User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Muboshgu. 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.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Daniel Hernandez

Hi, why are you nominating the Daniel Hernandez article for deletion? That article had been nominated before and the consensus was to keep it as he has received wide coverage by the media during and after the events. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As I replied in the discussion, there was no consensus on the first deletion discussion, which I thought was the result of it taking place during the fluid situation of the shooting and its aftermath, and therefore biased by recentism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara on Talk page of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests

Can I know why you only send that message to me? As long as I know, a edit war concerns at least two parts. And about consensus, there was no consensus on exluding the sourced view of the Sahrawi protests as the starting point of the current events, neither on considering the protest on Algerian territory as part of the Western Sahara protest. In the article there is dubious or even false content, and no one tries to delete it as in this issue. As I say always, I dont accept double standarts on similar issues, as they are a clear violation of NPOV.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Everybody reverting your edits = consensus. You can try to change consensus on the talk page, but further reverts may result in a block. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

There were many users who "tried", many times, to discuss this issue with HCPUNXKID (here[1], and here [2]), however he chose to continue his editings...

Omar-Toons (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That was the sense I got from reading various talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I expected more neutrality on a administrator, you say "everybody" when they can be resumed on 3 or 4 users: Omar-Toons, TL565 & a few more. Also, doing all the changes proposed by one of the parts discussing seems to be at least partial and far for neutral. You assume that the position of TL565 is not majoritary but unanymous, wich is clearly not. The vandalism here had been made by people who are erasing SOURCED RELATED RELEVANT CONTENT on the article. Keep ignoring the reasons I give if you want (you aint answered any point I give above), but that would be a clear violation of NPOV, and I will expose it. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, and I'm not required to be neutral. You seem to have your head in the sand as other editors try to explain consensus to you. I don't see the benefit of directly debating the merit of the content you keep inserting since it's been discussed by others. Just know that if you keep acting like this, I'll have no choice but to report you to administrators, who will likely block you from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And you talk me about "having your head in the sand" with that attitude?? You aint answered any statement I made, and you assume that some editors position is the general position, wich is untrue. I didnt expect nothing more from you, as you act as the "strong cousin" of TL565 and other lobbyist like him. Do what you had to do, I have no fear to narrow-minded intolerant people.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I reverted HCPUNXKID's edits again, since he continues his editing despite the fact that there is a consensus.

I think that a report to admin noticeboard should be envisaged.

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. There was no reason to single me out in that post. I think there should be a report now. TL565 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As you're more involved, and the one singled out, it would be better coming from you, but I could do it if noone else does. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that you should do it since, as you said, I was more involved and that my involvement can be interpreted by admins as user-vs-user issue, not (as it is the case) a single user opposed to consensus and considering that his PoV is the truth.

I will, of course, testify in admins' board about what happened.

Regards --Omar-Toons (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have filed a report. Edit away - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:HCPUNXKID – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, HCPUNXKID just made a retaliatory report on you here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Muboshgu, which is pathetic in my opinion. TL565 (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I was going to advice you, but TL565 works rapidly. So when you notice my supposed edit warring is not pathetic but viceversa it is pathetic? Sincerely, I cant understand it, or only thinking bad (double standarts).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I seriously have no idea what you just said. TL565 (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents concerning you

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think reporting someone is a reportable offense. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Regarding this, it was pointed out to you at WP:AIV that my edits are not vandalism. Please be sure you know what constitutes vandalism before templating someone. 67.88.28.34 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So what do you call disruptively undoing valid edits with no reason? Because I call it vandalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism false positive Operation Odyssey Dawn

The edits that you claim are vandalism are legitimate edits with edit summaries.[3][4] Please refrain from reverting them again. Please note that clearly false claims of vandalism can themselves be considered as vandalism and can result in a block. Cheers. 75.47.129.31 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding edit summaries to NPOV edits doesn't spare them from being vandalism. I should've been more clear that it was for NPOV as opposed to general vandalism, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is a violation of WP:NPOV? 75.47.129.31 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.50.4 (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yankees roster question

Where did you get Dickerson's number? I can't find it anywhere. RevanFan (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it was mentioned in blog post on LoHud. Anyway, the spring training game or two he played with the Yankees, he donned that number. Here's a pic[5]. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what number Jose Ortegano has? He has to have something. RevanFan (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. I don't think he ever reported to camp. Which is odd, come to think of it. In situations like these, we've kept the double dash. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus All-American templates

