User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri primary, 2004

You might be interested in my AFD comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for J. Bonnie Newman

On February 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. Bonnie Newman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Inadvertent double redirect

I think you may have caused a doulbe redirect with this move/edit [1] It appears that the edit and discussion links in the NFL NHL drafts template now double redirect to Draft Progression. Slysplace ^{talk ♫}

If there is a double redirect, it is inadvertent. I believe Template:NHL drafts should be the main NHL draft template and the other should be phased out. I don't understand what this has to do with NFL draft templates.--Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OK NFL Was a Typo, The template change / move is fine by me, it just took a moment for me to realize the name= paramater within the template also needed to be renamed to match and is case sensitive. No problems I've fixed the issue and replaced the template within the articles using it. If someone were to click the edit link in the template it now loads the corect template and not Draft Progression. Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking to older versions of pages

This is regarding your comment about not knowing how to link to older versions of the hockey templates (i.e. "permalinking"). This applies to any Wikipedia page, actually. If you click the tab at the top of the page that says "history", you are taken to that page's "Revision history". Click on any date in the list, and you can view an older version of the page. For example this is a link to the Chicago Blackhawks template just before your edits. Likewise, you compare all changes that have occurred between any two edits: click the two radio buttons beside the times you want to compare, then click "Compare selected versions". I did this above to link to your comment. Permalinking can come in handy in talk page discussions. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That does come in handy. I thought there was some Wikicoded way of doing it I wasn't aware of. Thanks so much! --Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead Margin

I'm not going to get into an edit war about it or anything, but the "lead margin" column was introduced in the 2008 presidential election polling (ie. see Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008) It's helpful if there are several polls over time, because you can see immediately how the race tightens (or doesn't). –Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 February 2009 (EST)

I hadn't noticed that in the 2008 pres election, but I know it's not used in any ongoing election pages, and I feel like we can all do the math ourselves.--Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations

It's great that you are citing sources for information that you add to articles, but something like this:

<ref>http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2009/02/24/bunning-i-would-have-a-suit-if-republicans-recruit-an-opponent/</ref>

isn't a complete citation. That's a problem: first, if the link goes bad, the citation is essentially worthless; second, including only a url makes it harder for other editors to easily see if the source is a reliable one, and it makes it harder for readers to get a sense of the sources used in an article.

There are any number of ways to make a complete footnote; you'll find a tutorial here, for example. Or you can just find an existing (complete) footnote in the article you're working on, and use that as a model. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, sometimes when I post sources I'm busy and get lazy. I know how to make complete citations and I'll make an effort to do that in the future.--Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to find it's quickest to use the {{cite news}} template; you can just copy/paste the relevant info (title, work, date usually is it, plus url, which you're already doing) right in, in whatever order you find them, then insert the | title= |work= |date= |url= parameters where needed, and you're done.

(And I hope you keep up your good work - even a naked url in a footnote is a lot better than many, if not most other editors do, unfortunately. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for February 2009

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 23 - February 2009

"I want to find the guy that invented compression and tear his liver out. I hate it. It makes everything sound like a beer commercial." - Steve Albini Project news In Utero reached featured article status in the past month! Well done to WesleyDodds. The discographies of Bauhaus and Sigur Rós reached featured list status during the past month. Well done to JD554 and Matthewedwards. Year Zero (album) was featured on the Main Page on February 2. We collaborated on "All Apologies", Shoegazing, The Stone Roses, and The Jesus and Mary Chain during the past month. During the month of February, Augie March, Modern Life Is Rubbish, "Give It Away" (Red Hot Chili Peppers song), and The Get Up Kids were promoted to good article status. This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Mudhoney - Superfuzz Bigmuff (1988).

New members MikeGruz and Blackadam2 joined the alternative music fold during February. Editors User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot II (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to File:So You're a Man.jpg

Regarding this: are you Rich Cory-Wright, or have you had communication with Rich Cory-Wright which establishes his intention to release this image under the GFDL? English as tuppence 09:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on his Flickr comment and the fact that he uploaded the picture to wikipedia, I assumed it didn't matter if I or he changed the licensing, but if it does, then I'll revert it and contact him.--Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see he hasn't edited on Wikipedia in about two weeks. I don't think that should be held against all of us in the deletion of that picture. It seems to be on the up and up, though his confirmation would be nice.--Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New York gubernatorial election, 1846

Please tell me what is your source for Lewis Masquirer being the candidate of the Land Reform Party. I have not found any mention of this candidate anywhere in primary sources. Kraxler (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I forgot to source it. It is here, and I've added it to the article.--Muboshgu (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OurCampaigns is not a reliable source. It is itself a place where people add info without giving their primary sources. I am quite certain that this is a mistake, there is nowhere any reference to Lewis Maquirer in NY, and especially at this election. I will delete it again.

