User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Question

Hi. Just curious. So you're saying (for my own knowledge) that putting the actual day of the week, in a timeline situation, is NEVER done in an encyclopedia? And also, is there an actual "rule" that says it can't be done in encyclopedias? Just wondering. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cody Ross

Where are these home run totals coming from? Neither 90 nor 100 is correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish I knew. He's been changing it to 100 every time. I thought 100 might include postseason HRs, but that's not the case. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

86 would appear to be correct through last season, with 5 more this season. Post-season doesn't count in career averages. P.S. The IP has been put on the D.L. for the next 3 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: David Jon Sponheim

Hello Muboshgu. I am just letting you know that I deleted David Jon Sponheim, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess G11 works just as well as A7. I didn't realize this was the third creation of this page. Should it be salted? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

nerve

Please don't tell me to "leave it be" when failing to point out Breitbart is a multi-millionaire activist, rather than some kid is his parents basement, is a total disservice to our readers. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "blogger" is what is used in the RS's, and means more than "some kid in his parents basement". Stop inserting your bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to find a way to keep that Chicago Tribune article titled "Is Weiner Being Frank?" That's too funny to pass up. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

David Ortiz

That IP continues to add unsourced, ungrammatical trivia. I've asked for semi-protection. Assuming they grant it, we can remove that junk one last time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Javier Vazquez's numbers

It's not necessarily unrelated or unprecedanted, for example cf. Randy Johnson's Jersey Number--Sean (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not unprecedented, no, but it shouldn't be there. I just removed the section because it isn't notable. Only special cases (say, Mickey Mantle getting #6 as the "successor" to Joe DiMaggio, needing to return to the minors, and taking #7 when he returned to New York) are particularly notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. Thanks for helping out on the Javier Vázquez article and keep up the good work hereSean (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Besides being absurd, calling me a sock is uncivil. You won't get any more warnings. μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're not a sock, then you're simply edit warring. Neither is good. I suggest you cease and desist now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Tuscon Shooting page edit

I edited the article for the 2011 Tucson Shooting because it included a line critical of Atheism, which is completely irrelevant to the story and I viewed as nothing but a slam against Atheism. I failed to leave a reason for my edit, as this is the first edit I've ever attempted that was on anything important or that edited anything other than grammar and consequently I was not familiar with the process. I have seen that my edit was tagged as vandalism, but I assure you it was not. I have, at the suggestion of a colleague, posted my argument on the page's discussion page, which is perhaps what I should have done in the first place. I leave this message simply so that you know it was not vandalism and I'd also like to know why you think the line in question belonged in the article in the first place. It seems very out of place to me. Thanks. Breakspirit (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages are the way to go, so I'm glad you got that advice. I understand that you are meaning well based on your explanation, but there is no reason to remove it. It's information pertinent to the suspect of the investigation. It's well sourced and not biased, as the article does not make a connection between his atheism and alleged act. I'll engage in discussion there as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Collegiate notability

Hi Muboshgu, I'd like to point out to you that baseball players like Danny Hultzen can be considered inherently notable for their collegiate experience per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#College athletes. Hultzen and others were named to the 2011 All American team, which can be considered having "gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". Thanks and happy editing.--TM 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I know college players can pass GNG. Being an All American doesn't establish that necessarily. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about GNG. Being named the top college baseball player at your position by a national media outlet does pass WP:N.--TM 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It IS about GNG because GNG is the test a subject needs to pass for WP:N. One mention as an All American is not necessarily "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It is "coverage" in RS independent of the subject, but not necessarily significant. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I view it differently. If one has gained national media attention as an All American, that IS significant coverage. We will have to wait and see what others at WP:BASEBLL think--TM 02:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can see that. I'm not fighting Hultzen's notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ElKevbo (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your warning clearly means the world to the other guy. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't fix the article on a technicality; if I do I'm considered involved. Silly, but don't feel like having to defend fixing the article. I won't worry about the block removal since it's in the log, and he never contested it anyway. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US Presidents

Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject US Presidents might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Removel of Ruben Rivera stuff

I wasn't trying to be mischevious with that and I thought I did put a reason for the removel. I honestly thought you were being a bitt insultive also since the page had been changed I didn't think it was nessacry to keep that. Note I don't remove talk page stuff if the issues have been cleared up as a reguler thing. That was a one time thing and the slight insult contributed to that. And if you think that I'm against what you say, don't worry the insultive side was the only thing I was against if it was kinder I wouldn't have touched that. Hope I made myself understood in my actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.249.139 (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Images should face inwards

You justified recent edits on Colbert by saying image subjects should face inwards. Not that I disagree with this policy, but I was wondering if there is an official stated policy for this or if its your own view on page layout? Mainly interested for if I stumble on other articles that don't follow this convention. Crasic (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's in WP:MOS somewhere... I remember reading it a while ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it is. Sixth bullet at Wikipedia:MOS#Images says "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

PR

If you have a moment, I would appreciate your input at the Mark Sanchez PR. Thank you! -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 11:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, later today I'll take a look. I've noticed you've done a lot of work on it recently. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You should remove sortname on the 2011 MLB All-Stars...

The previous years, the sortname was not included on the lists, so wouldn't it make sense to keep things consistent with previous years and remove the sortname's that you added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eposty (talk • contribs)

The fact that it's not on the other pages isn't a reason to not start adding it. I would think it would be helpful to go back to those pages and add sortname there rather than remove it from the 2011 page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, but the pitchers are already in alphabetical order and the reserves are in alphabetical order by position as well, so adding more sorting seems a little overkill... posty (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point as well. I saw it was taken out and I won't try to put it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Polling... I'm Done

I work hard to do the polling, do you? It is a pain in the butt to do it the way YOU want. It has been this way since this project was started, and just because you don't like it, it has to change? I'm done. Glad you got the way you want. I have rarely seen you update polling, so you must not know how hard it is to do it in the wrong format. I guess that comes from just wanting to change the format, and doing baseball articles. I'm not going to waste my time. You win. America69 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me you're in the minority on how you want the polling numbers listed, and that you're taking this too personally. Why don't you take some time, do something else, then come back? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think I am. This is the way polling is done for elections world-wide. I am taking personally, because I spend 99% of my time on here doing that. Why bother if it is going to be done in a way that is harder, and looks wrong. It has been done this way since the starting of Wikipedia, it doesn't need to change. America69 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay then. I think it looks wrong the way it is and looks right chronologically. I don't understand why it's "harder", since you're just adding the new ones at the bottom. I've added my share of polls to these articles as well, although I acknowledge you're doing more of it than I am at the present moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the last time you did one. It's harder and more time consuming to have to go down, instead of just "building on" to current polling. You win. Have fun. I shouldn't waste my time, when my views are going to be stepped on by others, and the "fun" is being taken away.America69 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I had a cooling off period. Do you have e-mail enabled, so I don't feel pressured to respond fast and hastly? America69 (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

gold balls

yes they are=Yes they are: gold balls are part of the competition. A person who has been editing Wikipedia since October 28, 2010. (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. See 2010_NBA_All-Star_Game#Three-Point_Shootout. Those "special" balls are worth two points, but they don't count them there. The "gold balls" are a corporate gimmick and not part of the final score. So, I'm taking them out again. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

300 saves club

Uh, I was kind of in the middle of working on that. And your move went a bit further than being BOLD, it practically invented a new term. I'll dig up another source to help that out, but that was some pretty rough editing to a piece I was rather obviously midway through working on. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were still working on it when I got my bold on. I made it conform to the good stat pages rather than the cruft-y ones. What else were you going to do? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Finish adding the teams (I only got about 2/3 through). A top 50 isn't really any worse as a cutoff than the randomly selected 300 cutoff. Yes we've got a handful of sources that say 300 save club, but you can do that for essentially any round cutoff statistic. I'm fine using it, it was just a shocker. I think it's near ready for FLC now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cw6165

