User talk:MusicAngels

MusicAngels, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MusicAngels! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

See Wikipedia:User_pages#User_pages_that_look_like_articles.

Also Arthur Rimbaud exists already, so, what are you doing? You can test all you want of course but it looks a little strange as your main userpage. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rimbaud this month, perhaps Emily Dickinson next month. These are meant as suggestions for people to read the full articles. MusicAngels (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that work better if you actually provided a link to the main article? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly falls under the category "User pages that look like articles". Can you give any reason why it should not be deleted? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor identified for vandalism by three separate bots

You need to stop deleting conversations going on on talk pages or I will report you. 199.48.242.82 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just because someone forgot to sign their comment does not mean it should be removed. You can instead, if you wish, append a {{unsigned}} template to the comment, but do not remove it. For more information see the talk page guidelines. Thank you — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: You appear to have returned an unsigned and unformated entry on that Talk page from a dynamic IP editor which has been flagged for vandalism and section blanking on the article edit history page in question multiple times. This is the entry from the article edit History page:

(cur | prev) 12:27, 10 July 2015‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (112,972 bytes) (+112,972)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 64.9.130.42 to version by MusicAngels. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (2287478) (Bot)) (undo)

There are also multiple disruptive editing messages on the various dynamic IP editor Talk pages which other editors have posted. Each time I try to send another Talk message for that dynamic IP editor, they seem to change to another IP address. If there was any content, references, or reliable sources included on the Talk page then it should be retained. Without one single reference or reliable source given, then it appears to be the "vandalism" as identified by ClueBot NG quoted above. MusicAngels (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, ClueBot is not the authority on what constitutes vandalism. Secondly, what happens on the article page does not dictate what happens on the talk page. Often unconstructive edits are accompanied by fully constructive talk page edits. The talk page is for just that, talking. Unless it is completely inappropriate and off-topic you should not be removing others' comments, period. Looking through the page history at Talk:Poetry in the early 20th century most of the comments appear relevant and constructive. Finally, your edit summary simply read Unsigned and improper format for Talk page. Message to IP editor on IP editor Talk page which is very much an inappropriate justification for removal. We never remove comments because they were "improperly formatted". New users almost never sign their posts, but they of course are still allowed and encouraged to participate in discussion. I hope this clears things up — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: My initial purpose in doing this was, Option A, to encourage that IP-editor to open a regular account and to encourage them to start taking responsibility for their edits. If the IP-editor was still not listening, my next step would have been to ask for page protection for a few days as a further encouragement to get the IP-editor to open a regular account in order to continue responsible editing on the poetry Talk page discussion and other editing. Your Option B appears to be that you would like me to reformat and retitle the section on the Talk page there, and to make a third attempt to reach out to the dynamically changing IP-editor Talk page, in addition to the attempts I have already made. I'm ok with either option if you could indicate whichever one you would prefer. Any message you could leave for that IP-editor for proper editing would be helpful. MusicAngels (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about stop removing their messages so that they can engage in discussion? Do not try to force anonymous users to create accounts. IP's are human too and are perfectly allowed to edit and discuss without an account, even if their IP is ever-changing. A problematic example would be for the dynamic IP to pose as a different person to gain the upperhand in the discussion, or to evade blocks. I don't see that going on here. There may be some disruption on the mainspace article, but what I see on the talk page is a user attempting to talk, but you keep reverting their attempts. It's difficult to say if they are willing to work toward a conensus if you don't give them the chance. Does that make sense? By all means, if the talk page discussions fail to produce conesus, or the user(s) refuse to cooperate, we can take action accordingly. Until then let's at least give them the opportunity to speak their mind — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just begun a revision of the page and articulated my reasons in the talk page. Please do not undo and delete everything. My reasons are clear. Also, there are many academics who use IPs for a variety of reasons that are not abusive and have to do with university IP monitoring. Also there is no shame in anonymity -- many researchers do not want to have a wikipedia account for reasons that are not abusive. So please respect this. 206.222.164.126 (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above IP editor has been associated with high probability vandalism by three separate bots, ClueBot, STiki, and system bot for section blanking at the related poetry page:

