Jump to content

User talk:Music1201/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Round-robin

Hi Music1201, this is about a round-robin move you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Americans. I made this redirect from the old page to the new one for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.

For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. See WP:PMVR#rr for the details. Of course, these additional redirects to be created could also use good judgment, but a move without redirect suppression would produce them anyway. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

your rejection of a correction to a semi-protected page was unworthy of rejection and I strongly suggest you research the request prior to making blank accusations about an edit's verifiability, kind sir

reGARDING this edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANovak_Djokovic&type=revision&diff=719327536&oldid=719285006

You were wrong, and someone else made the request the next day. I'm not sure why you rejected this request. It was valid, and you need to be aware of your mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The subsequent edit request, unlike yours, was backed up by reliable sources. We can't just insert information that is supposedly true when there's nothing to verify it. Omni Flames (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Gee, you could have just looked it up. Just make that page editable anyway. OBviously I'm not trying to make errors to pages. But wikipedia doesn't care. It's a dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@98.204.228.159: In the future, please make sure your edit requests are backed by reliable sources. — Music1201 talk 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
do you see any evidence of me making or requesting an improper edit in the main or template namespaces? Assume good faith or something?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, that's not how we do things around here. If you want something added to an article, you have to find a source to back it up. It's not the job of the processor of the edit request to do all the research so that a poorly sourced request can be enacted. Omni Flames (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


No other editor has ever denied my request on that article. I suggest that you patrol only topics that you understand. Anyone paying attention to tennis would have known that was a legitimate request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Any other editor would've also declined such a request. Whether or not the request was legitimate or not makes no difference, you need a source. Omni Flames (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, everything is backwards. You just called me a liar ("that's not true") when in fact YOU CAN LOOK AT MY HISTORY ON THAT PAGE and the requests WERE HONORED. Further, there are no sources immediately after an event (minutes after it) so ONLY PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC SHOULD BE DENYING LEGITMATE EDITS.

Stop calling me a liar. Go check my other requests that WERE honored. Again, I am not the problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, since you asked, I did check your other comments on that page. You made two previous comments (not formal requests for additions, just comments) on that talk page: here and here. Nobody replied to them; they seem to have been ignored. In early May you made a formal request to have information added here; the request was declined by Music1201 because there was no source, no reference. A few hours later somebody else made the same request but did supply a source, and that was added. You noticed this yesterday, six weeks later, and you have been carrying on and on (25 or 30 edits so far) about it, insulting Music1201 for not doing it when you requested it, and insulting other people for telling you that you shouldn't insult people. NOBODY gets that worked up because someone declined a request a month earlier. Nobody but you. I see from your earlier history that this kind of thing has been a pattern with you, and in fact you have been blocked twice for personal attacks. Bottom line: this is not about Wikipedia; it is about you. Yes, you ARE the problem here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Order of Friars Minor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of Friars Minor. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kingdom of Ulidia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kingdom of Ulidia. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Using archive.is

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Using archive.is. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Omni Flames (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It's sortuva non-discussion, actually, since nothing will come of it. I am sorry I shouted at a new editr (that means you). I am surprised that someone with only 6 months experience would be closing RFCs. I totally assumed you had been here longer, simply for that reason. Having said that , I strongly suggest that you find a nice admin to be your mentor. I was gonna suggest User:Omni Flames, but oh wait, he/she isn't an admin either. You both could find a mentor together, then. Cheers!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Changing my edits

Would you care to explain to me why the late Paul Crouch was not disgraced. It is appropriate especially to a reader who doesn't know anything about him. His reputation was ruined by scandal prior to his death. His assembly continually plays down the reputational damage he left with his legacy of flamboyancy and flouting of federal tax laws. If accomplished men/women can be distinctively credited on WP as distinguished, those noteworthy ones who's reputation ruinously collapsed should thusly be legitimately distinguished as disgraced. So stop changing my edits. 2602:306:320A:AF0:32:D139:13D9:FD3E (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:320A:AF0:32:D139:13D9:FD3E: Wikipedia is not for personal opinions. Please read over the BLP policy, all information must be in a neutral point of view. — Music1201 talk 06:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I changed it sir because it saying texas age of consent is 18 is wrong the link used [1] refers to Sexual Performance by a Child is closely related to the Texas offense of Indecency with a Child, but there are important differences. The age of consent for the Sexual Performance offense is 18 years old, while the age of consent for Indecency with a Child is 17 years old. The prohibited behavior is also different. “Sexual Performance” requires either some kind of visual representation such as a part in a play or movie (or, for instance, a selfie or other cell phone photo or video) or sexual conduct.1 The Sexual Performance by a Child law also extends to parents of children and people who are involved with a film such as directors, promoters and producers, but there are numerous exceptions described in the sexual performance statute as well. it is not age of consent just how old to be in media involving sex

this refers to its age of consent[2] 

Sec. 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years of age, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex, the person:

(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or

(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:

(A) exposes the person's anus or any part of the person's genitals, knowing the child is present; or

(B) causes the child to expose the child's anus or any part of the child's genitals.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:

(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;

(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and

(3) at the time of the offense:

(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or

(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section.