Cw6165 is a wingnut I know from his posting on the St. Louis Cardinals MB and he insists that his made up nicknames should be a part of the encyclopedia. It is tiresome to repeatedly delete his nonsensical additions as he tries to insert himself into player histories. Could you please give him a definite warning to stop his antics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.177.247 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Charleston RiverDogs roster

I was trying to remove the links, but somehow I screwed something up. Could you do it? Thanks. RevanFan (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It's done. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You did it just as I figured out what I did wrong and was redoing it. Anyway, thanks. RevanFan (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No problemo. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Yeah I was working to speedy delete Political candidates and elected officials opinions on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories just as it was changed to a redirect. Huggle followed the redirect and tagged the main page. I was trying to undo it but my connection slowed down. So sorry about the mixup. -Vcelloho (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That explains that. That page could be speedied. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

VAP

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with VAP, Voting Age Population, a common statistic used to determine voter participation? Here some links that you might want to dispute Methodology & Sources, National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2008, Elections: Voting-Age Population and Voter Participation, Voter Turnout, National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960-1996. I suggest that if editors wish to delete edits in the future you might first start a dialogue. Just because an editor is unfamiliar with VAP doesn't mean that it is original research. By starting a dialogue you might find out something new.

02:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with original research, which is interesting because you've been linked to that page already. Your talk about VAP clearly constitutes original research, so please stop adding it unless you can find sources that back you up. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I find it incredible that you come to these conclusions concerning original research. I can only hope that your attitude will not infect other parts of Wikipedia.

Id447 (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Order

Are contributions listed from newest to oldest, or oldest to newest? Just curious? America69 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Same with the watchlist, oldest to newest or newest to oldest? America69 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't encyclopedic articles, are they? Apples and oranges. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

They are a timeline type thing though. And yes, you do act like you own the polling, I loved how on User:Markles talk page you accused other editors "aggressively" editing, when you are just as much involved. America69 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For a page history and watchlist, it's more about what's happened now, while an election article is a story about what happened first and then what followed it. I guess "aggressive" editing can be subject to one's own perspective. It's not ownership, it's past consensus - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 5#Polling. Anyway, I said there that I want to find a centralized place for us all to talk it out, since it clearly isn't settled. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There was never a consensus, there was continued disagreement. And I guess the point about page history and watchlist is on one's own perspective. America69 (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The items on my watchlist won't be listed that way once the page is edited again, or if it's not edited in some time and it falls from view. An article's content, though, is there unless removed. The way I see it, we read from top to bottom, so it should progress from oldest to newest from top to bottom to accommodate that. When the NHL changed their logo from this to this, there was some uproar about that very notion, that now people were having to read "up" instead of "down". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Polling, though is an always changing thing. I believe (and this is my view) that when looking at polling, the newer polls should be the one that a reader see's. Because two days before an election, the main thing is going to be that candidate "A" is ahead of candidate "B" in polling. That should be the first thing seen than a poll from a year before the election that had "B" way ahead of "A". With that said, I know I'm guilty of getting upset over this issue, because it's what I mainly do, but I wish this whole thing, for such a small issue, did not get so blown out of proportion. Do we at least agree on that? America69 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate the idea that the most recent poll is the one with the most importance in the real world, but we're not a news site. We're telling a story from start to finish. I do agree with you that while we have different views on this, we're both editing in good faith, and that's why I want to make this a larger community discussion to settle this once and for all. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could give me an answer, but theortically, is it possible to include TWO polling graphs on a page, one in the way I advocate and one in the way you advocate. That was it pleases both sides, and it gives two perspectives, and a reader can choose whcih is easier. I know this is going far out on the limb, but my goal, as I can tell your's is, is to keep wiki-peace. I would hate to see this completely boil over, which it is coming close too, and drive editors away, or into inactivity. America69 (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And by theortical, I am not exactly proposing, I am asking if I did, and this was in anyway agreed to, could we put them side by side, or would it have to go "stacked", in which case taking up room? America69 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with America69. That article that you reference never came to a consensus on that issue, it was basically a discussion presenting both sides. A consensus was reached on the other issues regarding polling, but not the ordering. Traditionally polls have been reported his way. I can see many cases where chronological order would be appropriate, such as census data as that shows the history of the town, but polls do not really fall into the same category. Not many really care about the history, other than to maybe see a trend which can be seen in both formats. Polls really have more of a current event aspect to them where people want to see the most up to date data, so why not make that stand out by placing it first? Incitatus13 (talk) 03:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Incitatus13 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Wiki discussion but..

What's the point if senior editors of the organization can be so blatantly and openly biased? Is this commonplace? You have an open disdain for Sarah Palin, and an open love for Barack Obama. I've noticed this on several different pages. I'm just wondering, in a very civil manner, if you can explain to me whether this is common for senior editors? I understand they may not interject their opinions in articles, but do senior editors frequently display their biases on discussion pages? If so, I'm going to get out of this discussion / editing business ASAP, and view the entire encyclopedia itself as suspect (and I've always been a huge Wikipedia fan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.61.62 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My personal biases don't impact my editing. If you have a specific complaint about my POV, you're welcome to take it up with the appropriate authorities. My primary bias is fact. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Above remark from unsigned says more about the POV of unsigned then Muboshgu. Thos Palin-lovin Christen fundamentalists should first make sure that they keep their own people in line to prevent events like 2011 Norway attacks before accusing people of liking BO (although imho that's a compliment). Tonkie (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(this remark is made by me on personal title and is indeed a personal opinion

2014 elections

Isn't it a bit early for 2014 election pages? I thought they usually weren't created until after the 2012 elections except in special circumstances? Tiller54 (talk)

I don't think it is, as long as there is verifiable information about them. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we know these scheduled events will happen, so it's okay to make an article for them as long as there is something to say. In certain cases, we do have info about senators up for reelection in 2014 saying they will run. I don't think 2014 pages should be made for any election where nobody has said anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I agree with you on that. Tiller54 (talk)

Tagging As Vandalism, What Isn't Vandalism on Barbara Boxer

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. --BETA 19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I clicked the wrong rollback option using Twinkle. You're right that the edit I reverted wasn't vandalism. You'll note that I didn't follow through with a vandalism template on your page. Your edit was, however, disruptive and edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

@Muboshgu - deletion nomination for Cat:Dead at 27

Hi Muboshgu, I see you nominated the catagory I just created. I didn't see your reason why to delete. Maybe out of fear that this will start a list of lists like Dead at 10, Dead at 11 and thus creating aprox 100 senseless catagories, and that is indeed something that shouildn't happen. But the age of 27 is a year that many (often addicted) pop/rock-stars) tend to die. See also 27 club. I also know that there are groups of people who deny that there is a phenominan - but only the fact that many people in rock/pop journalism discuss the fact means that it is a phenominon. See also the 27 club talk page.

