User talk:Musdan77

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page. Click here to start a new section. I will respond to your civil question/comment here.


Roy Huggins denied any link to the Sam Shephard case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaica55 (talkcontribs) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Do you have a source for that? --Musdan77 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19)[edit]

Please be cautious when undoing multiple edits. In your recent edit to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19), you removed reference coding that used Template:Cite web. AldezD (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

AldezD, Well, I try. But, you should practice what you preach because you also reverted my changes. I think I've told you before: Don't tell people what to do when you're doing the same. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Your changes were not reverted. You removed detail from prose in Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series)#Hosts when you undid my edit, and that information was then re-introduced. The table was not removed in my edit. AldezD (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Now, you're making things confusing here. I finally figured out that you're starting a new topic about another article -- as if it was a reply to the previous one. The changes you made in prose was not really necessary, but I won't revert it again. But, really, you went against WP:BRD. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

NCIS: New Orleans[edit]

This edit to NCIS: New Orleans was entirely unconstructive. Per a recent discussion at Template talk:Infobox television it was decided that genres had to be reliably sourced, which I indicated in my edit that sourced the genre. I also replaced hyphens with en dashes per MOS:DASH and removed some quotation marks that should not have been in two citations. As well as reverting these changes your edit restored a redundant heading that you had added in a previous edit,[1] and which another editor had appropriately reverted,[2] as well as removing the "Special guest appearances" secion and the ratings table, both of which are appropriate content for the article. "Hold your horses" is not a valid reason for your most recent reversion,[3] and a note saying "" is not an appropriate citation for genres. Your edits have been challenged by more than one editor. If you wish to dispute the content, please do so on the article talk page per WP:BRD but do not revert again. Instead, please ensure that you restore the appropriate edits that I have detailed above. --AussieLegend () 02:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

AussieLegend, Do you really think that I intentionally removed those minor changes (that I restored) that you made? (Talk about not assuming good faith.) You made your edit at the same time I was. I made the heading change to be consistent with NCIS, and normally you would be right, but normally a "Cast and characters" section would be just that -- the cast members followed by the characters they play, but in this case it's the characters with the portrayers in parentheses (which really shouldn't be like that). But, instead of changing that, I just added "characters" to make it easier for the reader to know what the section is about. The "Special guest appearances", as I said, is unnecessary and is not on the NCIS article, and if it was in the article, it should be as a list of guest stars. I went to Template:Infobox_television#Attributes, and I see no changes to the parameter. But, if you insist, I'll add the citation -- even though it seems very unnecessary, because normally things in the lead and infobox only need to be cited if they are likely to be challenged. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You did not restore the changes.[4] You restored your uncited genres, reverted all of the dashes to hyphens, and removed the JAG navbox, which is used in both the NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles articles. There is no need to include "cast" or "characters" in subsections of a section which is clearly titled "Cast and characters". It's redundant to do so and it's not done in NCIS or NCIS: Los Angeles. The genre and format parameters were recently the subject of much discussion at Template talk:Infobox television. See Proposal to clearly define the "genre" and "format" parameters, Options for RFC and RFC: Format and Genre parameters. The outcome of the RfC was "Consensus favors deleting the Format parameter and requiring the Genre parameter to be reliably sourced." Trying to make the NCIS: New Orleans article look like the NCIS article is misguided. Both NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles have separate character and "List of episodes" articles. NCIS: New Orleans does not, and will not for some time. All of the content that will eventually be in the character and LoE articles is currently incorporated in the main series article, which is why the article includes a list of episodes, special guest appearances and a ratings table. Note that both NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles articles include ratings tables so deleting them from NCIS: New Orleans is making that article unlike the other two. There is simply no justification for your changes. --AussieLegend () 06:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Since you've apparently stopped editing for the day and so can't do it yourself, I have restored the changes. I have retained the genres but they need citations and, as explained in my edit summary, there is no need to arbitrarily change from the recommend, and established in the article, use of {{plainlist}}. The NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles and NCIS: New Orleans articles are now all similar. The only difference is that NCIS: New Orleans also contains the "Special guest appearances" section, for the reasons explained above. --AussieLegend () 06:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Taking it to the article talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


