User talk:MusikAnimal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is around 17:40 where this user lives in New York City. (Purge)
Biohazard symbol.svg

Hello from Tsufit[edit]

Hello, I wrote about Landscape Architect Gil Har-Gil, but it was deleted because it appears to have no references. I would like to try again, can I use the firm website ( as a reference? Thank you, Tsufitצופית תור (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@צופית תור: So sorry for taking so long to get back to you! Yes, Gil Har-Gil was deleted because it was a biography on a living person without any reliable sources. Per policy, these types of articles have to have at least one source. This policy was a result lawsuits that happened way back when. Anyways, to answer your question, articles should be based on secondary sources and not primary sources. I might also add there's a notability guideline on people. If you feel the subject does meet this guideline, feel free to make another attempt at the article. You could alternatively submit a draft of the article for review before it gets published. If the review passes, you can be fairly assured the article won't get deleted again. You can use the article wizard to create the draft. Let me know if you need any help! — MusikAnimal talk 15:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Anissa ducere[edit]

I wrote an article on Dorcas Makgato-Malesu but it was deleted because of promotion. I asked many times what was the promotion on but there wasn't any response. I made some changes but the article was still deleted. Please advise and if I can retrieve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anissa ducere (talkcontribs) 03:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anissa ducere: Sorry for the delayed response. The current article looks much better, whereas the older one appeared to read more like an advertisement. Details like her general hobbies and interests also didn't really offer any encyclopedic value. Try to be impartial in your authoring, careful to disregard opinions and stay focused on the facts. You can learn more about our policy on neutrality at WP:NPOV and our conflict of interest guideline at WP:COI. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal talk 17:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Bíblia Questionário Liga[edit]

Musik, you blocked user:Bíblia Questionário Liga as a promotional user name. There was also promotional material on the user page, but it was added by a different user, User:Khalil289. You may wish to block this account. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Bíblia Questionário Liga was blocked per our username policy, nothing beyond that. While it's possible the accounts are related, I do not immediately see a reason to block User:Khalil289, especially since they blanked their only contributions. Thanks for the notice — MusikAnimal talk 17:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello from 2607:F470:A:2:21F:5BFF:FE30:A9B5[edit]

Hello MusikAnimal- I noticed that you deleted my entry on 'Quentin Stoltzfus' on 8-13-14 due to copyright violation:

I do have explicit permission from the writer to republish the article cited on the page. His contact info is if you would like to verify that.

Please let me know if I should there are further steps I should take to reinstate the entry.

orignal article here:

--2607:F470:A:2:21F:5BFF:FE30:A9B5 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi! For legal reason we cannot accept copyrighted material without proper licensing in place. There are several ways to do this. See WP:DONATETEXT for the full instructions. Let me know if you need any help, thanks — MusikAnimal talk 03:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes re: Josh Howard Page[edit]

Hi MusikAnimal,

I got your message re: the Josh Howard page changes that I made. I am sorry for not explaining why I made the changes, I am still learning the editing process and didn't realize the importance of that.

I made the changes because 1) there was information about his NBA career listed under his college career section, 2) because his NBA career section began with a grammatically incorrect and poorly worded sentence that contained dead links and 3) because the information on his NBA page was incomplete and not ordered correctly.

I realize I could go back and make the changes again and learn to correctly log my changes, but if you could help and point me in the direction of how to do that without starting over at the beginning it would be much appreciated!

Thanks, Liaobuqi (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)liaobuqi 7:05pm MST, 8/13/2014

I have gone back and restored my changes and provided my reasons in the edit summary. Please do contact me if you have any more questions or if I did this in an incorrect manner.

Thanks, Liaobuqi (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)liaobuqi, 7:42pm MST, 8/13/2014

@Liaobuqi: Hey! First off, I'd like to formally welcome you to Wikipedia. I've left some useful links on your talk page that may assist you in getting more familiar with our environment. Wikipedia is a rewarding collaborative community and I'm happy to see you here.
Looks like you've already figured out how to supply an edit summary with your changes. While we prefer to always use an edit summary, it is really only pertinent when making what may appear to be controversial changes. In your case, removal a large of amount of sourced material. That being said, I think your rationale for removal is perfectly valid and thank you for taking the time to explain it.
You asked how to apply your changes without having to redo them from scratch. Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of a diff, which is the record of a change made to a page. Every change made can be restored in part or full. If you check the page history, you'll see your work. The diff you were referring to is probably this one, by viewing it you could simply copy and paste your work to the current version of the article. There is also the concept of undoing changes. Here I reverted your work in a single edit, so you could have also undone my edit and supplied the edit summary that way. Careful of not misusing it, the undo function can be quite handy.
Thanks again for helping improve Wikipedia. If you need any help moving forward don't hesitate to ask. — MusikAnimal talk 03:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pectinidae[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pectinidae. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, your block of is being evaded[edit]

