User talk:Musdan77/Archive 4

Fugitive
Roy Huggins denied any link to the Sam Shephard case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaica55 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. Do you have a source for that? --Musdan77 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19)
Please be cautious when undoing multiple edits. In your to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19), you removed reference coding that used Template:Cite web. AldezD (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * AldezD, Well, I try. But, you should practice what you preach because you also reverted my changes. I think I've told you before: Don't tell people what to do when you're doing the same. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Your changes were not reverted. You removed detail from prose in Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series) when you, and that information was then re-introduced. The table was not removed in my edit. AldezD (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Now, you're making things confusing here. I finally figured out that you're starting a new topic about another article -- as if it was a reply to the previous one. The changes you made in prose was not really necessary, but I won't revert it again. But, really, you went against WP:BRD. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

NCIS: New Orleans
This edit to NCIS: New Orleans was entirely unconstructive. Per a recent discussion at Template talk:Infobox television it was decided that genres had to be reliably sourced, which I indicated in my edit that sourced the genre. I also replaced hyphens with en dashes per MOS:DASH and removed some quotation marks that should not have been in two citations. As well as reverting these changes your edit restored a redundant heading that you had added in a previous edit, and which another editor had appropriately reverted, as well as removing the "Special guest appearances" secion and the ratings table, both of which are appropriate content for the article. "Hold your horses" is not a valid reason for your most recent reversion, and a note saying "" is not an appropriate citation for genres. Your edits have been challenged by more than one editor. If you wish to dispute the content, please do so on the article talk page per WP:BRD but do not revert again. Instead, please ensure that you restore the appropriate edits that I have detailed above. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * AussieLegend, Do you really think that I intentionally removed those minor changes (that I restored) that you made? (Talk about not assuming good faith.) You made your edit at the same time I was. I made the heading change to be consistent with NCIS, and normally you would be right, but normally a "Cast and characters" section would be just that -- the cast members followed by the characters they play, but in this case it's the characters with the portrayers in parentheses (which really shouldn't be like that). But, instead of changing that, I just added "characters" to make it easier for the reader to know what the section is about. The "Special guest appearances", as I said, is unnecessary and is not on the NCIS article, and if it was in the article, it should be as a list of guest stars. I went to Template:Infobox_television, and I see no changes to the parameter. But, if you insist, I'll add the citation -- even though it seems very unnecessary, because normally things in the lead and infobox only need to be cited if they are likely to be challenged. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not restore the changes. You restored your uncited genres, reverted all of the dashes to hyphens, and removed the JAG navbox, which is used in both the NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles articles. There is no need to include "cast" or "characters" in subsections of a section which is clearly titled "Cast and characters". It's redundant to do so and it's not done in NCIS or NCIS: Los Angeles. The genre and format parameters were recently the subject of much discussion at Template talk:Infobox television. See Proposal to clearly define the "genre" and "format" parameters, Options for RFC and RFC: Format and Genre parameters. The outcome of the RfC was "Consensus favors deleting the Format parameter and requiring the Genre parameter to be reliably sourced." Trying to make the NCIS: New Orleans article look like the NCIS article is misguided. Both NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles have separate character and "List of episodes" articles. NCIS: New Orleans does not, and will not for some time. All of the content that will eventually be in the character and LoE articles is currently incorporated in the main series article, which is why the article includes a list of episodes, special guest appearances and a ratings table. Note that both NCIS and NCIS: Los Angeles articles include ratings tables so deleting them from NCIS: New Orleans is making that article unlike the other two. There is simply no justification for your changes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you've apparently stopped editing for the day and so can't do it yourself, I have restored the changes. I have retained the genres but they need citations and, as explained in my edit summary, there is no need to arbitrarily change from the recommend, and established in the article, use of plainlist. The NCIS, NCIS: Los Angeles and NCIS: New Orleans articles are now all similar. The only difference is that NCIS: New Orleans also contains the "Special guest appearances" section, for the reasons explained above. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Taking it to the article talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry if I frustrated you but I'm not likely to change the way I am comfortable editing. Your comment doesn't really explain why you removed it in the first place. I did give an explanation in the edit summary. Rodericksilly (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Rodericksilly - I guess you don't know about "edit conflicts". It's never happened to you? Please see WP:EDC, especially the "Mistakes" section. I didn't remove it. It happened because you made your edit(s) as I was making mine (hence the word "inadvertent"). I had to manually copy & paste your changes (twice), but I obviously missed one. Understand better now? But, I don't understand why you deleted my post to your talk page and then restart the discussion here. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tom Hanks on screen and stage
Hi. Hope you're well. Thanks for your invaluable input on what is now a featured list. Cowlibob (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Kristin Kreuk
Hello--

About KK' personal life... I dont know if it means to you but I believe she and Mark Hildreth are no longer together since last year. So, it would be just Toronto and Vancouver as her residence. Also, the dog Dublin is with Mark Hildreth in Atlanta where he shoots Resurrection. So, it is Mark's dog basically not hers.