I've opened the talk page on the catagory you nominated for deletion and I hope you will join in the discussion why the page should be deleted. Thanks, Tonkie (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is open at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_23#Category:Dead_at_the_age_of_27. You are welcome to join it there. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, imho the page you refer to is a Project-page where you can give your OPINION and VOTE to say what should happen with a page and why and is not a discussion page. But I should have added a link to the official project-page on the Talk-page: an error I corrected now. Tonkie (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The page I refer to is the thread for discussion of that category, which will decide its fate. Please read Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy declined

Hi, I declined your speedy deletion request for Yankees Hot Stove as criterion A7 does not apply to TV programs. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request For Arbitration

This is to notify you that a request for arbitration has been made regarding Barbara Boxer. Please see the Case File if you wish to leave a comment. --BETA 14:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Just to remind you of Talk:27_Club#Request_edit:_Sortable_list. The article is now only semi-protected. Afterwards, please set the |answered= parameter to "yes". Thak you. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's now done. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

I know what I'm doing on wikipedia... I'm updating stuff that is going on RIGHT NOW and I will add the sources when I have the chance. Chill out on my page, buddy. JelloSheriffBob —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

Maybe you should reread WP:RS and WP:V. Trades fall through all the time. We don't update pages until they are final, which this is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill Maher

Muboshgu:

I fail to see how including his political, religious and cultural views constitute "vandalism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.127.34 (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OOOhhhh, OK , so we have to wait a couple hours. GOtcha!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thprfssnl (talk • contribs) 02:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony Gwynn

The man led the NL in batting 8 times. That is clearly and obviously a career highlight. Why would you remove that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.47.240 (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Typically, we only include official MLB awards and such, and don't include statistical titles. In Gwynn's case, I put the batting titles back in, because as you say, it was a big part of his story. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Paredes

Thanks - I will have to wait until tomorrow to cite a verifiable source, unless you consider a twitter post "verifiable." Stewstew03 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Logan Morrison

I don't understand how adding information about how he interacts with his fans as "Not encyclopedic." Maybe you don't understand how Twitter works, and in fact there is verification that the account is Morrison's. I know you have all of these badges, and wikipedia medallions and whatnot but just because you don't understand what certain edits mean, does not mean they are not encyclopedic.

And by the way, encyclopedic means comprehensive, so reverting comprehensive edits (which it has seemed to be an issue with other users as seen below) is actually not encyclopedic. Smt1192 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have been more clear in my edit summary, since what I wrote was vague. Your edit cited his twitter account, which is not a reliable source, to convey the information that his account "is considered as a "must-follow" for baseball fans." That is simply not an encyclopedic statement, as it contains an unverifiable opinion. Morrison's account is verified, which is why there is a link to it in the "External links" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well it may have been appropriate to remove the "must-follow" tagline, however there is no need to revert the entire edit, as most of it is encyclopedic. The fact that he uses Twitter actively is something that is rare for a baseball player, and I feel that it is something that should be included, however it seems that you are the authority on what can be added to his page or not.

Smt1192 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a source that talks about his tweeting, it could be a valuable addition to a section on his personal life. It would have to avoid the pitfalls of being original research, by relying on the independent assessment of his tweeting, rather than our interpretation of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: San Diego general elections, November 2011

Hello Muboshgu. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of San Diego general elections, November 2011, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Roster navboxes

I didn't even know Scranton had a navbox. I guess I just didn't expect one for a minor league team. RevanFan (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Scranton Yankees

Would it be okay with you if I don't edit the navbox as well? I don't even think it should have one. I feel only MLB teams should have navboxes. RevanFan (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're gonna update one, you should really update the other. I'm personally okay with AAA teams having navboxes, because most of those players have articles (as you can see in SWB, only two or so don't have pages). If you want to take them to a TfD, I'd keep an open mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rhodes

Hello Muboshgu. I greatly appreciate your contributions on the St. Louis Cardinals roster template and need to clarify something. I had placed LHP Arthur Rhodes on the Inactive roster and you removed him. Here's where things get a little tricky. MLB actually has 3 sets of rosters - the 25-Man active, the 40-Man primary and the "40"-Man secondary. The "40"-Man secondary roster is not limited to just 40 players. When a player is signed to a MLB guaranteed contract, that player is automatically added to the 40-Man secondary roster. Hence, that is why I added this player to the Inactive roster. The number of active and inactive players does not necessarily have to equal 40. Here's a good example. If you were to go today to the Cardinals official website and click on the 40-Man roster link you will see that pitchers Eduardo Sanchez and Adam Wainwright are listed. Both pitchers are currently on the 60-Day Disabled List and not on the 40-Man roster. But they are still listed. That's because you are looking at the 40-Man secondary roster, not the 40-Man primary roster. Also, all players on the 60-day disabled list do count as inactive players. I have re-added Arthur Rhodes to the Inactive roster and corrected the number of inactive players. I felt the need to clarify why I added Rhodes when I did.--CrewChief17 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Muboshgu, however I must respectfully disagree with you. Players on the 60 day DL do count as inactive players. Why then would Eduardo Sanchez and Adam Wainwright be listed on the Cardinals official 40 man roster if they did not count as inactive players? Also, in my honest opinion, whomever is in charge of maintaining the MLB team rosters just has not got around to adding Arthur Rhodes to the roster as an inactive player. That, again in my honest opinion, does not necessarily mean that he as of now is not considered as an inactive player, which he is. How about this. Can we agree to disagree? For now I will leave the roster as is until a corresponding move is made. I am not going to get into an edit war. Thank you.--CrewChief17 (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

They are listed on the page, but if you count them, you'll see they are not included. Hence, we don't include them in the count either. That's the point of the 60 day DL - players don't count to the 40. I appreciate your desire to not edit war. A transaction will be made today to get Rhodes on the 40 man roster. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pujols

Any chance we can get Albert Pujols#See also trimmed down or do you think we're barking up a tree with no ears? — KV5 • Talk • 01:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Katydidit might protest. I just split it into columns for readability. See if you think that's enough of an improvement. If you want to trim it, I'll support that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure he would... it definitely looks better as is, and I'd like to see some of those links ported up into the "Accomplishments" section and linked from prose instead of trying to be a laundry list of "crap this guy did". — KV5 • Talk • 11:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be the way to do it. I'll take a look at what can be shifted to the inline text. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, well let me know. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 01:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

biased editing

how can you threaten me with banning from editing for "biased editing" when the entry has been marked as biased for more than 6 months?!? The entire article smacks of bias. Why should I not attempt to level the playing field by bringing the bias in the other way? if you want to tell me that I am being biased in my edits, then that's fine. but you need to fix the other biased edits to have any leg to stand on.

Theydiditweallknowtheydidit (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)theydiditweallknowtheydidit

The neutrality of the article is an ongoing issue, but you can't possible be serious in questioning my reversion of your biased edits, considering they are, in their entirety: "The West Memphis 3 case shows that if you get enough star power behind you, you can get away with murder. Literally. These three murderers did the crime. They won't do the time. This is a miscarrage of justice." and "The three were able to get away with murder." If you have a legitimate suggestion on how to improve the article, please discuss it on the article talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

I'm confused--how is mentioning that hearing undue weight? It would be one thing if a whole section of the article was devoted to that hearing, but just a few graphs? Seems to me that it would be hard to write an article about her without mentioning it. Blueboy96 22:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion at Talk:Barbara Boxer about the situation when she insisted a general call her "Senator" instead of "ma'am". Take a look at the discussion there. The McHenry thing and the Boxer thing struck me as similar. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to being convinced. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, to my mind the difference is that McHenry was accusing Warren of lying to Congress--which is a crime. A congressman accusing a White House official of committing a crime, in an open committee session--that isn't something that happens everyday, unlike the Boxer thing. Ten to one there are dozens of instances where a Senator is called "sir" or "ma'am" and a Senator demands that s/he be called Senator. Blueboy96 23:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say bring it up on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. I'm inclined to say no, but open to changing my mind. Let's form some WP:CONSENSUS. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Please discuss before making further edits on this page. Reverting edits by others with no discussion and no proof to your assertions is an incorrect way to use Wikipedia. S51438 (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) and Stylteralmaldo

Discussion is at Talk:2011_Wisconsin_protests#Copyright_violations, in case you couldn't find it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:NFL roster

