User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MusikAnimal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello MusikAnimal, I'm new to Wikipedia and I have been editing the Italians in the United Kingdom page and i thought the image in the infobox would be better as a collage like the one on the English American page, I think you would need one of the photo box or gimp tools for the computer, but I don't have these and am not too sure on how to do this collage, so I would really appreciate it if you could do it, or if you can't but know someone who can and ask them to do it that would be a real help. If you could merge the individual images below into a single image I think it would really benefit the page. I will give you the images I've got so far:

MusikAnimal/Archive 12

Thank you--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: There is a little bit about montages/collages at WP:COLLAGE that you may want to review, but I'm not sure of where to find a how-to or a guideline on how they should be constructed. I personally am not good at this kind of stuff. I do however know just the person who is... pinging Jleon who created the lovely montage at New York City. Hopefully they can help you. If not, feel free to ask at the teahouse or on IRC at #wikipedia-en-help ^connect, or even on the commons channel at #wikimedia-commons ^connect. Surely the kind folks there will know what to tell you. Sorry I could not be of more help! :-/ — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have given you the sysop bit over on testwiki, as requested. Regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello MusikAnimal, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, to you as well! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello MusikAnimal, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, The Herald : here I am 11:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks, to you as well! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello MusikAnimal, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 13:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks, to you as well! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, to you as well! — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again,

Can we try to get back to Talk:Scarborough (Metro-North station)/GA1? It was finals week here, so I forgot about it as well...--ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ɱ: I can try to help some, but generally it's the submitter who addresses the concerns for the review. You may wish to remove the unsourced material and expand on the operations, if you feel that needs to be done. Whenever you think the article has met the GA criteria let me know and we'll proceed. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea you were waiting on me; I was waiting on you for ideas on how to expand on its operations. I know little about trains so I wouldn't know what to research for that, but you likely would, having indicated your interest/knowledge of the subject. As far as I can tell, I've written everything I can find using reliable sources. I'm overall happy enough with the content to continue the review; I was more wondering if you had any ideas. As for the unsourced content added by Robert Little, I feel that its inclusion is justified enough, I elaborated on that at the GA nomination page. There's no GA requirement that every sentence needs an inline citation.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 19:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. Let's continue the discussion at Talk:Scarborough (Metro-North station)/GA1. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for suppressing the versions of Caste system in India, this change[5] is also violating copyrights, see [6]. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio[7] again. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done and blocked the user temporarily. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider reinstating your previous protection of Moscrop Secondary School? Now that the protection has ended the same edit is being made, this time by an IP. Meters (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have settled down now. Meters (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Meters: Glad to hear it. If it's a single editor that is causing disruption we usually opt for blocking them anyway. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I not sure what user Catastros[8] is trying to state on the ‎Powers and abilities section on the He-Man page[9], but this user clearly doesn't have enough experience at typing or to be editing on Wikipedia. The info on that page where it says, "He can remain as He-Man for as long as he wants but if he takes too much damage or uses too much raw force, he will revert back to his original form of Adam", user Catastros has give no reason as to why that should be deleted. Personally I think this user is a little kid who can't stand to see one of their favorite character's come across as weak.68.75.18.121 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for assigning me rollback rights

RoyalMate1 20:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @MusikAnimal: Thanks for blocking one of the IPs, but as you can see from the ResellerRatings talk history today, the single-purpose IP vandalism continues. The person (impersonating me as NotTechimo) was blocked, then you blocked the one IP, but now the vandal is back (and reverted your, and my, edits) under a dynamic ATT wireless IP, which is again a single-purpose sock puppet account. Is it possible to indefinitely semi-protect this talk page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techimo (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Techimo: I don't know how I feel about semi-protecting a mainspace talk page. Fortunately it looks like they've moved on for the time being, and with the article fully-protected maybe the content dispute will be resolved, and that in turn will discourage the user from further disruption. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

16:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Post-Standard. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4 Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season. Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all! 114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal! For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here. We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup. Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I see you added full-protection and a banner that the "facts are being disputed" at the white supremacy article. But the thing is, no facts are being disputed, it's rather a difference of opinion regarding formatting of lead sentence. A few want the lead to be "White supremacism is the racist belief, or promotion of the belief, ... etc" while most other want "White supremacism is the belief, or promotion of the belief, ... etc", as per WP:BEGIN: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." We feel that the fact that is is a racist ideology is described in virtually every section of the article and putting it in the lead sentence just bloats the intro unnecessarily. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that the same dispute is happening on the black supremacy article. Might be worth locking that too. Amlaera (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Amlaera: The {{disputed}} template was already there and had nothing to do with the decision to fully protect. It linked to a talk page discussion that since has been archived. So to avoid ambiguity I have removed it for now. I'll talk a look at black supremacy. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your contribution to this article it was much appreciated

Please can you review the recent edits made after your improvements to this page. Winkelvi doesnt appear to be interested in improving the article and instead seems to favour deleting large parts of interesting and viable information. Surely contributors should contribute at least equivalent of what they delete. Winkelvi seems to enjoy deleting others work. Citing reasons such as foreign language sources. Thank you in advance for your rationailty. 30/12/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.222.243.182 (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I came across Constitución, Chile when responding to a request at WP:RPP. My work there solely involved restoring the non-English sources, which apparently Winkelvi (in good-faith) was under the impression they were not allowed. Much of the material they later removed was unsourced, but it looks like they also re-added and revised some the original content supported by Spanish sources ([10] [11]). Those actions seem okay to me. The article was also semi-protected due to persistent sockpuppetry, which I know nothing about. Anyway, the talk page is not protected and is an excellent venue to reach out to other editors more familiar with the subject. Hope this helps. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

MusikAnimal,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks! You as well! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

MusikAnimal,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Sent using mass message sender. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from User:Northamerica1000/Mailing list.

Regarding Re: GANs, when shall we start? I'll be there since the Christmas day (in UTC). — Revi_talk 17:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@-revi: Unfortunately this may have to wait. I have a review of my own I need to do, among many other things on and off wiki, and another wikibreak this Thursday–Sunday. I'm going to say come the new year I'll be back online in full, so let's get in touch then. Sorry for the wait. Happy holidays! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, my school vacation ends in March. (Starting next week) — Revi 04:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bumping thread. — Revi 16:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

New year is here! (KST) — Revi 16:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy 2015!! Still hours away for me. And frankly, tomorrow might be an all-recovery day :) I do have a lot of other things on my agenda but rest assured a joint review is in our near future. I very much look forward to actually being able to do free-time stuff like this! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem, just create subpage on my userspace and leave a link here (or my talkpage if archived) when you can. — Revi 05:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You left a message, then reverted it, but I can still see it. So, have I violated the three revert rule you claimed I did, or maybe then you realized that I haven't? Maybe you should check my edit history again and judge for yourself if I acted in good faith or out of spite. Before you accuse me of violating a wikipedia policy, I appreciate if you stated in clear terms the specifics of the allegation, i.e. when and how. Not just a generic "you violated the rules so now behave" message. And if this is about a particular IP user who, according to their edit history has repeatedly entered into edit wars with other editors on other pages and you're taking sides with this person.... Haleth (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for coming across as abrupt and rude. I've seen what you did. I know it's a content dispute (very minor content in fact), and usually I would just let it go, but as you can see that person has a history of non cooperation with others and would not engage in discussion even when approached to do so on a talk page. Normally I am a lot more civil with registered users, and less so with IP users. Anyway, thank you. Haleth (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Haleth: Yes, thank you for realizing I was, too, acting in good-faith issuing that warning. It didn't say you violated policy in any way. It's procedural, for me at least, to let the user know about 3RR before blocking them. It became clear to me you were in fact familiar with this rule, which is why I reverted that edit to your talk page, citing don't template the regulars in my edit summary. So sorry for my part on that. I've blocked the IP for violating the three-revert rule, so it should be apparent I'm not siding with them. Next time if the IP has a history of disruption it might be easier to just report to AIV or AN/I, but surely you can see how I saw it as just another frivolous editing dispute. Finally, at least in general, I will have to state it's unfair to treat anonymous users differently. Thanks for your understanding. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