(cur | prev) 12:27, 10 July 2015‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (112,972 bytes) (+112,972)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by 64.9.130.42 to version by MusicAngels. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (2287478) (Bot)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 22:18, 17 August 2015‎ Telfordbuck (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (111,555 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 207.207.28.212 identified as test/vandalism using STiki) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:47, 15 August 2015‎ 128.90.92.17 (talk)‎ . . (85,636 bytes) (-25,919)‎ . . (undo) (Tag: blanking)

That activity identified by three bots as vandalism has been continuing for over a month on that page and that IP editor is currently section blanking about the half the article again against the endorsement review of WikiProject and WikiPatrol of the article in its original form. MusicAngels (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THIS EDITOR CREATED THE PAGE AND HAS A PARTICULAR INTEREST IN MAINTAINING IT. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR PERSONAL WEBPAGES. The entire page "Poetry in the Early 20th Century" should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.90.35.134 (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to be reading the link provided for you at WP:BRD. You are not supposed to be editing on the article page until consensus is reached on the Talk page there in the section which has been set up for you. Also you are not supposed to misattribute text to other editors which you have written yourself as you have done in your edit on that article page. Please stop misattributing your own edits to other editors at Wikipedia. MusicAngels (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know who User:50.74.107.148 is (or 50.74.98.197) or have any knowledge of their edits? Who is it? Other than this IP-editor having a dislike for the Poetry article I wrote months ago, I have no knowledge of who this IP-editor is or why they are taking exception to an old article which was reviewed by WikiPatrol and WikiProjects and found to be a High Importance article by WikiProjects, not by me. Also, who is this other User:50.74.98.197 who is also not logging in but is insisting on editing from separate IP-accounts? If anyone knows anything about either one of these IP-editors it would be nice to know something about them since I do not know them other than their long-time dislike for the old Poetry article which they express over and over again. MusicAngels (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Pages

There is becoming a strong consensus that your edits and creation of pages are problematic. In the month of August you have picked fights with a number of editors who disagree with you. More and more will begin challenging your vanity projects.19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)19:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:102:B30:12E:1802:787F:2464 (talk)

Hat notes and See also section updates

Please avoid creating and restoring improper hat notes as you did here [1] and here [2] and here [3]. Also, please avoid claiming that the links to your page were "requested" by another editor or were the result of "consensus." There are no requests on any relevant talk page and no consensus. Anyway, why would another editor "request" a link instead of creating one? You are not doing yourself any good by writing statements like these, which are part of the permanent record of your actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.17.161 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! More and more people are questioning who you are, MusicAngels, and why you are meddling. Your projects are vanity projects and will disappear soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.90.39.137 (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Wikipedia policies and procedures for proper editing. Your personal attacks should be removed. MusicAngels (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from other articles

It has come to my attention the content of your poetry articles were copied and pasted from articles on various poets. This is fine... but you must supply attribution, which you have not. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for how to fix this, specifically this section.

Now, I don't know if these are truly "vanity pages", but you should understand that no one owns articles and others are permitted to contribute. Likewise, to the many anonymous users blanking content, you'll need sufficient rationale to do so. Don't just blank entire sections stating it is "rubbish" or with some other unsatisfactory edit summary. Finally, please note WP:BRD is not a guideline or policy and no one is required to follow it. Edit warring applies to both parties in a content dispute, including the page creator.

