User talk:Musdan77/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lisa Whelchel

Hi Dan! I've gone ahead and reverted your changes to the above referenced article regarding songwriting and notable works in the infobox. I noticed your edit summary indicated that changes were made because the album was "not notable enough" for the infobox. While I respect your personal opinion, the term "notable" on Wikipedia is clear and representative of the album and article, All Because of You, which was nominated for a Grammy Award in 1984. Whelchel is additionally known as the writer of the title song on the album. Accordingly, our guidelines show clear representation in the opening paragraph and infobox. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 23:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cindy, thanks for adding the sources in the "Singing" section -- but when I read your message above, I thought that you simply reverted it all without any changes. I wrote in my edit summary, "There's nothing to verify that she's a singer-songwriter or even a songwriter for that matter." So, first I went to the album's article, but it does not say anything about the songwriters. Then I tried allmusic.com, nothing there either. And finally I tried rateyourmusic.com, and again nothing. Well, your source does say that she wrote the title song, so she is (or was) a songwriter, however that same source also says that the remaining songs were penned by other songwriters, so that says that she is not a singer-songwriter. And I gave a link to the singer-songwriter article so you could see what it means.

As for the album being notable enough for the infobox, until you added the source, it was actually your opinion that it was, because the only reference was a link to a stub article that does not have any sources. I, personally, still wouldn't put an album in the infobox that is nearly 30 years old and basically only known in the Christian music industry, but since you have added those refs I'll let that go.

Also, you keep adding a "#", which goes against WP MOS. Please see MOS:NUMBERSIGN. (I'll wait for your response.) --Musdan77 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Dan, thanks for the info re: #, since I missed that earlier. At this moment, while I appreciate the effort, I'm really not interested in reading the singer-songwriter article. While Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the minimal citations offered from reliable and independent sources specifically state that Whelchel is a singer-songwriter, i.e., this is verifiable. Trying to support or dismiss Wikipedia content based on what is or is not included in other Wikipedia articles really isn't too helpful. Other stuff exists, both good and bad, but it shouldn't cloud our desire or effort to improve other articles. As far as omitting notable works from the infobox, inclusion here is determined by the current existence of an article. While the article about the album certainly needs citations, the album is nevertheless notable. As far as the lapse in time, keep in mind that notability is not confined to a specific time period, i.e., notability is not temporary. And certainly, the genre has nothing to do with establishing or diminishing notability. Stating that a subject is "basically only known" in one community or listeners of a specific genre is really only a subjective opinion, rather than fact. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 03:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What "reliable and independent source" says that she is a singer-songwriter? I've checked. None of them does. All you have to do is read the first sentence, but if you don't want to bother going there, I'll quote it here: "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and sing their own musical material including lyrics and melodies." This Wikipedia standard (ask any admin). It should say that she's a "singer and songwriter", but technically we can't say that she's a singer-songwriter. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you feel good with "singer and songwriter", go ahead and add that. The idea here is not to remove "songwriter" or the album from the lead or infobox, simply based on your personal opinion. As far as asking "any admin", you would be surprised at the different levels of comprehension and interpretation of the policies and guidelines that govern the encyclopedia. This is a living project; constantly changing and revising itself. We don't set the standards for the world (for example, the definition of "singer-songwriter"), we merely record these things in the encyclopedia. If the world is saying something different, then it is up to us to reflect that here. In this understanding, it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says in an article, what matters is that content in the encyclopedia is verifiable, based on reliable sources, which Wikipedia is not. As far as your sentence from the article, "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and sing their own musical material including lyrics and melodies," Whelchel did that with the title track from her album. Curious though. At what point do you deem an artist transitions from songwriter to singer-songwriter? How many songs? When is the cut-off point? Two songs? Three? Ten? 57? Cindy(talk to me) 23:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, certainly not just one song. But, thanks for giving me your opinions. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Duggar Edits