How come you unprotected it so fast? The article has been subject to vandalism from this one long term problem user for years.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I don't like page protecting when it happens so rarely. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hes been at this for years. I've documented it here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This will help greatly. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I rejected Draft:John Alexander MacWilliam because it had entire sections and paragraphs unsourced. The creator responded on my talk page under User talk:Mr. Guye#Need to understand how to fix verifiability issue with citations bringing up issues I didn't know how to deal with. This includes the fact that the article was approved by some doctors or something (possibly colleagues), and that they are wondering how to include short quotes from them. I don't know if that is even allowed per WP:NOR. Can you respond to their concerns and answer their questions? You are more experienced than I and you would be able to provide better help. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: Quotes are fine so long as the quoted person is relevant, and the quote is reliably source with an inline citation (see WP:MINREF). Whether or not other people endorsed the article is irrelevant, I think. Professors, doctors, whatever, the content still need to be verifiable. Honestly, the draft doesn't look too bad to me, though. They have sources, they're just inline with the text (which is okay except for WP:MINREF criteria). If they get the quotes sorted out I think it's probably acceptable, but I'm not the best to ask about AfC. Let me ping Anne Delong who is easily an expert in this regard. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Guye and MusikAnimal. Does the user mean quotes from those people's published works, or fresh quotes from the people directly? The latter would not be appropriate. The article already has some quotations, and they are appropriately cited. The sections actually do have citations - they're just not very specific, being located at the top of each section instead of next to the individual facts. Maybe they could be moved down next to the facts that they support The article is written more as tribute to Professor MacWilliam instead of a neutral article, and some of the flowery language will need to be replaced by plainer text. Quotes praising the subject might make this worse instead of better. Written references about him other than obituaries would be good to have, since although these have lots of information, it's usually not balanced by mention of any negative aspects of a person's life. Also some of the external links are not about the subject and should be removed. I have combined the references and hidden the URLs so that the reference section is less cluttered. Be sure to reassure the submitter that this is a good topic and that the draft will definitely be approved after some revision. Academics are used to submitting work to editors of journals, and should understand this process. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

This page shows the debt of a country and many of them are VERY wrong.

Im from the Netherlands and our debt in 2014 was +- 450 billion euros (about 550 billion dollars)

However this page says the debt is 2.5 trillion that's 5x the real number.

Also many other country's are wrong too.