Thank you for your cooperation — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant comments and summary by User:Bgwhite here: [4]. 86.146.120.23 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 80 (eighty) citations in the bibliography which are fully documented and which I have gone out of my way to make sure they are up to date and functioning. The attribution is as full as it can be and there is no copyright violation in the article of any kind to my knowledge. If you have something unrelated to this is mind please indicate it, since I know that there are no copyright violation in the article of any kind and the banner notice should be removed. If you can provide any example of the type of attribution or notification which you want to see then point me to it and I will do my best to follow any well intended advice. The comments from the IP-user with dynamically changing IP addresses, to me, has looked more like graffiti to me rather than having content. I have maintained it on the Page at the request of another editor, and have tried to provide further links to help the IP-editor to try to communicate more effectively. There is no ownership of any article at Wikipedia, and I claim and assert no type of ownership of the article of any kind. The edits there yesterday by another editor adding various links to the article done by another editor looked perfectly reasonable and done fully responsibly. The eighty citations in the bibliography of the article have all been fully researched and fully attributed, there are no copyright violations to my knowledge of any kind in the article and any flags stating otherwise should be removed from the article. MusicAngels (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The citations have nothing to do with this. The issue is you copied and pasted content from other articles on Wikipedia, so now it looks like you wrote that content when you did not. The patrollers didn't realize this or else they would have said something. Attribution must be given to the authors, or else it is technically in fact a copyright violation. Not to worry... it can be fixed. So I'll repeat myself, as apparently you did not read my first message: Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for how to fix this, specifically this section. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also please stop fragmenting discussions. You only need to reply in one place, preferably WT:AN (or AN/I if we decide to move the discussion there). No need to also write here, on my talk page, or at Bbb23's talk page. Thank you — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: (This was just posted as an edit conflict and can be re-posted wherever it is needed). This issue really shall receive prompt attention by me since I don't want any such issues taking up anybody's time unnecessarily. I assume this is the section you are referring to on your link: Repairing cut-and-paste moves of a page and that you wish to see each affected section with an explicit banner to the pages which were consulted in putting the new article together. Previously I did make sure that all (each and every one of them) was linked to the original page using double-bracket links directly to the pages in question as I did in the Lead section and elsewhere. If this is what you meant, then I'm completely ready to double up on the linking to the original pages by both the links already there along with subsection redirects as well. If this is not what you meant, then tell me plainly what else you would like to see so that I can do it, since I would like to address this as promptly as possible. MusicAngels (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, please do not write your reply on any other page. We'll discuss here. Now, you did not do a cut and paste move, you copied and pasted partial content. Sorry to send you off to try to figure it out on your own, it's just a lot of work. So anyway, the easiest way to take care of this to use the {{copied multi}} template (since you've copied from multiple pages). This will go on the talk pages. Here's a rough example:

{{Copied multi|list=
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet1 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
{{Copied multi/Copied|from=Poet2 |from_oldid=1234567890 |to=Here |diff=http://link/to/diff }}
}}

You will need a {{Copied multi/Copied}} for each and every article you took content from. Replace Poet1 with the name of the article. Next, go to the history page for Poet1, and click on the date of the revision from which you copied the content. This is likely the closest date to the date you created your article. For instance, here is a link to a revision from A. E. Housman [5]. Once you're on the revision page, you'll see oldid=1234567890 in the URL. Copy that number after the = and use that as the from_oldid in the {{Copied multi/Copied}} template. Next, the "Here" should just be the name of your article. Finally, diff should be the diff of where you copied the content into your article. Diffs work the same way as getting the oldid, except click on "prev" in the page history rather than the date, and we'll want to use the full URL and not just the oldid.

First try this out on your own and I'll see if I can help you. This is a lot of work... so obviously I'm not too excited about doing it for you — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User: Dennis Brown (another admin) has further explanations here: [6]. 86.175.175.114 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Thanks for your comments, since I am usually very concerned with getting all the details right. I also don't mind the extra effort which you mention to do all this. Just to be completely frank about this, these were not copy-pastes as much as they were selective adaptations I adapted from different subsections of some of the biography articles, as well as adding my own text to improve them further. Since they were not copy-pastes it occurred to me that it might be more accurate to use the "Further" template in each subsection of the article to invite readers to read the full articles (also, the "Main" template could do this as well if you see that as being better). Either one of these will take a long time, and I'm ok with whichever one you indicate as your preference. Once again, these were not simple-minded copy-pastes but they were often adaptations from separate subsections as needed to make them more readable (often the original articles were just Stubs or Start articles). Just indicate your preference and I'll start in. Getting more people to read the full biography material more fully sounds like a good direction to take.MusicAngels (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through Poetry in the early 20th century and did searches of various sentences throughout the article, and got nearly exact word for word matches from other articles. I'm afraid {{further}} is going to be insufficient, especially since it does not imply attribution belongs to the other article. I know this is a lot of work, but someone also worked hard to write all of that prose, and under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license they are legally bound to have their name attached to it. This is why we have the concept of a revision history, so we know who wrote what. The revision histories of your articles are missing author attribution, so surely you see the problem — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to seek more help on this, if you want to wait for a moment. Maybe there's an easier way to do this — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just delete the entire page "Poetry in the early 20th Century" because it is SELECTIVELY cut and pasted, which is why User:MusicAngels is getting hammered left and right for bias. Just delete the whole thing. There doesn't need to be a portmanteau page clumping her preferences together. Professor P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.87 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Previous comment solves the whole problem. Why make MusicAngels spend hours linking to all the pages they copied from? The real point is that MusicAngel's "Poetry in XYZ" pages shouldn't be here at all. They're just bad hodgepodges of other pages. They're basically useless and they're copyvios. Can't an admin post a Speedy Delete notice on all of them and enforce it? It would save a lot of trouble for everyone, including MusicAngels. 86.175.175.114 (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I have copied the ANI discussion from the talk page to the main page. Bgwhite (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with normal procedure for copyright infringements, the Poetry in the early 20th century, Poetry in the early 21st century, and Poetry in the early 19th century have been deleted. Let me be clear: further creation of pages with copyright infringing text will result in an indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop disruptive editing.

