pages, these descriptions aren't needed -- at least not but a couple sentences. Now, while I appreciate the "note", I don't appreciate you not following WP:BRD. Discuss before reverting. Since you didn't follow correct procedure, I could very well change it back. But I won't, because I don't want an edit war between us. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what the guidelines say. Prose is preferred if it can be written in a way that is how we normally construct a paragraph, this is not the case here. However much we like to dress it up, it is still a list of the 12 (or 10, 13, or whatever number may be) finalists for a particular season. The point is that with a bullet, or bolding, it made it easier to read. Having short twelve paragraphs is a section makes it look bad, you only have to look at many pages when people stick multiple short paragraphs in the article. I should also say that this is how it has always been done since almost the beginning for all pages (i.e. they were written as lists for all seasons) until you decided to change it, therefore the onus is on you to justify your change (also per WP:STATUSQUO, leave things in its pre-existing state if others object). I have no problem with doing it in other ways, but a discussion is necessary when changing something that is long-standing. The problem is more that people tend to add more and more unnecessary information to each contestant, when it should really be only relatively short information on the contestant directly relevant to the show. Hzh (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I still stand by what I said. About the only thing I agree with you about is your last sentence. That should have been taken care of many seasons ago, before the habit went too far. But, that doesn't mean that just because it's been done for so long, it can't be changed to the right way. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are indeed free to change it, and I would be happy to see changes that would improve these articles. The point however is that if someone objects, then the onus is on you to justify changing something long-standing, not the other way round. (One reason we are now having the discussion.) I should also say that although I titled it Season 15, it applies to all the previous seasons that you changed. I have no problem with the seasons where there are images of each individual contestant to separating each on the list, but not so in recent seasons where images of individual contestant are hard to come by. Bulleting and bolding are simply convenient ways of signaling that these are lists as well as identifying each contestant, blue links simply don't do the job because the entire article is littered with blue links, so all you see is a large number of amorphous paragraphs. I also simply can't see how anyone would argue that these are not lists, so the only thing worth discussing is how to do the lists. Hzh (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Emma Stone

Looking much better now. Thank you, and my apologies for my rather immature behavior and refusal to cooperate. --FrB.TG (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I'm glad it worked out. We both learned something from it. Have a great Easter. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Good job

Hi Danny, I just wanted to say that you did a very good job with the Pat Boone discography article. Keep up the good edits. Caden ^cool 20:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleting my corrections

I rewrote the entry on 50,000,000 ELVIS FANS CAN'T BE WRONG / ELVIS' GOLD RECORDS VOLUME 2 and just received this note: "Hello, Nealumphred, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. ..."

What do you want to remove?

Nealumphred (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Nealumphred. Hopefully nothing will need to be removed, if you just add the appropriate source(s)/citation(s) that support it. Also, be aware that the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article body, so if it's not in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead. Thanks. —Musdan77 (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time that I have done any major revisions on a Wikipedia entry in years, and it's all new. Do I need to start a new topic simply to respond to your response to my original question?

Also, I want to include a link to one of my articles that directly addresses the entry that I corrected and this issue. But I do not want it to seem like I am just looking for some free exposure. Advice? Nealumphred (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1) No, just indent (as I have done). (2) That can be tricky. See WP:SPS and WP:FCOI. Good luck. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Creatures on the list of Alien characters

Hey, I thought I'd hit you up for some wisdom and input. On the main Alien franchise page, we deleted Jones from the character list, as he's a cat. As I'm looking to get the list of Alien characters to FL-quality, do you think we should include non-human/android characters/species, like the Aliens, Engineers and Jones? I was at first thinking of that, but then I remembered they hardly count as individuals and if anything, there could be an entirely new article about the species of the Alienverse. What do you think? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 06:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

DarthBotto, well I don't think either way would be a hindrance in becoming a FL, as long as it's properly sourced. But, I think technically it's a character if it's in the credits -- but that's not to say that there can't be a place for them too. I know that's not much help, but that's my thoughts. —Musdan77 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead sections

