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)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Ingram, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nancy Wilson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 6 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)

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)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Building (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Second City. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)