Hi Muboshgu- I just wanted to let you know that I reverted this edit you made to {{1997 NCAA Men's Basketball Consensus All-Americans}}. The reason I did so is because there are 106 of those templates in total, and having just one look like that creates inconsistency. I also changed it back because since there are so few players on each First and Second Team, it's more visually appealing to have them aligned in the center rather than justified left with sub-groups. But anyhow, have a good one! Jrcla2 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I should've changed them all at once, but even then that doesn't deal with the centered thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2012 Presidential Candidates

Wikipedia and Wikimedia,

I was unable to edit your page of 2012 Presidential Candidates. Hopefully you can assist in completing this edit. I am the owner of the copyright of the attached photograph.

I am a declared Republican Presidential candidate 2012. My three references for verification are; http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P20001947/ http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/ http://www.politics1.com/p2012.htm

By my picture I would like the reference to say; Career flight attendant from Minnesota. My official campaign website is www.reducegovernment.com

Thank you for your help,

Thomas J. Miller Registered Candidate R., President of the United States of America 2012 Federal Election Commission ID: P20001947 Principal Campaign Committee: Reduce Government w Miller for President ID: C00462010 www.reducegovernment.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldcave (talk • contribs) 14:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Carl Crawford

"but why did you not keep the old pic in the article?"

I just did not want to move it into a spot where it looked bad and the article only had one pic in it. Wasn't trying to take away, but didn't want to add too much at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red3biggs (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I notice that alot of the time, people remove old pics that are still of value. It's a minor pet peeve of mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Cardinal Nation

It's been said that the Cardinal Nation article is writtten too much like an advertisement and it gets flagged. Well, the Red Sox Nation article is written the same way and nobody says thing one about it. That's not fair. I see enough Yankee/Red Sox bias on ESPN. I don't need to need to see it on Wikipedia either. I guess it's the same everywhere. Unless you're a fan of the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Dodgers, or Cubs, you're just going to get the shaft.

Cw6165 (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I will look into that article further and tag it as appropriate, but at first glance it is far more objective than the Cardinal Nation page. See this as evidence - "In 2011, GQ magazine ranked Red Sox fans the 6th worst in the United States - and 2nd worst in Major League Baseball behind only the Philadelphia Phillies - labeling them "insufferable hypocrites" for their "whining about the Yankees' salary-driven Evil Empire" while the Red Sox maintain a significant payroll advantage over nearly every team in MLB" – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I made some changes. I deleted some info that isn't encyclopedic, like the list of famous fans, which I remember also deleting from the Cardinal Nation page. In that you're right, these pages need to be treated by the same standards. I think the prose of Red Sox Nation is much more balanced than the style of Cardinal Nation, which is not written objectively enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith, Avoid Personal attacks, Be welcoming