Please stop your disruptive editing at Anne Carson, Derek Walcott and W. S. Merwin. You have been told at ANI twice (1 2) to stop this. You have copied material from the articles to Poetry in the early 21st century, so there is even more reason not to do the hatnote. You have said this was requested by others and you have consensus, but have not shown proof. Do not revert unless you can prove you have consensus and discuss here, otherwise you have continued your disruptive editing and become subject to a block. Bgwhite (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also stop your disruptive editing at Birdman (film). 2601:147:102:B30:D5E0:D24E:D505:3CA2 (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have opened a single purpose IP account for the sole purpose of entangling my account in your own issues. This is against Wikipedia policy. MusicAngels (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, you have no evidence whatsoever for making that claim. Even worse, you removed their notice on the Birdman talk page. You don't seem to be a troll, but you seem to be oblivious to feedback, which is bizarre, since you claim to be following WP:BRD. If I reverted you edits, AND PROVIDED COMMENTS ON THEM, then by reverting my undos you are, by definition, not following BRD policy.

We normally assume the best of people at Wikipedia, but trolls are unacceptable. If you think you can make edits, and bully people into keeping them as permanent editions, then you are living a fantasy. Neuroxic (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you are referring to is in agreement with the delisting editor whom you appear to have a problem with. Establish consensus on the Talk page there first, and then edit the article. I am supporting the delisting editor whom you appear to not be in agreement with. Your serial undo sequence appears to be against the delisting editor who indicated issues with the WP:OR problems with your article whom I agree with. MusicAngels (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroxic (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Birdman (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Birdman (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Halt Edit Wars

I am adding good information on Cordelia Ray and James D. Corrothers. I am citing properly and thoroughly. I am referencing and double referencing my work. Please stop reverting my edits without reason or I will alert an editor. JRW03 (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be edit warring on two pages simultaneously (Cordelia Ray and James D. Corrothers) and you appear to be ignoring all guidelines for WP:BRD. You appear to have no knowledge of what a bold edit is, and your appear to have no knowldege of what a revert calling for necessary Talk page discussion is requiring you to do. You are currently serially reverting text against 3RR. Please stop edit warring and under no circumstances are your to go past WP:3RR in violation of those guidelines and policies. Your edit is reverted until you establish consensus on the respective Talk pages. You have already made sequential reverts against WP:EW and you must refrain from violation of WP:3RR. MusicAngels (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of WP: FOC and WP:AGF in your reversions. Please stop the edit wars. Again.192.12.13.14 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to stop.
MusicAngels, you are correct in invoking BRD, however, you need to say what you find wrong in JRW03's edits. BRD's instructions say to give a reason on why you reverted. Instructions also say not to revert twice.
JRW03, you never said why you made the edit. Explain your reason. Bgwhite (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: No question at all about wanting the Talk discussion, and my previous edit comments indicated that the sibling pages which JRW was referring to were giving no verification of claims which JRW was making in his edits. I asked many times for him to join the discussion for BRD and all he indicated was the one word "Nope", and then continued to force his edit into the article. I even tried to link the BRD page for him which JRW appears to not be reading. Let me know if there are further links to provide for him. Regarding the IP-editor hopping issue, I have requested that User:EdJohnston and User:Drmies look at this since they appear to have been issuing the blocks against the IP-hopping editors and IP-hopping trolls. Your PP should help also, and the last neutral version was the one before the IP-editor made the last minute changes if you could put them at the neutral version before the IP-edits on both pages. You can see the discussion on Talk:EdJohnston. MusicAngels (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the "Nope" answer and wasn't pleased to see that. In theory, I'm supposed to place page protection as is unless something is wrong (ie vandalism, no ref). The "Nope" answer and refusal to discuss almost made me place PP on your version. If this indecent were isolated and no discussion continued to happen, then JRW03's edit would be reverted.