Now socking with User: Pretty obviously here and here and here and here and pretty much with every one of sock's edits. I would report to that useless SPI page except that it is a pain in the ass to deal with and WP admins as a group are incredible wusses about range-blocking, so what's the point? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Hobbes Goodyear: Blocked for block evasion. I believe you may be confusing being a "wuss" with exerting caution. Range blocks should be an absolute last resort. Here as far as I can tell we're only dealing with two IPs, hardly enough disruption to warrant a range block. Only a few pages seem to be at focus, so semi-protection may be an option moving forward. Thanks for the notice — MusikAnimal talk 14:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree range block not needed here--yet--but still find that too many admins are wu..., um, excessively cautious on the matter. By the way, sock is back, now using User:, e.g., here, here, and here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the protection log. --Ssven2 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem — MusikAnimal talk 23:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you from Angelo Michael[edit]

Thank you for the quick response to my AIV report and here to build an encyclopedia. :) Angelo Michael (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up You bet — MusikAnimal talk 23:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

Just a question[edit]

Howdy MusikAnimal, I have a question, let there be two editors, X editor and Y editor. Both of them were editing and improving an article, X editor thought to change its citation style from {{cite}} to {{Sfn}}. And X editor started changing it being WP:Bold. Suddenly Y editor reverted the change with an edit summary WP:CITEVAR and WP:CONSENSUS. X editor started a thread for consensus at it's talk page. Y editor was having a disagreement with X editor. Although the article looks like a mess and have heavy citation clutter with {{Cite}} but still Y editor supported using {{Cite}} with reasons like, Newbies will not understand how {{Sfn}} works. Suddenly another newbie came in and supported editor X. Y editor almost confused and can't handle the situation, he left messages at two admins talk page (Both the admins were good friends of Y editor) and started calling them at the articles talk page for discussion although both the admins have no relation with the article (never have edited that page). Y editor explained one of the admin at the admins talk page that X editor is an inexperienced newbie (X editor helped 1 article to meet GA, 1 article to meet FL and have started 3 DYKs). One of the admin came and took the side of Y editor and accused X editor for WP:BATTLE. I have tried my best to explain the case, now the question arises who is correct, X editor or Y editor?? Didn't Y editor actually canvassed when he called those unrelated admins (admin interven was not required)?? Is it correct to call X editor inexperienced newbie when he have done some good works like DYK, FL, GA?? Did X editor used common sense?? Thanks, Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public: This is probably easier to assess if you'd just point me to where the dispute is actually taking place. But without getting involved, I'd say X must not be a "newbie" and calling them one is not really fair. WP:CITEVAR is good rationale to retain {{cite}}. If it's a major overhaul to replace one citation style with another, maybe it's not worth it. In the end, which template to use of course yields to consensus. While you might consider it canvassing, I'd like to think the admins (being admins) are not swayed by Y's words, and their input is honest and impartial. Consider opening a request for comment if you feel a more broader consensus is needed. Perhaps the RfC could add clarity to WP:CITEVAR and if need be warrant a change to the guideline. — MusikAnimal talk 18:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually this was a question I thought of asking you since I was not present during your RfA. Good answers! Jim Carter (from public cyber) 03:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello from GAwes[edit]

Hi MusikAnimal I just wanted to say that I'm sorry about what I changed I just thought to change the last name because she got married and I thought she got married and when women get married they change there last name so I thought to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAwes (talkcontribs) 17:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@GAwes: No problem. I apologize for misinterpreting your edit as being unconstructive. The lead explains that her name changed as of the series finale, I assume Zbornak was still retained as the page name as it is the more well known. You can start a discussion on the talk page if you feel the page should be renamed. Moving forward, if you wish to rename pages you will need to do so by moving the page. This requires your account be autoconfirmed. Hope this helps, cheers — MusikAnimal talk 17:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Block of User:[edit]

