User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 5

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Augie Schmidt

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia administrators get paid for their services or do they actually hold down real jobs? I've noticed that administrators make something between 50 to 100 edits every single day. Where do they find the time to do this? Do they wake up at 3:00 AM and start editing until 11:00 PM that same evening? I've also noticed that administrators will edit articles if it doesn't fit "their" satisfaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.67.149 (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

List of New York Yankees first-round draft picks

I cleaned this up and I think it's ready for another run at FLC. Let me know if you agree, or if there's anything we should modify. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! I found a typo at first glance. I'll try to give it more time later, but it looks ready for discussion. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I nommed it over at FLC so here's hoping it does well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Tamara Bunke

On May 1, you replaced the {{refimprove}} template on this article with {{BLPsources}}. I have reverted, as the subject of the article is not a living person - as stated in the first line, she died in 1967. {{BLPsources}} should only be used for BLPs, that is biographies of living persons. Please make sure to check the subject is alive before adding this template in future. Robofish (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Amar'e Stoudemire

The New York Knicks already signed Amar'e Stoudemire, during news conference today in New York. Rapmyice (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source and we're all good then. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits

Enigma and I have come to an understand. I won't be putting anyone on their new team until its official with a source to back it up. The Chris Bosh edit was me just adding a nugget of Bosh telling ESPN's Mike Wilbon he was joining the Heat. --FourteenClowns (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear. My revert of your edit was a mistake. With the free agency frenzy, I have a quick trigger finger. My bad. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You bum. Dropping in all the sources to make James, Wade and Bosh official. Just messing with you. Bet you're happy free agency is about over. Better protect the Raymond Felton page though. He agreed with the Knicks :) --FourteenClowns (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was only reverting all those edits so that I could be the one to drop it in for good with the official source. :P I also spent a good part of the day yesterday reverting people's edits saying Cliff Lee was a Yankee, because that, like any agreed upon deal that isn't finalized, can fall through. I'll watch Ray Felton, but for some reason I suspect he'll be lower traffic than the Heat trio. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

True on the Lee point, but had Amar'e backed off the Knicks after all the statements he made that would have led me to believe anything was possible, haha. That would have been an entirely different animal. And old Tar Heel fans may change his status! :)--FourteenClowns (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Cliff Lee

Per this, looks like it's official. Go ahead and update the relevant articles. GlassCobra 21:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Now I can stop patroling articles, and maybe get a little real work done before I go home. :P --Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Muboshgu

My Friend, I am trying to put the picture that is more beautiful. The other picture is not as beautiful as this picture. Please understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peisapooran (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreed. The lighting in the picture you prefer is terrible. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of RS material

I don't want to encumber the thread at the Valencia discussion with a red herring discussion. But I've spent enough time at AN/I discussing the behavior of others, and construing the relevant rules, to know that WP:VAN says that vandalism includes: "Removing ... significant parts of a page's content without ... or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content." That describes accurately Spasm's actions here. I've not at this point warned him for incivility, despite his torrent of it, so as not to inflame matters.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I still have to take a look at said sourced material. I don't know where I fall on this. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I've read every source that I supplied. Our friend, blocked four times within the past year for similar disruptions, has provided the poster-child example, IMHO, of removing "significant parts of a page's content" (and he just now did it yet again, despite my warnings) without "a non-frivolous explanation for the removal or apparently legitimate content." We have many close call vandalism events, but this doesn't appear to be one to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had some issues with Johnny as well, as I recall. I just started intervening. My concern about the page as you had it is that it's a bit too long to be accessible to the novice reader and that some of it is due to info that isn't really necessary. I'd say that most of what you put in should stay, though. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with most of your edits. Some, such as your personal view -- which differs from mine -- as to a coach highlighting what specifically a player does well (e.g., patience, using the entire field (rather than only pulling the ball -- especially for a hitter sometimes viewed as a power hitter), are not fluff, but illustrative. And having them as a quote serve the same purpose as a photo -- it supplies information in a different format, for the benefit of the reader. Also, I've worked on some of our higher rated sports articles to bring them up to GA or FA, and it is just the sort of thing that reviewers like to loosen up stat-heavy sports bios. I would say the same as to just one other matter -- his mother's involvement. Not typical. Notable enough for an RS to cover it. Human interest, which is appropriate. Anyway, this is also up for DYK right now -- and initially failed it due to Spasm's deletion of 83% of the article. I'm happy that the general community now has its eye on it. I'm still restraining myself from responding to the incivility. There are more important issues at the moment. Tx again.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. Maybe the coach quotes are not fluff, I'm of the opinion though that a coach's subjective opinion is less necessary than concrete fact, like playing stats. I thought about taking out some of the GM and scout talk about the Puerto Rican league, but I didn't remove it. However, you have a good point about the reviewer's like of human interest. Maybe it should go back. Hmm... --Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for considering. I could point you to examples of the same in some of our highest-rated articles. But fear that our friend -- who I note has just deleted the bulk of the article yet again, with yet another non-illuminating edit summary -- might gut those as well. My view on coaches quotes is that some are of greater interest than others. And certainly, they are more subjective than stats, as you point out. But as often is said on wikipedia, we are not constrained by space the same way paper articles are. Nor is this anywhere near the 100 size-limit that we prefer for readability. I'm less interested in hearing general comments from a coach (looks like a good athlete) than I am specific comments that differ from player to player (answering the question is he a pull hitter or does he use the field, and is he a patient hitter or more like Vlad G and likely to hit the ball wherever it is). That info, though you can construe some of it from SABR stats that do not make it into the article and are not always available, is IMHO of interest, and worth reflecting. In the meantime, I'm at a loss as to how to address Spasm's continued deletions of the bulk of the article, without any meaningful rationale (his last edit summary being as non-illuminating as the rest).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note