Sorry if I frustrated you but I'm not likely to change the way I am comfortable editing. Your comment doesn't really explain why you removed it in the first place. I did give an explanation in the edit summary. Rodericksilly (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rodericksilly - I guess you don't know about "edit conflicts". It's never happened to you? Please see WP:EDC, especially the "Mistakes" section. I didn't remove it. It happened because you made your edit(s) as I was making mine (hence the word "inadvertent"). I had to manually copy & paste your changes (twice), but I obviously missed one. Understand better now? But, I don't understand why you deleted my post to your talk page and then restart the discussion here. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tom Hanks on screen and stage[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well. Thanks for your invaluable input on what is now a featured list. Cowlibob (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Kristin Kreuk[edit]


About KK' personal life... I dont know if it means to you but I believe she and Mark Hildreth are no longer together since last year. So, it would be just Toronto and Vancouver as her residence. Also, the dog Dublin is with Mark Hildreth in Atlanta where he shoots Resurrection. So, it is Mark's dog basically not hers.

Here is the link of an interview of Mark Hildreth where he talked about getting the role in Resurrection after coming out from a long relationship. So, I think that fact should be taken off on both personal life section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnastasiaBunch (talkcontribs) 07:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's nothing concrete in that interview. No specific names. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

- You added that Kreuk was with Hildreth until 2013. What are your sources. Marty2Hotty (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Marty2Hotty, To be honest, I don't know why I did that. It was a while ago. It was also late at night. But, as I said in the edit summary, it is wrong to totally revert a good faith edit by another registered editor when all you had to do is remove one thing. Also, remember when making a talk page post like that to give the diffs, or at least a link to the page in question. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

SNL pending changes[edit]

Why did you just accept those last two changes by the IP on the season 40 page? -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I accepted the last one, which was reverting back to the way it was. Something wrong with that? --Musdan77 (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you, Danny, charismatic drummer, for creating discographies, for tireless cleanup of articles of music, series and performers, for copy-editing and greeting new users, – you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 666th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


Dear Musand77, please stop removing the awards and nominations from Ariana Grande — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliwxck (talkcontribs) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Charliwxck, please be sure to click on the link at the top that says "click here", when starting a new section so it will go on the bottom of the page. Also, remember to sign.
Now about the issue, I have no problem with an "Awards and nominations" section with the link to the main article (however there is an editor that does -- so keep that in mind). The problem was that someone kept adding the same prose that's found on the Awards page. That's what I was removing. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, from Charliwxck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliwxck (talkcontribs) 01:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted change to "Taraji P. Henson"[edit]

Hi, Musdan77, I'm surprised to see that you reverted my change re: "The Pentagon." I did a little digging around and found that the Pentagon rarely if ever is referred to as "The Pentagon" unless the phrase is at the beginning of a sentence...but I won't belabor the point.  ;) Also see the Wikipedia article, "The Pentagon," for more instances of my version. Regards, Rustypup49 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have made that change. The reason for the reversion was because it was unnecessary piping -- and because you didn't give an edit summary. Thanks. Musdan77 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Race 25[edit]

