User talk:MusikAnimal

User
Talk
Dashboard
Articles
Scripts
Tools
Templates
Userboxes
Awards

Talk

Where this user is, it is 7:59 am, 23 August 2024 UTC [refresh].

Cultural Marxism

The discussion here has gone on for quite a while, and I think all the appropriate points have been made. You know what my position is on the matter, and many agree with me. I'd be happy if you'd evaluate consensus and close the discussion as appropriate. In so doing, however, please pay close attention to the many WP:SPA remarks, and their lack backing in reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say post at WP:ANRFC but it looks like requests there don't necessarily get responded to in a timely manner. I'll try to find someone who's more familiar with topic, otherwise you'll have to allow me some time to read things over before I can do a proper close. We don't go by pure !vote count, as you know. I'll let you know what I find. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a pest, of course, but I wonder if you've found an appropriate course of action on this matter? RGloucester — ☎ 17:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll have the time to deal with this. I would post at WP:AN/RFC. Remember you don't need an admin to close it, just someone not involved. I might add that in about 2 days and 5 hours, we'll have a new admin who states they'll be active on the Request for Closure noticeboard. Sorry I couldn't do it myself, but I can't turn a blind eye to disruption just because I don't want to get involved in the discussions. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No one is responding to my AN/RFC, and now the article is turning into even more a coatrack, as editors with no respect for polices and SPAs dominate it and try to make it fit their narrative with either bad sources, or with sources that don't even say what they say it says. I'm begging of you, please stop this nonsense. You're the one that insisted on a discussion, and you'll note that I spent ample time refuting the arguments of a sea of SPAs brought in from off-wiki. I cannot keep up the fight much longer, and in the mean time, our encyclopaedia is suffering for it. Please read my arguments. PLEASE! RGloucester — ☎ 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello from Dfrontani

Hi MusikAnimal!

Recently you deleted a page of mine about artist "John Dileva Halpern". You deleted it for unambiguous copyright infringement. The page from which I drew information was written by Halpern and myself, from the site "Waking Buddha" which is a personal creation of his. I am wondering (forgive me, I am a new user) if there is a way for me to recover the deleted page. Because I was given permission to use the text from wakingbuddha.com I do not believe I must retool the article; however, if I must, I would like access to everything that has been deleted, as it is the most complete structure in which all of the information sits. Thank you for your time and concern. Dfrontani (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Dfrontani 11/8/14

@Dfrontani: Hi! No worries, this is a common scenario on Wikipedia. The fact is we don't know who owns the copyright unless there's proof of such, otherwise we could get in trouble (legal trouble). So it's very important either the text is properly licensed publicly or is specifically donated to Wikipedia. The full instructions on what you need to do can be found at WP:DONATETEXT. If you take the route of donating the text, someone will contact me informing that the content is licensed and I can restore the page. Until then it must remain deleted for legal reasons. Thanks for your understanding, and let me know if you need help! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: What would be considered proper proof? We can certainly (and gladly) prove our ownership of the site, and we would prefer (if possible) to do it while retaining ownership. Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfrontani (talk • contribs)

@Dfrontani: Again, see WP:DONATETEXT for the full instructions. You can donate the material, but once it is on Wikipedia it is under a CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GDFL, meaning others can share and remix the work. In some cases it's easier to simply reword everything. PS – on talk pages we have to sign our posts, which will automatically insert your username and a datestamp. Just put for tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I would be happy to reword, but I no longer have access to the page. Is there a way for you to make it available without the flagged section so as not to break copyright rules? Any way I could get the page back; we aren't too keen on donation so I would be happy to rework it. And thanks for the advice. Dfrontani (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello from 23.241.240.229 I posted on the gabriela and rodrigo page

I just saw the their commercial as an advertisement on youtube. It's called the "speaker duet"

I am unable to find a link for it though, but I just saw the commercial right now so there isn't really a source.

Hello from Swaggercatz101

Thanks Musik, I did not edit that page my friend did thanks for tracking his edit down and fixing it!!!!!!! :D -Swaggercatz101

Hello from Yama jlac

Hi thanks for moving the page I am writing to /sandbox. I am clearly a beginner. I misunderstood the comment on the tutorial sandbox and thought all sandboxes were deleted everyday.

While I am here, I noticed that you are interested in studying and fighting vandalism (presubably on wiki). I am a little concerned that the two articles I am writing could be subject to vandalism. Is there some sort of review process I can put my entries through (prior to making them live) that can reduce vandalism in someway? Yama jlac (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yama jlac: Nope, the only sandbox that gets cleared is Wikipedia:Sandbox. You can create and edit as many sandboxes in your userspace as you want.