That wasn't vandalism on the Mets roster. According to several sources including David Lennon and Adam Rubin, Carlos Beltran is on the major league roster (taking Jesus Feliciano's place) and in the starting lineup for Thursday.

68.199.40.244 (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the team roster, he hasn't been activated yet. He won't be activated until the game. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, just premature. Keep in mind that activating Beltran from the 60-day DL requires clearing spots on the 25-man roster and also the 40-man. Optioning J. Feliciano only cleared a spot on the 25-man roster. The Mets will need to make another move prior to Thursday's game. -- 69.122.185.1 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right that it wasn't vandalism. I realized that after I rolled it back, and didn't put a vandalism warning on that IP's talk page. Your explanation of the roster moves needed is accurate. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Friend, all I am trying to do is punting the picture of Diane Kruger that is more beautiful. The other picture does not really resemble her, also it is very cold, its like a robot. I am trying to put a picture which is more lively, happy and beautiful. But if you think it is not good. I respect your opinion. take care. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwoltzen (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Muboshgu

Dear Friend, all I am trying to do is to put the picture of Diane Kruger that is more beautiful and it is more lively. The other picture is like a robot and its very cold. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwoltzen (talk • contribs) 04:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You have shown a consistent disregard for the consensus of others that the picture you favor is clearly worse than the pictures favored by others. You have tried to own the article and are now clearly guilty of sockpuppetry. I will not miss you when you are banned. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Muboshgu

Dear Muboshgu I am trying to put the picture of Diane Kruger that has more resemblance to her and is more beautiful. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peisapooran (talk • contribs) 04:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

the beautiful picture crew

The sock is indef'd and the main account got a week-off. Watch the skys! Jack Merridew 06:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010

Muboshgu,

You are trying to be as attentive to detail as possible here, and I understand that. I appreciate your work streamlining the references on the page, and overall, I think you are trying to be fair to each of the candidates.

You would agree that we should give all Republican candidates their due respect, as they made it this far and could all be likely nominees. You undoubtedly have heard that the primary is still months away, and until August, McMahon, Schiff, and Simmons will be the candidates in the news. Readers will be following these candidates, and it would be disingenuous to say TBD when it is clearly laid out who will be on the ballot.--Screwball23 talk 03:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I know we've spoken about this issue several times, and I have decided to leave it be. My feeling is that this is just not that big a deal for now. August is not far away, and I expect a quick decision to come through on who the Republican nominee will be. I would like to remind you that the Republican Nominating Convention was no small thing -- Schiff was out of the running after the event, and Rob Simmons was encouraged to endorse McMahon on-the-spot after her win. I see that as a reason why McMahon's win is especially notable.

I also get the feeling you are probably a Schiff supporter, and want to make your voice heard in some way that the election isn't over. I want to make it clear that I have never seen any explicit policy that has ever said that the official nominee must be placed in the infobox. I think you have been making up rules, and I want you to know that just isn't cool. I just lost all my trust in you in regards to political articles here on wikipedia.

--Screwball23 talk 04:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the Republican Nominating Convention was a significant event and Linda McMahon should be recognized as a major player in the Connecticut race. I mean, I don't know what sources you read, but the Connecticut Senate race was either about McMahon, McMahon-Simmons or McMahon-Blumenthal. I mean, in terms of media attention, polling, and political predictions, I think it is more than fair to say she is the presumptive nominee. I'm open to compromise and I think Sgt. Blue's proposal on listing her as the state-endorsed candidate was an excellent idea too. Either way, I still feel you have been more adamant on these "rules" than necessary. Even you yourself put quotes on the "rules" of the infobox, meaning you probably don't believe in them yourself. I really think you are obsessed with winning a point over making sensible contributions. To me that's sad.--Screwball23 talk 03:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're still watching my talk page. See this? The possibility of Simmons getting back in the race makes it clear that McMahon isn't the nominee, and that even couching it with the term "presumptive" is going too far. --Muboshgu (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Amare's Religion