Here is the link of an interview of Mark Hildreth where he talked about getting the role in Resurrection after coming out from a long relationship. So, I think that fact should be taken off on both personal life section.

http://theoutsiderarg.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/mark-hildreth-rediscovering-tom-hale-in-resurrection/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnastasiaBunch (talk • contribs) 07:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there's nothing concrete in that interview. No specific names. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

- You added that Kreuk was with Hildreth until 2013. What are your sources. Marty2Hotty (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Marty2Hotty, To be honest, I don't know why I did that. It was a while ago. It was also late at night. But, as I said in the edit summary, it is wrong to totally revert a good faith edit by another registered editor when all you had to do is remove one thing. Also, remember when making a talk page post like that to give the diffs, or at least a link to the page in question. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

SNL pending changes
Why did you just accept those last two changes by the IP 24.73.197.194 on the season 40 page? -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I accepted the last one, which was reverting back to the way it was. Something wrong with that? --Musdan77 (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  welcome

Thank you, Danny, charismatic drummer, for creating discographies, for of articles of music, series and performers, for copy-editing and greeting new users, – you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 666th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Charliwxck
Dear Musand77, please stop removing the awards and nominations from Ariana Grande — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliwxck (talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Charliwxck, please be sure to click on the link at the top that says "click here", when starting a new section so it will go on the bottom of the page. Also, remember to sign.
 * Now about the issue, I have no problem with an "Awards and nominations" section with the link to the main article (however there is an editor that does -- so keep that in mind). The problem was that someone kept adding the same prose that's found on the Awards page. That's what I was removing. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You, from Charliwxck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliwxck (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted change to "Taraji P. Henson"
Hi, Musdan77, I'm surprised to see that you reverted my change re: "The Pentagon." I did a little digging around and found that the Pentagon rarely if ever is referred to as "The Pentagon" unless the phrase is at the beginning of a sentence...but I won't belabor the point. ;) Also see the Wikipedia article, "The Pentagon," for more instances of my version.  Regards, Rustypup49 (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I have made that change. The reason for the reversion was because it was unnecessary piping -- and because you didn't give an edit summary. Thanks. Musdan77 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Kay Panabaker
Thanks for your edits on Kay Panabaker, but can't understand why you would remove the "refs=" section. IMHO citing inline makes the content harder to read and more prone to duplication of references. Will you be watching the article? If so I'll remove it from my watchlist.009o9 (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 009o9, I don't think I had ever seen a ref section done like that, and since much of the rest of the article was poorly done, I assumed that the person who did that didn't know what they were doing. Also, I don't see that style mentioned on the guideline. But, if you feel strongly about it, you can revert that part. Now let me ask you about your last edit. Why did you readd the  wikilink to Moondance Alexander in the Awards section? It's already linked twice in the article (WP:REPEATLINK). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The article was pretty poor when I did a cleanup a while back, a lot of people just stop by and drop off un-sourced factoids on this article. I discovered the (refs=) style a couple of years ago (on a very well done article) and adopted. New content works perfectly when citing inline in the body (traditional manner). I would generally just alias the new reference (if given) and move it to the References section so I have a glossary of references in a central location.


 * Anyway, the article seems a lot quieter now, so I'll probably not change your edit. I just wanted to let you know that the (refs=) has benefits, doesn't interfere with traditional style editing and works very well for maintenance because I can quickly replace a poor (identical) reference, with a fully completed and in some cases archived reference. (References with archive links and quotes make the hypertext really hard read when embedded in the body.)


 * My (dated) understanding of the MOS was that wiki-links are allowed once per section, not many people read the entire article, they generally jump from the Contents box. However, WP:REPEATLINK reads: I did check to see if Moondance Alexander was linked elsewhere in the table. Happy New Year! 009o9 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, but why only readd the link for that movie and not the others -- and not give an explanation either in the edit summary or here? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I happened to know that the Moondance Alexander article exists because I did a cleanup on the Director's article. I do not know, nor did I really have the time to search to see if there were articles on the other works. (Updated just now.) My interest in the Panabaker article is ancillary to some other topics I was working on -- namely some of the soundtrack artists. I was watching Kay Panabaker because I did a clean up on it and she seems to have some haters.
 * I'm not seeing where I did not add an edit summary, with the exception of creating a new section (function) on this page, in that case the edit summary is not available. Cheers 009o9 (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

United Bates of America/Bringing up Bates
The same family is in both of these shows. Bringing up Bates are their current show--M42380 (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * M42380, did you see the discussion at Talk:United Bates of America? Moving an article title can be a drastic change. It is something that usually should be discussed first. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Amy Adams
An editor is restoring a POV partial filmography to Amy Adams though four editors, yourself included, have removed it. In the interest of preventing further edit-war, you may want to visit this article. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How old are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:32A8:B120:2995:8D:AD2E:5ACD (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to know? --Musdan77 (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Response from Emmagood1995
For all the problems in the List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence page.

First: Have you noticed all the mistakes that are on your editing, please, correct it.

Second: What's the problem???, ok, why don't you look at the awards and nominations pages of Natalie Portman, Jessica Chastain or Julia Roberts and you realize that not every association awards page, or audience awards page or film festival awards page has it's own pages for Best Actress or Favorite Movie Actress or Outstanding Performance of the Year, but, guess what, if you look at the other actresses pages, you will realize that they also put the awards name in the category page if they isn't exist.

Third: Santa Barbara International Film Festival, the award that she won isn't Best Actress which doesn't exist, is Outstanding Performance of the Year, i recommend you inform and not simply copy and paste.

Fourth: If you saw the view history, you will realize that I, i'm the person who always edit here, and that have been here a year ago, and would never do anything to this page look bad, as you are doing.