Hope I am doing this right (have a feeling I am not) I have found a source for Duggar middle names is it sufficient? here Jordyn's full name is used. Will dig for the others and cite individually if this suffices. Credoinspiritu (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope you find something better because blogs aren't really acceptable. And it should be a third-party source. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Twilight Zone episode list

I didn't remove anything. I was just improving the list of Twilight Zone episodes - the original one. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit you made (the one before I reverted) was -4,309! How is that not removing anything? For (almost) all edits, there should be some kind of explanation in the edit summary, but as I said, a major edit such as this, really needs one, and if not in the edit summary then in the article's talk page. You still haven't said how you "improved" it. Even after I gave a notice on your talk page, you still aren't giving explanations.

I'm sorry. I'll remind myself to describe the changes I make to Wikipedia pages in the future. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Russ Taff

Why did you remove some of the new Russ Taff collaborations I added that were missing? If you review back several years, you'll find that I did much of the additions of atrists collaborations...im definately not a wiki vandal, just a RT fan wanting the page to be as complete as possible. --Hiro DynoSlayer (talk) 01/5/2013 05:05 (EST) 05:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hiro, The only thing that I removed was "More Than Music #1", after I did a search for it on couple of different places. There was no evidence of such an album. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a video duet, recorded to VHS, not audio album. Maybe it should just be moved to the video section. When I first built the collaboration section, it was prior to the RT wiki having a video subsection, so i just put it with all thr collaborations. Here is the video sleeve picture and description, (VideoURL) and here is the video itself from the "More Than Music" show, (youtube performance) with Mylon Lefevere introducing them, and dating it by saying it was before Amy married Gary (1982). The description comments also verify why it was 81 not early 82 based on no performances of Amy or Russ on the show doing any songs from "Age to Age(82)" or "Walls of Glass(83)" in their show contributions. This is definately a Russ Taff collaboration that should be documented on his wiki. --Hiro DynoSlayer (talk) 01/5/2013 15:07 (EST) 15:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've added it to the videos. I also removed Reunion because it's already in the video section. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reunion 1 & 2 also gave audio cd album releases as well as video. Since they are album collaborations of RT with the GVB, shouldnt they list separate? For that matter, shouldnt all dual-format (audio and video) productiond list both ways? Another example of this would be the "Children of Promise" or "The Cause" stuff that were dual formats...most live stuff tends to be dual these days. --Hiro DynoSlayer (talk) 01/5/2013 20:30 (EST) 20:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be unnecessary redundancy. Most people know that all of the Gaither videos are also on CD, but they are first and foremost videos. Maybe if it was an actual discography page, then it could be done that way. Even then I think it would be unnecessary. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pass a Method

I noticed your recent comments at the talk page of the above editor, in which you seem to be implying, if I read correctly, possibly misleading edit summaries. Unfortunately, you provide no clear information regarding where you see such. Could you perhaps indicate the page in question? Feel free to respond here, I am watching this page now. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, well, it started (for me) a few days ago on the Simple WP, and has escalated. Here is my edit history page there: [1] and his: [2]. Then after I happened to revert one of his edits here, he started with me here as well. I'm sorry that it's not more specific. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I am however curious as to whether you have seen anything which would qualify as a misleading edit summary, or, basically, using an edit summary for an edit to a page, preferably an article page, which didn't really indicate the nature of the edit. Other editors have expressed questions regarding behavior of that sort here in the past, and it would be useful to know if it may have returned. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Pizza is yummy and I dont get y people r being mean 2U!

