User talk:Musdan77

Hey, you may be interested...
Hey, Musdan77 – you may be interested in this discussion: Village pump (policy). 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 (contribs • talk) 16:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

—Musdan77 (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Patricia Heaton
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)


 * , 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
See Template talk:Infobox musical artist/Archive 12. 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)


 * , 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)


 * , 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
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!

 * Thank you. I'm glad it was a help to you. —Musdan77 (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Personnel
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, . 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)


 * Have (finally) added citations to Chicago personnel section, and whole Chicago article. Would like you to look and decide if it is time to remove "needs additional citations" templates at top of page and at personnel section.Curious405 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Selena Gomez
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)


 * , 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
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks – but did it have to be 666??


 * Four years now, and no, I see the number only a year later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ref improve on Cliff Richard discography
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,, 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 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,, 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
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, which states:

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)

Extended plays
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.)  Ss 112  02:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Laura Ingalls
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. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Selena Gomez awards
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)


 * , 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
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huckabee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TBN. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material at Katrina Pierson article
Hi, Musdan77. Why did you to the Katrina Pierson article which removed unfavorable but sourced material? Our BLP policy about controversial material doesn't seem apply here. If you believe otherwise, elaboration should have been given. I noticed the title link wasn't working but the archive link was working just fine. And the title link was easily rescued with minimal effort. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * My mistake. Thanks for correcting. Musdan77 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

LeAnn Rimes
Hey. I accepted this review which you previously declined. Feel free to revert me if you don't think the edit is appropriate :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Tom Jones
Yeah, I've always encountered sentence case ... but I'm blind so I don't notice capital letters with my screen reader unless I intentionally check if they're there. In general we prefer as few caps as possible. Graham 87 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Entitled vs. Titled
You reverted many of my edits of changing entitled to titled with reference to the names of episodes or TV shows. The definition of entitled is to deserve or give something. An episode of a TV show cannot be "entitled" the name. The correct word when referencing to the title of something is "titled." Example: "coffee table book entitled Love to Love You Bradys" should be "coffee table book titled Love to Love You Bradys." The title of the book is Love to Love You Brady, so "titled" is correct. Entitled would imply some sort of entitlement, which does not make sense.Entitled2Titled (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) First of all, I didn't revert "many"; just 3 of the many changes that you made.
 * 2) Your definition is just one of the definitions for the word. I don't know what dictionary you looked at but apparently it doesn't include all definitions. Other dictionaries not only include other definitions but list this first (which usually means that it's the most common usage of the word) including Wiktionary (an extension of WP): entitled — see also entitle.
 * 3) Did you really think you know better than all of WP editors that have gone before you? – the many who wrote those particular sentences long ago? And no one else but you thought they should be changed??
 * 4) Right after you posted this, you reverted my reversions – which is before any discussion could have taken place.
 * --Musdan77 (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right and the OP is wrong. Entitle meaning "to bestow a title" has been used in that context since Chaucer in the 14th Century, and remains the more common usage certainly in British English.  This editor should not be swapping one for the other, particularly in articles relating to British subjects.  The prefix 'en-' (or sometimes 'em-') is used to form a verb from a noun, and is a similar construction to enable, enbalm, emboss, entangle, envisage, enlarge, etc. MapReader (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Error?
I'm not sure what was up with this but it's clearly not what the edit summary implied and not easily revertible. Can you take another look? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * So sorry. Thanks for notifying me. I'm not sure how I did that. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kim Komando, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phoenix and Santa Barbara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Academy of Achievement: seeking feedback on proposed edits
Hi! I see you are a member of WikiProject Awards. I’m seeking feedback on some suggested updates to the Academy of Achievement page. I have a conflict of interest, would you be able to do a review? Jarc12030 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by User Nyxaros
On this date (06 December 2023) I had made some contributions to "The Witches (novel)'' as to audiobook adaptations of the novel in question, only to find that User Nyxaros had deleted them, claiming that they were unsourced: "Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Witches (novel), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also, pay attention to what you are writing in edit summaries because you didn't actually undo my revision."

The information I had added contained ISBN numbers, which I considered reliable source information. I did later add webpage sources, though I did not at the time believe them necessary.

I would ask that this incident be reviewed for possible vandalism of my contribution.TonyPS214 (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)