Fifth: In all the time that i been here, you're the first person that has been complaining about that minor problems that i consider stupid, that we're fighting for minor changes, c'mon, we're both persons that want the best for this page.

Have a good day.

--Emmagood 1995 (talk)


 * , first of all, a talk page discussion should stay on the page that it was started (yours). But, at least you're communicating with me -- although it took 4 warnings on your talk page.


 * 1) What mistakes have I made? You don't say what. If I made any, you can fix them or tell me and I'll fix it, but you don't revert everything.
 * 2) "What's the problem"? Did you read all that I wrote on your talk page? I don't watch those pages or else I would have fixed those as well. And it doesn't matter how other pages are if they're not according to WP guidelines. Did you even take a good look at the changes I made? There are 2 reasons why the links were incorrect: (1) a piped link should be explicit and relevant -- meaning something that is linked should not say one thing and be piped to something else (WP:PIPELINK), and (2) links should not be repeated (WP:REPEATLINK) especially in the same section. Each section has the link to the award article page at the top of each table, so that link shouldn't be repeated.
 * 3) I'm not sure why you bring up Santa Barbara International... but I checked the source given (probably by you) and it says, "Best Actress Golden Space Needle Award" -- so you should check your own work. And even if it was the case, you could have changed that yourself.
 * 4) It doesn't matter if you have done the most editing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and you have to let others edit -- especially if they are more experienced. Have you seen my user page and seen how long I've been editing and my edit count? Did you see the links I gave on your talk page about reverting -- WP:REVEXP and WP:ROWN? Please read the whole section of the first one. I see that you have been told about leaving edit summaries before by another veteran editor, but it is especially important to give one when reverting. The other one is also very important. Before I decide to revert a registered editor's edit, I check their edit count. If they have about the same experience, or especially if they have considerably more, I won't revert unless it's all flagrantly incorrect (and that's quite rare). This is out of respect. And if the person has a lot more experience than I do, then it's most likely that they know more than I do. And unless the previous edit was all wrong, then I will make the appropriate changes and not just revert it all.
 * 5) If they were "minor problems" as you say, then you should not revert it all, as you did (and kept doing). I've been an editor for almost 6 years and once in a while I've had problems with inexperienced editors, but it's been a long time since I've had one give me as much grief as you. But, we can get over this if you are willing to work with me -- instead of against me.
 * --Musdan77 (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ariana Grande
Hello. Can you please check the recent changes at Ariana Grande and see if you agree with me about the Twitter refs? Happy to go with your advice on this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Ssilvers, sorry but I'm not the best person to ask. I'm not an expert on twitter refs/links. But, I agree with what you said on the talk page. Twitter refs are better than nothing but they're certainly not the best. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Becky G
What was this edit about? Why would you ignore all the instructional comments and misspell her name? It really is "Rebbeca", with two 'b's and one 'c'.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kww: That was a mistake. I didn't mean to change it from "Rebbeca". I was removing an unnecessary hidden comment -- unnecessary because it's found in the infobox and doesn't need to be repeated - as well as the citation shouldn't be in both the infobox and the lead -- and the way it was done was really stupid. I knew that it was in the middle of the name (which is bad enough), but didn't realize that there were two - breaking the name up in 3 ways!


 * Now let me ask you: Why would you revert it back before my edit? I hope that was just a mistake on your part. There were so many improvements that I made (according to MOS and standards). --Musdan77 (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because putting the hidden comment in that way was the only way I got people to pay attention to it and stop changing the name to "Rebecca". I've found that repeating the comment around the weird feature of the person's name is the most effective way of getting people to stop changing it. Since it doesn't show in the article, it certainly doesn't damage anything. If you look at the article history, you will see that multiple people coming after you really mangled the article in the course of correcting things, so I went back to the last correct version.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw -- and as you can see, putting the hidden comment that way was how this mess got started. Even though it doesn't show in the article, it makes it harder to read and understand on the editing page -- especially when it's done twice like that. (Hidden notes aren't meant to be put in the middle of a word -- it's sort of like putting a citation in the middle of a word or even a phrase.) And you really didn't go "back to the last correct version" because it wasn't correct. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And you misspelled her name again in your edit:} "Reecab"? I've restored the spelling, and put the reference back in. It's like that specifically to discourage people from making improper "corrections" to her name. It was a chronic problem until I put the comments that way.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww](talk) 16:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure how that happened (besides the fact that I didn't double check it), but see how confusing it can be when it's done that way? --Musdan77 (talk) 18:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Awards table
Hey there! I saw that you are against awards table, but it is used in almost all featured awards lists won by music artists. Please take a look at this. Besides, thank you for performing some copy/edits. Regards, FrankBoy  (Buzz) 20:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:FrB.TG, it doesn't matter what other articles do. That's not what made them featured. Please follow WP:BRD AND WP:CONSENSUS. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay now? -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This really should be discussed on the article talk page. But, why so many unnecessary changes? The category should be before the work. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else do we have to discuss when I have removed awards table. As for the changes, I made them before, i.e. adding sources, formatting the references properly to name a few, which you are calling unnecessary. Like seriously? -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The category should be before the work. I have previously contributed List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan, an FL and have used the same format and it was accepted during its FLC. -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * All the widths for the columns? -- are very unnecessary. Switching columns around and "recipients"? Why do you think I reverted the use of the awards table? And did you read WP:BRD? And like I said before, that isn't something that's considered in order to be featured. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I appreciate your input on the list, but you have to be a little bit patient. Don't you know why I have added under construction? And if you are willing to do the switching and reducing the width, please go ahead, but please do not restore the old sources the way they were before I contributed to the list as they are were very poorly formatted, some were not reliable and some did not even have references. You can probably comment at its future FLC too. -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You were the one who made the major change to the status quo (which should have been discussed first), so when someone reverts, it is you who has the burden of making changes to what is reverted. Please learn from veteran editors (and don't edit war). --Musdan77 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The best thing for it is some time (two or three days maybe). You can probably give some time to the list and wait until the removal of the under construction template. -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

