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.

Edit warring[edit]


I am here to notify you that you are nearing to 3RR. Please see here the discussion I have just opened. Please discuss with others now. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela, now you know full well that I never even came close to 3RR, and never would. But, thanks for letting me know about the discussion.
On a side note, to answer your question: "why was this ever removed?" A better question would be: "why was this ever added?" I see no reason (in fact, I think it's ridiculous) to have both the table and all of the text in it to be centered - especially the Notability column, where some are short and some are long (wide). It just looks stupid. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
[1], [2], [3] say otherwise. I said that because in the previous seasons, we've always centered the table. I was just following "tradition", if you will. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 02:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Callmemirela, like I said, not even close. Have you read WP:3RR? And why would you think I wouldn't know? I really don't appreciate being accused of something like that. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I probably didn't look into it properly. My apologies. However, it was nearly the same edit. It was the linking, the naming, etc. It would had been better to say something, no matter what the situation was. But yes I agree, Kiwi Jaden and the IP were the least helpful users in the edit wars. Again, I apologize. There was so much reverting going on, I lost focus. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 02:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the apology(ies). I know that these reality competition show articles can drive an editor crazy. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
And you know it. Like the time, when I was new to Wikipedia, AldezD nominated all of the season pages for deletion then sources were added. I was upset by both, but what really pushed my buttons was the sudden change in templates and removal of content without any consensus at all and AldezD edit warred on keeping it that way. Man was that a lot of pressure for a new editor. I am not sure if you remember that? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 03:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Drew Lynch[edit]

Hi Musdan77. I apologize for being disrespectful to you. I found your insistence on keeping (what I believe to be) a pointless section disruptive, but I now understand the Wikipedia "consensus" policy, and I do hope we come to one. As a fan of Drew's and someone who has seen the video, I am completely against the section.

My points in the talk still stand: Nobody else is talking about this controversy besides one user and one playful tweet, the few times this has been discussed online people agree that it's a non-controversy since the jokes have different punchlines, and not ONE other website has reported on this as if it's a big deal. Even on the video used as a source, the only two comments compliment Drew on his ability. They also both mention that other people have asked questions to their dogs. It's a common dog owner happening, so this makes the "blatant copying" even less relevant. (Note the paragraph included the biased word "blatant"). If you watch the video, the jokes have completely different punchlines.

In the end, I cannot consider the paragraph any more than an upset fan trying to dig up dirt on Drew Lynch. Nobody else is treating this like a controversy. No news sites, no angry crowds, nothing. This is no "Tim Poe" or "Sharon Osbourne" controversy. The few people talking about it agree that it's a harmless coincidence. Even if Drew was inspired by the joke, the fact that the punchlines were completely different invalidates this entire subject.

Drew is an active competitor, and when this section is included on the site without any strong sourcing, I consider it unprofessional slander. (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I really have no opinion on the section, one way or the other. As long as no one has a problem with it being removed, there should be no more issue. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ray Stevens[edit]

Thank you for adding the recent Grammy Awards table to Ray Stevens. Please add references if you have them.----Design (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Phil Driscoll[edit]

After two weeks of full protection there was no productive discussion of the issues on the article talk page. I let the protection expire to see what happened. The edit warring started back up. I have been asked to fully protect the page again. I do not want to protect the article from all editing so I have decided to try a different tactic. First I am going to restore the article to the version that I had protected, I know, it is the wrong version. Now, you are warned that if you edit anything in the article concerning the tax evasion conviction without first getting a consensus on the talk page, I will block you. I recommend trying some form of Dispute resolution. If you question my actions you can discuss them at the Administrators' noticeboard. -- GB fan 11:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


What are yuo talking about that you say it: don't doing this [[]]. And why you say it zspecials? it is specials and why you delete caps lock letters?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, do not edit war. Do not revert back to incorrect style without consensus or you could be blocked. (1) Linking Italy is overlinking, (2) "Season" and "special" are not proper nouns so they are not capitalized, (3) MOS:HEADINGS says "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked", and (4) 2015 is present, so it's redundant to say "2015–present". Take the time to read the links I give you, and be careful who you revert. Look at the editor's user page. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to edit Wikipedia: your copy-editing seems to be very helpful. In this edit [4], you removed 'Kim K Superstar' from the filmography. There has been previous consensus on the talk page for it to be included. Please may you revert this part of your edit? (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I had to search the archives to find it, but I see that there was a discussion but no real consensus was found. If someone re-adds it, I may start another discussion. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The original question was asked here, and there were no objections to it being added. After being lost some months later, questions were placed on the talk page here and here, where, again, there were no objections. As described at bold, revert and discuss, it would be most appropriate if you revert your bold action and place a note on the talk page if you think it would be good to have another discussion. I would revert it myself, but I cannot do so because the page is protected. (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC) [Edit: It looks as if my home router has updated its IP address. I am the same person who wrote the original comment above. :-) ]
Well, I suggest that register. I have no intention on adding something that I believe doesn't belong - not because of the content, but because this type of thing doesn't fit. If it was a professional video it would be different. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That is very disappointing. I have objected to your change and you have refused to revert it for further discussion, contrary to WP:BRD. I shall open a request for comments on the talk page. Incidentally, the film is published by a professional distributor and Kardashian receives a direct income from it. (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have started a request for comments. In the future, please try to gain consensus before making controversial edits, which includes those that have already been discussed multiple times on the talk page. The usual approach is bold, revert and discuss: bold edits, like yours, are to be reverted and then discussed. Not forced through by someone who refuses to revert, even after explicit complaints from other editors. (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
First of all, you don't seem to understand BRD. It's when one person makes an edit, then someone else reverts it (with a valid reason), then the person whose edit was reverted gives his case as to why it should be reinstated. Second, I had no idea it was "controversial" as you say, or that it had been discussed before. If there was consensus found for it then there should have been a hidden note saying so. Finally, please don't try to tell me (or another editor as experienced as me) how to edit. Musdan77 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You made a bold edit, I told you I would have reverted if I could have done (semi-protection). Refusing to revert it yourself just as bad. Missing something controversial is no problem at all, but ignoring it after a note and request has been placed on your talk page is a problem. Please remember that so-called 'experienced' editors should follow the same rules as everyone else. I do not intend to return here: the situation is now being resolved by others. (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, you've got it wrong. That would be forcing me to do something that was against my will/beliefs. And don't come to my talk page accusing me of things and thinking you're going to get the last word. That is not how to civilly get along with other editors. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)