I have read ur user page and I <3 pizza too, especially Hawaiian! I k that was kinda random but yeah ur user page did say that u <3 eating pizza. On the Gaither Vocal Band talk page i read how people didnt like how it was written. just in case u hadnt edited it since then i made the language a bit more interesting. Hannahotten (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Hannah. Thanks for the nice message. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson

I'm not going to use this, but the next time add a reference if you are going to do this. She rarely sings country music, she is not a country artist per se. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

TB, First of all, I didn't add it in the first place. But, it is not incorrect. The other genres don't have sources do they? It doesn't need a source when it is corroborated in the article. It mentions the word "country" (and the fact that she sings it) a dozen (12) times. I checked before I edited it. The fact that she's "not a country artist per se" doesn't mean that country isn't one of her genres. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You "didn't" add it, but you restored it, that means you re-added it. If the other genres are unsourced, that can be easily solved. Now, if you believe that her pop rock career, where her five studio albums are labeled as pop rock, and her only non-remake country song ("Don't You Wanna Stay") is enough to qualify her ten years' career as a "country-pop" artist, you will need a strong reference. Taylor Swift experimented electronic music on Red, is that "one of her genres" now? You've been here for a while, don't act as a "newbie". Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've "been here for a while." I'm not acting like a newbie -- so don't treat me like one. Yes, I restored it, because it was removed by an IP without explanation, or a valid reason. She didn't just record one country song. She's had four songs on the country charts -- and three of those were in the top 20. The genre parameter is not like the associated artists parameter where it has strict guidelines. This one basically goes by what's in the article text and the consensus of the editors -- and that's why this should be discussed on the article talk page. So, I'm taking it there. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! I noticed you've made edits to articles related to Kelly Clarkson. I thought you may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Kelly Clarkson a WikiProject working to improve the English Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Kelly Clarkson and her discography. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You. Chihciboy (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

America's Funniest Home Videos

Hi Musdan, I see that we've both edited the lawsuit content on America's Funniest Home Videos. I adjusted your edits to my edits slightly to show who was being sued (for context), but I trimmed it down from my initial wording. But both of our edits may be moot because the reason I'm writing is to see if you think we should just remove all that lawsuit content from the article. I've been thinking about it and am leaning more towards deleting it than keeping it because we have no idea what happened after the suit was filed. And I was unable to find any sources about it. Anyone can easily file a lawsuit; it's simply completing some basic paperwork. But for all we know, it could've been thrown out of court or the guy could've eventually dropped the suit. Or maybe there was a quick, private settlement that no one would ever know about. So at this point, all we know is that some guy filed a lawsuit. My feeling is that without any information whatsoever about the result, or even the proceedings, it's just not worthy of inclusion in the article. It also gives undue weight to the guy because the content says nothing about the show's response. All we have right now is an accusation. I don't mind leaving that paragraph in the article if you feel strongly that it should stay, but feel free to remove it if you agree with me. If you need to reply, just reply here. I'll keep an eye on this thread. Have a nice weekend. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you basically just changed it back to the way it was. It should start with when and what, not who -- since he is unknown. Now if you want to remove the paragraph, it would be alright with me. Just put in the summary the it was discussed. By the way, it's a misconception that the MOS says that a number like 13 shouldn't be written out. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

While the MoS does not mandate that only numbers one through nine be written out, the overwhelming preference and usage among editors is that numbers 10 and up not be written out. The guy was not the "victim of a practical joke video"; he was the victim of a practical joke, which happened to be videotaped. One cannot be the victim of a video. In any case, I removed the entire paragraph per our discussion above. No need to reply; this matter is closed so I won't be watching this thread any more. Thanks for your input. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Twilight Zone

Sorry about that comment, there are two Twilight Zone articles and the other one has "quotes" of the opening credits listed. When I saw this one, I noticed that the "quotes" were not there and in your editing notes you mentioned "quotes"-sorry for the confusion. I also reverted some of that original wording back to that one paragraph since it seemed to make more sense.24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Lee University

I'm new to this editing thing, but I've made a couple of changes. Do you think we could add a notable faculty section? I also think the choir's singing at the inauguration should be in its own section instead of the introduction. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meredith Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Meredith Palmer, I think those are good ideas. As you can see, I added a music section and moved that paragraph there. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Cooking with Fanboy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cooking with Fanboy. Since you had some involvement with the Cooking with Fanboy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Musdan77 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Steve Martin

