User talk:MusikAnimal/Archive 27

Hello. Regarding your recent decision to block CounterTime (talk · contribs) for 24 hours, on what basis did you think it was appropriate to block user 'CounterTime' and 'DJ SG Gayashan' equally, when the latter has not made a single useful contribution on the talk page in the last weeks nor has shown any attempt to resolve the conflict? In constrast, user CounterTime has been an active contributor to the discussion on the talk page with 77 edits to the talk page in the last month.

Besides, CounterTime a long-time major contributor to articles under Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam, whereas user 'DJ SG Gayashan' has magically appeared this month to revert agreed changes to List of expeditions of Muhammad. I question your decision and look forward to hear an explanation from you. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Just found out that Xtremedood (talk · contribs) was also blocked. He as well was involved on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Andalusi (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevant experience, talk page involvement, or just being a seasoned editor are not excuses for edit warring. Blocked parties were given more than sufficient warning. Additionally, the topic of Muhammad is subject to discretionary sanctions, as all users were informed. This means the rope is a lot shorter since the topic attracts so much disruption. And it's very obvious... three subsequent periods of full protection did not fend off the edit war, when users almost immediately proceeded to prove they were unable to work collaboratively. We simply cannot keep locking up the article from editing. Chosen block durations were procedural and not representational of one user being more disruptive than the other. If you suspect there as in issue of sockpuppetry feel free to open up a case at WP:SPI — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks for your response. I'd like to point out that for this article, a consensus was reached on the talk page on February 26 to trim the article and remove content that is based on primary sources. So the Februaury 26 version is supposed to be the "stable" version now. On March 13, the article's creator (Misconceptions2) reverted the agreed changes, claiming a muslim conspiracy and pinging dozens of users to rescue his article. That's where we saw 'DJ SG Gayashan' and other unknown users and IP addresses backing Misconceptions2, reverting changes, parroting stuff like "the truth hurts". So yes, I do suspect sockpuppetry and canvassing is at play. Here is off-site canvasing at reddit that links directly to Misconceptions2's "muslim bias" section on the talk page.

You have protected the article twice from disruptive editing. Unfortunately, in both instances, the article was locked at the problematic version, and not the one agreed on in the talk page. This is precisely why 'DJ SG Gayashn' and the IP address users found zero incentive to participate on the talk page and have done nothing but just wait there and revert anything until they ensure that the article is locked at the problematic version, and disappearing afterwards. So while CounterTime and 'DJ SG Gayashn' have clicked on the same revert button, one is acting in good faith and the other is clearly not. Hence, why I think punishing them equally was not right IMO. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal, I was wondering how to go about applying for administratorship. Do I ask someone to enter my name on the application page, or does someone enter it there for me? I've seen the application page, but I don't know how to get my application onto it properly. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Johnsmith2116 - you would have to go to WP:RFA and submit a request. Other users will discuss whether or not you are a suitable candidate. I can see that you have been here for over seven years, however, your edit count is significantly low for someone who has been around for this period of time. I do not think you are ready as of yet, but that is merely my opinion. Best, --Ches (talk) (contribs) 11:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that the move war that warratned the protection of this article is long over, I am requesting that the page be moved to the title TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs (2014), as I have moved all of the other events and the event summary article to titles with the serial comma. If you perform this move for me, my work will be complete. Thanks. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the protection. Barring another move war it can stay that way. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

could you remind me of your previous advice regarding your deletion of an obituary I had submitted to Wikipedia having previously written it for a Bristol newspaper following the death of my father, Peter Macdonald? Son of Dòmhnall (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

MusikAnimal's previous answer to this question is here. I thought I would save you some time looking for it MA :) MarnetteD|Talk 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That's it, thank you MarnetteD :) Pinging Son of Dòmhnall so they see this — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, thank you! But I don't know if I can accept yet a third one, within a one month period! — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This tool [6] doesn't seem to be working. Do you know why, and if so, can you fix it, as you are listed as a developer on the bottom of the page? Everymorning (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