I'll make mention on EdJohnston's talk page about this. I'd trust Drmies' and EdJohnston's take on this over mine (and most things). Bgwhite (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. If I may interject -- I apologize for the "Nope" but I have been trying to back up every change with good references and page numbers. You'll see on the talk page that I have been doing this. I conceded the point on Douglass but provided more than enough evidence on Corrothers's friendship with Dunbar. I apologize for the frustration but I have been trying to work thoroughly and I am the only one who has added substantial scholarship. JRW03 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add -- I did not know what BRD means and I still don't. I am slow and methodical. I have cited all my sources on the Corrothers talk page.JRW03 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JRW03 You are lucky, I'm just plain slow. The three-letter acronyms... something Government, Military and Wikipedia all have in common. MusicAngels did link to WP:BRD on Cordelia Ray's talk page. In any case, it boils down to discussing before making a change. I don't see any discussion on either side. It's better to have a short, accurate article rather than a long, incorrect article. Defining what is correct or not is the hard part. Bgwhite (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JRW; The link being provided for you is from a reliable editor, User:Bgwhite, in the hope that you will read it on BRD (just click his link for it.) My own concern with your claims in your article was and continues to be your claims of "general knowledge" about the poets which is not being confirmed in the Wikipedia articles for W. E. B. Du Bois nor on the article on Paul Laurence Dunbar. Both of those articles you ought to consider to update with your information (if you are confident about it) after you read the link which Bgwhite has just provided for you. MusicAngels (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Scorsese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silence (film). 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) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your note on my talk page

User:MusicAngels, I decided to reply here to your post on my talk page. I did see that earlier ping of me at the IP's talk page. As far as I know I am actually not familiar with this IP. However, I have not seen any evidence that they are an IP-hopping troll, as you keep calling them. You need to stop the name-calling. If you believe your accusation is valid, file a sockpuppet investigation, or present your evidence to one of the admins you have mentioned on this talk page. Since you claimed they are "an IP-hopping troll account which has been blocked several times at several different IP-hopping accounts," you should have plenty of material for an SPI, specifying the other accounts and your evidence. If you don't in fact have such evidence (none is apparent at the articles where this IP has edited), you need to stop making these accusations. Accusing someone of being a troll or sockpuppet without evidence is a violation of WP:NPA. (Follow up: I see that you actually have been discussing this and providing some account numbers at EdJohnston's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

In your note on my talk page, talking about this IP you said "There have been multiple blocks and warnings already". This is not true. The IP has a few old warnings, but a clean block log.[7]

Other Wikipedia policies you have violated in your interactions with this editor.

You have repeatedly posted insults to their talk page, and restored the insults when they remove them. By doing so you are violating WP:NOBAN as well as WP:NPA.
You have made outlandish threats at their talk page like "Further reverts may result in the I.T. security department of your University to be contacted to open an investigation concerning the IP-troll who appears to be misusing computer resources at your University against policy."
You have been edit warring with the IP as well as a registered editor at the articles James D. Corrothers and Cordelia Ray. In so doing you consistently misquote Wikipedia policy, for example here: Please follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines for WP:BRD which I have just linked for you here, and which requires that you establish consensus on the Talk page prior to your making edits on the article page. You need to make your case here before you edit the article page which I am reverting to the neutral version. Saying that a person needs to get talk page consensus before making an edit is simply incorrect. WP:BOLD says people should go ahead and make their edit. WP:BRD says that if someone disagrees with the edit, they can revert it and explain why on the talk page, and then there is supposed to be a discussion. "Explain why" means discuss the actual edit, not lecture the person about why you think they shouldn't have made it. When you removed their edit, they immediately cited multiple sources at the talk page,[8] but you ignored them and instead lectured them about BRD, which they were actually following! Since they offered sources to justify their edit, you need to either accept it or else explain why their sources are not acceptable. You have not done so; instead you keep accusing them of edit warring and trolling, when you should be talking about the content of their edit.
Somewhere else ~~(can't find it now)~~ (found it) you seemed to tell an IP that they couldn't edit here unless they registered an account. That is completely against Wikipedia policy, where registering is not required and IPs who make constructive edits are to be treated with respect. See WP:IPs are people too.