Hi, thanks for your message. The biographies I have worked on have always put awards first but it's no biggie. FAs such as The Beatles, Paul McCartney, Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, David Bowie, Frank Zappa and Michael Jackson are arranged that way. In my view the awards are generally an extension of the work/career section. Span (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live cast members

Hi -- I reverted your changes to the table at Saturday Night Live cast members. Adding a "Writer" column sounds like a good idea to me, but it looks like you created some problems in the rest of the table in that same edit. In your version, the first three columns are labeled:

1. Repertory player
2. Featured player only
3. "Weekend Update" anchor

But the data in the columns is, I think:

1. Featured player only
2. "Weekend Update" anchor
3. Repertory player

Meaning, for example, Fred Armisen should be listed as a repertory player, but your version lists him as a "Weekend Update" anchor. Peter Aykroyd should be listed as a featured player, but your version lists him as a repertory player. And so on.

I thought perhaps it could be corrected by just changing the column headers, but I don't think it makes sense to put the "Weekend Update" anchor column in between those two other columns. I'm not sure if that was your intention or not, but I hope you understand why I reverted the entire edit. Please feel free to continue working on the table. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for letting me know about my mistake so that I could correct it. My computer kept messing up on me last night, so I wanted hurry and finish, and didn't check it first. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad you were able to fix it. The writer column is interesting information. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bolding

OK that's fine, if you could remove the bolding from all of the Oscar awards so that they are all the same at least, that would be great. I agree that the bolding is not necessary if there is a colored background as well. Can be hard on the eyes to. :) HesioneHushabye (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Duggars - Season 11

What's there to understand exactly? That you insist there won't be any one hour episodes for season 11? I don't understand why you would say that and I won't try to try to understand your reasoning behind that. I'll just wait another month and re-add the wiki link. BBB76 (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

BBB76, to start with, you should read WP:BRD. Second, you asked a question in the Edit summary (which doesn't go there), but just readded it before finding out why it was reverted. The reason why it doesn't belong is that an asterisk note is only there when there is an asterisk above that correlates, and of course there isn't. I just happened to add the fact that "we don't know if there will be any hour eps." (which we don't). And, no, there hasn't "been every season." As you can see, seasons 3, 5, and 6 don't. I don't know what you're talking about when you say, "I'll just wait another month and re-add the wiki link." --Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"readded"? What? Not sure what you're trying to say in the first half of your paragraph.

As for one hour episodes, I'll dumb it down. When season 11 starts up, then I'll re-add one hour episodes. I know there will be at least one hour episode, possibly the season premiere. I don't know what happened with the earlier seasons, but since then, there's always at least one, one hour episode every season. BBB76 (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"'readded'? What?" It looks like you didn't read the link I gave you. But, that's not really important now (though you still should read it). You should also read WP:CRYSTALBALL. You can't "know" what the future holds. We can't put something on Wikipedia that isn't fact. And something that hasn't happened isn't fact. Right? It's the same as when you had to add the references before. And I already explained about the purpose and use of asterisk footnotes. It would look pretty dumb to just have that there alone. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Then what are you talking about? I came on yesterday to see a new message on your talk page. BBB76 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Right above is my reply (24 hours earlier). --Musdan77 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

[edited to remove vandalism] Well, isn't that "The pot calling the kettle black"? I asked you twice (assuming you are also 76.189.126.36) to take it to the talk page (discussions do not belong in Edit summaries (WP:EDSUM) and then you put an invalid warning on my talk page. Per WP:BRD, you are the one to begin discussion since you made the first edit. And I certainly haven't claimed or shown action of Ownership. After your edit, I didn't revert it (though I could have). I left about half of what you put. That's called compromise/collaboration. My last edit was also a partial revert/compromise, but all of yours have been total reverts.