I intend to substitute the gubernatorial election template with the state election template because the gubernatorial elections are all in one article, and the special articles for the annual elections will have much more info than just the governor's race. There were more officers elected statewide than Gov. and Lt. Gov. and the Gubernatorial elections articles are useless duplication. Kraxler (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point about OurCampaigns, I'll keep that in mind in the future.

Gubernatorial elections have separate articles, deservedly so, though there is less info for the earlier ones. Surely the 2010 gov race has enough info to be kept separate from AG and comptroller elections. So they should be kept its a gov only template. It gets too confusing to mix them with the other state election pages. That massive template was getting messy. So, I took all the gov elections out of the state elections template. State election pages can briefly mention the gov election and link to the main page, but the gov pages and template should remain independent.--Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just don't mess things up beyound reason, and duplication is USELESS. Certainly the recent gubernatorial elections will keep their main articles. And that ElectionsNY template is much too bulky. Maybe somebody can edit that, if not I will take it off the separate state election articles, it's almost bigger that the article itself... Kraxler (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

UNDO YOUR EDIT OF MY STATE ELECTION TEMPLATE. After all, except for tags, you have contributed NOTHING to these articles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kraxler (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I will not. You don't own anything you post on wikipedia, it is subject to edits from anybody.--Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot simply revert it back because you want to, or because you are claiming some sort of ownership. You mentioned duplication of articles, but adding gov articles into a general template while a gov template already exists is duplicative. I am reverting it back and I must insist that you keep it the way it is, lest this turn into an edit war.--Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not claim ownership. I do want to give INFORMATIONin the article, not DECORATION! I'm doing some research to write useful and informative articles. You just put a lot of useless tags on it. Just stop it. If not, we will have to call for mediation by an administrator. After all, it is the truth, YOU HAVE NOT ADDED ONE SINGLE WORD OF THE TEXT in these articles. You do not even know what these are about. You are just a "tagger", probably with a million edits... Kraxler (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making no sense. A "tagger"? I have been fixing the categories, which you're undoing. I haven't contributed a word of text when there are barely any words on the page and this means something? I've done alot to maintain election related articles, which should be done by a standard formatting style that I'm following. If there's going to be so much info on the page, then the ElectionsNY template won't interfere. But still, gubernatorial elections DO NOT BELONG in a template for state elections because they HAVE THEIR OWN TEMPLATE.--Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no gubernatorial-only elections any more, you better understand History before talking rubbish. All these state officers are nominated and elected together which makes it a "state election". In previous elections, when only a governor and a lt gov were elected, the title is ok, it does not really matter. From 1844 in NY, it is a state election, with or without governor. Do not worry about the tags, they are quite unnecessary. INFORMATION is necessary, not tags! Certainly I can not fix everything at once, some articles are rather empty, they will grow with time, but not with a tag that is bigger than the article itself. Stop vandalizing my project. You are not a member of WikiProject New York. Besides, do not attempt to "standardize" WikiPedia, that's a task for Sysiphus, there a millions of contributors, and many have never read the manual of style. And there are a lot of bot-generated articles on politicians, why don't you clean them up, instead of arguing about where and if to place a tag on something, that is completely absurd. And by the way, yes the state election nav box, is MY template, because I use it to navigate while creating new articles. I demand respect for my work, nothing more. At the next revert I will denounce you as a vandal. We will see, where it leads. Kraxler (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting it again, because you are violating several principles on wikipedia. You are refusing to see that I am acting in good faith, you are demonstrating a lack of civility, and you do not understand that you don't get to have final say regardless of other peoples' input. I understand that other elections take place other than a gubernatorial election, but as I have been saying from the beginning, a gubernatorial election is separate from a state election, as it is a subcategory. A good example of how this is handled is California state elections, 1994 and California gubernatorial election, 1994. Separate articles, one dealing with the gubernatorial race at greater length, the other dealing with all races. You need to learn how to communicate. I'm seeking a third opinion and I'm happy to report you to administrators for your lack of civility if you don't follow WP:DISENGAGE.--Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed reverting it again, and indeed have committed the sins you reported K for, so I've blocked you for 24h for edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is he blocked?--Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Should he be? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am, shouldn't he be as well? He reverted my edits three times.--Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The difference is, you reported him. From which I infer that you believe that 3 reverts deserves a block, yes? I don't see any similar statement by K William M. Connolley (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you read his messages above you'll see his intent to "denounce [me] as a vandal". I do acknowledge I was reverting it as he was, but I was trying to preempt him in reporting his behavior, and if I'm going to be blocked then he should be as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're a sensible person who got a bit over enthusiastic. I've unblocked you. Please leave the article alone for 24h and edit productively elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. I'll leave it alone for now and will try to deal with K through the proper channels. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a guideline that says: "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a WP:POINT!". That's quite sensible. You have disrupted my work by imposing on me your self-established (i.e. nobody else ever mentioned something like that) and self-sufficient (i.e. a rule established only to have a rule for the rule's sake) point of view on how a certain template should be edited, a template for páges to which you have contributed nothing. A navigation box should be a navigation aid, not a navigation obstacle! I need that template for my work, in the form I conceived it. Under the above mentioned guideline, I urge you to refrain from further editing of Template:New York state elections. I will fix the template again, and will try to resume my work on the NY state election project on Monday. If you have any suggestions, or criticisms about it, say so on the related talkpage, and I will discuss it point by point. Kraxler (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Phillies templates