(b-1) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor was the spouse of the child at the time of the offense.

(c) In this section, "sexual contact" means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:

(1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child; or

(2) any touching of any part of the body of a child, including touching through clothing, with the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a person.

(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the third degree.

maybe I edited it wrong but texas age of consent is 17 its just that you have to be 18 to perform sexual acts in visual media

@Plmokg22345: Although a lot of information was removed. When finding reliable sources and then updating information, be sure to only update the information that is found in the new source. — Music1201 talk 06:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

so can I edit texas age of consent as 17 and leave the part about sec 43.25 and just reword it a little — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plmokg22345 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I edited it again is this ok [3]

@Plmokg22345: Yes, thanks for contributing. — Music1201 talk 07:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm#43.25
  2. ^ http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.21.htm#21.11
  3. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States&diff=729015020&oldid=729015001

Please comment on Talk:Rolfing

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rolfing. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi you can check out my page on wikipedia witaj karolciu? --Olaf222222244 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you make me adminstrator.?,Nijwmsa Boro (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Music1201 can't make you an admin, the user isn't an administrator. If you want to request to be an admin, please do so at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. And even if you want to be an admin, I would highly recommend getting way more experience here on Wikipedia, because your account is barely one day old, and you have made only 52 live contributions (61 total, but 9 of your contributions have been deleted)(you can see how many contributions you have here). I'm not saying for you to give up your admin quest, just get more experience on the English Wikipedia. Thank you, and have a nice day. Redolta📱 Contribs 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Unit Application

Hello, Music1201! I'm Redolta, and you might remember me from my unsuccessful application on 30 May 2016. I have just gotten 200 mainspace edits, and I am re-applying for the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. I have 201 mainspace edits (as of when I'm signing this), and your proof is right here. By the way, if you see replication lag or some stupid malfunction like that, wait it out (unless you can see I have 200 mainspace edits) If you can accept me as a student for CVUA, that would be great. Thank you for reconsidering, and have a nice day. Redolta (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Redolta Your CVUA page is at User:Music1201/CVUA/Redolta. — Music1201 talk 16:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should WP:FAMILY be deleted from WP:SOCK?

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
 – — Music1201 talk 17:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
User talk page discussion
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
@Lingzhi: I did, but it was very clear that the overall consensus was to not delete. — Music1201 talk 02:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • You didn't answer my question. I agree that "not delete" won over "delete", but I think "not delete but please ALTER" actually won over all three options..  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: That is not what the RfC was for though. The RfC was to determine whether or not the section should be deleted. Anyone may boldly alter the section, but the outcome of the RfC was "not delete". — Music1201 talk 21:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: You can boldly make minor changes. Perhaps another RfC should be opened about amending the section in question. — Music1201 talk 21:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: The title of the RfC was "Should WP:FAMILY be deleted from WP:SOCK?", not "Should WP:FAMILY be changed." Another RfC with the proposed changed should be created. — Music1201 talk 02:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the song and dance. But Nope. Think carefully: I haven't counted the people !voting or the !votes, but you just totally fucking ignored the will of the editors. You blew them off with a "Fuck you, read the fucking title". Many people argue about the value of WP:IAR, but this is a classic case where any admin should have used that thing.. what's that thing called again? It's that thing between your ears... Oh yeah, your brain! You should have listened to the will of the editors. Now wait. Think. What happens because of your <insert negative assessment of your job performance here>? We have to go through another fucking RFC because you just don't wanna do your job. EVERYONE's time and effort is WASTED by your.... whatever it is. If I call WP:SPADE and label your effort what it is, that will give you a gaping open door to call WP:NPA as a second means of covering your ass (after the first one you've already used: "Look bro, read the title."). I WILL Oppose your RfA. I doubt it will do much good, because I'm sure you'll make friends with admins who will circle the wagons. But You. Did. Not. Use. Your. Brain. And it completely erased everyone's efforts, everyone's thoughts.. And fixing your fuckup will cost a huge effort (new RFC) that no one wants to go through... And admins should use their brains. Best wishes and good luck in all you do. I'm adding a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template in my next edit. Cheers.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard thread
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Music1201/Archive_5&oldid=1143184027"