This has been going on for far too long. Your ownership issues on articles, not limited to Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence and Emma Stone, are based on extreme bad-faith. Please remember that a lot of us are here to constructively edit and actually "expand" and "improve" the articles. So bad faith edits, such as this trimming are not constructive at all. Least of all a sentence such as "In 2007, Adams starred as in the Disney live-action/animated musical film Enchanted...". Please let others improve the articles. A line or two extra in an article DOES NOT negatively impact the encyclopedia. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Krimuk90, first of all, you use WP:OWN for the heading, which is ridiculous in more ways than one (it goes against WP:TALKNEW). And apparently, you haven't actually read the page, so let me quote some of it: "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor." "take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership." "It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect." Accusing another editor (especially a more experienced one) of ownership and "bad-faith" is itself not showing good faith and is, if not attacking, at least uncivil.

Now, if would read WP:LEAD, you'd see what is says about how a lead section should be written. It says that it should be "a concise overview" that "briefly summarizes the most important points covered in an article" and "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." I get tired of seeing you unnecessarily "expand" a lead, thinking that it's improving it, when much of it is to the contrary. I know that I'm not the only editor that has had to remove some of what you've added to leads. Yes, it is extraneous to mention the name of a director in the lead of an actor's biography. That's trivial detail for the lead. (and so I missed removing the word "as", give me a break!). If you make comment on my talk page again, make sure it's civil (as it says on top of the page) or it will just be deleted right away. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've written 4 featured articles, so I know pretty well how the lead needs to be written. I am not adding extraneous information just to bloat it up, but expanding it so that it is professionally written, something that you don't seem to get. You claim that you are "not the only editor that has had to remove some of what you've added to leads" - that is ridiculous! I have done my fair share of expanding articles here, and only bad-faith editors such as yourself have had problems with them. Yes, do give constructive criticism but don't think of me as an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. I add only what I think is necessary, so please don't demean my contributions as being "unnecessary". If you do take some time out to constructively contribute here, you'll realise that expanding an article is a much more fruitful job than simply deleting stuff you don't like. Think about it. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Krimuk90, did you actually read what I wrote (as well as the pages that I gave links to)? You persist in just doing things the way you "think" it should be, even after someone shows you what Wikipedia says on how it should be edited. I've written many leads myself (possibly more than you). Don't think that because an article that you wrote became "featured" means that the lead was perfectly written. The reviewers mainly look to make sure that what it says is supported in the main body and reliably sourced there, and that it's not too short. Please read WP:AGF. Once again, you make false accusations. I was going to just delete your post, but I'm giving you one more chance. You should know by now that when you write something, you can't expect it to stay just the way you wrote it. That's what editing on WP is all about: different editors collaborating through consensus. I'm mainly a copy editor. And copy editors not only edit for grammar and syntax but also to be in accordance with MOS. There's more I could say, but at the risk of sounding condescending or getting into personal attacks, I'll leave it there. —Musdan77 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Good edit on List of Full House and Fuller House characters

I just wanted to drop a little thanks on here to you for your code clean up on List of Full House and Fuller House characters. It must've taken you a while to do all that.  Thank you very much! --MorbidEntree (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, MorbidEntree, for the compliment. It took a little while – not as long as it used to take me to do that type of editing. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Franco Columbu

Hello, maybe you just made a mistake, but i must ask you as an agent of Franco Columbu whom page you really cutted so much - why did you do that? You deleted so many information, including everything about his family and other detailes. I looked through your history of editing wiki - and a lot of people are disagree with you about such things, so why are you changing so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Роман Чуйков (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Роман Чуйков, I follow Wikipedia rules. I don't remove anymore than anyone else. Actually, the last edit I did on that page, I added more than took away. Most everything on WP should be sourced/referenced, but especially if it's a biographical article, and especially if it has to do with personal things like family. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, ok, but how do you want to have source about family? Give you documents about marriage or daughter's ID? It's just fact, and it wasn't in newspapers that Franco's daughter was born on such date but it's true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Роман Чуйков (talk • contribs) 14:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's not in a newspaper or reliable website then it's not notable. Furthermore, we can't put full names or birthdates of non-notable minor children because it's a privacy issue (WP:BLPNAME). --Musdan77 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Just got your message on my talk page, just too let you know. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I didn't know that "Actor" already cover's there voice roles, but thanks for the heads up for letting me know. PereMarquette1225 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. We all learn as we go. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)