Hi, I'm just giving you a courtesy explanation for my revert at the above article to what you said were "general fixes". The various changes you made actually completely took the article out of it's format amongst other similar pages by unbolding several items, removing the names of nations, unlinking names of nations, and some of the general changes to the captions. This is how articles on this competition are formatted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ryulong:, excuse me but my changes were definite improvements per MOS (mostly). I haven't been watching these season articles, and I was going to fix the previous seasons as well, when I had the time. Per MOS:BOLD, these boldings do not belong -- especially since there is no explanation/indication given in the article for why they are in bold type. Per WP:OVERLINK, we don't give links to countries -- and on top of that, things that are links should not be bold (or vice versa). I didn't remove any "names of nations" -- except for the line: "*Los Angeles, California, United States" -- which goes against WP:FUTURE. Now, you didn't explain why you reverted the other things: like the Nielsen ratings table which was certainly a big improvement on the way it was/is. And it took a lot of work for me to figure out the right way to do it. It was/is too wide -- with repeated and unnecessary headings, and years are unnecessary when it's all in the same year. And, the infobox definitely should not have an end date if the series is still ongoing. I certainly don't see any "harm" that was done. I do see that you have made the most edits, so you naturally have a feeling of ownership, and you're feelings are hurt when someone changes what you've done, thinking that it was just fine the way you had it (but it's not), and that is not the right attitude to have at Wikipedia. Musdan77 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The changes do not fit the way that the articles on the show have been set up for years. You removed the mention of New York, United States from one line, and some other stuff. Also that WP:FUTURE thing isn't a violation because it's in the reliable sources that say what's happening in the next episode (which was filmed months ago). And I reverted everything because I couldn't undo the one edit that took everything out of the general style the page has been set up in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
C'mon, @Ryulong:, it doesn't matter if it's "been set up for years" if it goes against site guidelines (that's a cop out) -- unless you can show where there's been consensus made for it. The "New York, United States" line doesn't have a citation, and anything about a future episode that isn't cited must be removed. You only disputed one of my MOS references. I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say in your last sentence. Are you saying that you'll work with me (like editors are supposed to)? ...that you wouldn't have a problem with me changing back part of my edit? I need to know what part so it won't be reverted again. Musdan77 (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Guidelines are not strict rules that must be applied in every single instance. This is the form that we've been working on for years with tweaks along the way. In fact, there's a discussion on Talk:The Amazing Race 25 on the new format of using multiple paragraphs.
And please, no citation? It's from the broadcast itself and half of the other citations on the page. If you're just going to fix the ratings table then that's fine. But if you're going to institute all of the changes you did to the "Race summary" section again without a consensus for the massive change in the formatting in use on several dozen pages on this project, then I will revert it again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
What the ___ is wrong with you, @Ryulong:?! You said you would allow me to redo the changes to the table. You've been editing at WP for as long as you have and you haven't learned the proper way to revert (when not to) and to collaborate with other editors? I asked you what I could change back so that I wouldn't be reverted again! The "templated dates" are a big reason why the table is too wide -- because it's a "nowrap". And give me a good reason why there should be years when they're all the same. Even if they weren't all in the same year, the listing of the year is not necessary. And the repeating of headings is completely unnecessary and looks awful. If I have to, I will take this to the admins. You don't own this article or any other. Stop acting like you do. And learn to treat others with respect. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Your changes to the table were not what I thought they were. I see no reason that {{start date}} should not be used to properly format the dates.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever read WP:ROWN -- or [5]? But, I guess if you don't even give credence to an MOS, then you wouldn't think that those pages are worth anything. I gave you reasons for not to have those templates. And I asked you to give a reason why they should be used. I've never seen those used in that context before -- because it's totally unnecessary (not "proper"). --Musdan77 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Musdan asked me to look into this, possibly because of my Longstanding Feud With Ryulong (I really don't know if I have one). Be that as it may, I assume it's about this and similar edits? Content-wise, I have no idea what that's all about--it's an aspect of Wikipedia I couldn't care less for, and it's used for some kind of functionality I don't care about in an area I don't care about. All that content is littered with trivial factoids about a stupid TV show, and someone in kindergarten must have had a field day inventing colorful little icons that I can't even see or read on my screen. (Y'all should start by removing the flag icons--if anything makes an article say "I'm trivial" it's that.) But I digress.