Now, to fully explain why your edit was (partially) reverted:

1. Those are not really sentences. It's a bulleted list. Because the bullets are there, it doesn't need periods.
2. While it's true that numerals are usually spelled out, it's not necessary if it's in parentheses.
3. The preposition in the intro made it confusing (at best) so I just reworded it to make it clearer and remove the preposition.

Having said all that, the bulleted list (and in fact the table itself) doesn't need to be on the article because the info could be found by going to the main article. --Musdan77 01:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

[edited to remove vandalism] I have already told you that I did not remove any portions of your comments. And you have not shown where I have. But, if you want me to remove all of it, fine. But, I will not allow my talk page to be vandalized. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Duggars Do Asia

Why do you keep removing the links for Asia, along with Toyko Japan? If you're going to remove those, why not remove for the other two places they visited? BBB76 (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave the reason a couple of times as being overlinking -- along with the link: WP:OVERLINK. Did you read it? Well, here's what it says: "unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, the following are not usually linked: ...names of major geographic features and locations."... Asia is definitely a major location, and Tokyo is the largest city in the world. Can't get more major than that. In fact, it's so major, it doesn't really need ", Japan" added to it. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Musdan77; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Seinfeld article.

Hello. This is the first time for me to chat to you.

I don't want to say anything bad really. I just want to thank you for stepping in and helping. Because these days, the Seinfeld WikiProject is inactive at the moment. I'm still an amatuer to this day. So sorry if I interrupted you because I want to relieve my feelings for this article.

Anyway, thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Books

Like I said, fiction and non-fiction shows have their books listed. Kate Plus 8, Little People, Big World, Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (TV series), Murder, She Wrote and Charmed. In some cases, click on "Multimedia" to see the books.

Maybe change the section to "Mulitmedia" to include books, because that's where they belong. If it weren't for the show, there wouldn't be DVDs, online episodes or books.

I checked before putting that information in, it's not listed, unless I somehow missed it. Besides, only Michell's first book was ever listed.BBB76 (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the books on (most of) those series articles directly pertain to the shows. But, if you really feel it's important to add (even though I disagree), you can readd them -- but put them after the DVDs please. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It Is Well With My Soul - hymn

The Article "It Is Well With My Soul" lists lyrics for the hymn that are a popular version but do not match the already referenced photocopy of the original manuscript at SpaffordHymn.com which is listed as an external link. I find it odd that this contradiction is so adamantly maintained over the years, as if a tacit agreement were made to continue to misinform and then correct over and over again. Since the correct lyrics cannot be tolerated, why not at least explain that the listed lyrics are not original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.114.125 (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the background section does say that. And I have now added the citation to it. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor

Why did you revert the change to show tables in consistent widths for this article? AldezD (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

When did I do that? I am not aware of that. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

In this edit. AldezD (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a while ago. What happened was: I was in the process of removing the bold from several of the Oscar award articles, and it took longer than I thought, so there were changes made in the interim, and I forgot to check for changes before submitting. Sorry about that. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Bible mini-series

You said the edit I proved lacked references, but every line was referenced to a Bible verse. Should the Bible verses be in foot notes? Should a specific Bible translation be quoted (most translations say the same thing relative to the miniseries). I got some ideas from a website as well from comparing the printed Bible stories with the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallyman8 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A discussion on the topic had previously been started on the article's talk page. You should have joined the discussion before adding (and especially before readding) the section. Anyway, as you can see, I have made edits to it. If you have any questions you can ask here or on the article's talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:Pentecostalism

Hello, Musdan77. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ltwin (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

AFT5 re-enabled

Hey Musdan77 :). Just a note that the Article Feedback Tool, Version 5 has now been re-enabled. Let us know on the talkpage if you spot any bugs. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war involving Elvis Presley albums

Hello.

There is an edit war going on regarding the articles about the record albums of Elvis Presley and I think a third party needs to be involved to help iron out some difficulties. Can you help?