How about we compromise and change the last part of the statement to something less then absolute. Perhaps, "in his recent tweets he has made consistent reference to the Jewish religion and has given indication that he may be Jewish". There is nothing controversial about that statement and it is factually accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.80.125 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely better than what was put there, but first check for consensus with everyone else on Talk:Amar'e Stoudemire. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball stats

I wish you good luck fixing every player in the league then. You have a lot of work to do. Following triple crown stats only is pointless, because it gives you no indication on who the player is. Including runs and stolen bases are a big part of the game, especially with players like Andrew McCutchen and José Tábata - telling readers about home runs hit by Tabata is pointless, but telling them about his stolen bases and runs is much more appropriate. I will continue to utilize the five stat format until given a damn good reason not to, because runs and stolen bases paint a much better picture of who the player is. Baseball boxes are already barren enough as it is, without player heights and weights, I see no cause to deprive readers of vital information. Laserinfantry44 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I change them as I see them, I certainly won't take the time to edit one by one. As we've said in that discussion thread I put on your talk page, triple crown stats are the easiest to follow for the casual fan. You have a point about McCutchen and Tabata, but Tabata has 24 runs and 10 steals at this point, and that doesn't say much at all. Including "stolen bases - zero" for players like Erik Kratz and Pedro Alvarez is counterproductive. The infoboxes are not meant to be cluttered with information that isn't helpful, especially if they can easily access that information at external links provided. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I recognize that Mubosgu is well-intentioned, and usually find I agree with him. But I completely agree with Laser here. I would add, as I have before, that the notion that BA is more important that OBP, for instance, is antiquated. Even as a man in his 50s, I am aware of this. The days that the daily newspapers reflected only triple crown stats are long gone. It does not strike me that it is a step forward for us to move back to the old ways. Beyond that, there is much in wikipedia talk discussion outside the baseball corner of it with regard to the fact that we are not constrained by length limitations the same way that newspapers are. There is a reason we have room for six stats. Editor discretion is preferable to deleting Laser's helpful additions. I prefer seeing his additions -- those editors who don't, can simply skim over them. They are not filling up the page. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of my opinion as it is the opinions of a majority of us over at WP:BASEBALL. I wish more 50 year olds appreciated the usefulness of OBP like you. Every time I hear a baseball announcer talk about how great a hitter is because of the number of "ribbies" he has, I want to pour acid in my ear canals. Unfortunately, the stats revolution is only in its infancy now. We have a ways to go. If you want to try to work on a consensus, then bring it to that talk thread. I'm not intransigent on this issue. If you can convince me that we should move towards displaying other markers, more power to you. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with Laser. You say 10 steals doesn't say much for Tabata, well correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure he leads the NL rookies in steals. To me that says a lot. You are worried about what is in the best interest of casual fans? Well what about the die-hard fans? They want to see as much information as possible. I find it really irritating that you are reverting the pages repeatedly. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place to get information, so why do *you* think it should be so limited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliciaLP (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's not *me*. It's WP:BASEBALL. Besires, if it's so notable that he leads NL rookies in steals, you can't see that with a stats table, but only by reading it in the text, where the info belongs. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

             Well it is you, because until *you* came along there were no problems. 

If WP:BASEBALL is so concerned let them change it. I think you are getting some sort of enjoyment out of irritating people and reverting all their work. Where is the SPECIFIC link to the page stating not to include other valuable information that baseball fans would like to see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.125.71 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, you need to assume good faith here and maintain civility. Then, read the discussion here and feel free to participate. Nobody is saying not to include information. It should be included as text in the article body, not in the infobox. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

People my age have seen the RSs switch from not reflecting OBP, etc., on league leader pages to now in fact reflecting them. So perhaps that's why they are aware of the shift. True, BA and RBIs are still reflected prominently. As well. But OBP and SP and saves, for example, are now accorded prominence where they were once not even recognized. The stats revolution is an ongoing effort. As you know, RBIs were not official baseball stats in the late 1870s. Many SABR stats are not focused on by many fans, but that isn't at all what is at issue here. What is at issue are those stats that RSs reflect with regularity. I think you are mis-stating matters as a broad consensus where that is not the case, to seek to over-turn a years-old course of dealing that allowed editors to reflect OBP, SP, etc upon editor discretion. I can't imagine how that helps the project. If you want to limit the flexibility of how the remaining three numbers are addressed, that's worth pursuing perhaps. So, for example, if you were to suggest that of the remaining three offensive numbers, one be OBP and one be SP, if they are to be filled in, I could see the thinking there. And we could develop the thought further (for example, saves is an obvious filler for the fourth category for pitchers who are relief pitchers). That would have the effect of limiting editor discretion, but in a way that might well make sense. And -- if your fear is that the stat picked will be oogleplex, which nobody has ever heard of, we could address that. In any even, I am reading above that other editors share the same view that I do, and of the views I've seen presented on your page and on the baseball page, I think there is not consensus view in support of your deletions.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Joe Savery