    My admin glasses tell me that Ryulong is edit warring, of course--that's clear. The argument that his edits improve "how these pages are formatted across the project" is not clear to me--"across the project" is an odd modifier and can only refer to how the other articles are done, but that in itself is not a reason to not do it better, if indeed, Musdan, your edits are an improvement.

    I do not see anyone having taken this up on the talk page (unless it's in some mysterious place hidden among other trivia), nor do I see anything on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Amazing Race task force (that we have such a project/task force is a sad thing in its own right). Ryulong, if you say "talk page discussion" in ALL CAPS, I expect to see such talk page discussion. I don't see it. I have reverted, not because of content, but because your edit summary claims a consensus that, as far as I can tell, is not there. Come on: you know better than this. For all the f-bombs you dropped all over the talk page and elsewhere, you could spend a minute making things more clear to the passing unknowing administrator. Unless, of course, there is no talk page consensus. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"if you say "talk page discussion" in ALL CAPS, I expect to see such talk page discussion." I felt the same way. I looked and couldn't find it. And I didn't even know there was a WikiProject Television/The Amazing Race task force. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there have countless discussions on the individual amazing race talk pages on how to format the articles as a whole and when a change is made on one changes are made on all of the others. There was recently a discussion into the new multi paragraph format. The changes made by you to remove bold wording, links to the nations visited in the text, and other content in the body of the article as well as the kind of unnecessary changes to the ratings table to remove the broadcast year and make a header two lines when the content is wide enough for it to be on a single line is really unnecessary. If you want to propose that a bunch of extreme changes to the formatting of these pages, which has an established consensus even if there's no official guideline on how to format them, you have to bring it up on the talk page. That is all I have to say on this matter from now on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Ryulong, even for you that's weak. You're saying "there's no consensus written up where I suggested there was but you should still stick to it". Come on. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Kay Panabaker[edit]

Thanks for your edits on Kay Panabaker, but can't understand why you would remove the "refs=" section. IMHO citing inline makes the content harder to read and more prone to duplication of references. Will you be watching the article? If so I'll remove it from my watchlist.009o9 (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

009o9, I don't think I had ever seen a ref section done like that, and since much of the rest of the article was poorly done, I assumed that the person who did that didn't know what they were doing. Also, I don't see that style mentioned on the guideline. But, if you feel strongly about it, you can revert that part. Now let me ask you about your last edit. Why did you readd the wikilink to Moondance Alexander in the Awards section? It's already linked twice in the article (WP:REPEATLINK). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The article was pretty poor when I did a cleanup a while back, a lot of people just stop by and drop off un-sourced factoids on this article. I discovered the (refs=) style a couple of years ago (on a very well done article) and adopted. New content works perfectly when citing inline in the body (traditional manner). I would generally just alias the new reference (if given) and move it to the References section so I have a glossary of references in a central location.
Anyway, the article seems a lot quieter now, so I'll probably not change your edit. I just wanted to let you know that the (refs=) has benefits, doesn't interfere with traditional style editing and works very well for maintenance because I can quickly replace a poor (identical) reference, with a fully completed and in some cases archived reference. (References with archive links and quotes make the hypertext really hard read when embedded in the body.)
My (dated) understanding of the MOS was that wiki-links are allowed once per section, not many people read the entire article, they generally jump from the Contents box. However, WP:REPEATLINK reads: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. I did check to see if Moondance Alexander was linked elsewhere in the table. Happy New Year! 009o9 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, but why only readd the link for that movie and not the others -- and not give an explanation either in the edit summary or here? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I happened to know that the Moondance Alexander article exists because I did a cleanup on the Director's article. I do not know, nor did I really have the time to search to see if there were articles on the other works. (Updated just now.) My interest in the Panabaker article is ancillary to some other topics I was working on -- namely some of the soundtrack artists. I was watching Kay Panabaker because I did a clean up on it and she seems to have some haters.
I'm not seeing where I did not add an edit summary, with the exception of creating a new section (function) on this page, in that case the edit summary is not available. Cheers 009o9 (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

