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. Anything uncivil can and may be deleted without hesitation.

Hey, you may be interested...[edit]

Hey, Musdan77 – you may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns. IIRC, you prefer the "all 4-year" daterange format, so you may want to make your voice heard over there... Just so you know! --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank youMusdan77 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Patricia Heaton[edit]

OK - let me ask you this...

When a sports team wins a championship, it is a collective accomplishment, but all the players, coaches, GMs, and owners are considered champions (example - LeBron James is considered a 3X NBA Champion, having won 2 titles with Miami, and 1 with Cleveland).

So when a show wins an Emmy for being Outstanding Comedy, aren't all involved credited with winning the award, as it was obviously a collaborative effort? That's like saying only Bob Kraft (owner) gets credit for the Patriots' 4 Super Bowl wins, and not Bill Belichick (head coach) or Tom Brady (quarterback) - you get what I'm trying to say?

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Vjmlhds, I understand where your coming from, but it's sort of like comparing apples and oranges. You may think that's how it should be (and maybe there are awards that do it that way), but that's not how it's done for the Emmys. And if it did, there still would need to be a source that backs that up. —Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Israel Houghton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 12#Flatlist or comma separated lists?. Two editors specifically state "three or more" for flatlists, but the note words in the negative because enough editors stated that comma separated lists are more natural. As I stated: either take it up at the template's talk list, there are a few editors there who will side with you, or talk on the article's talk list, but don't edit war over your incorrect opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, when I saw that there was message from you, I thought that maybe you were actually attempting to have a discussion, but no, of course it's a warning -- which is pretty ridiculous because you know that it takes two to edit war. I could just as well have given you the warning. You know that I am not one to engage in revert warring (normally), but I figured as long as you were doing it, why shouldn't I. And, you know that it does little to no good to try to start a discussion on the talk page of an article that gets very few editors. That's when it's much better to discuss it on the talk page of the editor you have the disagreement with. But of course, I tried that in the past on yours, and I got no reply and my post was just deleted -- which is very insulting. In fact, I think that's one of the worst things an editor can do to another. And when that editor calls himself a Christian, that's even worse! Maybe you should take some time away from WP and read the Bible to see how a Christian is supposed to act like.
After looking over the discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist, I don't see how the note came out of that. The result was: consensus is that "flatlists should be used" -- not how many items for commas or flatlists. But, the bottom line to me is that an infobox should not contain two different styles (if more than 2 items). It looks bad and is just makes no sense. And the fact remains that, as I said, individual article consensus takes precedence over a template note. And the fact that you say that you "helped write" it, shows that you are biased against any any effort to do anything contrary to the way you want it. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Odd. I was thinking that about your opinions about editing the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz, that response makes no sense. And still no sign of wanting to cooperate and get along, and (maybe more important) admitting to wrong-doing. There actually doesn't have to be an admission of guilt to acknowledge that you have offended and are sorry. Even Donald Trump has done that - and I don't know of anyone who believes that he is a Christian. I hate to say it, but if it wasn't for your userbox, no one would really know by your actions that you are supposedly a Christian. We are not supposed to act like the world does. A Christian is known by his fruit (Galatians 5:22-23). —Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I was thinking that you are showing page ownership. Local consensus is not a valid argument here as you're the only editor who wants it that way. Speaking of not cooperating, and since you tried to guilt me with scripture, I suggest you follow the plankeye principle yourself: Matthew 7:3-5. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
There can't be "ownership" by me when I was completely willing to work together, while you refused to change from the way you want it. And the scripture certainly doesn't apply to me because I obviously am willing to discuss on my talk page - unlike you. If you don't humble yourself and accept the truth, we won't get over this. As far as I know I have not wronged you, but you do know that you have. Even though I forgive you, if you don't change your attitude, we'll still have problems in the future. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Problems with another user[edit]

