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)

Removal of "Mega Deal" details from "Let's Make a Deal" page[edit]

Granted this edit was removed quite sometime ago, it still was valid. The "Mega Deal" rules were observed from the telecast of the show during the featured week. There was no need to remove this content as it was valid, grammatically correct, and can be verified if you went to visit the CBS archives of the show during that week. Please consider re-adding the details of the "Mega Deal" as removing it for non-sourced content, but leaving the "Super Deal" content which is also non-sourced, isn't valid. I'll be glad to re-add it if anything. retched Additionally, it's explained here on their official YouTube page. ( (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You can re-add it with that YouTube reference (or another valid source). That's why it was removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Selena Gomez[edit]

Hi I would like if you could write more stuff about Selena Gomez for example her parents what schools she attended her dating life thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Musdan77! I just want to drop you a note and let you know to be careful when you do "clean up" edits to filmography tables – I noticed that when you cleaned up Julie Bowen's Filmography, you changed some dateranges back to their non-MOS:DATERANGE compatible formats, so you might want to be aware of that... Thanks! --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, yes, when I edit a filmography, if there is year range that has "present", I make the others full year ranges because it's better aesthetically. Notice on MOS:DATERANGE that it says "usually". When it's in prose, that's one thing, but in a table, sometimes it depends on what looks best. When it causes too much empty space, then it's better to make it a complete range. And, of course, it goes by consensus on the individual article. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. But, FTR, I can't say I agree with your rationale on that. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, IJBall, another way to go is to just remove the "present", leaving the year of origin and the endash. This is done in a lot of infoboxes and other places, but not really in filmographies. I tried doing it before, but it was reverted so I stopped. But, out of curiosity, which do you think is better? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Your (current) way is probably better than that alternative (though the "[year]–present" stuff causes problems in its own right when people insist upon the nonsensical "2015–present" variation...). But on my end I plan on sticking to MOS:DATERANGE, even with "[year]–present" entries – sticking with the letter of the guideline is just the easiest defensible position to my mind; also, "white space" in table cells isn't the worst thing in the world IMO. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Selena article[edit]

Can you elaborate on why the sentence you tagged on this article needs clarification? Best, jona(talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

AJona1992, it doesn't explain what it means by "Hispanics reacted negatively to the news of her death". It's kind of oddly worded. I mean, would they have acted positively to the news? --Musdan77 (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Well they sure was not proud or joyous of the event and acted in grief and disbelief of her death. Any way of rewording this into the section? Best, jona(talk) 10:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
AJona1992, Something like: "Hispanics reacted... with shock and sorrow..." -- or a variation of those words ("disbelief and grief" works too). --Musdan77 (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I saw you removed "JT" from alias in the Justin Timberlake article. In the 20/20 Experience credits he appears as JT, here a pic "All Vocals Produced and Arranged by JT". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cornerstonepicker, thanks for the pic, but this is what it says at Template:Infobox musical artist#alias: "official stage names for the artist" and "not for nicknames" (which is what JT is). --Musdan77 (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Karen Gillan[edit]

Hi! Umm... It says "3 episodes" in Notes. I couldn't find anything about it. And there is no citation, too. Can you remove it? (talk) 06:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Alien contributions[edit]

Okay, I have a few comments about your last few edits. First of all, I should mention that it was unnecessary to revert me on the template page, as 20th Century Fox and Ridley Scott have been referring to the new films as being a part of a prequel trilogy and although only one film has fully gone through production, there are three planned. So, I don't see the necessity of adamantly calling it a series, rather than a planned trilogy.

With regards to your edit to the Alien (franchise) page, you incorrectly removed Sigourney Weaver's role from Alien: Resurrection, despite Ripley Clone 8 being present. I also don't think it was constructive to remove the mentions of Alien: Covenant from the tables, as Wikipedia:Notability (films) advises that while film articles shouldn't exist before production, coverage on series/franchise pages is encouraged.

You know, this is all my perspective and I'm not going to get into an edit war with you, as we're only a couple months away from production and the creation of the main space article for Alien: Covenant. However, I hope you do reconsider with regards to the franchise page and I will probably look for outside opinions. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DarthBotto, (1) For accuracy, trilogy is three (and only 3). With just one, it looks senseless. (2) First, your edit was bold by removing video games. I thought about just reverting it, but I don't really care whether VGs are there or not. But, it's fine to mention future productions in prose (if sourced), but shouldn't be in tables - especially without refs (WP:FUTURE). But, thanks for telling me about my mistake. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries; I'm not too caught up about the page. At the moment, I'm just thinking about what we should have for the infobox image. Maybe you'd like to chime in on the talk page? DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I hope I didn't seem standoff-ish, by the way. You and I have worked on a lot of the same articles in the past, so I definitely respect you and your judgment. Just wanted to have my say and see how best to work with this page. ;) DARTHBOTTO talkcont 21:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Dancing With The Stars reversions[edit]


in reference to my reversion and hopefully avoiding an edit war (!) - Do we really need to add specific shows to the contestants field of employment as it generally shows dumbing down of the article and the whole point of Wikipedia is expansion of knowledge through reading and sometimes these artists listed have done more than just one specific role?

If you take the British actor Michael Crawford his career in film & stage is vast (the original Phantom in Lloyd Webber's: The Phantom of the Opera in both the West End and Broadway) yet he is also very well known for playing Frank Spencer in the BBC sitcom "Some mothers do ave 'em" which, he absolutely hates and refuses to even discuss his role as the main character when interviewed.


Pam-javelin (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pam-javelin, it really depends on the individual celebrity. Sometimes just "Actor" can or should be used; other times that's not enough. It's a judgment call, but not something that should cause edit warring - or unnecessary reversions. I personally think that the column isn't necessary and shouldn't have been used in the first place, but after 21 articles, we're stuck with it. I'm fine with not putting specific shows there. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please read the following paragraph without taking it personally.

That sounds quite reasonable and to not be patronising an adult response because this site is about knowledge and learning and dumbing it down because someone thinks that people might be interested because the person in question might have been yes a respected pop singer or worse a reality "star" (normally an utterly pointless person!) it does remove the quality of the content of the article or articles.


Pam-javelin (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)