What does that supposed to mean? The template itself says, "You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well." It encourages, not discourages, others from editing. And it should not be used without discussing on talk page first. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that I can open a discussion at WP:RFC. If we keep arguing with each other, it'll never be resolved. -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Resolve what? I thought we had worked it out between us. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow Karen Gillan
I look at it again but you clean things. First of all, you did wrong 'cause they were not mistake. Karen nominated fright meter awards: go to site choose "best actress in a leading role" and you will see. It's a reliable source. Then Phoenix Film Critics Society nomination... But Guardians of the Galaxy lost it. Then come to television-film; We'll Take Manhattan and 7 Days in Hell are televisin film. Not only "movie". I fixed it but you clean it again. In short, they were true but you are always doing different. P.S. Don't remove it again! 85.103.222.40 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please learn how things work at Wikipedia. First of all, learn about reverting. When a veteran experienced editor (see my profile page) makes an edit, it should be assumed that they would know what they're doing -- or at least more than someone with substantially less experience. To completely revert an edit like that (and especially edit warring) is non-constructive and shows a lack of respect to the other editor. I gave a brief explanation of my edit in the edit summary. If you didn't understand (and obviously you didn't) you should have asked me and then waited for my reply.


 * "Pre-production": Movies that have not begun filming don't go in a filmography. That is a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation.
 * "Redundancy": Putting "Television..." in a table that has the heading "Television" is redundant.
 * "Non-notables": I didn't say anything about "reliable source". When something (like an award) doesn't have Wikipedia article that would mean that it's not very notable -- especially if it's only a nomination.


 * Now, I understand that English isn't your first language, so if you still don't understand something, ask me. But, do not revert it all again. Thanks, Musdan77 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! The Devil You Know's production began shooting. Second, adding "television" doesn't make it "redundancy". Third, if i make article of Fright Meter Awards, it means that i can add it to her awards. That's all. Thanks for warning. Good editings! Oh i'll forget it. Karen's role, Lily, in the film 7 Days in Hell isn't reliable. 85.103.222.40 (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Judas Iscariot: Role as an Apostle
The section in the article 'Judas Iscariot' entitled 'Role as an Apostle' is a relatively recent (2014) addition to this article, which has a long editorial history. It seems to me that a section with this title has to show that Judas shared in the life and ministry of the twelve during the period from Jesus' calling of the apostles to the prelude to His death, because the gospels clearly include him in the mission and empowerment which Jesus gives to them. Clearly it would be good if there were other primary sources relating to Judas' role as an apostle, but I am not aware of any - are you?

Origen's Commentary on John's Gospel reflects on Judas' interactions with the other apostles and Jesus' confidence in him (see Samuel Laeuchli, Origen's Interpretation of Judas Iscariot, Church History, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Dec., 1953), pp. 253-268, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3161779). I'm intending to restore my previous edit on this point subject to reaching a consensus.

Best wishes on this happy day

BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , I think what you should do is paste what just said here onto the Judas Iscariot talk page and find consensus there. Good luck and God bless you on Resurrection (Easter) Sunday. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC
You're invited to participate in the discussion at Village_pump_(policy) Dohn joe (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User McQueen.30
I made a report at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Señor Schultz
I see you've come across this editor lately. Not sure if you remember the user, but there is an ongoing sock puppetry case here involving the two accounts. Just figured I'd let you know since you warned both accounts about disruptive editing for similar reasons. Regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I should have suspected something like that. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Just remember to keep a watch on articles that Atomic and his socks often contributed to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Seinfeld
I need the list of Easter eggs from the original Seinfeld dvd's. They were on the page but now they're gone. Maybe it wasn't you who removed them, but if you know them, please add them. Or contact whoever edited the page before you with this same message. Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.234.37 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No I don't know what you're talking about. I went to the history page, and the only thing I could see is that the "List of Seinfeld DVD releases" was deleted. You could post on the Seinfeld talk page or try asking . --Musdan77 (talk) 01:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See here. --  Wikipedical (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discussion
A few days ago you made some changes to a number of articles, including NCIS: New Orleans, fixing use of related in the infobox. Another editor has taken issue with the result of your edit and has opened a discussion on the article's talk page. You are invited to comment at the discussion, which may be found here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox linking RfC
Since you commented on the recent FDR infobox linking, there is a broader based RfC going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC concerning the infobox linking of all political offices. Please comment if it is of interest to you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Huh...
Thanks for the link to WP:FILMOGRAPHY, Musdan77! I had never seen that before. That's interesting – that means a number of actor bio pages I have come across have been doing this wrong. But, now I know! --IJBall (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Understandable,, and I can understand that you wouldn't be interested in making the changes on those pages, but if you were so inclined, you could give me some of those names/links and I will put them on my to-do list. Thanks, --Musdan77 (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Musdan77, I have no problem fixing those on my end when I come across those now. (There's at least one I'll have to try and fix now, later today!) But, while I've got you, I wonder if you have any thoughts about this?... --IJBall (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bringing Up Bates
I undid your edit because I know that none of that was coypwritted. I wrote the summaries myself! --M42380 (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So,, you wrote that on uptv.com too? Do you really think I'm stupid? You might have changed a few words, but that's not good enough. No one can be expected to be able to write a summary for an episode that they haven't seen. There's no need to try to put one for an unaired episode. And, we don't make a complete reversion for one part. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I find it hilarious how you change 19 kids and bringing up bates to be the way that you want them to be and not let anyone else help. I don't think you are stupid but the way you are acting, it sounds that you are doing it to me. --M42380 (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , you won't think it's funny if you are blocked from editing. I don't edit (like you) just "the way I want" things. I edit according to the way Wikipedia MOS says to. When you say that you "wrote something yourself" makes it sound like you think I'm some inexperienced editor, who doesn't know to check to see if it was copy and pasted. What was it about what I said before didn't you understand? Or did you just deliberately go against the rules? I think you've been editing long enough to know better than to do what you've been doing. You should know:


 * Not to revert all for one part
 * Not to revert without giving a valid reason
 * Not to remove content (especially with a reference) without giving a valid reason
 * Not to edit war
 * Not to copy and paste
 * To discuss to find consensus
 * To collaborate (work with) other editors


 * Also, there's no need to ping me on my own talk page. I get notified whenever someone adds a post. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * fine won't make an edits at all until the episode air. I might not even ever edit due to such rudeness from you. Please don't add to my talk page when we are having a conversation on your page.


 * I guess you still don't understand how things work on WP. You should be asking questions of more experienced editors, instead of fighting with them. And you are the one who started the "rudeness". --Musdan77 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Musdan. I like your list of things an editor should know, especially collaborating with other editors. I look forward to collaborating with you on the Jesus page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Plural
Your reversions are wrong. It's not supposed to be plural in the first place, it's only one award. The first link is supposed to link to the awards page not the ceremony. The second one is supposed to link to the category page or ceremony page. That's it, out of all the awards pages I've seen and read about it, that's accurate. I'm not going to revert until our discussion is done. Dog Bark Man (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , the first mistake you made here is to say, "Your reversions are wrong" to a veteran experienced editor, instead of finding out why your edits keep getting reverted (not just by me). That in itself says to me that you have a wrong attitude about editing. And then when you keep reverting it back, and especially without any explanation, that is disruptive and not at all helpful. Now, as I said in my edit summary, it has nothing to do with how many awards or nominations. Column 2 is for the "Association" (the group giving the awards) and most of them are named "__ Awards". And that's how their articles are titled, so piping is not necessary at all. When it comes to wikilinks, they are to be (1) helpful for the reader, (2) accurate, and (3) not repeated. The Association column doesn't need to be linked to the ceremony article (especially if it does in the Category column), but it shouldn't be repeatedly linked. I personally have no problem with using rowspans there. The links in the Category column should go directly to where it shows the person's name as the nominee -- whether that's the category article or the ceremony article. It's one thing for you to make some changes (though I don't see why), but it's quite another to revert it all. You are the only one who has had a problem with this, and the only one causing problems. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaboration. Editors are supposed to work together peaceably, not fight against each other. But, at least now you're starting to discuss. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What you said about the wiki links are true. But don't you think it should link to just the ceremony instead, I'm sure the readers are smart enough to find the persons category in the page. Well what do you think. Dog Bark Man (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess you're still not understanding. The association is not Academy Award; it's Academy Awards. Actually, it's Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but most people know it as the Academy Awards. And the same goes for the other awards. It's not about how smart we think the reader may be. "(1) helpful for the reader", and more importantly in this case, "(2) accurate". To be accurate is to link directly to the category section (if possible), and I see no reason not to -- and certainly no reason to revert it. It also can help keep from #3 repetition. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen other award pages and instead of them having association they have award. And also, the other awards that they're nominated for you put plurals on them and that is a redirect and that's not good from what I have read here. So far, you've been the only person here who sees it that way; I haven't seen anyone arguing about it except for some guy named KWWW who takes off a lot of awards just because there not sourced. Dog Bark Man (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to get harder to understand each time. It's the name of the awards association. And putting "Award" in the heading is redundant when the section heading is "Awards and nominations". We know that they are awards -- but they're not all awards; some are nominations. Give an example of a redirect. And a redirect is not a bad thing, but a double redirect is. KWW (an admin) has not had any problem with the links. And yes, everything should be sourced -- especially for BLPs. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting award on the second table isn't redundant, it's the name of the award and putting association is like the Academy of Motion Pictures, The Theatre Wing, etc.. Dog Bark Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Because there is a redirect means that it is acceptable. It's the only one that I know that does. Compare that with almost all the others being piped, as you had them. There's no comparison. Unnecessary piping is worse than redirecting (per MOS). Trust me. Of course it's redundant, as I've explained. I'm not sure how I can explain it any better. If you want to use Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or just AMPAS, that's fine, but I think that Academy Awards is better. If this way was wrong then other editors (more experienced and knowledgeable than you) would have wanted to change it. But you're the only one. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And stop talking to me like I'm stupid. Dog Bark Man (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: first sentence: That's not true. Re: 2nd sentence: I don't know why you think that. I reread what I wrote and I don't see where you get that. And I could tell you to stop acting like I'm not much more experienced than you. I know what I'm talking about. Be willing to learn from more experienced editors. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the Template:Awards table and says nothing what you've been saying at all. Dog Bark Man (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is no MOS for awards (tables or articles) -- like there are for filmographies and discographies. And if you look at the talk page for that template you'll see what I think of it. I can't stand that template. For one thing, it's too restrictive. It's much better to use the regular wikitable. So, there is no actual standard way of doing an awards table. It just goes by consensus. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It was just your opinion. My reversions were never wrong with the tables policies. Dog Bark Man (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't "work" to have Association in the column heading and have "__ Award" in the column. There are no "table policies" when it comes to content. Like I said, it's by consensus, and you went against consensus. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You? Dog Bark Man (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Against WP:CONSENSUS. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And I thought this place was an area were anyone can edit whatever they want, they're all no rules to the awards template and you can add what you want and you've been the only taking this WHOLE thing very personally. And you haven't gotten any consensus from your edits as well. Dog Bark Man (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you read the MOS that I linked to? -- particularly WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If you can't understand something, let me know. Every section, on every article is subject to consensus. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And I still cannot agree with your version of the awards template. Dog Bark Man (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't use the awards table template - but I think I know what you meant. If we can't come to an understanding on my talk page, I guess you can start a discussion on the article's talk page to try to find consensus. But, I doubt that it would work out for you. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We both don't seem to agree with both of our versions. Dog Bark Man (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said, consensus would be done by the editors of the individual article - and you could try to do that by starting a discussion on the talk page. But then you should know that if you read and understood WP:CONSENSUS --Musdan77 (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

