User talk:Musdan77

Phillips, Craig and Dean albums

Where did you find the chart history of the PCD albums? I saw the edits you made there, and thought it might help me find a list of all of PCD's singles and chart positions, so I can add it to the PCD page. :) TN05

Hi bro. I got them at allmusic.com. When I looked before, there was only 1 single listed. Now there are 2 —from their latest album. There should be earlier ones at Billboard.com —but I think you have to pay to see them. Musdan77 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dangit... Thanks for the info, though; I'll keep searching. :) Toa Nidhiki05

FYI, about your edit summary

Talk:Adam_and_Eve#Evangelicals_question_the_existence_of_Adam_.26_Eve. Jesanj (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

why

i think you were mean to me for not allowing my world trade center edit to be seen on the BTTF 2 page. the world trade center is intact in 2015 in that movie. the movie was made before 9/11. here is proof that the wtc is in that movie: http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6016/backtofuture.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEtches (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sam, sorry that your feelings were hurt. I know what it feels like to add something and another editor removes it. But that's the way it goes sometimes here. There are rules and guidelines to follow. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/Content. That explains a little about NPOV and Verifiability. I hope it helps. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

that's ok. maybe someday, someone will figure out exactly how to put it in the article. at least it's in the "world trade center in popular culture" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEtches (talk • contribs) 21:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Truce? I have a project that we can do together

Musdan77, let us bury the hatchet.

I have some concerns on an article that I see that you have done some work on. It is the LHOTP list of episodes. That may not be the exact title of the article though I am sure you know what one I am referring to. The article seems to be very in-depth and quite complete, that I can tell. It lists references and when I look at the text of the article I see no actual references to the actual sources listed as references in it. Is this an oversight or is it still a work in progress.Please look at it and let me know, if you can answer, for sure.

Let us bury the hatchet, so to speak. Let us move beyond our differences in the past and the egos that have played a part. So, what do you say? Let us open the line of communication and work for the benefit of the Wiki community and form an alliance of cooperation. 98.64.246.89 (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, after what you did just minutes before writing this, forgive me if I am somewhat skeptical.

Anyway, in an article that is a list of TV series episodes, the synopses don't need to be referenced individually if there is an external link provided. However, the "notes" after the synopses really should be. If you want to work on that, that would be nice. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to help repair any discourse that we have built upon in the past. Please let us work together.

I am not too sure I know what notes you refer to.... Secondly, can you tell me if the synopses are actually unique or are they quoted from the internet database for the LHOTP referenced source. I have noticed that the penning paragraph is worded exactly like several internet sources that I found. I am concerned that they should be changed or placed in quotations in order to keep within Wiki policy.

My sincerity is true and I wish to work cooperatively/together with you, for the benefit of all involved. The reasons for my past actions and yours are not important looking forward into the future.I wish to look forward and not backwards. The line of communication that may be opened can only help and not hinder us in an agreement to not step on each others feet. Regardless, I will abide by your decision and choice in my truce offer. My past issues with you I considered closed. Have a nice day and Veteran's Day! 74.233.153.232 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

After some of the synopses/summaries are notes (in bold) that are bits of trivia.

I didn't write any of the ep. summaries, and I haven't checked them to see if they were copied verbatim. It is true that they should not be exact word-for-word copies, but you have to expect some phrases to be the same. Quotes would only be needed if you're quoting what a character said.

Thanks, and you have a good day too. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert Wagner article

Thanks. I fixed the apostrophe thing in the infobox, too (you can leave off the full year in the second part of the range). I also separated the children into their own field and tried to get in all the information, although it ain't easy for someone as busy as Wagner. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A belated thank you!

For the minor grammar correction on my user page. Again, thank you! Planetary ChaosTalk 09:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a nice surprise. I'm glad you approve. --Musdan77 (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve Martin

Hi, I reverted the 'bibliography' heading because it literally means 'book list' and is used in articles to mean several things: books about the subject of the article, list of sources used in the article and list of books by the subject of the article. 'Works by Martin' is a clearer heading. I hope that helps explain. Thanks Span (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that explains reverting the heading, but not the rest of the edit. But thanks for explaining that at least. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My Edits

Hey dude, many thanks for correcting my edits etc on the Kelly Clarkson page, I do a lot of my edits under the symptoms of sleep deprivation lol so my grammar etc is not always on the ball! Loving your last edit to my addition! Much appreciated. BrotherDarksoul (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup!