We have the column span issue resolved. Let me know on my talk page if you have any problems with the footer now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandal's edits. LOL, I guess he doesn't like being reverted! :) SOXROX (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm always happy to revert a vandals edits, especially to see their amusing reactions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

MLB Roster Template page looks horrible

Could you do something to change the MLB Roster Template page back to where it was before the new addition of the other Template links on the bottom left? Some players' names are broken up and on 2 lines, and the whole Template is way too wide now, especially between Pitchers/Catchers at the Top menu on the Active side with the other rows also wide apart. The Template was better looking without the clutter of the other teams' Template links, which anyone can easily navigate to on any 2011 team page by only having to change the team name on the URL. Thanks! Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Pittsburgh_Pirates_season#Roster Katydidit (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What browser are you using? I'm on Firefox and the Pirates template looks fine. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine in Chrome too. — KV5 • Talk • 11:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the below to the roster template, and I don't think I like it, not with the "More roster" link on the right that serves the purpose. It doesn't break anything up on my Firefox browser either. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for it either but it's still not broken. — KV5 • Talk • 15:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to start a conversation at Template talk:MLB roster#The new below. Maybe I should be trying at WT:BASEBALL. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also a discussion at WT:NFL. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you removed the footer from most of the MLB roster navboxes. Just a note that the footer is still there in the Florida Marlins roster navbox, in case leaving it was just an oversight on your part. (I'm not sufficiently strongly opinionated about it to remove it myself, though I agree with you that it is visually distracting.) isaacl (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was an oversight. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Jake Smith

Is there a reason you moved Jake Smith back to Jake Smith (pitcher)? There's no other player at Jake Smith which means that disambiguation isn't proper. — KV5 • Talk • 00:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Jake Smith (catcher). He won the Johnny Bench Award. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh. Then why is there no dabpage? Shouldn't it at least rdr to Jacob Smith? — KV5 • Talk • 00:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Which page? Jake Smith? I could do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Or you could beat me to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Ha, sorry. I just thought... "Well, that's easy, I might as well just do it". — KV5 • Talk • 01:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
        • No apologies necessary. I always like it when someone else cleans up my mess. :P – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

2012 gop primaries

I hear what you're saying about the 2012 gop primaries section. I don't see why it is "unencyclopedic" to put the section title as is, and it is not helpful to just cut off the campaign developments and leave her name only. However, if you would please share your views, we can talk about it and come to a consensus here. --Screwball23 talk 19:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't see how the term "meteoric rise" is subjective and unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and take your pick from puffery, unsupported attributions, and/or editorializing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Footer removal

Why did you unilaterally remove the Template:MLB roster footer and Template:MLB roster template footer? Similar templates have been accepted in NBA, WNBA, MLB, CFL and NFL templates. Is it just your opinion or was there some consensus somewhere?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no objection at Wikipedia_talk:MLB#Below_template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There was disapproval at #MLB Roster Template page looks horrible. I tried to start a discussion thread at Template talk:MLB roster but noone chimed in. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In the first few days of the various footers they were working on Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome, but causing problems on MSIE. I think that is what that was about, because we had to make some major changes in the NFL templates on the 19th and 20th.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that the color format on the footers of the main roster template was fixed to match the team color. That certainly makes it look better. Maybe with that issue squared away, it's okay to go back on the main roster templates. I think it's too cumbersome to have on the roster navboxes, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In truth, I don't understand either point. 1.) What is do you mean about the color? 2.) in terms of the roster navbox, Here is how it looks on templates in other leagues where it is accepted: Template:Chicago Bears roster navbox, Template:Chicago Bulls current roster, Template:Hamilton Tiger-Cats roster navbox, and Template:Chicago Sky current roster. I don't see how this is any different.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that Template:Chicago Bears roster navbox has the light blue below background color. However you got it to work on Template:Chicago Bears roster, that's far superior. I've been tinkering a little with it to try to see if I could make the below color do that on a navbox, but I can't make it work. As far as being cumbersome, what I mean is that it makes the template larger than it already is, and for some stub-length pages, it can overwhelm. Take for instance a page I edited this morning, Ryan Cook (baseball). There isn't much there besides the templates, which overwhelm what little text there is. Maybe that can be resolved by making all the navbox templates autocollapse. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The decision on whether to make the templates autocollapse is a WP:MLB decision. I have no problem with a long template of that size. In terms of color, the blue is default. Basketball has made the background clear on the roster, but not the roster navbox. I am not sure how to do that, but I think that can be done with a belowtitlestyle. If I make them clear can I readd them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally am okay with readding them to the navbox templates as long as we get WP:MLB to agree to make them all autocollapse, which I don't think should be a problem. I've already started trying to fix the color thing but I might just be breaking it more. You know how to get it to work, so please help. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about properly doing the color because I have gotten help with other sports. For navboxes, I would know how to make them clear or leave them in the default blue for each template to be adjusted to a different color later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes to {{MLB roster footer}} such that it shows up nice on the roster templates: see {{New York Yankees roster}}. I'd have to look into the navboxes to see how to do that, because my attempts to this point have not been successful. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks great. I don't know much about the individualized team color options. What do you want me to do (default color, clear, wait)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If the footers stay, they should only be visible when looking at the template directly, not on the articles where the templates are transcluded. I don't see any use for the navigation template. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The footers should remain visible in mainspace because people who look at rosters often want to look at others. Around spring training and in the next week as September callups occur, people look at rosters of several teams bouncing back and forth to see who made the rosters. They won't have this option if it is not visible in the main space.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, but after Spring Training and the last week in July, the next week is the most important week of the season for monitoring rosters. I am going to put the footer back in so people can bounce around as teams jostle to have the right players on the roster when the post season eligibility ends (as I believe it does on the 1st). I might be wrong, but there is some roster rule about the 1st after which rosters expand, making this a roster watching time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's what I think the "All MLB rosters" link is for. The navbox within a navbox is clunky and unnecessary IMO. I'd say most people (other than the ones that maintain the rosters) don't care about other team's rosters. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you acknowledge that there is a need for the All MLB rosters link, this is an improvement on that because I have never heard of stacking navboxes and calling it a list article. Stacked navboxes is about the worst form of wikification I have ever seen on Wikipedia. So if you conceed that there is an audience of readers who spend time looking at the rosters this is an improvement. The audience of people who care about rosters includes everyone who plays fantasy baseball.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there should be the "all rosters" wlink either; I was just trying to come up with a compromise. I don't think fantasy sports players will come to Wikipedia to look at rosters, FWIW. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't their be a real discussion about this thing on the project page? I really hate that footer and see no reason for it on the navbox.. if people are jumping around among rosters they's be using the regular roster templates not the navbox. The look terrible and take up too much space. If the talk on this was just among the three of you shouldn't more be involved? Spanneraol (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above if there is a need for the All MLB Rosters, this is an improvement on that. In its default colors it may not look so hot, but a lot of people around here know how to put things in team colors. If you want to move the discussion elsewhere, leave a note here or ping my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the vast majority of editors are opposed to adding this footer. Spanneraol (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus will be whatever it is, but a few professional sports leagues are the only places where I see templates stacked in list articles, whereas dozens of fields use directly linked templates in the below area of templates. I don't know why you guys don't want to stay with Wikipedia conventions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Laffey