United Bates of America/Bringing up Bates[edit]

The same family is in both of these shows. Bringing up Bates are their current show--M42380 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

M42380, did you see the discussion at Talk:United Bates of America? Moving an article title can be a drastic change. It is something that usually should be discussed first. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Amy Adams[edit]

An editor is restoring a POV partial filmography to Amy Adams though four editors, yourself included, have removed it. In the interest of preventing further edit-war, you may want to visit this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How old are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32A8:B120:2995:8D:AD2E:5ACD (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want to know? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Response from Emmagood1995[edit]

For all the problems in the List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence page.

First: Have you noticed all the mistakes that are on your editing, please, correct it.

Second: What's the problem???, ok, why don't you look at the awards and nominations pages of Natalie Portman, Jessica Chastain or Julia Roberts and you realize that not every association awards page, or audience awards page or film festival awards page has it's own pages for Best Actress or Favorite Movie Actress or Outstanding Performance of the Year, but, guess what, if you look at the other actresses pages, you will realize that they also put the awards name in the category page if they isn't exist.

Third: Santa Barbara International Film Festival, the award that she won isn't Best Actress which doesn't exist, is Outstanding Performance of the Year, i recommend you inform and not simply copy and paste.

Fourth: If you saw the view history, you will realize that I, i'm the person who always edit here, and that have been here a year ago, and would never do anything to this page look bad, as you are doing.

Fifth: In all the time that i been here, you're the first person that has been complaining about that minor problems that i consider stupid, that we're fighting for minor changes, c'mon, we're both persons that want the best for this page.

Have a good day.

--Emmagood 1995 (talk)

Emmagood 1995, first of all, a talk page discussion should stay on the page that it was started (yours). But, at least you're communicating with me -- although it took 4 warnings on your talk page.
  1. What mistakes have I made? You don't say what. If I made any, you can fix them or tell me and I'll fix it, but you don't revert everything.
  2. "What's the problem"? Did you read all that I wrote on your talk page? I don't watch those pages or else I would have fixed those as well. And it doesn't matter how other pages are if they're not according to WP guidelines. Did you even take a good look at the changes I made? There are 2 reasons why the links were incorrect: (1) a piped link should be explicit and relevant -- meaning something that is linked should not say one thing and be piped to something else (WP:PIPELINK), and (2) links should not be repeated (WP:REPEATLINK) especially in the same section. Each section has the link to the award article page at the top of each table, so that link shouldn't be repeated.
  3. I'm not sure why you bring up Santa Barbara International... but I checked the source given (probably by you) and it says, "Best Actress Golden Space Needle Award" -- so you should check your own work. And even if it was the case, you could have changed that yourself.
  4. It doesn't matter if you have done the most editing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and you have to let others edit -- especially if they are more experienced. Have you seen my user page and seen how long I've been editing and my edit count? Did you see the links I gave on your talk page about reverting -- WP:REVEXP and WP:ROWN? Please read the whole section of the first one. I see that you have been told about leaving edit summaries before by another veteran editor, but it is especially important to give one when reverting. The other one is also very important. Before I decide to revert a registered editor's edit, I check their edit count. If they have about the same experience, or especially if they have considerably more, I won't revert unless it's all flagrantly incorrect (and that's quite rare). This is out of respect. And if the person has a lot more experience than I do, then it's most likely that they know more than I do. And unless the previous edit was all wrong, then I will make the appropriate changes and not just revert it all.
  5. If they were "minor problems" as you say, then you should not revert it all, as you did (and kept doing). I've been an editor for almost 6 years and once in a while I've had problems with inexperienced editors, but it's been a long time since I've had one give me as much grief as you. But, we can get over this if you are willing to work with me -- instead of against me.
--Musdan77 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ariana Grande[edit]