Hi Musdan, just wanted to say thank you for the assist on the Brandon Cruz Wiki. I've been struggling for the past couple weeks with first an IP user and now a registered name (in reality the same person I'm sure) who insists on adding unsourced or OR to the article. They're now even claiming to be Brandon Cruz themselves. Oh, did I mention that I'm actually Brad Pitt? LOL Somehow my shaving mirror disagrees! Anyhoo, I didn't want to get busted for edit warring so I was hoping someone else would give me a bit of backup. If the user continues I guess I'll have to take it to an admin for a block or something. Thanks again and have a great Wiki kind of day! Sector001 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

19 Kids and Counting

Thanks for leaving in season 10. Good idea to keep all of it hidden until TLC officially announces the show's next season, which probably won't be until this summer. Probably during the first season of the Bates' new TV show this summer.

66.130.54.181 (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Millionaire credits

The way the credits have been listed in the infobox is an accurate rendition of the way they are listed on the show. If you change that on the basis of your subjective judgment that it's "unnecessarily repetitive," you're introducing inaccuracy into the article. JTRH (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In no way does it make it any less accurate. But leaving it the way it was does go against MOS guideline of no redundant sub-headings – which is what these would be considered (though I don't think making sub-headings in an infobox is acceptable anyway). If they were actual parameters, it would not be an issue. Maybe you can try to make that happen. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Your recent editing history at CSI: Crime Scene Investigation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I would be very careful of leaving an edit summary such as this and warning another user not to edit war, given your edit history on this page. Edit warring takes two to tango, and you are just as guilty as the other editor. Your edit removing the capitals from job titles has been reverted by three editors for a total of six edits in the last month, each of which you have reverted with an increasingly aggressive, and uncivil edit summary. You have had ample opportunity, and the responsibility, to discuss your edit on the show's talk page, citing appropriate Wikipedia policy and making an argument why the job titles are labels rather than titles, and have repeatedly failed to do so. Discussion via edit summary is not a suitable alternative. I have reverted the recent sting of edits back to the WP:BOLD edit that started this little war. Please discuss before reverting again; any further reverts will result in a report to WP:AN3. --Drmargi (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Drmargi, if you're watching this, I realize I didn't handle it quite right. However, I've never got an official warning before, and I don't think I should have got one this time either. I wouldn't have let it get that far, but I shouldn't have let it get as far as it did. As far as my "edit history on this page," the editors who I reverted are 2 unregistered users and a newly registered one (who's probably the same as at least one of the IPs). And I don't know why you wouldn't revert back to before the incorrect change by the inexperienced editor. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ray Barone & The Nanny crossover

You reverted an edit I made regarding Ray Barone appearing on "The Nanny". I'm not entirely sure why it "doesn't belong there" since it can go with the character info. I don't see it anywhere else on the main page. I feels this crossover info does belong somewhere and I thought it being in the Ray Barone character section was fine. Can it go on the character description out on the main page? - Jabrona - 11:54, 6 May 2012

I've just checked your new edit and I like it. Thanks. I should have thought about adding in those other crossovers when I looked the character up (when I saw that the show was related to "The King of Queens") but never got around to it, haha. I think I will reference it in The Nanny episode list as well. - Jabrona - 00:43, 7 May 2012

The Voice (U.S.) seasons 1 & 2

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded for all the often unnoticed cleanup work that you do on season pages of The Voice (U.S.), and helping a new editor like me who's still learning her way about Wikipedia. Thank you! Maine12329 (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Musdan77! Thank you for all your hard work on the voice, especially with cleaning up on various sections, including the 2 sections I mainly work on i.e. "Performances by guests/coaches" and "Contestants appearing on other talent shows". I'm a relatively new editor so I'm learning how to write a 'cleaner' version with the correct capitalization and stuff ^-^ so your edits mean a lot to me and I will try to follow this format that you've edited it into in the next season.

I wanted to ask one question about the title of "Contestants appearing on other talent shows". The thing is, before when people hadn't added in Tony Lucca's participation on Mickey Mouse Club and Chris Mann on Glee, it was fine. But now it's not quite accurate, because Glee and Mickey Mouse Club are not exactly 'talent shows'. At the same time, I feel the previous title that I proposed 'music-related television shows' is a mouthful. And I also can't put television shows because there are many people in acting on a lot of random shows, like in Season 1, Raquel, and in season 2, Kim Yarbrough, and these acting roles are very much irrelevant to mention on The Voice (season X) pages as it could be counted as unnecessary and irrelevant.