I'm having problems with another user on Talk:The Bachelor (season 21) and I was hoping you could help me with it. The users name is Starbucks6789. After both of us reverting each others edits back and forth, I went to the talk page and I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Could you please help resolve the discussion? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a sysop (admin), and I don't watch that show, so I don't think I can really help. Sorry. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your work on the Love Boat episodes page, which was a huge help in dating a fantastic youtube video of Ginger Rogers in her late sixties performing Love Will Keep Us Together. She and her backup dancers did a version (sadly much less colorful) on The Love Boat. Jillzilla (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad it was a help to you. —Musdan77 (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Personnel[edit]

I have an idea to resolve this problem. We can just create a separate article called List of Chicago Members. Yes, AC\DC, and Toto all format their personnel section like this. We would probably move the timeline and timetable to the new article and only retain the list of current members. Sound good?Dobbyelf62 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be great, Dobbyelf62. The problem is that currently the section has no references. I see that the Yes page has 4, AC\DC has a lot, and Toto has none(!). —Musdan77 (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Selena Gomez[edit]

I'm sorry but just look Featured lists like List of awards and nominations received by Adele, Bruno Mars and Taylor Swift : a win is also count as a nomination in the infobox. All Featured lists about "awards won by artists" follow this method. - SennKev (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

SennKev, well if so, they are wrong – according to Template:Infobox musician awards (MOS). Just because an article reaches featured status doesn't mean it's perfect. But thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll post a message on the template's talk page. At least now you are discussing and giving edit summaries. Keep it up (every edit should have a summary). —Musdan77 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
welcome
... you were recipient
no. 666 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks – but did it have to be 666??

Ref improve on Cliff Richard discography[edit]

Hi Musdan77, I see you have added RefImprove to the Cliff Richard discography. Can you please be more specific as to what you think is missing refs or what the problem is? Are you referring to the introduction paragraphs or other items? I've already added a large amount of refs, spent a lot of time researching refs to add, and included refs for some of the rarer or less well known albums that don't usually get ref'ed on discographies. Thank you. -- AusChartMan (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, AusChartMan, I appreciate the work you've done. The reason for the tag is that there are many albums listed that don't have articles (and aren't referenced). Also, the Music videos section has no cites. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Musdan77, In the sections with the rarer albums, there are references at the top of the columns. I haven't referenced the uncharted main record company (ie EMI etc) albums as I haven't noticed that anyone does that. I looked at Wikipedia:Featured lists articles like David Bowie discography and it is not done there. Articles for Cliff's main record company albums are slowly being added to Wikipedia by other editors. With the music videos (someone else added this section, I wouldn't have bothered as information is scant), it could be improved by adding some referenced directors names for early years, but the information is often very hard/impossible to find for later years as it is not always included on the retail products, and many music videos never even made it to retail products. Typically there was a music video for nearly every Cliff single for the 80's and 90's, but without the director information, I'm not sure what there is to reference. If you can dig up references for directors of Cliff music videos after 1983, let me know. Overall, I'm just not seeing much at all that needs to be referenced that can be. - AusChartMan (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, AusChartMan, for the info. I think what I'm going to do is remove the top template and add one to the Music videos section, and I think I'll go ahead and upgrade the page from start class to C. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues[edit]

Hi, Musdan77. I noticed you have recently inserted the |religion= field and related content in the Infobox for Nikki Haley with this edit. I've removed it, to comply with both Wikipedia established policy (see WP:BLPCAT) and with this RfC on Religion in Infoboxes.

Your edit summary stated (Once again, it is according to Template:Infobox_person#Parameters. There is a discussion. Do not rm without discussing.) You've been around a while, so I'm sure I don't need to remind you that contentious material is to be removed from Biographies of Living People, even without discussion. There are three sources presently cited in the article which discuss her religion (including one added by you containing self-identification), so coverage of her religious beliefs is appropriate in the body of the article. None of those three sources, however, convey that Nikki Haley is famous for being a Christian, so use of the |religion= field is inappropriate. Her religion is not a defining characteristic of her public notability. She's notable for her politics, not her religion (unless there are sources which clearly say otherwise of which I am unaware).