This page has the real data

http://www.statista.com/statistics/276719/national-debt-of-the-netherlands/

Change this page please or remove it because 90% is wrong 94.212.138.102 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey there! I believe the data you are referring to may not be the same as what this article is intended to show, which is external debt. Moreover the data shown comes from a government agency, which may be deemed more reliable than the apparent for-profit statista. List of countries by public debt I believe is what represents national debt, but that article appears to present the data as percentages rather than currency (not really sure how that works, frankly). Hope this helps. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you placed a warning on 94.173.1.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after I did. This caused me to start digging through their contributions going back to at least April, some of which were still the current edit on those articles. Literally every one of their edits is either blatantly false or much more subtly so.. like changing release dates to be inaccurate, adding false categories, and so on. I have yet to find a single valid edit that can stand. I suppose this is just a heads-up to get more eyes on the situation. Looks like a long-term hoaxer or troll. --Laser brain (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Interesting. Some seem like they could be true, such as this where Troyer lives in the UK, and given he's big into the UK football and such that is certainly plausible. Overall though, I'd have to agree this is some sort of hoaxer or pro-UK original researcher. Weighing all of this in, and it being a static IP, I felt a disruptive editing block was justified and have gone with one week. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Good call, thanks. A lot of his edits are plausible indeed, which makes checking them even trickier. --Laser brain (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it so closely! I revert stuff like this with Huggle and would never have known this was a long-term issue. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Fogerty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beacon Theater. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow... this might be my very first disambiguation notification! Guess I had the linkclassifier turned off. Thank you DPL bot! I've gone so long without your assistance, a little embarrassing even. Keep this just between you and me, yeah? Thanks :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Musik- I removed those comments at the end of the mitigation section because they a silly and archaic- siting someones opinion in a newspaper from 1987. At that point in time Radon was not understood as it is now. Radon mitigation costs are not exorbitantly high now, in fact in my city they are quite reasonable, and are never compared to the "swine flu" ever. And saying that lowering radon levels is not wise, and not effective in lowering lung cancer risk is completely at odds with the EPA research. I am a FL Certified Radon Measurement & Mitigation Specialist. Trust me. I removed those comments as they are pointed, biased and just bad advice to anyone wanting to read facts- which is what Wiki is about. PS I did not give a reason for my edit because I screwed up in the sequence, and was not able to add my comment. Thank you. MichaelF11 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• See Marsh Mokhtari, can you suppress every revision from 02:09, 10 August 2014 to 06:00, 5 January 2015? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks now also see Niti Aayog, all diffs(except latest two) from 05:30, 2 January 2015[12] contains the violation of copyrights.[13]-[14]-[15]-[16] Bladesmulti (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Each version of NITI Aayog requires suppression, they rip off every above website link that I have provided. Nothing more than a duplicate article of Niti Aayog, and created by a sock puppet.[17] Bladesmulti (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: The newest revisions of Niti Aayog were still copyright infringement, verbatum from www.lenseye.co/2015/01/02/niti-aayog. I'm sorry but it will have to be rewritten. Thanks for the reports. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. Creator is now formally warned. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• NITI Aayog was re-created by the same user and it is again violating copyrights.[18]-[19] User is not recognizing any violation. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  You had every reason to assume this was a copyright violation, but checking the revision history, I have in fact confirmed the original text was written prior to that of the original alleged source. Deleting as copyright violation was my mistake... however it was easy to get confused as the revision I checked was after 2 January and was also bundled in with all the other confirmed copyright violations. The two new sources you provided I don't think share enough material to constitute as copyright violation. At any rate thanks for your concern, and apologies for any confusion on my part. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please delete the wiki page on Jackson Wilcox. That page is about me and is causing unwanted attention in both my work life and personal life. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklinb76 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Franklinb76: What's wrong with it? I noticed there was some inappropriate content on there that I have since removed. I can ensure that doesn't happen again. Is there anything else incorrect with the article or any material that simply should not be there? The patrollers and bots kept reverting your edits because you weren't explaining why you were removing content in your edit summary. Please remember to do that, thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MusikAnimal. You have new messages at Ethically Yours's talk page.
Message added 16:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the suggestions. Do check back. Ethically^Yours! 16:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Replied. If possible, can you mentor me? Ethically^Yours! 16:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I wish to ask your help. Please, explain me: what means this strange term (the 'Opera'-tinged vocal dynamo)? Kind regards! - 95.29.144.33 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Hi! I assume you came to be based on my username... While I am a big music fan I must admit I don't know too much about musicology :( Sorry I could not be of more help. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I understood. But you can ask at your collegues, which created this article together with you (Musicology). If not difficultly. Kind regards! - 95.29.144.33 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

I recently created a page for a site-RockON and it was deleted. Can you please tell me how I can get it back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajeshRa (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bonobo. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

	The Good Article Barnstar for the GA Cup
	You made it to Round 3! Thank-you for being part of the success for the first GA Cup! We hope to see you next year! --Dom497 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dom497 for your continued efforts for WP:WGA. I admire your sense of leadership and initiative to make cool things like this happen. I unfortunately got caught up in the holiday season which kept me from doing as many reviews as I would have liked to have done. However it doesn't stop here. Plenty more GA reviews ahead, namely with my pal -revi! Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ethically Yours when it had no !votes, and decided to come back later to consider it. Much later, I looked for it and couldn't find it - even in the list of unsuccessfuls. Going via the EY user contribs, I found it, closed by you. But it's still not in the list of unsuccessfuls (chrono list, at least, that is). I've not seen one before that didn't get listed, apart from a few that were simply deleted. Is there some reason why this isn't there? Peridon (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason, I didn't know what I was doing :/ I closed the RfA per their request, probably should have let someone else handle it! Anyway I've updated the relevant pages now. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've never got up the courage to close one yet... Peridon (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a page I can use to suggest changes on wikipedia to the admins? I have some ideas to improve the watchlist Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 17:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You could try WP:VPP - Village Pump (Proposals). It's not the admins who make the decisions, BTW. Things like that are decided by consensus of all (all who visit places like VPP and bother to join in, that is...). In discussions in places like the VP, admins and non-admins are equal. Peridon (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (just a visitor)