B.B. King
A few weeks ago, with this edit, you removed the info about King being a Christian. Any reason for removing that? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , Sure, the source given doesn't quote him saying that he's a Christian. Just going to church doesn't make one a Christian. And I was going to say that if you feel strong about it, you could readd it - because he's no longer a living person. But then I see that you already did - before posting here. That's the opposite of what you should have done. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Described as a deeply spiritual man, King was a practising Christian" – That's from the source. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're quoting what the writer said, not what King said. There may be another source that quotes him, but not that one. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Bob Dylan Southern Gospel
Hello,

Bob Dylan sang and recorded many songs that are southern gospel or that would be hymns that were known as high church. In the Garden, Are You Ready?, and pressing on. These songs have all been recorded by southern gospel artists, such as the statler brothers, The Rebels Quartets, The LeFevers, and Gold City. Plus, he is recording an album with the Blackwood Brothers which will feature his favorite song southern gospel song, "Stand By Me." Here is the link to the article- http://www.relevantmagazine.com/slices/bob-dylan-making-new-gospel-album-blackwood-bros

Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.156.117 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dylan's "In the Garden" is not the old hymn. That album with those songs (Saved) is done in the soul gospel (also called black gospel) genre. And though some Southern gospel artists have recorded spirituals, that doesn't make their versions spirituals, and the same would be said for black gospel artists singing hymns. It's not the songs that make the genre, it's the style of music. But, maybe when that new album (and thanks for the link) comes out, he could be readded to the list. We'll have to see. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, I would disagree with that. Many country artists have sang gospel songs, but have sang them as country songs. Either way, Dylan did express his love for Southern gospel, which puts him in that category. In his musicares speech, he spoke about how he loved the blackwood brothers because they sang truth. And yes, those are spirituals, but Southern Gospel evolved out of the old spirituals. "Get Away Jordan" was a signature song of the Statesmen Quartet, but it is a black spiritual. Trust me, I have been around southern gospel my entire life, my Dad sang with a group called the Texans Quartet and I really got into what Dylan sang. "When He Returns", a song on slow train coming is also song that has been covered by many southern gospel artists. Would you consider placing him back on the list as he has expressed his admiration for the genre? That is what that subset is for. I would appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.156.117 (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Country music and the musical style of Southern gospel are virtually the same. That paragraph specifically says that the artists have recorded Southern gospel albums, so they would have to at least be mostly Southern gospel songs on the album(s). It would be a very long list if it just was secular artists who admire the genre. And I see that there are others who should be removed from that list. In fact, that whole section is not sourced and every name on that list really needs to be sourced. And, you might want to read the second paragraph in Spiritual (music). --Musdan77 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sir, With due respect, I would have to think that you almost have a problem with Bob Dylan having any association with Southern Gospel the way you are, pardon the expression, hellbent on removing him from the list. I actually have a ton of evidence that affirms that Dylan belongs on that list. Also, what is the harm in placing that Dylan will be recording an Album with one of the greatest southern gospel groups in a category that shows secular artists that have strong ties with Southern Gospel. The Blackwoods are good friends with Dylan, and they are not the only ones. You tell me what evidence you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.156.117 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said before, it should be fine to add when that album is released. Even after I put the maintenance template that says the section has no sources, you add something without a source (assuming that was you with a different IP). Everything should be sourced, but especially something that has yet to be released (see WP:FUTURE). And, neither of their individual articles mentions the album, and it would have to be there before the genre article. In fact, neither Dylan's nor The Blackwood Brothers pages even mentions the other. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Shawn Johnson
Why are you doing this? There many, many, many, many pages that list Engagements as "Partners"!! --ACase0000 (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, engagements and life partners are two different things. Some life partners become engaged to be married. The main thing is what it says in the source given. It's not what it says for Shawn -- and hopefully it wouldn't because she's supposed to be a Christian (so she shouldn't be living with someone outside of marriage). And to put that on her page would go against WP:BLP. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for any trouble. There is not reference that even says she is engaged I noticed. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Alien 5
I apologize for that edit war on Alien (franchise) regarding Neill Blomkamp, do I have to wait till the movie starts filming to edit it back? Dofhd (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dofhd, yes, at least until then. But, if during filming, there should be a source somewhere on the page to back that up. Thanks, Musdan77 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I appreciate at it I won't edit war anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dofhd (talk • contribs) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fuller House
I don't appreciate you calling my edits "disruptive". I wasn't the person adding actors from American Horror Story to the cast list. I have never known IMDb to be an unacceptable/unreliable source, and I've been editing on Wikipedia for nine years. The IMDb page did provide details on the first few episodes, and the details for episode #4 were found on the scan of that script that was circulated online from Jeff Franklin & Co. themselves, I'm sure. It didn't appear to be a draft--for all we know, it could be the version of the script they're using. The details can always be changed later if we have any info to the contrary. Thank you, though, for keeping some of the production details up to date when you reverted things back. XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)XXSoulSurvivorXx