Could you please explain the edits you made to the Philadelphia Phillies navboxes? One was contrary to WP:MOS and the other was really unproductive visually. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Bolding years in a template makes the year blend with the bolded name. There should be a better way. And that code for a space is no better than adding a space. For the retired numbers, I'm standardizing it to every other retired number template. If that violates WP:MOS, then all the others need to be changed. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The code for a space is better than adding a space... please read non-breaking space. The title of a navbox is the same as the title of an article or a section header. Unnecessary capitalization is discouraged. I will italicize the years rather than bold. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll take a look at that article and keep it in mind when editing other templates. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the pipes with the italics; looks good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009

I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your efforts to bring in new and countering material to balance out this article instead of deleting worthwhile and properly-cited content. That extra effort has really made the entry better.–Cg-realms (talk • contribs) 12:22, 25 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, it's nice to be appreciated :) You keep up the good work too, I've noticed a bunch of your efforts myself. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New York State Prison Inspector

Thank you for the NYT links, but please don't worry, I created the page already. Kraxler (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

C-803 edits

May I ask why you have reverted my edits to the above article? I was adding sections for references and "see-also", correcting units used in the specifications and infobox, etc. I have made no changes to the actual details. Hj108 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

False positive. Sorry about that. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. What exactly do you mean by a false positive? Hj108 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Using an anti-vandalism tool, this edit came up. As vandalism is frequent, I moved too quickly rolling back the edit, not realizing you were about to correct that and that you had in fact made many positive contributions to the article. By saying false positive, my background in statistics is showing through. Again, my apologies, and carry on. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for March 2009

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 24 - March 2009

"I got a lot of shit for the Rolling Stone review of Reckoning because the guy really likes my guitar style and he wrote, 'on this record, Pete Buck does everything.' We'd stop for gas and it would be, 'Pete Buck does everything. Why don't you go pump the gas, Pete?'" - Peter Buck Project news Yeah Yeah Yeahs discography reached featured list status during the past month. Well done to Drewcifer3000. We collaborated on Liam Gallagher, Riot Act (album), Automatic for the People, Jane's Addiction, and "Give It Away" (Red Hot Chili Peppers song) during the past month. During the month of March, "Lovers in Japan", "Hello Sunshine", Evergreen, Reckoning (R.E.M. album), Love Kraft, "Golden Retriever" (song), and Delorentos were promoted to good article status. This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Hüsker Dü - New Day Rising (1985).

New members LizParker and Cavie78 joined the alternative music fold during March. Editors User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot II (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Please be aware that you violated our three revert policy on {{Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim roster navbox}}. Please don't do it again, or you will be blocked in accordance with that policy. Thanks. -- Y not? 20:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't your four reverts violate 3RR? Because you were "right"? Every edit warrior is always right.