Ditto. We unfortunately can't do anything, and frankly don't have much more pull than any other registered user. Best of luck to whatever you're after! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal. I was typing my reply to you but the trolls got blocked by MS while I was typing it. FWIW, I wanted to mention that behavioural evidence is really loud for those who know the LTA abuse of the troll. Due to the high frequency of the trolling an SPI is basically a waste of time. But I also understand your position. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I can definitely understand not wanting to bother with another SPI, it can take forever. You're probably best off writing admins that you know are familiar with the SPI or have checkuser rights. I briefly looked into it and it is my opinion that the average patrolling admin is not going to be able to interpret it as blatant sockpuppetry or block evasion, so I'd argue AIV is not the best place. At any rate thanks for your vigilant efforts. — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you also for your work at AIV cleaning up all these vandals. Perhaps I just got used to Materialscientist acting like lightning blocking the trolls through AIV and became too complacent. I guess I have to bother him at his talk more frequently from now on, although I hate doing that to admins. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's respectable to consider it bothersome to admins, and maybe it is to some. Certainly no harm in asking, though! :) I can't speak for MA except that he's responsive and reliable. Maybe at AIV provide a link or two that makes it more obvious to the patrolling admin. I saw that Cool cool like ice tea left a link mentioning Shinyang-i, and I'd probably block given reasonable technical evidence. Except for the timing I see no suspicious activity with Cmdm4sd40595jdndks. Even with all this I'm still not certain, though. For AIV I think it should blatantly obvious. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yoohoo, kowiki AfD is full of K-POP articles too and I will be listed there as "kowiki admin who deletes K-POP articles". Hooray! — Revi 09:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate of Jain temple should be deleted, I had requested speedy deletion for violating copyrights and the user removed it and then copied from other websites like [29]-[30] and others. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear admins, it's very sad that without having the complete knowledge of the subject concerned, you are deleting the page, the content which was small, was important for the subject, but now it is removed. Also, Jain Sculptures and Jain Temple is too different things, if you visit the two pages, you will know. In 2014, more than 15 Jain Sculptures were unearthed in India, now how can I add them in Jain Temple?, discuss03:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Amount of material shared between sources seems trivial. Perhaps close paraphrasing in certain places, but I'm not sure that it meets WP:G12 criteria. Another admin may see different, though. As for the similarities between Jain Sculpture and Jain temple, that to me sounds like a content dispute. Start a merge proposal if you feel inclined. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Solved this.[31] Bladesmulti (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good call. She's a great go-to for anything copyright-related. Sorry I was not of more help! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

you sure about that??? 98.114.11.16 (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Machine error, which seems to be happening more often as of late. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

happened again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Thurston_High_School look at the page, not just the source 98.114.11.16 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That one was my fault, I believe. The other I actually saw "Amazon Prime" on my end. I'll have to keep a closer eye and file a bug report if it keeps happening. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

KRUCAFUKS = upside down cross of satan - my god — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.174.155.6 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Needs a blocking [[32]] Golfcourseairhorn (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you did a perfect job my friend changed it and it was very inappropriate so I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.125.65 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

- BakerStMD T|C 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your updates to MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and MediaWiki:Gadget-dropdown-menus.js for now for technical reasons. It is OK to test using the current setup of loading the files raw, but in production it is highly inefficient. So I would like to set it up using a core gadget that can be loaded as a module rather then a raw file. This will save two requests per page view. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

18:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi just wondering if I could pester you with a couple of Edit Filter related questions. I'm looking at some existing edit filters to get to know how they work (the ridiculous requests backlog needs addressing) and am a little unsure about a couple of things I've seen.

• In Special:AbuseFilter/3 there is a line stipulating that users must not be in the autoconfirmed user group, but in Special:AbuseFilter/9 they must not be in the confirmed user group. Are these two treated the same or is there a distinction?

  Internally one is assigned (confirmed) while the other is automatically assigned (autoconfirmed), but as far as I can tell, with edit filters they are one and the same.

• Am I correct in thinking that Special:AbuseFilter/9 works by defining a regex statement, naming it "line1" (is this a special name or could it be called anything?), and then referencing it in the actual requirement for logging to save writing it out twice?

  Yep! You can name the variables whatever you want.