 * , There's quite a bit to respond to, but that's OK.


 * 1) Did you read the linked guideline on Disruptive editing - which talks about verifiability and finding consensus, etc.? It is what it is. I don't use words for no good reason. I don't know if you're the same one who kept reverting 4 times before, but I do know that you did at least twice. And that's 2 too many.
 * 2) WP:USERG tells about sites like IMDb.
 * 3) The pdf (which still needs a title) says "Table draft", and it doesn't say who wrote it. And we can't be "sure" without a reliable source.
 * 4) From looking at your edit history, you first edited in 2009, and then nothing until this month -- with 84 edits - so that's relatively little experience. I didn't know that much when I had that many edits either. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read the guidelines, and the reason I kept reverting is because your reversions included incorrect information about the production companies and such.
 * Nobody ever objected to me using IMDb before. That site is tightly monitored for the verification of facts, and official industry information is usually upheld on that site. After all, it serves as an official resume for many industry people (including some that I know), much in the same way that LinkedIn does for people in all sorts of fields.
 * I have edited under different usernames since 2006; I just decided to revive my current name.XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)XXSoulSurvivorXx


 * (or whatever you're calling yourself now), that is not a good reason (in fact it's a terrible reason) to completely revert back to incorrect style and (more importantly) unsourced content. What "incorrect information"? You never said. And you could've/should've just removed it. (WP:REVEXP, WP:ROWN)
 * IMDb is better now than it used to be, but they still don't necessarily verify what's submitted. But, the main thing is, it's a WP guideline. You can say what you did above on the talk page for WP:IRS.
 * Per WP Policy, "It is recommended that contributors not use multiple accounts without good reason." And "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages". (And you haven't said what your total edit count is.) I suspect the reason why you switched was to keep from being blocked - which is tantamount to sock puppetry. And, as I suspected, you were the one (Prison Break24) who was making those previous disruptive reversions, etc. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to reply to you as simply as possible.
 * 1. You're not following what I'm saying. Your reversions brought back information about the producers and production companies that were incorrect. "Miller-Boyett Productions", which was previously cited, went back to reading as "Robert L. Boyett Productions", which was an outdated piece of information. As for other unsourced pieces, there were some that I thought were already cited, but I guess they were not. Also, I DID previously point out to you that the production company information was incorrect. Maybe if you can finally understand what I'm saying, you will not denounce this reason as "terrible".
 * 2. You are jumping to conclusions in regards to my usernames. I created my current username in 2009 because I simply wanted to create a better name. I was never blocked from editing anywhere at any time. I then edited under a friend's name for a while before going back to this one. My other name was not PrisonBreak24, or whatever that is. I don't think a complete list of all my edits is important here--our mutual understanding of Wikipedia policies is.
 * 3. With your continued rudeness and condescending attitude, it's a wonder you get any respect on Wikipedia at all. (Somebody had to say it.)XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)XXSoulSurvivorXx