At first glance I'm really not sure what's going on. Investigation pending — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Everymorning: I think we're good now. We're not really sure why it broke, but moreover, what we did to fix it... so hopefully it doesn't happen again! — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the temporary protection of The Merchant of Venice. The protection has expired, and the vandalism has resumed. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi for another 2 weeks. Thanks for the report — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt action. I don't really understand why that article attracts so much vandalism, although I suppose it does deal with anti-Semitism and is often assigned to high-schoolers for study. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to request a deletion of this revision under Criteria 2: grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. The revision in question is a user block evading using an IP address to personally attack me. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been reverts lately. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WSJ and GMUSL websites as well as the twitter feeds of law school deans are announcing the name change. Additionally student's have gotten emailed announcements saying the name was changing. [7][8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonalum (talk • contribs)

@Masonalum: It's not going to hurt anyone to wait a day to move the page. Please hold off on changing the content, creating a new page, etc. until 2 April — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the point of the internet to be instantaneous. What's the harm in posting, then deleting in the extremely unlikely circumstance where it is an April Fool's joke?

No, the point is protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia. Being a mere 24 hours out of date is worth it if we're not playing into a massive joke. You have been warned — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

== Hello from kathydodd== I'm goign to weigh in here - I get the point of what you think is protecting Wikipedia; however, as the social media manager for the university, I want all information on the web to be timely and accurate. I find the "You've been warned" threatening and I don't appreciate the comment. Just allow us to make the updates that are appropriate for the occasion. Waiting a day DOES MATTER!.Kathydodd (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)kathydodd

Hello MusikAnimal: A recent edit you performed at AfD has been reverted. You may want to check it out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely clicked on it, so yeah, gullible me! Love the gallery, especially the hamster starfish cookie animated GIF. Worth the shame :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, right on. I feel honored. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

My directive is coming from the Office of Communications and Marketing to make any edits. I know that SCHEV should approve, but the announcement is made, I don't know why we should wait until April 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathydodd (talk • contribs)

See above — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Your rationale is completely unjust. Please stop undoing my edits. Kathydodd (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)kathydodd

• (talk page watcher) @Kathydodd: Please stop adding content on this subject, MusikAnimal is correct. It's not fact until it is. This is an Encyclopedia not a daily journal. See WP:CRYSTAL Mlpearc (open channel) 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Except it is a fact.

From an outsider's perspective on this, it just seems bizarre to think that a respected university would not only make an April Fool's Day joke about the name of their own law school, but to do so at the expense of a Supreme Court justice who recently passed away. Here's a link to @Kathydodd:'s profile page on George Mason's website: https://socialmedia.gmu.edu/2014/11/kathy-dodd/. Here's an article from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/george-mason-university-to-rename-law-school-after-justice-antonin-scalia-1459452145. George Mason's own school of law website shows this change: http://www.law.gmu.edu/. I don't know what more evidence there could possibly be to prove that this change is legit. Based on the logic of what's happening with this page, if anyone with a Wikipedia page happens to die today or tomorrow, their page won't be updated to reflect this until April 2. 107.5.194.160 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, User:MusikAnimal and User:Mlpearc are being completely irrational. I don't get why a major university changing the name of their law school on MARCH THIRTY-FIRST somehow makes this a potential giant-prank conspiracy FROM A MAJOR AMERICAN UNIVERSITY! You want proof? How bout the Washington Post?: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/03/31/george-mason-law-school-to-be-renamed-the-antonin-scalia-school-of-law/