You were given good advice by Drmies at Talk:James D. Corrothers, but you have not followed it. Here is my advice to you: stop name calling, and don't lecture people about Wikipedia policy when you don't understand it yourself. Focus on the content and not on the editors. Or face sanctions yourself for the various violations of policy I have noted here. MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In the time I was writing this, you re-added the "IP-hopping troll" insult to the IPs talk page for the fourth or fifth time. That is an outrageous breach of several WP policies, and if you do it again, I will block you myself. MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Melanie. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In seven years of editing in WP, I've never been more grateful for anything than this comment by User:MelanieN. I'm writing from a shared public IP address because MusicAngels has a long record of vindictive editing and I don't want to put a target on my back. I've never done this before and I know this violates policy, but I hope it’s OK in this situation. MusicAngels made some edits to film pages that I work on, and I don't think the edits are up to WP standards, but I don't want to revert or revise, because I saw what happens to any editor who gets in MusicAngels' way.

Here are some relevant facts.

Vindictive editing. The whole dustup at James D. Corrothers and Cordelia Ray got started because User:JRW03 made this comment about MusicAngels' poetry pages: [[9]]. Until JRW03 made this comment, MusicAngels showed no interest in those poets, but after JRW03 made the comment, MusicAngels started making disruptive or irrelevant edits to pages that JRW03 actively edits.
False statements. MusicAngels has a persistent habit of making false statements about their own edits and other editors. MelanieN listed some false statements above. Other false statements include these edit summaries: [[10]] where there was no "consensus" and no "request" from another editor; [[11]] where was no "request"; [[12]] where, again, there was no request and no consensus. Also, these edits restored hat notes that MusicAngels created after being told by User:Randykitty that they were inappropriate, here. MusicAngels simply ignored the clear instructions given by an admin.
False attacks: MusicAngels keeps saying that the IP user got MusicAngels' poetry pages deleted through a hoax. User:Drmies and other admins explained that there was no hoax ([[13]] but MusicAngels keeps accusing the IP editor of WP:HOAX. Also, when someone disagrees with MusicAngels, they call it a “personal attack” or a “vicious personal attack” when there was nothing personal about it. (By the way, this comment is not a personal attack. It's a report on a user's editing practices.)
Other issues: See the comment by User:Bgwhite here: [[14]]

WP depends on having editors who can be trusted, editors who won't take vindictive action against other editors. I think there's a legitimate question about whether MusicAngels's edits live up those standards, and I would like to be able to go back to the film pages I care about and edit them without fear of reprisal.

Also, I won't post anything under an IP address again unless it's absolutely necessary to avoid vengeance editing. Again, I hope the admins will understand why I knowingly violated policy in this single case.

Written from this shared IP address: 50.74.98.197 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main discussion of this is on User Talk at EdJohnston page for sockpocket investigation started three months ago. @Melanie: this is the Sockpuppet report template which you requested which you should be able to run from your account for confirm/WP:Deny. Main discussion is at EdJohnston Talk page [15]. MusicAngels (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

192.12.13.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
192.12.13.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
192.12.13.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
192.12.13.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
192.12.13.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
192,12,13.1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
192.12.13.32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
192.12.13.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
192.12.13.13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
50.74.98.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This has been a consistent pattern from the three months of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry currently under investigation. MusicAngels (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my analysis of this list at EdJohnson's talk page. Of the nine IPs you list here and claim are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, seven haven't edited in more than a year. The eighth, 192.12.13.13, last edited in July and has no overlap in articles edited with the ninth, 192.12.13.14 - whom you repeatedly called an "IP-hopping troll," even though there is nothing to connect them to any of the other IPs and nothing trollish about their own behavior. As I said at EdJohnston's talk page, I think you owe 192.12.13.14 an apology. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston is continuing the investigation of this issue as of this morning [16] and I will follow his instructions upon the completion of his investigation on his Talk page. The main discussion of this is on User Talk at EdJohnston page for sockpuppet investigation started three months ago. My ping to you this morning was from there as well. MusicAngels (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing without evidence, accusing with evidence