 * Why can't you understand that this production company business is moot. Like I said (and I don't like repeating myself), that is not a reason for disruptive total reversions, and you could've just made that change.
 * If you're not the one who previously did the same thing that you did, you should understand why I would think that. But, whether it was just twice or more than that, once is too many, and twice is even worse ...and so on. But, if you have nothing to hide, why wouldn't you tell your previous username(s) or how many total edits?
 * You just keep refusing to learn from more experienced editors, and to acknowledge that what you did was wrong. And saying that what I said was rude (when you started the whole thing), makes me think that you don't have much real-world experience. Try getting a job and keeping it by not following rules and regulations, and not getting along with other workers. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Historicity table
Hi Musdan. Thanks for joining in the conversation about Jesus and the historicity of events from the Synoptics. Please let's discuss the matter on the talk page so we can reach a compromise. OK? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , Collaboration does not necessarily mean compromise -- and consensus isn't necessarily found through discussion -- especially when it's a featured article where strong consensus has been established. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with External Links
How do you edit existing external links when the parts of the link is separated by pipe lines? For example the Buffy the Vampire Slayer (season 1) article. I know the main ways to add an external link but I'm not sure if it would be okay to change the way it's typed to a way that I know how to type it up. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what changes you want to make but you can experiment on your sandbox, and you can read WP:EXT, if you haven't yet. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving possessive s to inside the wikilinks is SOP
, There is a Bot that randomly roams around Wikipedia articles moving the possessive 's' to inside the article's wikilinks. I do not know how to put an article on that Bots radar so on the Robin Williams article I preempted that Bot and manually moved them. It took considerable effort to weed them out and correct them to bring them up to Wikipedia MOS house standards. What possessed you to undo my substantial effort as shown here? I would appreciate it if you put them back to their proper placement. Thank you, and go Hawkeyes! Checkingfax (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , tell me what MOS says it should be that way. I do know that MOS says that unnecessary piping should not be used, and if it works, "it ain't broken", and if it ain't broken, don't "fix" it. And, by the way, it's also unnecessary to ping me on my own talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

NCIS: Los Angeles
link to existing Macy discussion: (It's under "character/cast list if the link doesn't work)

One of the other reasons I reverted your edits was because of the staggering of character biographies you implemented, which goes against the grain of almost every other wiki article and, frankly, I think looks a bit of a mess. You also removed determiners such as "the" and "a", making the article grammatically incorrect.

Your version states, for example: "Nell Jones, Intelligence Analyst with dreams of becoming a Special Agent", when rules of grammar dictate it should instead say "Nell Jones, an Intelligence Analyst with dreams of becoming a Special Agent", and even then, this separate from the descriptive paragraph that your staggering has added, raising the question, what do her dreams have to do with her occupation? It was just all very neat and correct and I think your edits, clearly done in good faith, have disrupted that. --Unframboise (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , No, smartass, it's how it's done on scores of articles for TV series and films. Are you really trying to teach a Veteran Editor how to edit?? (I'm not saying I know everything but...) It is the grammatically correct way, unlike the way it is now. The way it is has the first part ending with a period, but it's not a complete sentence.
 * If it has bullet points then it's the actor, followed by the character name, then (comma) the title or position (no article [an, etc.] needed) - all on the bulleted line, without a period. Then if a character description is desired, it can be added with an indention with full prose. Otherwise, it shouldn't have bullet points. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I'm attempting to contribute to a co-operative editing environment in which seniority should play no part. This is an encyclopedia, not a monarchy. Your way is grammatically incorrect. "Nell Jones, Intelligence Analyst with dreams of becoming a Special Agent" is incorrect. The alternative is either, as I stated above "Nell Jones, an Intelligence Analyst with dreams of becoming a Special Agent", or, if you like "Nell Jones, Intelligence Analyst. She has dreams of becoming a Special Agent."
 * "If it has bullet points then it's the actor, followed by the character name, then (comma) the title or position (no article [an, etc.] needed)", okay but Nell's position isn't "someone who has dreams", Sam's isn't "G's partner", etc. If you're insisting on leaving out determiners then you need to re-write to include only the position and not the hopes and dreams and friendships of characters. It reads poorly, and as an encyclopedia it shouldn't. Wikipedia is a resource, not a twelve year old's exam paper. --Unframboise (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , What?? It sure doesn't seem like you are trying at all to cooperate. WP is a collaborative effort. It's not "co-operative" to completely revert a much more experienced editor's edit, and then to arrogantly say that they're wrong and you're right.
 * What don't you understand about how I tried to explain the proper way to use a bulleted list for cast/characters? The way it is now is not written for bullets or for prose. It's grammatically messed up! You keep talking about this "dreams" shit. I didn't write that. As far as I'm concerned that doesn't need to be there at all (or it should go in the description), but I left it. I should have said before that if there's a list of characters article, the character description really doesn't even belong on the series article. That's for articles that don't have a separate list of characters article. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "much more experienced editor's edit" - again, not a monarchy. I have just as much right to edit as you.
 * "It's grammatically messed up!" - the edit you are trying to enforce is the one that is grammatically incorrect. You can't drop a determiner from a sentence of this type and still have it make sense.
 * "shit" - watch your language.
 * "I should have said before that if there's a list of characters article, the character description really doesn't even belong on the series article." - short descriptions do belong on cast lists, Wiki conventions on cast lists state that prose are not only recommended but necessary. If anything, it's the table that needs to go.
 * Please don't respond to this by stating you are a senior editor. It makes no difference to me. "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government." --Unframboise (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Your arrogant attitude is getting very tiresome. You must not know the meaning to "monarchy". Nothing I said has anything to do with it. No, you can't edit anyway you want to. Your edit was disruptive. (WP:ROWN)
 * "You can't drop a determiner from a sentence of this type and still have it make sense." As I tried to tell you, the first line after the bullet is not a sentence! And the way it is now (where it should be written as a sentence, is not either). It just shows how much inexperience you have.
 * Your actions and attitude is worse than any words I could use. (WP:EQ) --Musdan77 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)