Also, User:Mlpearc previously deleted this comment for "shouting and cussing", but I'm only going to add more evidence that both User:MusikAnimal and User:Mlpearc irrational rather than allowing them to suppress how ridiculous they're being. Are we going to act as if a statement from RUTH BADER GINSBURG is all a part of this giant prank conspiracy?? Both User:MusikAnimal and User:Mlpearc should be ashamed of themselves.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fireflyfanboy: Thank for removing the "cussing" I was referring to in your revised statement. This is my last comment in this thread. Sorry for blowing up your talk MusikAnimal   P.S. Oh forgot, I'm not ashamed. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kathydodd, Fireflyfanboy, and Masonalum: First off, realize the suspicion of a an April Fools' joke was fully in the interest of protecting the encyclopedia. I discussed this with several other administrators and we collectively decided that waiting a mere 24 hours was worth it in the event it turned out to be untrue. Now, a little time has passed, and more sources are pouring in. I've done thorough research and I personally must say I no longer believe this to be a joke, which frankly is relieving. It would certainly compromise these other news outlets and the university itself to plot out and/or inadvertently support such a massive and childish antic like this – much more so than the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I will even admit you could fairly consider the decision to protect by myself and my colleagues was an error, but it was error on the side of caution – something we are expected to do, putting the project first, especially during this time of great anticipated disruption. I can only hope you understand this sincere concern.

However, incidentally, and unrelated to my decision to protect the articles, it appears the name change is still not formal. The Wall Street Journal and others accurately stated the Board of Visitors approved the rename, and an announcement was made from the school. A news report from the university detailing the announcement can found here, where they clearly state (towards the end) that The name change is pending approval from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. Other sources seem to support this: Washington Post, Bloomberg, and ABA Journal. The latter suggests this is slated to occur in July.

For this reason, coupled with the apparent controversy around the name change, I believe the full protection should stay in place at least until the wave of vandalism passes over on 2 April. From there we can together decide what's best for the articles, but unless sources clearly state it to be the case, we should not go about renaming them entirely. We of course can make prominent mention that the rename has been formally approved by the university, and that it is only pending approval from the state before being official. This is my understanding of the circumstances. I'm going to write about my findings at Talk:George Mason University School of Law where I encourage everyone to participate. Thank you — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The pending approval from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia is a rubber stamp process, which is why the school is already acting as if the name change is final. The "apparent controversy" is a sad attempt to save face. Abel (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This is what you get when you defy a god.Cyber^P(talk) 16:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As if we needed any further proof that Wikipedia has no sense of humor: After Cyber posted the above block notice, AnomieBOT tsk-tsk-ed and added "subst" to the notice. Well, I thought it was funny. --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I had it coming, even the bot knew :( — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, for those of us who like to spend our evenings perusing the user rights log, can you please have the script indicate which rights are being added/removed (i.e. "+MMS" "-rollback" etc)? For people with a lot of permissions it's a pain to try to compare either side, and the permalink doesn't help much. Though I suppose I may just be lazy. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 00:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No this is a great idea, and I can easily implement it. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not immediately seeing the connection you've made diff between Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates and Pecan pie. How did that arise? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Haha!! Bots are smarter than humans, if you try hard, I'm sure you'll discover a connection... :) Explained at WP:GEO. Thanks for letting me know, will work on a fix — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Im looking at this IP address 174.120.172.162. A steward Stryn gave a 1-year global block. Does that mean, the ip cannot edit English Wiki, as well as other languages? Winterysteppe (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Global blocks apply to all projects — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello MA. With this edit I tried to add automatic archiving to the OW article. I have not worked with this before so it is more than likely that I did not do it properly. Anything that you can do to clean things up would be most helpful. Thanks for your time and enjoy the first full week of April! MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hey! I adjusted the counter to be 6 since there are 5 archive pages currently. I would think the bot wouldn't care and just write to whatever you have it set to, but maybe it does. Let's see if starts archiving on the next run-through. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks MA. An item like that is exactly what I was afraid that I had missed. I appreciate your checking on this. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: The archiving has commenced so things look copacetic :-) MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In light of last week's events, this may interest or amuse you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That was bound to happen =P — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you need to have a speedy tag in User:MusikPuppet/common.js? It's making the page appear in the speedy deletion category. (I assume that if you actually wanted it deleted, you would have deleted it yourself.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha, no it was just a test. I did not think it actually showed up in the category. Just removed the tag. Sorry about that — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