Anyway, I just need another editor's opinion on what the title should be. Thank you so much~! Maine12329 (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Maine12329. Thanks for the nice message.

Actually, the problem with these (types) of sections is that they are considered trivia(l), and also close to (if not) off-topic (which I think is what you mean by irrelevant). Some editors will either remove the whole thing, or put a "trivia" tag on it. I'm a stickler for some things, but for this, I usually just let it go. But it's likely that at some point another editor will do one of those things. Of course you're right about "television shows" being too broad and "irrelevant", but in the same way, "music-related shows" are still broader (and more off-topic) than just talent shows. So, that's the way I see it. I won't tell you what you should do, but that's basically the guideline to go by. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Capital police

If the titles aren't capitalized elsewhere, they should be. They are titles, just as captain is (so Captain Kirk), where ref to Gibbs as an NCIS special agent wouldn't be (any more than saying Kirk is a Starfleet captain). I just haven't been motivated enough to bother fixing it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 03:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I'm even more confused as to why you reverted my edit. We seem to be in agreement here. The thing is, in the table, these aren't titles, just occupations because they aren't in front of the name. Now, maybe if the columns were switched around to where the occupations/titles are to the left of the character names..? --Musdan77 (talk) 04:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In the table, you're describing the position, which makes it a title: "Quincy, M.E.", as opposed to "Quincy, m.e."... It's the difference between "an NCIS special agent" & "Special Agent Gibbs". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:26 & 06:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well then, shouldn't we change the heading from "Occupation" to "Title"? Otherwise, there will be other editors wanting to change things. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You could (& I can see your reasoning), but IMO that's not essential, because, strictly speaking, they're not "job titles"... (I know, it looks like I'm arguing both sides. :( ) It's more nuanced than that. Ducky's job is medical examiner, but, in this context, he's Medical Examiner, if you see what I mean. Gibbs is a special agent (& offhand, IDK if NCIS & FBI always uses "Special Agent"), but his job description makes him Special Agent Gibbs. IDK: what about a hidden note on capitalizing for what are, in context, job titles? (I can foresee that being widely ignored... :( ) Failing that, I don't have a strong objection to changing it; I wouldn't, but I wouldn't rv it, either. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perhaps title or position would be a better heading. Musdan, I think your intentions are good, but the use of lower-case is just a bit over-literal application of rules. There's room for compromise, or perhaps flexibility here, especially given the growing number of editors who want the titles used. --Drmargi (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Please stop correcting my post re: Eloise. I work for someone who represents her and this information is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan24ou (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if you know her personally, you would still need a source, some kind of reference as proof of the info given, especially for biographical articles. If you need help, let me know. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

She is the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan24ou (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:IRS. Callanecc (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, why don't you source it? I'm putting up material FROM THE SOURCE. Stop deleting it. I don't have time to fight with you about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan24ou (talk • contribs) 01:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We can't just take your word for it. There needs to be a verifiable reference. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AGT Copyedit

Hi, I have some issues with your copyedit of the performance descriptions. The copyedit seemed to oversimplify some of the performance descriptions, and also cut out important information about the artists of the song. Gamer9832 (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, It's good that you left a message here, but you don't change things back and then leave a message. That's not a discussion. I removed what is not necessary. And you'll have to explain why you think it's important to the article to include who originally recorded the songs. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't own this page, and therefore I do have a right to revert back what I think is necessary. The artist info is needed because it's appropriate to list the artist with the song, and correctly attributes the song to its original writer/performer. Sometimes you have no idea who originally wrote the song (some of the songs on there I found when writing the performance info, I have never heard about). You were also very inconsistent in your edit, leaving the artist in place for some performance descriptions, and removing it for others. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again you have not followed proper WP procedure. When there is a dispute (to avoid edit warring) there needs to be consensus through discussion (and discussion is not done in edit summaries). Who the original performer of a song or its writer is in no way pertinent to this article. If someone wants to know that, they can click the link for the song. That's what it's there for. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you, we need to attribute the song to its original artist. It's done everywhere and if you look to past season pages, it's always been done that way. And I think you are responsible for this first-- you edited the page first without discussing the changes on the talk page. The newer elim table that was introduced this year was discussed in length on the talk page before your edits; nobody raised concern over the issue of whether to attribute the song to the artist. Because the table originally had the artist and song, and your edit clearly has not received consensus it is therefore your responsibility (not mine) to discuss these changes before making such a jarring edit. Gamer9832 (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I know you're not saying that when you make an edit, you need to talk about it (WP:BOLD) (and it takes more than one person for a discussion). However, one of us (it doesn't really matter who) should have taken this to the article talk page before now -- so I will. By the way, that section/thread (though I had not seen it, or known about it before) was about the layout of the table, not its content. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will willingly agree to remove the artist if there is consensus. The discussion you were talking about on changes to the elimination table was over the entire format of the table. Someone could have raised issue with any part of it. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Imperials