• Why do filters watching for a specific text change (like removing a certain category as with Special:AbuseFilter/117) have to look for removed text and not added text, not just removed text?
  

  There's a edit_diff variable that apparently doesn't work. So instead if we want to ensure whatever is being added wasn't there beforehand (or vice versa), we use the added_lines and old_wikitext variables. There's also new_wikitext which is the text after wiki code has been evaluated, e.g. you'd need to use added_lines to check for ~~~~

Feel free to send me in the direction of the Edit Filter talk page or somewhere if you aren't sure or don't have time to answer! Sam Walton (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sam! Answers above. mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format is the where all the documentation is. There's some nifty functions, but I'm not aware of a way to test their output except through an edit filter. So when writing filters I usually batch test against changes I make to my sandbox, adding any namespace or user group restrictions later when I'm ready to put the filter into log mode. In other words, no need to expose your IP while testing when we know !"autoconfirmed" in user_groups will work. For performance, put whatever would eliminate most edits first, such as user group, namespace, then all the regex stuff after that. Finally, I'd prefer any other effective preventive measures over an edit filter, such as page protection. Since the filters tax the entire system, if it doesn't get a lot of hits it may be better just to deal with the abuse the old fashioned way. Also, try to see if there's an existing filter you can modify. Namely Special:AbuseFilter/260, which is used to disallow vandal phrases. Note the use of ccnorm here, pretty cool! Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm looking at fulfilling the edit filter request made by Lukeno94, currently sat at the top of the requests page. !"autoconfirmed" in user_groups & (lcase(added_lines) rlike "jetanian?") seems to do the trick, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Should it have narrower scope so that it isn't running for too many edits? Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Regex looks on point, namespace restriction definitely helps but only if you know the edits will 100% be in that namespace. Sounds like this one won't have many hits, is long-term, and restricted to that exact phrase. We should look into a general-purpose long-term sock filter that we can just add phrases to. I thought Special:AbuseFilter/16 was it but I don't think it is, or at least doesn't meet our needs here since it only disallows after throttling. Pinging Callanecc who I think would be more knowledgeable about that filter. Anyway for now I think creating a new filter is fine. You may also want to add it to Mr.Z-bot's filter list so that when the filter is tripped, the user is automatically reported to AIV. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've created it at Special:AbuseFilter/654 log only for a few days to make sure it doesn't flag things it shouldn't, then I'll add it to the AIV list if everything seems ok. Special:AbuseFilter/653 got tripped this morning, but only once, and I'm struggling to diagnose why it only picked up one of the IPs edits. Any ideas? Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I tested the filter against that IP and it matched all the edits. So, perhaps this is what Zzuuzz was talking about at WT:FILTER, where some filters start to fail once so many hit the condition limit. I think this is set by the wiki-configured $wgAbuseFilterEmergencyDisableThreshold as described at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter. If this is true, we might could request the value to be raised. I say this because I can only imagine that the infrastructure we have today is more powerful (CPU, memory, etc) than it when the abusefilter was first introduced. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've change them to "confirmed" in user_groups so that the filter will also ignore users with the confirmed user right. Because it just tests with that word is in the user groups. You can probably add "jetanian" to either 16 or 260 (there's also Special:AbuseFilter/58) depending on whether you want a rate limit or not. Reason both added_lines and removed_lines are there is in case the regex being tested for is moved (from memory the filter sees that as removed and added - how you'd see it if you saw in the diff view). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, adding to filter 16. Sam Walton (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Last question for now; what does "consumes X conditions of the condition limit." mean? Sam Walton (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of YouTube personalities. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Crystal Taliefero you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The article Crystal Taliefero you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Crystal Taliefero for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, MusikAnimal. I think I have found a typo in the Page menu gadget. Please see: MediaWiki:Gadget-dropdown-menus-vector.js / function addPageMenu / 'Anaylsis'. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your message regarding the edit I made on the Florence and the Machine page. I understand that you felt it wasn't constructive but it's a shame you deleted it the content because it's relevant to her new singles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.237.255 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why you protected page? censorship seems ... you have not noticed the ongoing discussion on the User talk:Cplakidas. Wikipedia is based on sources--95.233.199.151 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hallo, (and thanks to MusikAnimal for his ospitality here :-))) it's me who asked a temporary semiprotection of the article, to avoid an (already ongoing) edit warring. Please consider the following:

• The place for a discussion about an article's content belongs to the article talk page, not to an user talk page;
• According to the BRD cycle, if another user revert your changes, a discussion should start on the article's talk page and the original version of the article should stay on the article until consensus has been reached;
• What User:Cplakidas asked on his talk page makes perfectly sense. Please bring the info which he asked on Talk:Longobardia and wait for his answer;
• Keeping reverting can easily lead to your block for disruptive editing;
• If you have problem to understand what User:Cplakidas wrote, I can translate it for you in Italian;
• Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The page creator, User:Daivathar, has now moved the article to Topic:Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple. I don't know if this is a case of WP:NOTHERE, an attempt to circumvent the AfD process, gross incompetence or a bit of each. Given his history of recreating deleted articles, removing speedy templates and now an inexplicable move, I think a block is in order. What do you think? --Drm310 (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if you're confused as to what the hell is going on, see Topic:Sadzz6ecrahbu1rh and also Wikipedia talk:Flow/Archive 14#Move not listed in the logs? So, the redirect wasn't exactly to a non-existent page, the page is in there somewhere, but we just can't get to it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Topic page apparently has been deleted, or the equivalent of, so I've deleted the original location at Kuttiattoor Thittayil Sree Daivathar Temple as it was a redirect. I'll find out what's going on with the original copy to see if the AfD should be closed. Anyway considering nearly all of the user's contributions are to that page, and that page does not exist right now, I'm not sure a block is any bit preventive. We can salt the original mainspace location if need be. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop RovingPersonalityConstruct !! He keep removing Sourced content on several Wikipedia pages such as: Type 093 submarine, JL-2, Chengdu J-20. Please stop him by blocking him or protecting the pages.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Saturday February 7 in NYC: Black Life Matters Editathon

You are invited to join us at New York Public Library's Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture for our upcoming editathon, a part of the Black WikiHistory Month campaign (which also includes events in Brooklyn and Westchester!). Saturday February 7 Black Life Matters Editathon (RSVP). 12:00pm - 5:00 pm at NYPL Schomburg Center, 515 Malcolm X Boulevard (Lenox Avenue), by W 135th St The Wikipedia training and editathon will take place in the Aaron Douglas Reading Room of the Jean Blackwell Hutson Research and Reference Division, with a reception following in the Langston Hughes lobby on the first floor of the building at 5:00pm. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Any updates from User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 12#Bump? — Revi 16:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@-revi: Yes, sorry it has taken forever! I've still got numerous off-wiki projects I'm in the midst of. We can still do this, though. I'll be out of town this weekend, so let's go with next week and I'll help do the review in tandem with my other work. This time it's a promise! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought you have forgot this at all :p

ps. Please keep a look at Special:Contribs/Say2718 - he is xwiki spammer and have removed lv4 warning from his talkpage. If he adds external links again, block should be given. (I already have indef'ed him on kowiki.)

— Revi 16:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@-revi: I'm all ready when you are! Just head over to WP:GAN, click "start review" of the article you want to work on and hit save. Try to go for a shorter one since this will be your first. It is also custom to try to opt for older submissions in an effort to keep the backlog clean and orderly, but again don't pick anything you're not interested in. Let me know when you've got the review page up, and we'll add a subpage for us to chat on. I'm snowed in here in New York so I'll have ample time to work with you on the review :) Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yoohoo, I browsed GAN list and there was nothing convinced me like "I have to review this!!!!" yet, so let's wait few days and I'll hopefully find my favourite. — Revi 15:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How can delete discussion page of deleted article , because of misrepresentation and humiliation, from some users on talk page because the person whose article deleted preparing to sue wiki, because of ridicule, it is correct to delete article if it is not by policy and rules on wiki but on discussion talk page that it offends reputation of person who was subject of discussion --Admnnassau (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Admnnassau: You may not delete the discussion in whole or part. It must be retained for historical reasons. Who is planning to sue Wikipedia? You? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not me by myself but club and his lawyers, because of the humiliation on talk page , and that discussion page will be on google search that is the most problem, please help to solve this with some agreement--Admnnassau (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Admnnassau: That page is not indexed by search engines as far as I can tell. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But when you type in search name Danilo Saveljic you can find wiki article and discussion pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danilo_Savelji%C4%8D