When you open a page to edit in your userspace, a tag on the top pops up saying: Head over to my talk page if you'd like to chat. This page is in my userspace, so you probably shouldn't be trying to edit it. — MusikAnimal talk I'm just very curious as to how you did that and can't find out how so can you please tell me on my talk page or here. Thanks so much. NikolaiHo 04:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nikolaiho: See Wikipedia:Editnotice. In my case it's actually a group notice, which only admins can create, but you should be able to create edit notices for any page in your userspace — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Do you think the wording of this Arbcom page should be updated to mention 500/30? Right now we have:

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

At some point an ARCA might need to be filed to request updating any pages that are in the Arbcom domain. It may take a while to think of all of them. Another thing to consider is that the community might, on its own, decide that it wants 500/30 to be applied in other areas, on the community's authority. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I think that should definitely mention 500/30, but only saying it's for the topics (currently) authorized to be under that form of protection. Admins could still take other actions to impose discretionary sanctions. For instance, pages regarding Muhammad are subject to sanctions, but are not authorized for 30/500 protection, though I think it should be.

Right now I'll admit this all is super confusing and there's a lot more discussion to follow. Ultimately I think we should be able to apply 30/500 to any page, but only with a strict and conservative criteria for its usage — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Or hell, I don't know, to be honest. Maybe we are allowed to add protection to any page subject to discretionary sanctions? My understanding was the topics were strictly defined, and doesn't include everything you see listed at Template:Alert — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Other discussions are at User talk:Bishonen and WT:RFPP. The Gamergate 500/30 was imposed by a single admin (after an AE discussion) back in May 2015. So it doesn't appear that each Arbcom decision needs a separate authorization of 500/30. But if the authority comes through DS, then a link to some case is required, and the protection goes in WP:DSLOG. Such a protection is appealable at AE. Which is a bit different than each admin at RFPP making a creative choice from the protection menu, for protection of pages that might be unrelated to a case. Of course, the community could make up its own rules for community 500/30 which would not have to be connected to a case. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Interesting. Some things like WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 make it very clear this editing restriction applies to all pages related to that subject (in this case Israel-Arab conflict). As such, when new pages get created, they'd need to be put under this protection, which is why I've recommended implementing this process into WP:RFPP. Most of me, however, wants to follow the normal, natural school of thought that a wiki should be open until disruption proves that preventive measures are necessary. We need to get a big RfC going or something. The new protection level got implemented too soon, I think — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree MusikAnimal, some sort of policy discussion should have been developed prior to roll out. And yesterday was the first I had heard of this. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Last edit was March. None of IP edits were accepted. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yo. MoreMenu no longer appears on user pages of users having the newly introduced extendedconfirmed flag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights

That might be because you are logged out. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Tried it out on my alt account and it worked — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I totally misread. They are correct: There is a cache of the available user groups, as that obviously doesn't change very much. I've made a fix that checks if the given user right is in the cache, and if not, simply clear the cache. That should do it. Thanks to 208.83.7.80 for the bug report — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Northamerica1000! To you as well :) Love love love dim sum — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MusikAnimal. Regarding Traffic Report, it seems if a page is moved then it is not possible to see its legacy traffic.

Ideally, the legacy traffic would be seen on a separate graph.

I looked at Sorcha Faal reports and there is no data.

I tried to look at its old name Sorcha Faal but the tool will not allow me to view that page name. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ditto with a couple others, and it appears not to be able to use the old names moved from. Anmccaff (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax and Anmccaff: Well for Sorcha Faal reports, you're not seeing any data because the Wikimedia API hasn't populated anything into the new location. This usually takes a full 24 hours. When it does get populated, you'll only see data for the new location, though. This is a known issue, and technically a limitation on the WMF-side. Adding a workaround is on the radar, but it may be a while. In the meantime you can just add the redirects to the list of articles to show, like this. Once data becomes available for the new location you will see it plotted alongside the old location.