Do you actually own the image that you uploaded? As in, you took the image yourself? Wikipedia has pretty strict image use policies. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't. I re-uploaded what was already there, that someone said he owned. But the first one that you deleted (which had been there for a long time) I know is owned by Rick Evans. He didn't take it because he's in it. He had it taken for a publicity photo. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My bad. The image I removed the first time (File:TheClassicImperials.png) looked like an album cover, and generally, album covers can't be used to identify anything but albums. But I see that the "Classic Imperials" image has been submitted via OTRS, so it's fine. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana

An unregistered user removed her ethnicity. She's Puerto Rican and Dominican. That was the only change I did. I reverted it back to a previous version with the reliable sources intact. That's all, sorry if I seemed strict.Mcelite (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that's from film reference. That's really not a reliable source for that type of information. No different than why we can't use IMBD, it can be edited by anyone. That can be removed explaining the reason why on the talk page.Mcelite (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

rm non-notables

Disagree with your removal of non-notables. Baylor alumni recognize their own and it is a notable honor and privilege to be drafted in any professional sport thereby making them notable alumni. Your removal and description of them as non-notable is unjust because you don't have the authority to designate them as non-notable. Very few schools have had women drafted in the WNBA draft as 1st round picks as I am sure your research has shown and the NFL draft is one of if not the most highly publicized drafts in all the world a simple google search will show this to be true also. Please reconsider your actions and return them to their status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.200.243.253 (talk)

I hope you read this reply. If you read the notice at the top of the editing page, it says that people who have a Wikipedia article are notable, and if the person you think is notable does not have a Wikipedia article for themselves, you can create one. Or, use an external reliable source. If it has neither, it can't be considered notable, and should be removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers Infobox

Hi, I am contacting you now as I feel there maybe a dispute over the above and want to prevent it before it starts. Schrodinger's cat is alive and I are currently doing a major revamp of Sellers and we both feel that an info box plays no part in its future. I have a feeling that the article maybe subject to an imminent GAC and possible future FAC, so this edit is not just a drive by one. If it results in a GAC or FAC request to include one, then we will. In my experience, info boxes are always the first thing to go at FAC and are *never* requested. IMO they serve no purpose, are redundant, ugly, and repetitive. If you feel that strongly about it, can I suggest you take it to Sellers talk page where a consensus can be met. Many thanks! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Musdan77. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Calmer Waters 16:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Millionaire guests hosts

Millionaire stopped using guest hosts in 2011 after Viera left Today. Also The Carol Burnett Show is hosted by Carol Burnett. 24.3.75.96 (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

1) I'm sure you're right, but you need to give a reference for this kind of change. 2) Though it is true that Carol Burnett hosted her show, the show was more of an ensemble collaboration, so she was one of the stars. ----Musdan77 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sophia Bush

Actually, my edits were an improvement. Most celebrities use (year) for their movies. Look at the Mariah Carey and Natalie Portman articles. I've reverted my edits.Spelling Style (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Understandably, I've heard this leads to edit warring. Well, thank you for letting me make the change. Spelling Style (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes

1. "On April 6, 2012, Bynes was arrested and charged with DUI after side-swiping a police car in West Hollywood at 3:00 am. Her bail was set at US$5,000, but she was released the next morning without being requiring to post bail" That line makes no sense. READ IT. That is exactly why I edited it, so it makes sense. Understand?

2. If my source was unreliable for the other information that I posted, why don't you at least let the person know of it? Or you could also found sources that made it reliable.

I thought wikipedia users were to suppose to help others, but you are just like the rest. Majinsnake (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Majinsnake, (1) I did see that change, and I intended to change it back after my reversion, but I guess I got sidetracked and forgot. That can happen when you're a busy editor. Now, you could have done those in separate edits, and then I would have just undid one and left the other. (2) There are too many changes to check and edits to make. I don't have time to notify people like that, nor is it the responsibility of the editor to do so. It is the responsibility of the one making the changes to check his watchlist or the history of the article, and read the reason for the edit. And if you don't fully understand it, then ask about it on the editor's talk page.