I am new to Wikepedia, so I don't know the 'culture' well, but just wanted to let you know I did not consider your comment on Boxer's talk page 'Any further problems you have with the "rah-rah" factor is really your negative POV regarding Boxer or California', to be following the guidelines of 'Assume good faith; Avoid personal attacks; Be welcoming.' I do appreciate however, you making comments, contrary to some who revert edits without justification or explanation. I look forward to continuing to work with you on improving this article step by step. Rodchen (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback regarding the Boxer-Walsh incident. That feedback, even though its view was different than mine, was assuming good faith, not personal, and welcoming. I appreciated that. Rodchen (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a response from you on the Walsh incident on the Barbara Boxer page, unless you consent to it being added. Rodchen (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure I've been 100% clear that you need to demonstrate why it's notable, and Fiorina's campaign using it in ads doesn't meet that standard. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets avoid an editing war, and discuss the abortion issue on the Boxer talk page. My question for you regarding the Walsh incident was HOW does one demonstrate 'notability' (is that a word??) to your satisfaction. I have already stated it is something she is well known for, a campaign issue resulting in many campaign ads, something discussed widely, and something on many web sites - documented by the evidence of the google search. What else do you want? Rodchen (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think you can establish notability because I don't think it's notable. News coverage is not sufficient, and it's not something that's widely discussed. It was briefly discussed. If you want to bring it up on the talk page, go right ahead, but I recommend you do it in a new section. That's not a rule, but typically, discussion threads on talk pages are for one issue only, and if you try to put more than one issue in a single thread it gets confusing and things don't get addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that. I reverted your latest abortion edit again and reported you for war editing. I am sorry, but you left me no choice. Rodchen (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have reported you for edit warring, because as I tried telling you in my last edit summary, I haven't violated 3RR, but with one more revert, you would violate 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Muboshgu - you didn't violate 3RR, but you are edit warring. Please remember that 3RR is a bright line and not an entitlement. That being said, you are correct that Rodchen crossed the bright line and has therefore been blocked.--Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There are problems with the issue of "edit warring". I did what I could to stop Rodchen on talk pages and in edit summaries, but he/she kept going. His/her edits to me were borderline vandalism (though I'd agree subthreshold), and though I wasn't going to warn for vandalism, I wasn't going to let it stand either. I see no other option than to revert a time or two, and hope the other user stops or commits a bannable offense. Otherwise I'm supposed to let the bad edit stand? No thank you. I could have gone to the admin's noticeboard, but that often takes too long and works out the same way as a 3RR. I was careful to not violate 3RR, but as I see it, a little edit warring is the only way to combat edit warring, until that bright line is actually crossed. It's an imperfect system. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Rodchen's edits were anywhere close to vandalism, though clearly he is too fond of the revert button. However, I do concede that our system is imperfect. My only suggestion is to work more on the talk page. Consensus was going your way, so there wasn't much danger that the "bad edit" would stand.--Kubigula (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have encouraged me to continue discussing the abortion issue on the Boxer talk page. Are you willing to dialogue and discuss it so a mutual decision can be reached? By the way, I did take your advice regarding opening a new section regarding Walsh on the Boxer page, but have not gotten any comments. Do you have any other suggestions regarding that issue? Regarding the Walsh incident's noteability, I understand you don't think it is noteable, but what I was asking is how noteability is shown? For example, Joe Wilson's 'You lie' is well documented in his page. If somebody were to challenge that (as you have with Boxer) and say 'it is not noteable', how would somebody show that it is noteable? Rodchen (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm always ready to discuss things in a constructive way. I think you should've been more specific there. I'll comment in it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comments as of late. I appreciate that. I am sure you are a nice guy, but I consider your '13:10, 6 April 2011 Muboshgu (talk | contribs) (65,104 bytes)' edit to the Boxer page a bit tacky given that an ongoing discussion on this topic was progressing, and that you didn't explain it or justify it on the discussion page, and then got into an editing war over it. I assume 'good faith', but this edit makes it challenging for me to do that. Rodchen (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello

My response to you can be found here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:2011_Wisconsin_protests#Should_we_start_Wisconsin_Supreme_Court_election.2C_2011.3F S51438 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian Revolution

I have edited a part in the Egyptian Revolution page (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution#cite_note-95 ) (this is a link to it before being edited, don't know if it will work) about the protests being illegal for a couple of reasons, for putting a reference that is a dead link, and for it being kind of biased or not clear, i do not know if the person who wrote it meant that this was what the Egyptian government itself said or his own point of view, but either ways it should have been removed because it's reference was a dead link. (quote of said deleted part: The protests were illegal, since permission required to proceed with the demonstration had not been acquired, and the security forces had to respond according to law.[96]) And by the way, I never knew a protest/revolution required a permission to happen. Edit: and sorry I am kinda new to all this and sort of first time I use this account since creation, so I don't really know how to sign a post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoneCold45 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that explains things. The edit was flagged for removing a reference, and I didn't see a good reason to do that. Next time, please include an edit summary. Regarding permission to protest, that is legally protected in many countries. Revolution, of course, is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was my first edit ever and didn't know where I can put in details of why I edited it out, now the reference's link has been fixed and it appears that that was what the government it self claimed the "illegality" of the protests as an excuse to open fire on the protesters, not the opinion of the person who wrote it, nonetheless it should have been cleared out. StoneCold45 (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Again

Please see the talk page for the 2012 election. Thanks. S51438 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:2011 Libyan civil war. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how is that an attack? I'm pretty sure all I did was state fact. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you see how you mangled my signature with an spa tag? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh shit no I didn't. I'm sorry, I copy-pasted text from a notepad file where I did a find-replace on "spa" to fix a mistake I made on the spa tags and it caught your "span"'s. It was an honest mistake, please try to assume good faith in the future before getting to trigger happy with the warning templates, eh? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I assumed that you were competent enough not to mangle my signature before I had the chance to assume good faith for something as irregular as this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm only human, we all make mistakes. By the way, I could really warn you for not attacking editors with that comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