Regarding why you couldn't find Sorcha Faal, you have to enable searching of redirects in Settings > "Autocompletion including redirects". However, it appears this still won't show redirects... I guess the opensearch functionality has changed. How frustrating. I can try to find out why this happened, and what I can do to allow searching of redirects. For your case I just manually put in Sorcha_Faal in the URL to get it to show that data. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Anmccaff (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, please see Horizon Services. - Ye Classic (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Page view statistics" tool has a problem with pages like "Mead & Conway" it shows up as "Mead" and the graph seems to belong to the other page too. Having thought about this some more, this may also be a security issue. Bytesock (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bytesock: Should be fixed now. Thanks for the report — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In continuation of the blocked * on tyres accounts now comes

• 17:46, 11 April 2016 User account Musíkanimal needs to fjuck off (talk | contribs) was created

Best, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The vandalism levels are quite bad at the moment - probably because of school children returning from their Easter holidays. Thanks for helping out today, and for deleting that article - much appreciated! --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a bit out of control today! I'm staying busy, to say the least — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As am I! :-) --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: In the edit counter (x-tools), clicking on a link below SUL Editcounter gives me an Error 301 (and makes wait a while) before it redirects. I remember pushing two commits to fix the 301 and that seems to have been left out. Could you fix it? --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok about the RfA I will just wait and see. Xx C00l G$Y x^t@lk 16:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay... I've transcluded — MusikAnimal ^talk

Xx C00l G$Y x#^t@lk 17:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed my article has been deleted and i think that is unnecessary given that the info i uploaded was of my album just the same as any artists. Would've been nice for someone to explain to me what went wrong! My album is charting and i am a professional indie artist and a Grammy nominated songwriter if accolades are what you are looking for. I would really appreciate the help in putting my info here for the people who are searching for me and my music, if that isn't a problem. Cheers Iamjustclay (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iamjustclay: Hey! Sorry you're having trouble. On Wikipedia, when someone wants to communicate with you, they'll do so on your talk page. There a see several notices and a personal message explaining what was wrong with your articles. I'll stand by their position, which is first and foremost you really should not be writing about yourself. If your work is notable enough, rest assured an article will be created eventually. The ones you created seemed overly promotional, which is why autobiographies are so strongly discouraged. You also need to include proper sourcing to assert that the subject meets our notability guideline. If you wish to make another attempt at these articles please go through our Articles For Creation program, so that more experienced editors can help you with your articles. Use the article wizard to get this set up. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have been informed but the stats tool has been down for a week. Btw good work on maintaining the tool. --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Sorry, not sure what tool you're referring to? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Page view statistics.. Unless its not called a tool lol. --Makeandtoss (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: It is a tool, but it should be working. What browser/operating system are you using? Do you have cookies disbaled or are using an ad blocker? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am using an adblocker, buts its irrelevant because I can see the tool but I can't see data for the past 7 days. This is the same for all articles Makeandtoss (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: (Hope you don't mind the pings) Hmm you should be seeing data, I do at [20]. Is that on enwiki or a different project? Are you seeing any data for other articles? — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

On enwiki yes, the same link you just put.. No same thing for other articles.Makeandtoss (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Alright, I know this annoying, but would you mind following the steps at WP:JSERROR to tell me what errors you're getting (if any)? Also which browser/OS are you using? E.g. IE 10, Windows 7, etc? — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Chrome: Page menu → Tools → JavaScript Console (Ctrl+⇧ Shift+J). For OSX, use ⌥ Option+⌘ Command+I then hit esc (escape) to open the JavaScript console. Errors will appear in red." Im using a chrome on a mac, im getting "more tools" instead of "tools" and no "Javascript Console" shows up. I tried pressing the keys but they don't work either. [21] Makeandtoss (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

(←) @Makeandtoss: Click on the "Developer tools" link, as seen in your screenshot. From there click on the "Console" tab, load the Pageviews app for Jordan, and see if there's anything in red — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope, nothing in red. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi -- I was creating a stub article to satisfy a redlink, and noticed it had been deleted a couple of days ago. The reasons given were spam/copyvio, neither of which should be true for this version. Can you give it a look to make sure it's OK? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent visual image of the Manhattan Chinatown picture, with fantastic photography, MusikAnimal! Would it be possible for you to do the same justice for the Brooklyn Chinatown (the biggest one, in Sunset Park) and upload several images to Commons? Thank you! Best, Castncoot (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Hey, thanks! I did actually make a trip to Sunset Park a while back, and have uploaded the few I have worth sharing. None are that great, but hopefully of some use. Cheers