Did you notify the WMF? I thought about blocking but didn't, but I did click on the block button and saw the instructions to notify. It's at WP:SIP. I don't know what happens in practice. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I did not, nor did I know it was sensitive! Where did you see the notice? I admittedly did not think about it given the extensive block log. 138.* is also not listed at the top-right of Special:Block as sensitive. I'll get on IRC and ask somebody about it. That IP range has caused massive amounts of damage, at least to Kevin Kelly (politician), where I just finally revdel'd all the BLP violations. Thanks for the notice! — MusikAnimal talk 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) - ( is listed at WP:SIP. Not everything shows up on the block page, which is a serious pain. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: Notified on meta. I think I'm safe... many of the other IPs in that range are blocked, and apparently the department of defense IPs aren't as critical as other sensitive ranges. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention! — MusikAnimal talk 20:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you're safe, just wondered if you did it because the IP isn't mentioned on the blocking page, and I thought you might not have noticed - I didn't realise for a long time there was another page with more IP ranges. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello from jayp316[edit]

yes i thin you made a mistake when you removed this external link Following his debut EP ‘The Florida Files,’ B. Smyth is taking time for the ladies with his new Bigg D & Lamb produced track, “Twerkoholic.” The young R&B star on the rise pays homage to the old school with the sexy jam that samples “Love You Down” by Ready For The World.

The reason being is because Twerkoholic is the name of one of his latest songs that nobody knows about. This song is a very nice slow jam, it's just the title that's misleading. Jayp316 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jayp316: I understand you are trying to add new information about the subject, but your edits sound more like social commentary and lack an encyclopedic tone. crooner B. Smyth is doing it for the ladies in his new video is not appropriate for Wikipedia. We want to simply state the facts and disregard opinions, something like In 2014 Smyth released a new music video entitled "Twerkaholic". Also, instead of writing Read more at [this website] you could simply use that website as a reference. I recommend reviewing the five pillars of Wikipedia, which explains what we're all about. You can learn how to add references at Help:Referencing for beginners. Let me know if you need help, thanks — MusikAnimal talk 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Your E61 filter blocking good edits[edit]

Look, will you remove this rubbish which is disallowing scores of good edits and actively harming the project. (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The filter I wrote does not disallow edits, it warns and then tags them. However, I see no error with the filter, as the edit you are trying to make to Yulia Bessolova would incorrectly add your signature into the article. Is there a reason why you are trying to do that? — MusikAnimal talk 20:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello from[edit]

Hello, I am the person who has been editing the page on Morisco. Yes, you have made a mistake. I have been reading the supposed sources, and what the sources say is not reflected in the wikipedia article at all. There is no such thing as Sub-Saharan connection mentioned in the study. The other mention on studies that I deleted I specifically said it was not specified in the text. I was also adding to one of the studies explaining the origin of genetic markers. I am not vandalizing I am actually writing what has the sources say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I was just wondering why I got Rollback and then had it revoked? I know I don't have many edits and would understand you denying me, but I am just curious so I can improve it in the future. Thanks. VeNeMousKAT (talk|contribs) 02:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind just read the reassesment. VeNeMousKAT (talk|contribs) 02:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes sorry about that. I've provided further clarification on your talk page. — MusikAnimal talk 02:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Orangetack[edit]

I was just bored to so I did that hoping someone would see it before it was edited back! xDxDxDxD Yeah you probably think I'm stupid....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangetack (talkcontribs) 09:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello from MirrorFreak[edit]

Hey MusikAnimal. I was wondering whether you could help me create a guestbook page. If you could that would be great. Thanks, Mirror Freak 13:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind dude. I made it here. You should sign it! Mirror Freak 14:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Vactryl - Celebrate Recovery Section Updates 08-21-14[edit]

I spent a lot of time adding language to the Celebrate Recovery section of Wikipedia. I also spent time formatting the information. I do understand your concerns about not citing items properly and possibly quoting more than I should have. I have created a complete bibliography to add to the page,and I will rewrite some sections per your advice. However, I would prefer to not have to reenter and reformat everything I submitted before. Is there a way I can access what I added and you removed so that I can edit the article, instead of trying to recreate it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vactryl (talkcontribs) 00:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vactryl: Hey! Yes, it is important that you do not copy and paste text from other sources, everything should be in your own words. I see your change also contained no references. Wikipedia aims to have all content verifiable, which means it should be accompanied by reliable sources. See WP:REFBEGIN on how to add references. Finding your previous contributions is easy, just look for the "Contributions" link at the top-right. From there you can click on the "prev" links to get what's called a diff, which is the difference of that revision and the one before it. Your change can be found here. Let me know if you need anymore help! — MusikAnimal talk 00:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I revised the page considerably. I added citations the best I could, but I am not sure they are in the format that is normal for Wikipedia. I am a little unfamiliar with citations formats here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vactryl (talkcontribs) 03:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh the irony.[edit]

But it was ironic...Pictureframedude (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)