What comment would that be? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"I assumed that you were competent" is not a civil comment. Next time, simply revert the incorrect edit and kindly ask the other person what happened rather than assuming the worst. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal out of this but my full reply to you was: Well, I assumed that you were competent enough not to mangle my signature before I had the chance to assume good faith for something as irregular as this and it was a response to this part of your reply: It was an honest mistake, please try to assume good faith in the future before getting to trigger happy with the warning templates, eh? Here are the problems: First you made an automated/templated edit but you did not indicate it as such in your edit summary. So I thought you made the changes manually and thus I thought you were trying to connect me with the SPA somehow, rather than thinking you made a technical mistake of such magnitude. Also you failed to preview your automated edit and check it after you made it. How could I know that? I assumed that you checked your edit by previewing it and check it after the fact on the talkpage. Using the "search and replace" function is a risky manoeuvre. It can easily turn into "search and destroy" instead. Second by telling me in your reply please try to WP:AGF you implied that I did not AGF. This goes against WP:AAGF and does not take into account my analysis above in which I explained why I dismissed the technical fault aspect of your edit. Then you followed this by: before getting to trigger happy with the warning templates, eh? which I find demeaning because you implied that I was "too trigger happy" even though I acted not rushly but on the best evidence I had at the time. Finally your comment: By the way, I could really warn you for not attacking editors with that comment. implies that I wanted to "attack", although I gave you an honest appraisal of my predicament due to the faults in your initial actions. I never had the intention to attack you, I simply reacted to your own false assumptions and hidden context about me as I explained above. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

messed up color on yankees-dodgers template

Hey, during your edit attempt the colors got taken out. I tried to put them back in, but the colors weren't working properly. Please fix when you get a chance. Thanks. Arnabdas (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I more or less restored it to the way I changed it. If there's no good way to have colors in the template, there shouldn't be any. The text about the teams should be in an above parameter, not list parameters. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see the reply here. The other rivalry articles have the team name in their primarily color (e.g. Yankees in blue, Red Sox in red). If you would please change that to the Yankee blue and Dodger blue when you get a minute that would be great. Thanks. Arnabdas (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Special Election California 36th congressional district

Why did you revert the changes I made.

Matt Roozee is an independent candidate, who is properly registered and ON the printed ballot.

Please explain why you removed him from the page.

-- Chris Curzonj — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCurzon (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons I stated in the edit summary. Please read WP:RS and WP:ELNO. "Matt Roozee" is not notable enough to include on the list even if he (you?) is a registered candidate, especially without a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the definition of Notable?

Hi Muboshgu.

Honestly, I can't figure out your standards. And I don't mean that disrespectfully, but as an honest question of the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity.

You say that Matt Roozee is "not a notable candidate". Well then what IS a notable candidate? Someone who is affiliated with one of the two major parties? That seems like a political standard not an objective one as even people who have registered as democrat or republican might still be flaky. Perhaps "notable" is someone who has a decent chance to win? Well who can predict the future, especially in a field with a half dozen candidates already running? And if you insist on candidates being "notable", why do you include candidates who have declined to run? They are not even candidates at all!

Notable is a subjective description. For a person who is not notable to you may be very notable to someone else. An objective standard, especially on a page which simply lists the candidates, should simply be someone who has properly filed papers, with proper petitionary support.

And finally, I ask for your respect for Candidate Matt Roozee. In your note to me, you hint that I was Matt Roozee, operating under a false name. I am my own person, quite distinct from the candidate whom I respect and support. If you wish to see who I am, here is my website:

http://www.oracle-by-design.com/

I invite you to call me and speak personally on this if you wish. If you send an e-mail to the address associated with my Wiki account maybe we can set this up.

Sincerely,

Christopher — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisCurzon (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:N. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Back In The Saddle Tour

Hello, Google News shows extensive coverage for this 1984 Aerosmith tour, which apparently was a pivotal tour because their career had been at a low point. Though they had no album to promote, the tour was a success, attracted much positive attention, and was credited with helping to revitalize their career. Perhaps you might want to re-evaluate your AfD nomination. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of Google hits isn't sufficient on its own. If some of those hits can establish notability of the tour and are then integrated into the article, I'd consider rescinding my AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

By no means am I counting the number of hits as that isn't all that high. I see three pages of Google News hits, some duplicative, but the snippets visible of stories behind pay walls provide strong evidence that this particular tour is considered pivotal by rock journalists who write about the history of Aerosmith. Tyler and Perry reunited after a bitter feud. Fans responded enthusiastically. Geffen Records noticed the tour's success and signed them to a contract. The tour is discussed in three books. Two are autobiographical, but the third is independent and focuses on the band's recovery from addiction and total collapse. I have never been an Aerosmith fan, but what I see in the search is not a massive number of Google hits, but rather ongoing, in depth coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added several sections to the article describing the notability of this particular tour, and also added six references to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. I'll take a look. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