— MusikAnimal ^talk 22:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks, MusikAnimal! Would it be possible for you to crop out the left one-third of the third image? Best, Castncoot (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Castncoot: How about File:Sunset Park, Brooklyn looking south from 57th St (cropped).JPG? — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Fabulous. Thank you. Castncoot (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, is there any way to find or create a log for help-me requests answered? Can X's Tool do that? Thanks.WannaBeEditor (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@WannaBeEditor: There is no automated way of doing this that I'm aware of. However so long as you're consistent with your edit summaries, you could use toollabs:sigma/summary.py to find the edits. E.g. [22] — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it works pretty well. WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Clever bit of programming![23] Were you planning to add this to all the ref desk pages? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I got that code from WP:AN, so not my authoring :) I just added it per the above discussion. Feel free to add to any non-mainspace page that's continually being protected for brief periods of time — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Aha! Well, you're the one that posted it, so I give you credit. This should solve the minor but somewhat annoying problem of a page being protected but the template not showing. Though I'm wondering if the bot that clears the template after protection expires, will also tinker with this one. I'm thinking it looks specifically for the plain "pp" template, but I guess we'll find out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

That'd be my bot :) And nope, it will ignore any page that uses the PROTECTIONLEVEL magic word. Theoretically it should never be problem, though, since once protection expires {{pp}} would no longer be trasncluded, and hence the page would not be put in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates which is what the bot goes off of — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Is it possible to mark a page (specifically, WP:RD/H) so that MusikBot does not remove the {{pp}} template? Because of the way that the Reference Desks currently operate, protection for this page (and potentially other reference desk pages) is applied for short periods (generally no more than a couple of days), the page remains unprotected for a similar period, then protection is applied again. It would be more convenient if the {{pp}} template could remain on the page during its short periods of unprotection, rather than being removed automatically by the bot. Tevildo (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO that isn't needed. 1) It is easy to reapply the template when the new protection is added. 2) It keeps the pages out of the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. 3) Some day (wishful thinking at this point time I know) WikiP might go days or weeks without a protection being needed. 4) The various Ref desks do not get hit equally - Humanities most often as you say - but some of the others less or even not at all - I don't think they should have the template there when they aren't protected. 5) An alternative is to not place the "pp" template at all since the page is protected whether the template is there are not. Please don't get me wrong I understand where you are coming from Tevildo but I don't think the benefit of this outweighs the other considerations. Now that is just me and if you want to proceed with T's suggestion MusikAnimal that is fine. I hope that you both have a pleasant Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 00:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tevildo: I had considered making this bot task exclusion compliant, but following MarnetteD's thoughts, the whole point is to get the page out of the maintenance category. Being in that category means the template is being misused. For your purposes I'd recommend automating usage of protection templates, as is the case at WP:AN using the code {{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{pp|small=yes}}}} — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the solution! Let's hope this keeps everyone as happy as is possible in the circumstances. Tevildo (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for granting me autopatrol!--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I shall leave this message here despite the continuation from the standard note on my talk. I thank you sincerely for granting the feature. Right now is my bedtime and the wife is groaning at me to get off the PC, so I will need to explore this new tool from tomorrow or as soon as I get proper time to edit. Warm regards. --OJ (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You MADE MY DAY!!!!!!!!! Thank you a lot this is the tool I was waiting for for so long! We are a bilingual community and do lots of efforts in translating content and promoting translations. This tool help us to determine the impact. I've done some tests and it works perfectly. Bugs: In some searches it shows "Error fetching data for fiwiki: Error in Cassandra table storage backend", the name of the affected wiki changes depending on the search. How can I help you? Can I widely spread this tool? I love it!! Thanks again!--Kippelboy (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kippelboy: Glad you like it!! I need to talk to the WMF services team about the error you see. I don't know how to prevent it, but I can tell you if it happens, just run the query again and it should work. Once I get that ironed out I plan to have Pageviews link to Langviews, and then it should sell itself. Feel free to tell your friends about it in the meantime, though :) Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Is adding a table of contents (not __TOC__, something else) for an article vandalism? See the link. [29] Peter Sam Fan 20:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Peter SamFan: No at first glance this seems constructive, certainly good-faith editing. Here I think they're trying to write out the table of contents for the book itself. As far as aesthetics go I can see why you might find it disruptive, though. Instead of misusing bullets points (bullets should follow another bullet, with no content in between), have them use a level 3 section heading, e.g. ===Chapter I===. If you feel this is delving into too much detail on the subject (perhaps an overall synopsis is better than a chapter by chapter walkthrough), it should be discussed on the talk page. Hope this helps — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Peter Sam Fan 21:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