Now, why the hell did you revert my alphabetization of categories per the manual of style?? -- Y not? 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, there is a "right" and "wrong". This isn't a POV situation, we're dealing with facts and people making these changes are incorrect. He's still on the inactive roster. If I undid another edit of yours, that was a mistake. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: I didn't intend to do that. It looks like I snuck my intended edit just moments after you did your edit. If you look at my edit summary, you will see that I intended only to remove the suspect's name. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That happens from time to time. I'm just making sure, with an admin thinking I'm a reverter. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Adenhart

It doesnt matter he is still on the roster he is no longer a living person, having it say he is still on the Angels is misleading for someone who has not heard about it. I know its highly doubtful that anyone has not heard about it, but you never know--Yankees10 16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I dont agree with you, Im not going to waste time and start edit warring over a small dumb thing that will happen soon anyway.--Yankees10 20:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't just to you, but just wanted to let you know that your recent edits regarding the Angels roster and Nick Adenhart were completely senseless. First, there's no rule stating the template here must match what's on the Angels' website. Second, while I'm all about WP:VERIFY, the fact that Adenhart had died was also verifiable and therefore trumps the verification of the Angels' listed roster. If it ever happens again, I'll ensure that the correct action is taken.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your approach, but the general unwritten standard (though written on templates such as Template:MLBStartingCatchers is that we use the rosters on MLB.com as the official source, which makes sense as MLB.com is the official website of the league, and each team website is contained therein. If they want to keep him on the roster a few extra days (or if the league were to have granted them the right to keep him on all season as a tribute), then we have to act accordingly. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't. And no WP policy backs that up.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if this sounds mean but he's dead he can't play if he's dead so of course he's off the roster, if MLB let them kep him on you really think they'll let him take up a spot on the 25 man roster, come on now it's all common sense.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What's "verifiable" is that he was still listed on the roster, up until today. Show me where in the MLB rulebook it says a transaction doesn't need to take place to replace a deceased player and I'll admit I was wrong. Otherwise, he stays on the roster until he's taken off with an official transaction. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Show me where on WP it says we have to follow MLB.com and not use verifiable info from other sources that trump it. Oh wait, you can't.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Our general unwritten consensus is to use MLB.com as an official source. Baseball rosters come from the baseball teams. If you want to propose something different, propose it. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to make unwritten rules. There's WP policy, and there's everything else. The end.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia, not sports there are no unwritten rules, the guy came off the roster when the doctors declared him dead, end of story.--Giants27 ^T/C 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No... when wikipedia reports the active rosters of a sports team, it comes from the team itself. The guy comes off the roster when they take him off the roster. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're simply wrong. Rosters here do not have to be and should not be mirrors of MLB.com. They are compilations of all verifiable, reliable sources.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't think I am. There is only one source of a team roster, and that is the team itself. We get that from the team website. I don't know if there's any info out there on the procedure in a case like this. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. News reports from ESPN and anywhere else are reliable, verifiable reports abot changes to a roster. If ESPN says a guy has been released, that report verifies per WP standards that he is off the team's roster. The mere fact we're waiting for some tech guy who works for MLB.com to update it on a website is ridiculous, unnecessary and not hiw Wikipedia works.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ESPN and other media reports are often enough flawed or inaccurate. They shouldn't be considered the final word on anything. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. As far as this encyclopedia is concerned, ESPN and other media outlets of that nature are completely acceptable as sources. And, in this case, they were entirely reliable because it was a verifiable fact that Adenhart was dead. That fact trumps the verifiability of the Angels' roster on MLB.com, because his death, by definition, means he cannot be employed by the Angels.

Like I've said time and time again, you're simply wrong on this. So, you can be sure that if a situation like this every arises again, I'll make sure the right edit is made.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply not. MLB.com is the official source of rosters and transactions, and it is updated daily. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CA PROPS

i dont get it. prop 8 passed but the judges have to approve of it. in this section of CA PROPS it doesn't say anything about a passed prop needing judicial approval via judges. can you explain and source? [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.87.54 (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I didn't add anything to the Prop 8 page aside from the election template.--Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of MLB Position Templates

The MLB Position Templates that you created have been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion at the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

World Series champion templates

Just an FYI - adding breaks in the middle of the list of players is a bad idea - people's browser windows are at different widths... just because it looked good for you at your browser width doesn't mean it'll will work out for others - I'm in the process of fixing them all up using the nowrap template. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll help out with any you haven't gotten to. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Music Newsletter for April 2009

The Alternative music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 25 - April 2009

"The other day I had these Jehovah's Witnesses come round to my house, and they tried to convince me that the Pope was the Devil's representative on Earth. So I told them that Jesus was the world's first communist. So they left. They were genuinely enraged.'" - Ian Brown Project news We collaborated on The Stone Roses (album), "Don't Speak", Indie rock, and Eddie Vedder during the past month. During the month of April, Slow Life, "Lost!", and Phantom Phorce were promoted to good article status. This month's "Recommended Alternative Album" is Stereolab - Chemical Chords (2008).

Editors User:WesleyDodds

SoxBot (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)