Hi MusicAngels, when you said, here, "[...] the IP-editors you refer to are continuing to interfere with my edits as recently as yesterday." Please do understand that you can't throw such WP:ASPERSIONS. Note: accusing without evidence can be considered disruptive. Anyhow, I hope you will take the advice seriously, which MelanieN has given you on SilkTork's talk page and you'll drop this matter here. Jim Carter 19:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Jim Carter 19:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the full discussion of this on the Talk page at EdJohnston and then certainly get back to me. Your description on your User page is remarkable. I try to be diligent about getting back on Talk and you can stop by when you look at that Talk page just referred to and read it fully. MusicAngels (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When is a sock or a troll not a sock or a troll?

Dear MusicAngels -- I am one (but only one) of the 128 IP editors that has tried to edit on a page and got into a skirmish with you. I am NOT all of them nor do I have to do with any of the other lists of IP numbers you are accusing of being socks and trolls. I have never hoaxed anyone. I in fact posted to User:Drmies that I can't help that the IP # changes every time I log on. I think there were four addresses (which I could not help) but all began with 128. I have been editing as an IP for several years; sometimes months go by that I do not edit at all. So here's the dilemma -- let's say I decide to get an account. Judging by what I have read about you here, on User:EdJohnston's page, from User:MelanieN, on User:Silktork's page, the accusations that you have said about other named accounts, you would immediately "Identify" me and accuse me of being a sock of my former IP numbers. When an IP editor gets an account, is he automatically a sock of his former IP address contributions? By your reasoning, yes -- so what incentive do I have? You will come after me the way you go after others and I will go back to being an IP. Do you see the problem? The problem is that you will not let anyone disagree with you or you will accuse them of disruption! 128.90.35.169 (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 128.90. I have never heard of anyone accusing a newly registered user of being a "sock" of their former IP numbers; in fact that would be kind of ridiculous, but I suppose anything is possible. It would not hold up, however. "Socking" means using multiple accounts in a deceptive way, such as pretending to be different people. If there is no intent to deceive, there is no socking. For example, if a registered user makes an edit while logged out, that is not socking (unless they pretend to be someone else). See WP:LOGOUT where this is clearly pointed out. I was going to suggest that you could point out, on your new user page or talk page, that you formerly edited under certain IPs. But I was wrong; I see from WP:LOGOUT that users are never required to disclose their IP address, and IPs are never required to disclose their registered user name - for privacy reasons. For the same reason, checkusers usually refuse to run a check that compares a user name with an IP address. Anyhow, bottom line, if you wish to register an account, go ahead. Being registered has certain advantages, and it is NOT socking. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On this Talk page, there is no question that MelanieN is your best friend at Wikipedia and she is an experienced editor whom you can follow. Her suggestion that you open and register an account to get its advantages is a fair one. At the moment, User:MelanieN is your best friend at Wikipedia, and you can follow her offer to you for her to open and register an account for you or provide instructions on how you can do this. MusicAngels (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just note that I didn't "advise" them to open and register an account; I responded to their question about it. Nor did I "offer" to do it for them (which is impossible in any case). They are perfectly entitled to continue editing as an IP if they want, per Wikipedia policy. --MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you decide you wish to open a registered account with her help then also note that it is normal practice at Wikipedia that if you are blocked on one of your IP-accounts as you were in August here [17] that it is usually expected that you will not go to other IP-accounts. If you have any questions about how to open a registered account so that you can have the advantages of being a registered editor then you can ask Melanie any further questions you may have. MusicAngels (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Required ANI notice

This is to let you know that I have filed a report concerning you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive interactions by User:MusicAngels. --MelanieN (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an indefinite block does not mean permanent, it means only that it will not automatically expire, and will remain in place until you have satisfied the community that you understand the issues noted above and will change your behaviour going forward. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Poetry in the early 21st century for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Poetry in the early 21st century is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poetry in the early 21st century until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Birdman (film)

The article Birdman (film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Birdman (film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]