The "war" is between myself and someone indentifing himself (or herself) as "Hengrock". I have been upgrading the articles by adding citation (were I can), correcting links (many are re-directed, including some that go straight back to the page I'm on), and, perhaps most notably, changing the look of the albums' track listings by using Wikipedia's track listing template.

Hengrock keeps reverting the listings to the old way. I asked why he (or she) is doing this and the two responses I have gotten are:

1. I did it because what are you doing ok is good but for a table it's ok why you change it why?? it have a recording date,musician,release dates,time yeah it's ok you unnecessary change pages

1. yeah your information it's ok but i wanted to be a table it's neat

Both ways carry the same information but, in my opinion, the changes I made make the list look better. After all, isn't that why the template was created? Also, I think it is proper English grammar to put song titles in quotation marks and have the dates spelled out. (No offense meant, but it seems that English is not Hengrock's native language.)

I really do want to upgrade the Presley pages (after all, he is a rather significant figure in the world of popular music) but this edit war is getting us nowhere. So, once again I ask, can you help?

Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hengrock and Cliff Richard Discography

Hi, I'm starting to have problems with Hengrock editing the Cliff Richard discography. I'm wondering if you able to help? He has removed several lesser-known items from the discography without entering a reason or anything in the edit summary. Has has also decided to move items around (recategorise some budget albums into compilation albums section), again without entering a reason/rationale or anything in the edit summary. I am unable to see what else he has done via the edit history at this stage because he has done a number of subsequent edits now. He obviously has some knowledge in the area (leaving the well-known items), but has not researched his changes before editing. I originally undid the first item he removed, put in a reason and suggested he discuss the issue on the talk page. He didn't discuss the issue, he just redid it and started doing more. I don't want to get into an edit war. I am a bit concerned he may be editing similarly on the other pages he is editing. If you are familiar with how this should be dealt with I'd appreciate some help. Thank you in advance. AusChartMan (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, I have reverted it back -- but not all the way. The Move It album is actually not listed correctly. Its only charting position was in Austria, not Australia. Why the others were removed, I don't know. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping - but I see he has already reverted your changes! Looks like he will continue with that game. I have been trying to read up on how to address edit wars and the like and I'll probably try to have a discussion with him, and take it from there. The most relevant pages I've come across so far I think are Assume no clue and Competence is required. If he doggedly continues down the path he is on then maybe it would be bullying of the principal editor). If you have any other ideas in the mean time, feel free to let me know. In regard to the Move It album, strange, I checked out my last revision and it was listed as charting in Austria then, so it must have been changed in subsequent editing. Thanks again! AusChartMan (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Links to hymns on YouTube

Hi Dan, you reverted a number of edits I made to hymn pages linking to YouTube. I am new to Wikipedia so appreciate a reason why you did this. If for copyright reasons, I own the copyright of the sound recordings I linked to, and the hymns are public domain, so if there is a notification I should be making to state that the copyright is ok, please advise Crumpola (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation is the most important thing and I don't know of a way to prove ownership in the External Link section. But, the main thing is what it says on WP:EXT: "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." Also, there's #8 (and possibly #4) in the section WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Plus, you put your links on top of the list. The list should start with the official website (if there is one) then the others in alphabetical order. And finally, the video for Psalm 23 wouldn't apply anyway because it's not the same as the scripture. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

So what would you recommend? The hymns are of benefit to the reader as audio versions of the wiki pages they are under - sure I can list them at the bottom - would that suffice? Crumpola (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

When I Survey the Wondrous Cross has a link to a site that has the audio, and the other two have audio players in the articles already. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Help me out with a WikiProject

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/The Voice. ⊾maine12329⊿ talks✿wiki 05:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It was correct my edit.