I would not worry about your articles being vandalized. Vandalism is a natural consequence of the wiki. We have an army of people protecting the wiki's integrity, though :) Rest assured if the article becomes vandalized, it will be cleaned up and we can take preventive measures such as page protection to prevent further disruption, if need be. That's handled on a case by case basis, and only after disruption has already happened. The core philosophy is that anyone should be able to edit, so we don't do anything preemptively. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Yama jlac (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello MusikAnimal. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflict: 7digital

Hi there, thanks for taking a look just now, but can you remove all of the info, this was meant to resolve the copyright problem that Moonriddengirl put on our talk page on Aug 14 2014. Thanks :) Llamalady28 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Llamalady28: Can you point me to source of what you claim is copyrighted material? I did some quick searches that turned up nothing. Either way, if there is copyrighted material anywhere it needs to be removed. Finally, if you are removing large amounts of sourced content, for any reason, you should state why in your edit summary. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, apologies on the rookie error :) Won't happen again!

I couldn't find any copyrighted material either which confused me, as to why she then hid all those sections..hmmm confusing!

Can you remove the flags from the page, now that this has been removed? Or, does this happen automatically? Thanks Llamalady28 (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Llamalady28: First off, I did not realize this was commented out content. In that case you're not removing something that was already there, but thank you for using an edit summary that second time. Don't worry about any mistakes you make, you're new here and we don't expect you to be perfect. I believe this is the copyrighted content removed by Moonriddengirl.

As for the "flags", are you referring to the maintenance templates at the top ("appears to be an advertisement", etc)? Those should be left until those issues are addressed. In my opinion the article may still have a promotional tone. We should work to neutralize it. It also sounds like you are affiliated with this organization, so you should be careful not to exert a conflict of interest. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your quick response :) Can you help neutralize this? It'd be much appreciated! Llamalady28 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:CannaLink

I noticed you deleted User talk:CannaLink. Since it contained messages left for the user (which we're never supposed to delete), I undeleted it and removed the spam by hand. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Hey! Thanks for restoring it, I guess. Clearly I'm missing something. What was wrong with deleting it? The user has been blocked indefinitely, with talk page access revoked. The talk page clearly met G11 criteria, and also G12, although I didn't bother putting the latter in the deletion summary. Anyways, I of course don't mind you restoring it, and I do appreciate you letting me know :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK and WP:DELTALK cover it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Hi again. Allow me to ask for further clarification, because I certainly don't want to be doing the wrong thing. To be clear, the user definitely saw the messages, or else they wouldn't have blanked them. I try to use my best judgement when taking administrative action. I would not delete just any talk page (I don't need a guideline to tell me that), but here this one was used solely for disruption, and doesn't appear to contain any meaningful history. It clearly met CSD criteria (which applies to talk pages), so I deleted it. If you wanted to go by the book, this seems like it would be a WP:DELTALK "exception". I guess the bigger thing I'm trying to understand is what we've accomplished by restoring it. With the user blocked, talk page access removed, it was sort of a "case closed" situation, if you ask me. I doubt we'll be trying to provide diffs of ClueBot's warning or that CSD notice in the future. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The word "exceptions" there is a bit unclear, but my interpretation is a user talk page that only ever contained disruptive content, not messages left by other users, such as User talk:Acerstimberflooring. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: The only messages left on User talk:CannaLink were the ClueBot warning and CSD notices. Both were put there by automation or semi-automation. The user removed the notices, which is fine. How then does that make User talk:CannaLink anymore meaningful than User talk:Acerstimberflooring? I still fail to understand how deleting it was inherently wrong. I think sometimes it's safe to ignore some rules, especially on such a trivial matter as this. We're not breaking policy here, but a guideline. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess it really is a grey area. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Lance Franklin

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: I'm going to say request at WP:RPP. Personally I think things have cooled off enough, but another admin may see different. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Protection required

Rudolf Virchow is frequently disrupted and/or unconstructively edited, and is quite annoying for those who keep watch on the page. I don't know about the ground rules, is it better to assign pending changes or some level of protection? Kindly take action. Chhandama (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Chhandama: I wouldn't call it "frequent" (compared to a lot of other pages), but I can see that this has been going on for quite some time. I've added pending-changes protection for a duration of one month. Let's see if things settle down after that. Thanks for the report. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Chhandama (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Question for the Survivor Series article from Adham2911B