To explain the reason for the reversion: It's not so much that the source is not reliable itself, but it just gives info about an accusation (hearsay), and Wikipedia doesn't allow anything on a blp article that is not factual, and may be libelous. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks, Musdan77, for the welcome and the resources. Great to be here. Gottfriede Brunito (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

James Ingram

It is a fact that Phillip Ingram is in fact James Ingram's brother! If you don't believe me, Google it! HBP77

I'm sure you're right, but it's the responsibility of the person adding info to also add a reference to a source for that info -- especially in a biographical section (that's for everything, not just the last sentence). If a source is not given, it would need to be removed. Thanks --Musdan77 (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Episodes Summaries

Given your edits here and here, I'm not sure how you can say my summaries are "copy and paste" if yours are not. Both are just simplifying and paraphrasing the original TLC summary. Yours, in fact, have whole sentences remaining from the original copied content. Rather than just deleting the additional episodes entirely, it would be nice if you could have simply added the references or requested that I do so rather than claim my summaries were copied and pasted. If that's true, yours are too. Baylix (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Baylix, first thanks for contributing to List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes.

My edits were just copy editing what someone else had copy and pasted form another site (doing what they should have done). And yours looked to me to be the same, but without a cited source, of course I had no way of seeing if it was or not. But, the main thing is that anything that is a future event that doesn't have a source must be removed. I'm a very busy editor, with too many changes to check and edits to make. I don't have time to notify people, nor is it the responsibility of a copyeditor to do so. Thanks for adding the references, and chalk this up as a learning experience. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I realize it's not your responsibility to take care of references, just wanted to point out that it would have made the page more complete to note that a specific source was needed rather than delete a whole slab of episodes. They were clearly not vandalism nor taken from an obscure source (since virtually every episode on that page has the same source - the TLC schedule - with few exceptions).

Baylix (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Duggar photo

That photograph is quite large. Why shouldn't it be resized? I understand the other edits, but a 300px? Spelling Style (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Style, That's fine. I, personally, don't have a problem with the size, but if you want change it, go ahead. Sorry about the inadvertent revert. That can happen sometimes. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

American Idol

If you want to cite Manual of Style, at least read carefully what it says first.Hzh (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, sorry if I'm being a bit sharp, we can discuss this first in the American Idol talk page. Hzh (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Muppets response

Each of the Muppet characters had to have their performers linked just like they did over on the List of Sesame Street Muppets page where they have their performers linked. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:11, October 23 2012 (UTC)

Also, none of the other sections of the page we are talking about never had any colspan2-type writing before the character's brief bios. Outside of that, I too have been adding info on characters from the different Muppet projects with some of them being being removed by Caringtype1 who claims that the character additions I made aren't properly sourced and that they aren't important enough which he also included for any Muppets that debuted in commercials and any Muppets that debuted anywhere else. Rtkat3 (talk) October 23 2012 (UTC)

The Amazing Race

Why you should cleaned up in The Amazing Race 21 page and the MOSBOLD style is necessary to other The Amazing Race articles to follow. So, you need to discuss on removing the boldface country visits in the franchise's talk page. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit was done per MOS as MOS clearly states. You'll have to explain why it should be changed back to wrong style. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you should discuss here and there's a country boldface (example France ) and it's necessary to read the article. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I read that discussion and I see that User:Ryulong agrees with me (along with the MOS) that bold should not be used in prose. Also, you should know that image captions aren't supposed to have periods (usually) -- because they aren't sentences. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Price is Kneiss

Hi. Didn't mean to provoke an edit war. I was trying to resolve the conflict between your statement that Kneiss is the only perfect Showcase bidder ever, and the preceding paragraph's statement that it's happened twice on the daytime show. The sources I've seen state that it never happened with Barker, but did once on the 1970's nighttime version with Dennis James. Carey said on air, after the reveal of Kneiss's win, that it "hadn't happened since 1973," which implies that Kneiss wasn't the first, but that doesn't determine which version of the show the original perfect bid was on. There's no way to resolve this reliably, so I removed all of the statements about it altogether. I also didn't realize when I added the CN tag that you were sourcing both that paragraph and the next one from the Esquire article. My apologies. JTRH (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I understand. Thanks for the explanation. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Everybody Loves Raymond characters

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.