When you merged Joe Savery into Philadelphia Phillies minor league players, you did so despite the fact that there was an AfD in which that article was kept. You should have had a merge discussion before moving the information in that article because of that fact. The list of minor leaguers is pretty messy now because of that merge, and I'm asking that you please reverse it. His article can certainly be sourced enough that he meets WP:GNG. This Google News search shows more than enough reliable sources about Savery and his career to date. — KV5 • Talk • 00:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I merged a whole bunch of minor leaguers who belonged on those pages, I guess I should've trusted that wouldn't be a problem for any Phillies with you watching them. I didn't notice an AfD. It doesn't mention one on the talk page. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Navboxes

Then why not do it for all - only certain ones here and there; plus are we counting characters. Ositadinma 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought all were done like that. I have over time changed a number of them, but if there are others I'll change them too. I don't see why we should use 20 characters when 10 will do. Granted it's a minor difference, but the fewer characters we take up the better, no? At least considering the functionality is exactly the same. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I had changed them all at some point in the past, I hadn't noticed that they were all changed back. I'm changing them all now. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

5 & 10

I guess people don't fully understand baseball transactions with the 5 & 10 rule. Samething is happening with C. Guzman. Ositadinma 22:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a shocker. We go through this every year. Anonymous IP's just don't listen. I'll keep an eye on Guzman's article as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter error

Sorry, please try it again. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did, and it went through. Thanks. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hidden lists

Hi, isn't it too early to just delete the hidden lists? We haven't reached a consensus yet. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not deleting the hidden lists. I'm hiding the shown lists with the rest of the hidden lists. I assume some of those will be pared later.--Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Didn't look close enough. But still, why the work?? Jonathansuh (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about the top 500 at something, the page should only show the top 500. That seems to be consensus already. As far as how much stays in the hidden lists, I like the suggestion of "a good season's worth" as a guideline, but I'll wait until I see it's settled upon before cutting it. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with what you're doing, but shouldn't we keep the season totals? I think it will help when a player becomes visible and joins the list. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I kept them all. It's a minor pain deleting all those hiding arrows, so maybe I messed up on one of them. If you let me know which one, I'll reinsert them, or you can reinsert them yourself if you prefer. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

They are missing in the RBI list as far as I know, but that's not a hige problem for now. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Back in. At quick glance, I don't see any others that are missing, but I'll correct them if I come across any later. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BoSox template

Why wouldn't/shouldn't the commentators/announcers be listed in culture, in your opinion? 24.129.66.51 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nix that. It's under Broadcasters. 24.129.66.51 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Mike Quade edits

You put in entries under sporting positions for all the minor league manager jobs. To be honest, it makes the article look bad, because the entries are incomplete. ??? is not a manager. If you want to put these entries in, go here

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=quade-001gre

and look up who the manager was before and after Quade got each one of those jobs and then fix the sporting positions box appropriately. I even think other than for his work at the major league level, the minor league entries should be removed. I've edited hundreds of articles with minor league information, but I can count on one hand the ones that have broken down a minor league manager's history in a sporting positions box.- William 16:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It looked bad to have bullet points. I was planning on looking up the befores and afters, but now that I think about it, I'll just list the teams in prose, as it should be. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yankees minor league players

Then why did you do it with Adam Warren (baseball), Adam Olbrychowski, or Trent Lockwood? What makes them any more notable than Mitchell? Both Lockwood and Olbrychowski are only in A ball. Im not sure what Baseball America says but according to John Sickels Mitchell is the Yankees 10th best prospect, while those two dont even crack the top 20. I dont want to sound like an a-hole because I like the work you do on here and your a fellow NYY fan but please dont tell me not to do something when you are doing the exact same thing yourself.--Yankees10 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Sickels he is a top 10 prospect for the Yankees.[1]--Yankees10 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

JeremiahPOPE

If he vandalizes the Conan article again, report him. He's been doing the same thing to Leno and we've got to document everything. Regards and thanks. --Manway (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reshma Saujani

Please stop removing material from reliable sources. The website looks like her campaign site. Should we know the facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woonhocho (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC) --Woonhocho (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Reshma Saujani website looks like her campaign website. The fact, 40% of her money is from her district firms also mentioned at New York Maganzine on September 14, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woonhocho (talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC) --Woonhocho (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

First, I wonder why you remove "the hadge fund manager". Second, I question why you change to "Hindu" from "Hinduism". Third, What is differnce in reliance between New York Maganzine and New York Times. Is that volume or reporter? I want to know the answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woonhocho (talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC) --Woonhocho (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)