Hello. Can you please check the recent changes at Ariana Grande and see if you agree with me about the Twitter refs? Happy to go with your advice on this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ssilvers, sorry but I'm not the best person to ask. I'm not an expert on twitter refs/links. But, I agree with what you said on the talk page. Twitter refs are better than nothing but they're certainly not the best. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Becky G[edit]

What was this edit about? Why would you ignore all the instructional comments and misspell her name? It really is "Rebbeca", with two 'b's and one 'c'.—Kww(talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Kww: That was a mistake. I didn't mean to change it from "Rebbeca". I was removing an unnecessary hidden comment -- unnecessary because it's found in the infobox and doesn't need to be repeated - as well as the citation shouldn't be in both the infobox and the lead -- and the way it was done was really stupid. I knew that it was in the middle of the name (which is bad enough), but didn't realize that there were two - breaking the name up in 3 ways!
Now let me ask you: Why would you revert it back before my edit? I hope that was just a mistake on your part. There were so many improvements that I made (according to MOS and standards). --Musdan77 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Because putting the hidden comment in that way was the only way I got people to pay attention to it and stop changing the name to "Rebecca". I've found that repeating the comment around the weird feature of the person's name is the most effective way of getting people to stop changing it. Since it doesn't show in the article, it certainly doesn't damage anything. If you look at the article history, you will see that multiple people coming after you really mangled the article in the course of correcting things, so I went back to the last correct version.—Kww(talk) 12:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw -- and as you can see, putting the hidden comment that way was how this mess got started. Even though it doesn't show in the article, it makes it harder to read and understand on the editing page -- especially when it's done twice like that. (Hidden notes aren't meant to be put in the middle of a word -- it's sort of like putting a citation in the middle of a word or even a phrase.) And you really didn't go "back to the last correct version" because it wasn't correct. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And you misspelled her name again in [ your edit:} "Reecab"? I've restored the spelling, and put the reference back in. It's like that specifically to discourage people from making improper "corrections" to her name. It was a chronic problem until I put the comments that way.—Kww(talk) 16:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure how that happened (besides the fact that I didn't double check it), but see how confusing it can be when it's done that way? --Musdan77 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Awards table[edit]

Hey there! I saw that you are against {{awards table}}, but it is used in almost all featured awards lists won by music artists. Please take a look at this. Besides, thank you for performing some copy/edits. Regards, FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:FrB.TG, it doesn't matter what other articles do. That's not what made them featured. Please follow WP:BRD AND WP:CONSENSUS. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay now? --FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This really should be discussed on the article talk page. But, why so many unnecessary changes? The category should be before the work. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what else do we have to discuss when I have removed {{awards table}}. As for the changes, I made them before, i.e. adding sources, formatting the references properly to name a few, which you are calling unnecessary. Like seriously? --FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The category should be before the work. I have previously contributed List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan, an FL and have used the same format and it was accepted during its FLC. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
All the widths for the columns? -- are very unnecessary. Switching columns around and "recipients"? Why do you think I reverted the use of the awards table? And did you read WP:BRD? And like I said before, that isn't something that's considered in order to be featured. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your input on the list, but you have to be a little bit patient. Don't you know why I have added {{under construction}}? And if you are willing to do the switching and reducing the width, please go ahead, but please do not restore the old sources the way they were before I contributed to the list as they are were very poorly formatted, some were not reliable and some did not even have references. You can probably comment at its future FLC too. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
You were the one who made the major change to the status quo (which should have been discussed first), so when someone reverts, it is you who has the burden of making changes to what is reverted. Please learn from veteran editors (and don't edit war). --Musdan77 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The best thing for it is some time (two or three days maybe). You can probably give some time to the list and wait until the removal of the under construction template. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What does that supposed to mean? The template itself says, "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." It encourages, not discourages, others from editing. And it should not be used without discussing on talk page first. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that I can open a discussion at WP:RFC. If we keep arguing with each other, it'll never be resolved. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Resolve what? I thought we had worked it out between us. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)