As far as i know, the link was o.k. Fat&Happy used a different code line to correct your revert, but mine was working as well, so there was no need to revert. Did you actually click on the link?--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexmar, all you said was, "fix link." I checked it and it was fine. That's why I asked what was wrong with it. I should have taken a better look at the page though. So, we were both at fault. But Fat&Happy fixed it the right way. When you post on a talk page, be sure to tell what the subject is (a link is preferred but not necessary). I had to go to your contrib page to figure out what edit you're talking about. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

sorry for that, I was in a hurry beacuse my boss was calling me. In any case, I had no time to finish to write properly with all the details because after I had seen your revert, I spent 15 minutes trying to find a page about the right way I should have written my change. i mean, "fixed it the right way" sounds interesting, because they were both working as a code. can you please show me the link that specify that the syntax of Fat&Happy is the "right way"? In any case, as a curiosity, are you actually familiar with the syntax of the code "sortname" and the "link=" entry?

Also please notice that "fix link" means that a link has been fixed, which means changed from something "wrong" to something "right", which is what I did. So i guess it is quite informative, especially with such a short and clear difference in the article history. Please could you write me the subject you would have used under those circumstances?--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW you don't have to go to "my contrib page to figure out". I told you it was a revert, so my name is by default in the object, therefore: you go to your contribution page (1-2 second) + (crtl*F) (1-2 second) + copy and paste my name (1-2 seconds) > found. Add some second if you want to show "500 edits" to be sure it is the first page, but in general it is no big deal. --Alexmar983 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't have said, "the right way," but I'd never seen that before, and it's not found on Template:Sortname, plus Fat&Happy has more experience than both of us put together. But your way did work. "Fix link" implies that the link was broken. But it wasn't actually broken. Fat&Happy put "correct link." Or you could have put, "changing link to correct film" or something like that. Going to my own contrib page might not have done it (though I could tried it). There are different kinds of reverting that I use. Some show the previous user's name and some don't. Nevertheless, per WP:TALKNEW: "Make the heading clear and specific as to the topic discussed." --Musdan77 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain recording on Youtube in External Links

Dear Musdan77,

What is wrong with linking to public domain (verified) recordings of a certain song, on it's Wikipedia page? It seems to be 100% legal and also very useful for the readers.

Yours, Dan Barbulescu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danproduct (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The following is from a user who doesn't know how to write a heading

(It doesn't matter what's "always been done" or what other articles do (they should be fixed too). You can try to find consensus on talk page.