MusikAnimal. Hi, I have a question. For the Survivor Series 2014 article, is it supposed to be Fandango alone, or Fandango (with Rosa Mendes)? Because people say that it's Fandango alone.Adham2911B (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Adham2911B: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the Survivor Series. I can tell you however the content should be based off of the sources. So if the source says Fandango with Rosa Mendes than that's probably what the article should say. Consider starting a discussion on the talk page. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Rudolf Virchow

I don't know what it is about Rudolf Virchow that attracts so much vandalism, but can we perhaps protect it indefinitely? I've requested for it to be protected multiple times from User:Jmh649 (Doc James) if I remember correctly. I've been introduced to the subject through my contributions to deep vein thrombosis, FWIW. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Biosthmors: I've settled on pending-changes protection given the reasonably low edit rate. I can see that abuse has been going on for some time, but it may be too soon to warrant indefinite protection. Unaccepted edits aren't visible to the reader, so unless we're getting an abundance of revdel-like edits I think PC will suit well. Feel free to contact me again if you think abuse is starting to get back out of hand. — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello from 174.241.128.130

Hello. You recently deleted a page on American Alarm Company citing copyright infringement and then referenced my company's Facebook page. I am the owner of American Alarm Company and also the owner of the American Alarm Company Facebook page. What do I need to do to get the page reinstated? Thank you, scott. 174.241.128.130 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey there! Although this came from your Facebook page, which is unverified, we have to assume it is copyrighted as there is no indication it is released under a compatible license. You can explicitly say it does have such license, you can donate the text for use on Wikipedia, or you could simply reword it. See WP:DONATETEXT for the full instructions. You should also be aware of our notability guideline on organizations. Your article will need to be backed by reliable sources to establish notability. Wikipedia:Your first article is a good guideline to go by when preparing your article. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-48

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The move from Bugzilla to Phabricator is done. You can now report bugs in Phabricator. [1]

Problems

• There was a problem when editing tables in VisualEditor. VisualEditor was trying to fix bad values for the colspan or rowspan option. VisualEditor now leaves the bad values to avoid making things worse. This was fixed on November 17. [2]

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf9) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 19. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from November 25, and on all Wikipedias from November 26 (calendar).
• You will be able to try VisualEditor on many new wikis for the first time. After November 26, VisualEditor will become available on Wikidata, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, and Wikinews wikis. You can find it in your Beta options. [3]
• VisualEditor now tells you if your edit needs to be approved. [4]
• You can now use VisualEditor's tools directly when you resume editing after closing the save window. [5]
• VisualEditor's table editing tools now work better in right-to-left languages. [6] [7]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello from 68.61.193.56

Hi MusikAnimal, I made that edit to the sodium channel phylogram because I'm new to administration on wikipedia and did not know how I could delete the figure or message the original author. The figure is completely false and I feel that it is irresponsible to allow the figure to remain up, as researchers and the general public would be misinformed by reading/using that figure (not going to quote Billy Madison). If you could delete the figure or message the original author, I would greatly appreciate it. Please tell the author to read any papers by William Catterall, Harold Zakon, or Bertil Hille for clarification on the evolution of sodium ion channels. Thanks 68.61.193.56 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I misconstrued your intentions with your edit. That's not how we discuss content, it's better fit to do so on the corresponding talk page. Surely you were not aware of this, so no worries there. The author, Dpryan doesn't appear to be active here anymore. So, perhaps you're better off discussing the matter on the talk page where the image is being used, which is Talk:Sodium channel. Just state your concerns and those more familiar with the subject (as in people watching that page) will see it. Hope this helps! — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback#Filter_draft_articles

Hey MusikAnimal! I know Huggle has a ignore list which could be access on the menu bar on the top on the "Tools" tab > "Ignore list", however I am not sure how to add a namespace itself. Best, ///EuroCarGT 01:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

e-cigarette Protection

Hey there, was just wondering (not that I disagree with the decision) given that there is an active ANI relating to e-cigarette, how come you protected the page to Admins only?SPACKlick (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: This was done per a request at WP:RPP. I had two editors active to that page attest to the need for full protection. I'm not sure if the SPAs are sole root of the issue, but the intention behind full protection is to prevent disruption when multiple confirmed editors are involved, which appears to be the case. The duration was set for one week but it may of course be reduced or lifted by another admin. Maybe that will happen as a result of the ANI case. I will post there stating what I've done. In the meantime feel free to make any edit requests and a patrolling admin will respond to them shortly. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)