=Roy Halladay

Alright, added the source. Thanks. A fellow user helped me. (AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Elvis Presley

I wonder if you'd mind going to the Elvis talk page, and see whether the "Elvis was Jewish" arguments being made have any substance, or if they're all wet. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an "Elvis was Jewish" argument? I'll check it out. If we can claim him as one of our own, I'd be happy to. If it doesn't hold water though... – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone found what is supposedly the original tombstone of Elvis' mother, and it has a six-pointed star in the upper left and a cross in the upper right. Would that indicate mixed-faith background? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There are also some images of Elvis wearing the Star of David on stage. His mother’s original grave, which had the Star of David, was designed by Elvis himself. The singer also designed, with Marty Lacker, some Star of David watches. See [6]. Onefortyone (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Mets-Phillies

Yes. Good. Right. — KV5 • Talk • 23:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Simmons

Hi. I just wanted to let you know I restored the IP's edit on this page - Simmons' new website (grantland.com) was on the frontpage of ESPN.com today. They included two sample articles that will be running when the site is up later this summer. Cheers! TN X Man 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. All I saw was an unsourced unexplained edit from an IP, so I did what I usually do. I didn't realize that was official. Cheers then. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OBL

Re: "I have to hope that cowardice is a disqualification for those 72 virgins." Just wanted to let you know that you made my day! Location (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to do so! – Muboshgu (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

72? I thought it was 70. Inflation, I guess. Maybe you've heard the theory that those virgins just might be 50-ish nuns in full "habit" gear... and possibly toting rifles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought the number I've always heard in the media was 72. Maybe some jihadist thought 70 wasn't enough for him. With bin Laden's fate, it would be well deserved if all 70 (or 72) virgins look like him. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

One argument could be that since it's fiction anyway, it could be any number. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's 72. I googled [72 virgins myth], and guess what showed up:[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Woo I was right! What do I win? (Please tell me it's 72 virgins...) Whenever I google something, it seems the Wikipedia entry is always the first thing that comes up. That's why I spend as much time editing here as I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute about whether it's actually "virgins" or some type of raisins, which is slightly different. However, if they are indeed old nuns, they could be wrinkled either way. :) Which reminds me of Father Guido Sarducci, in talking about paying for your sins and being reborn if you can't: "A lot of nuns in their previous lives were Mafiosi." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homar Rojas

Your understanding of the process by which Mexican players sign with MLB clubs appears to be in error. Please see my reply in the linked thread - you may want to change your position regarding deletion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium

As I recall, the list of events was originally in the Stadium article and was spun off because it was getting too large. Yankee Stadium (the 1923 version) is the most storied baseball park there ever was, and no small number of books have been written about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir about how its the "most storied park there ever was". Maybe it should be shortened significantly and spun back in. As a standalone list, I don't think it meets criteria for inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that I'm not even a Yankees fan; but I do find the history of the team fascinating. I commented at the delete page that it should be kept and improved, i.e. there should be some kind of standards applied. Did you post the deletion notice at the baseball project page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If more context can be provided, the article can be kept. I went on a little run of AfD's today. More fun that doing work. I'll make a note at WT:BASEBALL to keep an eye on the deletion sorting page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I especially find Ruth to be an always-interesting character. And, man-oh-man, could he hit! If you haven't already, you should get the book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, by a guy named Jenkinson. It's a micro-study of his slugging career, and it left me in wonderment. "Bam" could hit the ball routinely 450-500 feet. Amazing. And Gehrig, who played in Ruth's shadow for a good portion of his career, was nearly as powerful. It would be like having Mantle and Mays hitting back to back. You have to wonder, how did they ever lose? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like my kind of read. Thanks for the suggestion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