MLB.com scares me sometimes. Yesterday, they had Laffey off the 40 man, because of that optional waivers thing after he was DFA'd. Now, he is listed back on. The transaction page also lists him as being optioned to SWB yesterday. Are we going with that? And the reason they scare me is because Jeff Marquez was put on the 60 day DL a week ago, and it was never indicated on mlb.com or yankees.com. Then yesterday, it shows up on there, with a back date of 8/16. Anyway, this was the long version of a very short question: Should we put Laffey back on SWB's roster? Kjscotte34 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this whole situation with Laffey to be totally confusing. Why claim him only to DFA him after one appearance, especially when he has an option remaining for next year and the 40 man roster spot wasn't needed to activate A-Rod from the DL? Why not simply option Laffey to AAA and call him up after rosters expand on September 1? Then the sources were very confusing about whether or not it was a straight DFA or if he was put on optional waivers. I'm still not sure what has happened, but I think he is presently on the 40 man roster and in AAA, though I could be wrong. I'll look to see what the SWB Yankees beat writers have to say about it. I didn't realize that MLB.com failed to update Marquez's status. He was definitely placed on the 60 day DL in order to open up a 40 man roster spot, either the one used for Raul Valdes or the one for Laffey (one was from moving Marquez to the 60 day DL, the other was from DFA'ing Gustavo Molina). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely with you. This is definitely not their best work. The Marquez thing- I sat there and looked for it, everywhere. Then I went to the Yanks 40 man, and counted 41 (excluding the 60 DL), etc. All of a sudden yesterday, it was there, with the right date. The only reason I knew it was true was because I had read about it in the Post or the News. And Laffey, yeah. All the papers even said he was DFA'd. So I dunno. Hope MLB gets it right on Sept. 1! Kjscotte34 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Teixeira

Yeah, Baseball Reference doesn't have Teixeira listed as an All-Star, so my apologies for that.

The vandal tricked me into thinking I was viewing the 2010 All-Star Game article, while I was actually viewing 2009's all along. Dx

And yes, I promise that I am 98.217.145.22! Yo Face Here (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

TFD

Where is the discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question, I don't see it. I think Twinkle failed on me again. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_26#Template:MLB_roster_footer – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:MLBplayer

Your recent edit to this template makes the font so small on my browser that I cannot make out the numbers. I can't edit the protected template. Can you please revert the change? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. It had the opposite effect for me. Before my edit, the numbers were tiny and unreadable for me, but looked great afterwards. Since the previous version seemed to not cause problems for most people, I've changed it back per your request. Kaldari (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed. Please feel free to participate and provide any insight or opinion that you feel relates to the unsourced entries in the list. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Polling

I see we sre changing polls back to the wrong way again. And once again, you didnt add it. It's just beyond me. America69 (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I still say you're adding them the wrong way. I looked at the polling there at a glance and got the wrong idea (red to blue instead of blue to red). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is still a agree to disagree one. I looked at it, and thought the that Weiprin was ahead, since I have been reading polls in the way I support since 06'. But I had to take a friendly swipe, with no intent to start a big argument over it. It looks like an editor left over the last discussion, (he left the day after it ended) and I don't want to see anymore leave. All the best! America69 (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:American baseball pitcher, 1990s births stubs and Category:Baseball pitcher, 1990s births stubs

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Radiohead

Please note that you are one revert away from breaking 3RR. Also, do not use the rollback tool in a content dispute, as you have been doing. Further improper use will result in it being revoked. Cheers, —GFOLEY FOUR!— 00:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that I'm at the 3RR limit, and therefore waited for another editor to make the most recent revert. Further, I was not aware that you aren't supposed to use rollback in a content dispute. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read up then. 00:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. I'll be more cautious about my use of rollback in the future. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Derek Jeter page

Mobushgu:

Thank you for your note. My opinion is that the item that I put on the Derek Jeter page, even if it has the incidental effect of helping to advertise an event, is newsworthy for the fact that Derek Jeter inspired a one-act play festival about him. Is there somebody up the chain whom you and I can consult together for a decision on this?

Thanks.

Ben benalexandernyc@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benalexandernyc (talk • contribs) 15:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob Turner Picture on the NY-09 race

Wow! Something I never thought I would say, but I have your back here. I see you are facing opposition here on his picture right now. If it continues, let me know, and I'll come in and help back you up. You are right on that issue. Just wanted to drop in and pass along that note! America69 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:DavidOnek.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DavidOnek.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Brian Anderson (pitcher)

Hello Muboshgu. I've performed the move that you requested. Can you please check if any links to this article from elsewhere need to be fixed up due to the move? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take a look. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Hello, Muboshgu. You have new messages at Talk:Major League Baseball Triple Crown.
Message added 00:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Breaking Bad characters

Please feel free to find a source coming from the show's creators that supports your claim, and I'll be happy to leave that passage.Bankslooserm (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Poll

Tx for starting the height/weight poll. So far, it is fascinatingly nip and tuck!--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the welcome to wikipedia I been here since '03. someone else will have restart the gun I guess Smith03 (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a warning template. I could substitute the "general note" template for the "caution" template, if you prefer. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would just prefer you not to remove other stuff from my talk page Smith03 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That was an error caused by twinkle. I should find out why that happens from time to time. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Hi ... are you open to a merger discussion at the other page, as the closer suggested was a possibility at the Mitchell Report page where we agreed there was no need for two pages? I think that there was enough openness to it that it would be reasonable. If so, would you like to start it, or should I? Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm open to discussing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Great. I'm happy for you to set it up ... unless you would prefer that I do so. And if I do so ... is it fine if I just open up a string? Or is some tagging of the page in a formal manner required (I tend to shy away from sullying pages if not necessary). I defer to you ... Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever set one up, so I'd prefer if you did it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried my hand here. Please don't hesitate to improve upon it. Also, access to view the list would of course help those who did not see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

your actions were NOT appreciated

I was the one editing the "List of World Series champions" page, that you apparently twice re or un-edited. Your comment to me was that my edits were not 'constructive'. The second list on that page was entitled "Series Appearances by Franchise". As you saw, I changed that to be a list of appearances by team, with the corresponding appropriate entries. What makes my edit "constructive" was the fact that it's far clearer to see who actually won; it's much more specific. For example, the Orioles have appeared 6 times since they've been in Baltimore. Your number is 7 based on their prior existence as the Browns. Unfortunately, you or whoever constructed the page with the introductory paragraph and 1st table, have mentioned NOTHING about change of scenery so to speak of the Browns. So, one viewing the entry for the Orioles who wishes to further review the 1st table will be scratching their head trying to figure out how the number of appearances could be 7--the count based on the 1st table would be 6. The same reasoning goes for all the franchises who have moved, which is why I made the edits: Twins (Senators), Giants, Athletics, etc. The 2nd table would be better served and clearer to a reader who does not possess your knowledge or my knowledge, if it were complemented with asterisks, subscripts, superscripts, etc. next to the franchises that have moved, which would at least give a little indication to the unwary reader as to how the numbers for those particular teams came to be. I don't like what you did; it was a low-class move.

Sgompers (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Sgompers

I wasn't the only one who reverted your edits. Any changes you make to a featured article should be discussed on the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That article was 'featured'?! You've got to be kidding. As I stated, the article gives NO explanation as to the various franchises' re-locations. Since the dominant visual portions of the article are the two tables, a casual visitor to the page, reading the tables, would have no way to explain how the Twins for instance, could have a 3-3 record in 6 appearances, when a scan of Table 1 would reveal that they had only been in 3 actual World Series.

It would be a lot easier for you to admit that the article as it appears now is poorly crafted for the above-mentioned reason, than to use the pathetic excuse that 'others' had also reverted to the original article. They too apparently think that leaving out an explanation makes perfect sense. For the sake of completeness, to nothing of actual proper English writing form, I chose to make the edits that very simply and clearly showed ALL the teams that had appeared in the Series.