User:24hrnewsweathertraffic showed up about a day after you blocked User:Dung247, and immediately began editing most of the same articles, and adding the same kind of info. They even posted a message in the same section on my talk page here, and even edited the older user's comments here. Based on this, it looks to be a sock per Duck. I'm not very good at filing SPIs yet, so I'm letting you know directly of my suspicions, as you were the blocking admin. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@BilCat: I replied about this above. The new account did not edit while the old account was blocked, and the old account appears to have been abandoned. I would ask them to kindly disclose the connection, if there is one. As it stands now I don't see "abuse" of multiple accounts, but I could easily be missing something — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal! My UAA report has been declined yet again. I would like to enquire the policy on usernames. The user in question created an account of his real name. That is fine, I understand. But he went ahead and then created a page of himself of the similar name twice, and A7ed twice. Even before the recreation I had already reported him on UAA for clearly SPA for self-promotion, yet I've been told that that is not a violation of username policy. I hope that you'd be able to clarify, as I don't see how reporting him under AIV, AN or ANI and even COI is appropriate except for UAA. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, the thing is, the problem is not their username; the problem is their edits. UAA is for accounts where it is specifically the username that's the problem.

Think of it this way: if this user had never made an edit of any kind, good or bad, would their username still be a problem? If the answer to that question is "no", then it's not appropriate to report them to UAA. The inverse of that is not necessarily true--not all accounts with inherently problematic names need be reported to UAA, because it might not worth the bother if they've never edited, etc.--but it is a minimum requirement that a username be inherently problematic to be reported at UAA. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Thanks for your reply. I get it now. I won't make the same mistake again. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that User:Dung247 who you blocked recently is now editing as User:24hrnewsweathertraffic based on the edits made, corrections to Dung247 edits and identical edits to radio article. Although they did not edit during the time Dung257 was blocked they appear to be continuing in the same manner. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

My main concern is the second account started editing around the time the first account's block expired, so we probably shouldn't consider it block evasion. I would ask them personally if they are editing under a second account, and if so, to disclose this on their userpage. Unless actual abuse is observed I'm not comfortable blocking as a sock, but the experts at WP:SPI would certainly do a better job of evaluating this. Feel free to open a case there if you wish. Sorry I can't be of more help! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

User has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/dung247. - BilCat (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

And immediately User:24hournewstation begins editing. Sigh. Reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/dung247. - BilCat (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Rubbish computer!! You as well! You are kicking ass with the counter-vandalism and it is very much appreciated :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks: I think I just thanked you for the wrong edit, but never mind. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw you revdel'd the edit summaries, but you missed the logs. Thanks for your hard work! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks for taking care of that KrakatoaKatie! She's always cleaning up my mess — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There's actually still a log entry that didn't get caught, probably since it's not in the move log but the protection log. Thanks again! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, I think — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the fixing the mess thing is the other way around. But what I really want is for him to pop up and say he simply changed his name again and he's still really here. Katie^talk 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Daw that made me sad, and couldn't agree more :( The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and we happened to live when Prince did. I feel lucky! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  Agree. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I saw you blocked an editor I reported to AIV, so I guessed you might still be online and able to answer a question I had about a talk page. There has been what appears to be a rant posted to Talk:Sex (disambiguation) would it be appropriate for me to delete it or should I just leave it? Any advice would be helpful! Thanks! --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Never mind Materialscientist helped me out --Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)