Your summary also said "There is a discussion", but when I checked the Talk page I didn't see one. I've now started one for you, located: here. Did you, by chance, mean this discussion we were having here? I don't see anything at that discussion that indicates justification for using the reserved parameter in the Infobox.

Your edit summary also referenced the Template:Infobox_person#Parameters, which states:

Per this RFC, this parameter should be included only when it is a defining characteristic of the article subject. For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT. Be sure to support with a citation in the article body to a reliable source showing self-identification. This parameter should include only religions (i.e. Hinduism, Christianity) and not denominations (i.e. Shi'ism, Digambara, Shengdao, Vaishnavism). For denominations use the parameter below.

Let me know if I can be of any additional help. I'll watchlist this Talk page for now, but we should probably conduct discussions of specific relevance to Haley at the Talk page for that article. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) About the "sir/ma'am" thing: so you'd rather offend because it's convenient for you? That's really nice. If you don't care then why use any? (2) I didn't "insert" the parameter. It was there from the beginning (8 years!). I restored what you removed. Then, you violated WP:BRD by adding removing it again without discussion. (3) If you haven't been to my user page then how do you know that I've "been around a while"? It wasn't contentious until you removed it. (4) No, I was referring to the one called "Christian?", but it's good that you started a new one. Better late than never, I guess (although, it's really supposed to return to status quo during a discussion). (5) Of course I know what Template:Infobox_person#Parameters says (insult much?), that's why I gave the link. But, we obviously disagree with how it applies to that article. Blessings, Musdan77 (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Musdan77. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended plays[edit]

I'm aware of what the article says (my only or main point was not just that EPs are "unqualified" as albums), but it also mentions singles in equal measure, and nothing in the prose suggests EPs are or should be considered the equivalent of albums. All through the prose, it distinguishes them from albums. "EPs tended to be album samplers or collections of singles", "In the United Kingdom, any record with more than four distinct tracks or with a playing time of more than 25 minutes is classified as an album for sales-chart purposes" and so on. It also mentions they are often called "EP albums" (presumably as a holdover from the vinyl era) and as because to some, anything more than one or a couple of songs is considered a collection, or "album".

Extended plays are as unique a format as an album or a single, and are lumped in with albums on most countries' charts because most countries do not have a separate EPs chart (although I am aware some did in the 1960s and such when vinyl was a relatively new format). The lead of that article also says EPs are generally considered longer than a single, but shorter than an album. So following that, how it can they be considered albums if one of the defining characteristics is that it's shorter than a full-length album, or LP? (Sorry if any of this seemed like I was telling you things you may already know, but I'm just explaining some of the truisms around EPs that the article also mentions.) Ss112 02:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Laura Ingalls[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Laura Ingalls. I see you're a fellow fan of Little House. You may want to participate in this discussion concerning whether Laura Ingalls should be a redirect to Laura Ingalls Wilder. --Nevéselbert 23:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Selena Gomez awards[edit]

Hi Musdan77, I think we should refer to this Template:Awards table for the following article : List of awards and nominations received by Selena Gomez. I don't really understand why you don't want to follow this method. Several "list of awards and nominations received by..." follow this method. - SennKev (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

SennKev, I know that "several" use that template – similar to several incorrectly doing the total nominations. This discussion should be on the article talk page so others can join in. Moving it there. —Musdan77 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Hi Musdan77, re: your reversion of my contribution to Taraji P. Henson's page: Using "The Pentagon" as a title is incorrect. It isn't "The Rock," it's "the Pentagon." Respectfully submitted, but I must support my choice of handles. Have a great weekend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustypup49 (talkcontribs) 09:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (List of awards and nominations received by Blake Shelton) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating List of awards and nominations received by Blake Shelton, Musdan77!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks. Please note, though, that when splitting, credit should be given to the original page per WP:CORRECTSPLIT.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of awards and nominations received by Blake Shelton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Eyes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on[edit]

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)