Again, as I also stated in my first message, it would have been an easy enough thing for you and the hallowed 'others' to include footnotes for the variously re-located franchises, indicating their records in their other cities of play.

Instead, you've continued to demonstrate that you would rather save your ego than put together a logically coherent article. Tell me something. How is the non-baseball expert/casual web surfer supposed to figure out from your tables, how the Twins got into 6 World Series, reading ONLY your Wiki entry?

The edit I made shouldn't have needed discussion or approval.

Ego. Sgompers (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Sgompers

Wisconsin

Hello, are you ever going to respond to the discussion on the 2011 Wisconsin protests article? S51438 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What discussion? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

== Copyright violations ==

Per Wikipedia's policy on Copyright Violations, I removed several blocks of text that were cut-and-pasted from copyrighted web pages (with only slight alterations):

• This edit copied from the Wall Street Journal opinion page.
• This edit copied from The Chippewa Herald.
• This edit copied from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

According to Wikipedia's policy on Non-free content, small blocks of text can be copied if they're in quotation marks or block-quoted and clearly attributed as quotations. But in this case, a better choice would be to rewrite the text and paraphrase.

I suspect there are numerous other cases of WP:COPYVIO in this article. Davemck (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-added with paraphrases. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's better, but I think there are still copyvio problems -- some sentences are still virtually identical. There's a good discussion, with examples, of what to avoid at WP:Close_paraphrasing. (I probably should not have used the term paraphrase; "close paraphrasing" can still be copyvio.) I think Wikipedia text should be written so that the reader can't detect that the writer has ever seen the source article, other than that they convey the same facts.

The first edit above (from the WSJ opinion page) brings up a different problem: opinion pages are not reliable sources. As WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." A case in point is the WSJ sentence "Public unions depend entirely on tax revenues to fund their pay and benefits." That's pretty clearly not true -- but after all, it's just an opinion. Davemck (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Precisely on the WSJ opinion page. I'm removing that statement that "all union moneys come from the taxpayers" because that doesn't make sense on its face. I've paid union dues. Where do they go? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that whole sentence was a WP:COPYVIO from the partisan opinion piece cited. There are a good number of COPYVIO and NPOV violations on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Muboshgu, you clearly are not looking at this issue in a non-partisan manner regarding the small sentence "Union members in the public sector are paid entirely from tax revenues". You have not made a case to dispute this sentence, and continue to disrupt editing. Your union dues go to pay the union leaders, political campaigns, and various other things. As a union member, I'm surprised you do not know such things. Union members clearly can not edit this article without having a biased point of view. S51438 (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My "bias" is towards fact, and opinion pages don't meet that level of WP:V. I am challenging this based on WP:V. You need to assume good faith and not use derogatory language about other editors. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume you have removed "all" opinion references from this page? What you removed WAS fact, regardless of what source it came from. You know it's true. S51438 (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Alexautographs

Do you just keep a giant list of all the articles I've ever written? You're flooding my inbox! :=D. Keep it up, it saves me the trouble. Alex (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia keeps the list. You should save yourself the trouble of creating these articles in the first place. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well when I write them, they seem notable. Some of the articles I nominate that I AfD I don't even recall writing...because I have written so many articles. Alex (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Since they seem notable to you when you start them, perhaps we could work something out where you propose the idea to a few of us and we give input before you start the page? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Halvorsen brian proposed this very idea to Alex in August of last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Novosel, but Alex's response was, "I could. But I'm not going to." I still think this is a viable option that should be further considered. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 22:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Muboshgu. You have new messages at Bagumba's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

How is starting a category of famous obese people vandalism? Obesity is a serious disease that affects millions of people? It is a double standard to have a category of famous people with Parkinsons, but not obesity? I don't understand. I wasn't trying to vandalize any pages, i was hoping to start a category that others could add to because i was genuinely interested in knowing more about this particular subject.

Curious why this was considered vandalism

How is starting a category of famous obese people vandalism? Obesity is a serious disease that affects millions of people? It is a double standard to have a category of famous people with Parkinsons, but not obesity? I don't understand. I wasn't trying to vandalize any pages, i was hoping to start a category that others could add to because i was genuinely interested in knowing more about this particular subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.78.105 (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: Alexsautographs

copypasta

Sorry, you'll have to pursue this without me. There's plenty of proof of disruption littered throughout his edits, including his favoritism displayed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Kotchman. I've really just gotta stay away from this place for a while. I feel like if I brought this to WP:ANI I'd be the one that gets vilified. I feel responsible for the temper tantrum he's had at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball, and I don't want to be the one to take this any further. I can't believe he's reacted this way. He must be stopped. I'm on break, though, until at least December. There's only so much of this passive aggressive bullshit that I can take. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

NY-13021 (talk · contribs) has expressed his desire to seek disciplinary action for Alex, as well. Seeing as how there's now three that are willing to bring this to ANI, I think you or KV5 should go ahead and start it. KV5 is an administrator, after all. Alex has taken this way too personally and I feel responsible for his tantrum that has disrupted WikiProject Baseball and completely derailed my projects to expand baseball articles in order to respond to all of his improper AFDs, and my presence on ANI would only make things worse. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 01:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See my comments at my talk page; I will certify an RfC/U but don't feel that I am involved enough to be the initial filer. — KV5 • Talk • 22:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably start it this afternoon. I've been busy. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Theo Epstein

Hi,

not sure where to ask for a page protection, but Theo Epstein sorely needs it to prevent an edit war in response to his expected (but not official) move to the Chicago Cubs. Any help you can provide would be phenomenal.

--Boston Burkenation (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. I haven't seen it yet, but I bet it does need protection. I'm on it. Watch what I do for future reference. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U

Regarding the RFC/U you opened, I might suggest you annotate the link under "Evidence of disputed behavior" so readers (esp. those that dont know the background) know what each behavior is at a high level without having to read the contents in its entirety.—Bagumba (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, was this the actual RFC/U or a draft? Its not liked anywhere.—Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If it was a draft, I can help look it over or perhaps even modify the wording so I can certify.—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a draft. This is my first RfC/U, so maybe I should've drafted it in userspace first. Oh well, too late for htat. I'll annotate those links now. Please suggest any further changes. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, if you havent linked it anywhere, and no outside people have commented, technically its not live yet. I'm signing off, but will try to take a peak later tonight. It does need to be spruced up if we want outsiders to easily be able to understand the situation and provide feedback.—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been listed now since it was certified, and I've added a summary, but feel free to continue adding further evidence. — KV5 • Talk • 01:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for certifying. Please suggest any ways I can improve it as time goes on. I'll keep adding evidence as I see it. Do we have to notify Alex in any manner? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jarred Cosart

The article Jarred Cosart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BASEBALL/N

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 ALCS MVP

Sorry for posting the info prematurely, but now the MVP winner is offical. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, but please don't do it again. Yogi Berra once said "it ain't over 'till it's over." – Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of Commentary

This isn't commentary. I'm as unbiased as any. If you bothered googling it, you would have seen the poll in question. Here. --Jobsjobsjobs (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"If [I] had bothered googling it"? It's not up to me to google anything. It's up to you to add a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My bad. --Jobsjobsjobs (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Triple crown upon Muboshgu for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Thank you for all your contributions to the project! SMasters (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This user has a Triple Crown.