It's not me making the changes therefore it's YOU who has to build the consensus. Don't try and patronise me, and secondly, you've just contradicted yourself. You're saying it doesn't matter what other articles do then tell me to look at a Wikipedia rule which should be universally applied. They shouldn't be fixed because there isn't anything to fix - the template says NOTHING about your ordering for judges what so ever.Arsenalfan24 (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, settle down there. Actually, it starts with MOS (in this case, Template documentation), plus another editor reverted your edit, backing me up -- but this wasn't just another editor (Kww); he's an administrator. And not only that but he has many more edits and years than I do (which equals experience), and much, much more than you. Did you realize you had reverted an admin? Even if you don't respect a veteran editor (like me), you have to respect an admin. Anyway, like he said in the edit summary, "it does describe it that way for "starring", and it only makes sense for similar fields to be listed in chronological order." Here's exactly what it says, "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show." (simply put: chronological order). I wasn't contradicting myself. You were saying that because other articles do it that way then this one should too. Not if they go against MOS. Also, see WP:TALKNEW, where it says, "Make the heading clear and specific as to the topic discussed." Oh, and one more thing. I'm just curious, if you're not American, what are you even doing editing America's Got Talent? --Musdan77 (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't care less who was anything, everybody is equal and it does not matter what rank you are, just because you are an administrator or whatever doesn't mean you're always right and everyone should bow down, we're not back in the Dark Age. And secondly, don't patronise me with this fuddy-duddy language about 'respect'. As far as I'm concerned you're an editor, like me, irrespective of duration, everybody is equal, so I don't give anymore respect to you as I do someone who's used the website for 5 minutes. Just because starring says this doesn't mean it's a blanket for all the other categories or else it would say that. You can't just assume that because starring says it. You were contradicting yourself. You said that the infobox should follow chronological order for starring and then said each page was different. That doesn't matter because Wikipedia rules apply to ALL pages, not just America's Got Talent. And can you stop telling me to look at different things. And stop telling me to look at pages, it's just patronising - clear and simple. Why does it matter whether or not I'm American? Is there a ban on non-Americans editing America's Got Talent then? Arsenalfan24 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're more uppity than I thought. More experience means more knowledge; more knowledge means knowing more about how to (and not to) edit. That doesn't mean that every editor who has more experience knows everything more than one with less experience. I've shown something to more experienced editors that they didn't know, and less experienced editors have shown me things that I didn't know before, but generally-speaking, someone with considerably more experience is someone to listen to and learn from. Ever since I started editing I've been learning. No one knows everything about everything. That's why we need to work together. And as for administrators, they are the authority on this site --like it or not. Now, who are the stars on talent competition shows? The ones who are there from start to finish -- the host(s) and judges. Simple as that. You keep saying that I'm contradicting myself, but you don't make sense as to how. Of course, Wikipedia "rules" apply to all pages, that's why I said the ones that don't follow should be fixed. It's not patronizing to show you things that you obviously don't know. That's how we learn to get better. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How am I uppity? This is a bit rich really isn't it. I'm sorry I'm not bowing down to you and every administrator. I don't care whether administrators have authority on the site, everybody gets the same respect. It's clear from what you've said that you're desperate to be an administrator or get up in the Wikipedia ranks whereas I have no interest in that whatsoever. And yes it is patronising. You don't just show me one or two pages, you keep going on about these different pages. "The following is from a user who doesn't know how to write a heading" Someone's funny aren't they. Should consider a career in comedy. Arsenalfan24 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How are you being uppity? (OK, you asked) You act like you seem to know everything, and when someone shows you how to do something to help you, you say, "Don't tell me that." How old are you? I mean, that's just childish behavior. You're constantly combative, and not having a desire to get along with others. Here's a quote from WP:Etiquette: "If you are not prepared to have your work scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you." If you think that what I've said isn't a description of how really you are, then I apologize, but that's how you appear. And, you can still change the heading above. And no, I don't want to be an administrator. It's bad enough having to occasionally deal with people like you. Imagine how much they have to deal with. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natalie Grant discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael O'Brien (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) 11:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Fugitive

I edited The Fugitive page and added information based upon my knowledge of having seen the entire series & having all the episodes both on video & DVD - my entries can be verified by taking a look at the episodes themselves, and much of it WASN'T 'trivia' but fact if you watch the episodes (making such 'dismissive' remarks about people's contributions looks rather 'superior' and 'belittling' and really is not productive). (User edit: Comment removed that was in reference to another discussion which user had no knowledge of the history in order to get back at me.) - Grella

Grella, we all feel bad when our edits are reverted for whatever reason, but that's how we learn. (I was nice enough to leave you a message on your talk page, which many editors don't bother to do.) Wikipedia has rules and guidelines that we all have to follow. If they are not, the edits are subject to removal. I'm sure everything that you added is true, but they need to be referenced or else it's considered Original Research (WP:OR). The article already has an issue (mentioned at the top) that the references given are not in proper inline citation form, but any reference is better than none. And although the article is too unnecessarily detailed as it is, if you had given a reference, I would not have reverted (though I would have to do quite a bit of copy editing to correct your errors -- please review changes before saving -- and being a fact doesn't mean it's not trivia). Also, some of what you added would more belong on the List of The Fugitive episodes (which is less strict about being referenced). Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes. Thanks. -- Musdan77 (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we 'learn' (anything) by 'over policing' and blanking out factual comments, possibly why Wiki is so strewn with errors and omissions, or 'having a go' at contributors. [User edit] - Grella

Please see WP:TPG and WP:WWIN. I have tried to politely explain my position and Wikipedia's position. If you are not willing to abide by the rules, you can expect your additions to be altered or removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5