15:59, 26 January 2015 MusikAnimal (talk | contribs) deleted page Danilo Saveljič (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo Saveljič (2nd nomination))

18:40, 5 July 2007 MastCell (talk | contribs) deleted page Danilo Saveljič (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo Saveljič)--Admnnassau (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Admnnassau: That is also not indexed by search engines. One would have to know the exact URL to find that. You've nothing to worry about. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We will see this days when when google refresh search , thanks for this information --Admnnassau (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am 100% certain it will not show up. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Musik Animal, I saw the ping. I'm thankful for your patrolling, but yes...I am requesting speedy deletion for Disconnected (Dry Cell album). Thnx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done I had retracted my comment as I thought maybe you wanted to get broader input first. Anyway the article has been deleted, let me know if you'd like it restored :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the speedy response & action. Thanks for the deletion. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. I understand I am to ask you to unprotect a page you protected before posting the request on the designated page for these things. Can you please unprotect Missori Excutive Order 44 In reading what the two editors posted I can see why you granted thei request. However they came at you under false pretenses. These two have consistently teamed Awarded on Mormon issues in a light that is explicitly POV in an un-ture light. I ask that you take the time to read through their talkpage and userpage histories. As well as my talkpage. I have been falsely accused on many accounts. Not continuing to say the same thing over and over is in no way refusing to talk. They continue to remove verifiable, scholarly edits just because they don't like them. The request to Indefinitely lock or protect this page speaks as to their motives. Keepitreal2 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Keepitreal2: Your account is autoconfirmed. You are able to edit the article. As for the content dispute, I don't a single edit from you at Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44. That is where discussions about that article should take place. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: For starters, I don't like the idea of going around adding pending-changes protection to every article that gets a little bit of vandalism here and there. A single article with a high edit rate clogging the PC backlog is the same tons of low edit rate articles under pending-changes protection. Furthermore applying any form of protection goes against the core philosophy that anyone can edit, and as such it should be avoided except when absolutely necessary. Occasional vandalism is normal for any popular wiki. This article in particular has experienced an especially low level of disruption (one instance since October possibly made in good-faith), and none going back months prior is it any bit severe, such as BLP violations. There was the ongoing "derpy derp" vandalism, but I can take care of that by other means. Formally declining your request, and I'd hope other admins would agree. I'm sorry if I sound harsh but you seem to frequently request pending-changes protection. The issue is that at first glance PC seems perfectly appropriate given the low-edit rate, but you may be missing the big picture. Of course all just my opinion... Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does frequently-edited page, same-sex marriage in the United States, get PC, while this doesn't? --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the edit rate is probably too high on that article, although most edits appeared to be from confirmed users. I'll to talk to the protecting admin about that. As for The Animal, I've thoroughly explained why I am declining the request. Here we haven't had really any recent vandalism at all. I protected way back when because of the derpy derp disruption which appears to have ceased. I also didn't think to add it to an edit filter, which will solve that problem once and for all. Anyway what I'm trying to convey to you is more about the philosophy behind avoiding protection altogether, despite if it seems to fit the criteria. I would hate for one day seeing that "Accepted" box at the top-right of an article to be the norm. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You are wrong about reversing the changes I made, although I do understand that it would be hard to believe for you that substantial parts of these songs were composed and recorded into a taperecorder in the 1980's by me (Raghu V. Acharya) back when I lived in Madison and DeForest WI, in my pre-teen and teenage years. These songs somehow got into the hands of other artists and I have yet to be compensated. It is dubious that all these songs came out in the 1990's after I took a Study Abroad trip to India in my Junior year of college. They think I just left for good. I will leave it at that, but all of these songs (and a few more) are substantially mine. Please don't delete this post, and do have a good day. -Raghu V. Acharya St. Paul, MN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.184.189 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I never said you were wrong, I just said your addition to Disarm was unsourced. See WP:REFBEGIN on how to add references. If you are unable to produce a reference, I'm afraid the content cannot be added. Everything needs to be verifiable, especially something contentious like this. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)