User talk:Mussman717

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to American Dream appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Call me Bubba (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Mussman

A tag has been placed on Mussman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. TN‑X-Man 15:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Speedy Deletion of article MussMan

A tag has been placed on MussMan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Jonas Brothers (album). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

This is your one and only warning. Please read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people before you consider making any more edits of that nature. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Anthony Musser

A tag has been placed on Anthony Musser requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Acroterion _(talk) 14:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was prompted, for some reason, to create my own page. Don't ask me why, but I wasn't trying to be disruptive by doing so.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Patterson Hood.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Patterson Hood.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please add the appropriate fair use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Guacamole. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. MOS:ERA says to retain existing styles regarding BC/BCE, and guacamole is not a subject connected to Christianity. Lord Belbury (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Anthony Perkins does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a rationale for your changes to Anthony Perkins. Making this kind of substantive change without providing a reason seems dubious to me. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original phrasing was explicitly politicised. My edits were made purely in the service of objectivity. Mussman717 (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Louis CK

Hi, could you please explain why you made this edit? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Please read wp:minor and WP:BRD, if you are reverted make a case at talk, and minor edits aren't changes in tone. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was replace the contentious word "myth" with the strictly objective and impartial term "story." I don't see any problem in doing that because a "story" can either be true or false. I clicked the "minor edit" box because all I did was change a single word that did not significantly alter the meaning of the text. I apologize for misunderstanding the protocol. I'm still relatively new here, and I don't make a lot of edits unless something seems purposefully deceptive. Referring to an event reported by an ancient document that claims historical authenticity (as does the Gospel of Matthew, whether it is true or not) as a "myth" appears to fit that description. I'm not trying to craft any sort of alternate narrative. I'm only trying to keep the text as objective and impartial as it can possibly be. I did not attempt to change any of the other text, as you can see. I am not going around deleting whole passages in order to present my own personal view. I simply think it's important to keep the very first sentence of an article objective and impartial. Mussman717 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a minor edit. And read the talk page about this, and make a case there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I thought that's what I just did here. My bad. Mussman717 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]