List of MLB players with 10,000 at-bats

Hi, I wondered why you added that tag on 'notability'? The 10,000 at-bats page is actually to a higher standard in baseball with only 25 qualifying than a mere 2,500 Games Played with 52 qualifying, and there is no tag on that page. Also, there *is* a reference source contradicting the tag that mentions there is none. Could you please explain *why* you added the tag? What standard are you using in adding the tag in the first place when Games Played is also in that same genre? Can you please remove that tag? It isn't accurate or necessary. Thanks. Katydidit (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They are all of questionable notability. There are no references indicating why 10,000 at bats is in any way a milestone. I added a notability tag to the 2,500 games played page, and will probably add it to a bunch more now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You aren't very familiar with baseball milestone's numbers, are you; to add tags to other pages? Did you add one to 1,000 RBIs or 1,000 Runs scored or 500 Home Run Club? Why not, since they are just arbitrary number cut-offs, and don't mean a thing, right? How come you are the only one to feel this way, or is there secretly a huge number of editors who want these lists eliminated? Katydidit (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I might add it to the 1000 RBIs page and 1000 runs page, but I didn't because those aren't duplicative, like top 100 strikeout pitchers is to 3000 strikeout club. 500 HR club has notability. Those pages? It's unclear if they do. So I tagged them. I'm not the only one who feels this way, read the top 500 HR and 2000 hit AfD's. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters

Hello, Muboshgu. You have new messages at OwenX's talk page.
Message added 11:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pedroia list of baseball nicknames: removal of "The Laser Show"

You removed this, requesting me to cite.

I don't know how to cite when editing. However I can verify Dustin Pedroia's nickname of "The Laser Show" with any or all of the following:

1)baseball-reference.com listing "Laser Show" in parentheses after his name 
2)The original Pedroia interview of him referring to a hot streak of his as "laser show," the source of the nickname 
3)A television commercial in national  networks with one character saying "Pedroia? The Laser Show?" 
4)An ESPN clip where they list Dustin Pedroia's stats, and the words "Laser Show" appearing next to "Nickname."

A quick google search on your part would have revealed that this is in fact a valid nickname, if not in fact his most popular one.

You guys also list "Pedie Pop" and "Mighty Mouse" as Pedroia's nickname. Never, in my life, have I heard him being called any of these. However, I have heard him called "The Laser Show" many, many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.252.114 (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, read WP:Citing sources before making any additions. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking for an opinion

Heya Muboshgu!

I have seen your name come up with a lot of baseball article related deletions lately ... only one of which I didn't entirely agree with.

I have worked on articles such as List of Major League Baseball home run records. Before I go making any more such articles, I would be curious as to what your thinking is on them. I promise that I will not be offended if you think "delete". To head off a potential question: the cutoffs provided on those lists were either based on traditional cut offs that I have seen in other books or encyclopedias, or to create a list that was not too long, figuring that if the day came when any list became too long, it could be reassessed and shortened. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No rush ... I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Barnstar

You definitely have this coming:

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for keeping the 'pedia clean of crap! 98.71.244.147 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that's what I'm talking about! Good work, bro! 98.71.244.147 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfair Deletion of Soxman

Mr. Muboshgu- I awoke this morning to see that the Soxman page I spent countless hours creating was again deleted with no explanation whatsoever aside from it being a reposting of previously submitted material. The reason for the FIRST deltion was that I provided no references and that links on the page. I created a new article on the subject matter with references, links to prove the legitamacy of the person, etc. I changed everyrthing posting 5 references, linking to external media proof in Chicago, the writer's work for the Tribune company, etc. I also posted an arguement and contested when the speedy deletion nomination was put forward and I received no explantion in return. I'm really not sure what more I need to do here. I have links to the person's work, links to three major television programs the person has been on, a link to him on MLB.com, and links to proove his writing for the Chicago Tribune Rede Eye. Can you please offer me some level of guidance why this is takig place? I even viewed similar profiles comparable to Soxman. Please check Ronnie Woo Wooand Andy the Clownto see my point. Ronnie Woo Woo was in one of the references with this guy for peats sake. The speedy deletion request told admins to at least check the links and I CANNOT understand why this would be deleted after I followed all the rules. As you also appear to be an admin over baseball stuff, and actually posted something to my talk page, I was hoping you could help. What can I do to get this article posted for re-consideration? Even my photos were deleted syaing I violated copyright. How? They were taken with my camera. Thanks for any help you can provide SportsbankSportsbank (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sam Fuld

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's

This user helped promote Sam Fuld to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2012

Please note that a "straw poll" has been added at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012#Straw poll for an issue you discussed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll check it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bubba Starling

Hi, I just wanted to inform you that I removed your prod for Bubba Starling because I feel that he is notable, having garnered extensive non-local coverage over a period of time. You are of course free to take the article to AfD. Thanks, Kansan (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)