Orphaned non-free image File:1997 MLB Expansion Draft.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1997 MLB Expansion Draft.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It has been un-orphaned. I changed the template that houses it, and it's been resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mantle

I got every biography about Mantle, I could help out there when I get the time. Thanks Secret ^account 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. It's become my new GA project and I could use all the help I can get, especially since I don't have those biographies. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Luke Scott

This was discussed last year and the consensus is to not include. It does not matter if an ip address keeps re adding it and no complaints about it. Do not revert again. Truthsort (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading that talk page pretty severely. I changed my mind from against including it to including it. Spanerraol favors inclusion. Kinston eagle spoke in support of including it. Now you're edit warring in removing the info, when the burden should be on you to support its removal. I caution you not to remove content again without talking it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And Me, Strikerforce, Killervogel5, an ip address that had been active (99.141.243.84), DJSasso, Loadmaster, and Rugbyhelp opposed it. Eventually you and the supporters left the discussion and were okay with conclusion. Truthsort (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There was definitely that opposition to including it, yes. I don't see supporters leaving the discussion, though. The last comment in that thread was by Spanneraol in support of inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

afds

Why are you trying to delete so many articles at once? I dont have the time to review all these guys today... As for minor league managers... My personal belief is that managing in the minor leagues is a more notable accomplishment than playing and If it was my choice i'd keep all articles on guys that had substantial managing careers... but at the least i'd want to keep guys that won manager of the year awards or multiple championships.. Spanneraol (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I started going through Alexsautographs creations figuring there were good PROD candidates. After I PROD'd them, he de-PROD'd with no reason for most of them. So I naturally took it to the next level. In hindsight, I should've nominated two or so at a time to lighten the burden on other participants. I'll remember that for the future.

Regarding minor league managers, I agree it's more notable than being a minor league player. However, lots of these guys were in Class-C and Class-D leagues. Considering how many of them there were before reorganization, that to me seems less notable than our present day Class-A. I'd agree with manager of the years, but not championship winners necessarily. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gavin Newsom. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The application of the definition of "edit warring" needs fixing. I'm not "edit warring". I'm preventing a disruptive editor from messing with a BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

was a coach for the Brooklyn Dodgers ca. 1948. That's probably why he was included in that category. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh duh, you're right. I forgot about that. Good call. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Make that 1938. He wasn't in any shape to be coaching or doing much of anything else in 1948. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Please Stop!

Please refrain from nominating every page you disagree with for deletion. I have tagged most of them for {{rescue}}, leaving the general wikipedian public to decide there fait. Most of these Baseball players you are trying to remove from our website have achieved multiple titles, solidifying the notability on wikipedia. Abuse of the AfD tag is extreemly disruptive, and takes up valuable time from administrators that could be better spent dealing with the bigger problems. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not "abusing" the AfD tag. I'm nominating articles I don't think are notable. Second, winning titles does not "solidify notability". Show me where that automatically qualifies someone for GNG. Third, the word is "fate", not "fait". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize I am not the best speller, however I stand by my decision to tag the articles for {{rescue}}, I am not a reviewer, I am simply leaving it to the hands of our fellow wikipedians to choose if these are notable or not, some have already fallen under a WP:Snow Keep, Please have a nice day. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your tagging articles for rescue. It's up to the community to vote keep or delete in any particular AfD, so it's certainly possible for any and all to be kept. You'll notice I withdrew nominations on some of the snow keeps. However, many of those articles fit the patterns of deletable articles and I see no problem with the nominations specifically. You have a nice day yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is with shear volume of articles.. between you and Alex we now have around 40 articles up for deletion and a slew of prods to go through... I know you dont want to call it an afd war but it seems like alex is trying to match your numbers and it just escalates... hopefully we can refrain from adding more articles till the ones already there have worked their way through the process.Spanneraol (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Alex dePROD'd a few more articles I want to run through an AfD, but I'm holding off until the current ones are sorted out. Even though an "AfD war" was not my intent, I can see the outside perspective can easily construe this as one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Red Snapp

Thanks for the note. It's fun to come across a guy like Snapp who appears at first glance to be a reasonable AfD candidate, and to then find more and more stuff that turns into something really interesting. Finding on-line sourcing for players of this era is difficult, but there are some good resources out there, some free like la84foundation, and others that require a subscription like newspaperarchive.com (an excellent source for newspaper articles from the pre-1922 era) and paperofrecord.com (which includes a complete searchable archive of The Sporting News). Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Dámaso Marté's nationality and the lead

Just curious, whereabouts in the MOS does it say not to include nationality in the lead? WP:OPENPARA is what I've always gone by, and 3.1 is pretty clear that nationality is fine, but ethnicity needn't be mentioned unless relevant to notability. Regards, Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 16:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I confused myself between "nationality" and "ethnicity". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Assistance requested

First off, thank you for helping me add 'braves=yes' to many of the key pages related to the Atlanta Braves franchise. I do, however, require some assistance getting the WP 1.0 bot to function correctly for WikiProject Atlanta Braves. Before I began the project I spent a considerable amount of time studying what needed to be done to ensure everything worked properly. It would now appear that I missed something important along the way. I have set up the required pages, categories, and templates as described on the Bot's how to use page. It is quite clear that I messed up somewhere along the way. Any help you can offer in resolving these problems would be greatly appreciated. Bbqsauce13 (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do that. Ask editors associated with the bot for assistance. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Troy Polamalu

I seen someone changed your last change of Troy playing for the steelers. Someone changed it to the Bears incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.142.62.24 (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruben Rivera

I find it hard to believe that for a guy who spent parts of 9 seasons in the majors and garnered a World Series ring, that a minor and comical baserunning incident (in the month of May, yet) would be the highlight of the guy's career. Had it made some critical difference late in the season or in the post-season, that could be another matter... or if it was widely covered over time, such as Babe Herman's "doubled into a double play" incident in the 1930s. P.S. If someone's comments are highly insulting and have nothing to do with improving the article, I see no problem in your deleting them. In fact, the user has it wrong. An incident in a player's career does not just need to be verified as having happened, it needs to be verified for notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. It makes me feel a little less crazy. All I'm trying to do is maintain the general principles of Wikipedia, and I'm being considered a bad guy on par with the personal attacker. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just be careful not to fall into the 3-reverts trap. There have been some block-happy admins around here lately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering an IP has now started making that edit adding the baserunning event, I could use your help in reverting it and/or deciding whether or not to go forward with a sockpuppet investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I had somehow failed to put it on my watch list the other day, but it's on it now. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I expect that edit warring isn't over yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Seattle Pilots Template

Yes, thanks for the heads up. I need some help with it. Not sure where to get information on their one year of existence. Please help if you can. Arnabdas (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrosheet has just about any stats anyone would want to know, and probably a lot more, about the one-year wonder called the Seattle Pilots.[1] And if you want some real inside dope, find a copy of Jim Bouton's book Ball Four. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

However, be aware that there is already a Template:Milwaukee Brewers that may well cover the 1969 season adequately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We were talking about {{1969 Seattle Pilots}}. I showed him the B-Ref pages, but Retrosheet works well too. I really do need to read Ball Four one of these days. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Baseball-Reference gets a lot of its info from Retrosheet. I know Baseball Almanac does. Jim Bouton's Ball Four inspired a lot of imitators, although Jim Brosnan's works from a decade earlier, The Long Season and Pennant Race, were kind of the precursor to this "diary" style of writing. Brosnan's work was controversial in its day, but it was pretty tame compared to Ball Four. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Red Snapp

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Braves note

Hey. This is probably a little late since you and bbqsauce likely got most of them, but if you didn't, I can probably do a mass addition through AWB of any braves players if you'd prefer. Would definitely be quicker. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean tagging their talk pages? Please do. I've tried AWB but don't really have the patience to learn how to fully utilize it. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yanks roster

He/she did another revert after you warned him. I'm afraid to hit "Undo" again, since I don't want to be blocked for edit warring either. I did request semi-protection for the template earlier today. Let me know if you need me to do anything else. Kjscotte34 (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're good. Teamwork always wins. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The 72 hour ban expired. Guess who's back, already, changing the template to a spring training roster? Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooh ooh let me guess... Santa? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft

I saw this at GAN. It strikes me as being more of a list than anything else. Wouldn't FLC be the better route to take? Resolute 01:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I did struggle with that distinction a bit before I nominated it. My thinking was that there was enough prose to make it more of an article with a list in it, as opposed to a list with some prose. Maybe I should rescind the GAN and go with FLC. I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

My personal inclination is it belongs at FLC. One of us could start a discussion at WT:GAN for more viewpoints though. I just noticed it and didn't want to have you sit in the queue for two months only to have a reviewer dump it on an argument it is at the wrong process. Resolute 01:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would suck. I will start that thread. Thanks for the advice. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleting tiny Career Statistics section

Why is it ok to delete the 1 or 2 lines for Career Statistics summary, but it is ok to leave the many lines on Rankings all through Wikipedia? It doesn't make any sense if the idea is to save bandwidth. Or is there another reason I'm not aware of? This was what I thought was the stated reason on the "consensus" (how many people in this 'consensus' idea?) for the deleting of Career Statistics. Was I wrong all this time? Where *is* this consensus (link) stated so I can see it for myself? Katydidit (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

See here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

re this

The website responsible for the account is a reliable source. Graphic designers rely on that website. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 04:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a graphic designer, so I've never heard of it, and I'm sure I won't be the only one to question it. Do they have a writeup they published on their own site which we could then consider a reliable source? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The website hasn't been updated yet, but the blog has, I found the image on a website that's been used a reliable source before, Chris Creamers' Sports Logos. Graphics design speaking, those two websites, along with Uni Watch in this case, are about as reliable as you get. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 04:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I do know uniwatch. They list the colors as "gold, orange, aqua and black (outlined in grey)". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He listed rough color names like you or I would, the two sites I've pointed you to list the exact colors. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 04:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ROY succession

Having the succession boxes seems to be standard, see Geovany Soto, Ryan Braun, and other past winners. If you disagree with precedent, you may take it up at WT:BASEBALL; however, until consensus on the matter has been reached, kindly restore my changes. GlassCobra 20:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's been a lot of movement to remove those succession boxes. There was discussion on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_27#Career_highlights_in_infobox. Just because they haven't been removed from those other pages doesn't mean they should all stay, it means nobody has gotten to those yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing in the section you linked that would indicate a consensus about removing the succession boxes, the only mention of them is in the final statement as an afterthought. As there appears to be no justification as yet for removing the succession boxes, I'd suggest you revert your changes and have a specific discussion on the matter at WT:BASEBALL. GlassCobra 20:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't discussed at length because it doesn't need to be discussed at length: they are simply redundant to each other. The succession box lists only the year, previous winner, and next winner. The navbox shows all winners. It doesn't make sense to keep both, and considering the navbox contains more information, it's an easy decision as to which should be removed. Even Template:Succession box says that it is a "mostly depreciated" template. Succession boxes should only be used when there is no navbox. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So "there's been a lot of movement," yet it "wasn't discussed at length"? If the one mention in that section is the only input on the succession boxes, that is insufficient. If there's been discussion elsewhere, kindly show me. I'm perfectly willing to uphold consensus, I just haven't seen any evidence of it yet. GlassCobra 20:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for my lack of clarity. There has been movement in terms of editors deleting redundant succession boxes when they come across them (though I don't remember who, I've seen a number of instances on my watchlist in the last few weeks), though there has not been a great deal of discussion on the topic. Not everything requires consensus to be done; Wikipedia would grind to a halt in that case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oversaw this while posting below. I am one of those editors. See discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_90#Using_navboxes_where_succession_boxes_would_suffice.—Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

my bad prod on umps

Thanks for catching that. I even double-checked WP:BASE/N before opening and must have misread the entry for minor league umps. However, I wonder if most umps ultimately pass WP:GNG (no interest in pursuing).—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've made similar mistakes lately. I was wondering myself if MLB umpires are so important that they should be included in BASE/N myself, but I'm not looking to open that can of worms either. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Roster question

Why are some roster templates scrunced together when you click All MLB rosters, like NYY/BOS and DET/KC and OAK/SEA? Just asking. Ositadinma 20:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Good question. It's because there is inconsistent spacing in the templates themselves. What I mean is, that if you edit each template, some of them have...

}}<noinclude>

at the bottom, while others have

}}
<noinclude>

at the bottom. That makes a difference in whether or not that space appears. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

So should we have a space between the templates (my opinion yes, more organized) because three currently do not (there will be aleast some seperation because of the title headers between the leagues and divisions). Ositadinma 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that yes, spaces should be added to those that don't have them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Juan Padilla (second baseman) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to 1992 Olympics, Antonio Pacheco

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs/population

I had forgotten I even had that sub-page. Must have gotten distracted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It happens. I find all sorts of subpages I have that were half-baked ideas I either dropped or just forgot about. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it was moved from an article someone else had attempted to create. Now that I think of it, I might have kept it just because I thought it was interesting info. The likelihood of it becoming an article seems doubtful. At the very least, it would require periodic updating. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I think the point of the article was to see what correlation there might be between population and attendance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was an AfD that moved to delete, so you must've userfied the info either because of interest or desire to work on it to make it a viable page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Jim Crane

When you add that the transaction for the Astros is completed to the Jim Crane article, make sure that you state he is not the sole "owner", but the leader of a group of owners. The selling group is 30 owners, and the buying group is nine-persons, of which Crane is only one, the spokesman, and head. Crane is not Paul Allen or Mark Cuban, he couldn't buy the team all on his own, he doesn't have that much money. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: This is worth a read: Transferring assets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Best O Fortuna (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 November 2011‎

Great job beefing up that article. I'll be sure to give that source a read. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Kindly stop specifically targeting my articles for deletion. You actions may constitute as WP:HARRASSMENT and may require administrative intervention. Alex (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What I am doing is not harassment. I'm not targeting you in any way, I'm targeting articles you've created. And as you can see, I'm not nominating ALL of them for deletion: only the ones I believe fail WP:N. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please refrain from trying to claim ownership of articles. You have created so many baseball articles that it's almost impossible to avoid nominating for deletion articles that the project believes fails WP:BASE/N. Asking for us to tiptoe around non-notable articles you created to only go after non-notable articles created by others is not a reasonable request. There is a high successful deletion rate of articles you happened to create. You used to nominate the articles you created for deletion, yourself, so what forbids others from doing the same? This is about the project, not one individual that has taken an objective issue personally. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, whatever. Wikipedia is just a game, a relatively meaningless aspect of my life. Nominate to your heart's content. I don't care. I'm sure most people aren't looking up Harold Kollar anyway. I'll make it easy for you: Don Bacon, Charles Baron (baseball), Lou Bekeza, Ray Bellino, Doc Bennett, Alton Biggs, Mike Blazo, Dick Bogard, Earl Bolyard, Ken Bracey, Frank Cacciatore, Keith Champion, Boyd Coffie, Mel Didier, Robert Drury (baseball), Woody Fair, Mal Fichman, Bob Fontaine, Jr., Orv Franchuk, Cade Gaspar, Wes Griffin, Marty Purtell, Al Reitz, Steve Roadcap, Jimmy Sanders (baseball), Floyd Temple, Tommy Thomas (college coach), Glenn Tufts, Reggie Waller, Harrison Wickel. Apologies if I missed anybody. Alex (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is not "just a game". I will AfD or PROD any articles I believe merit deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a game. One that has gotten pretty boring. It was fun for a while though. Alex (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not like this information is anything new about you treating this entire thing like a game. We've been well aware of this since July. You finally publicly admitting it shows that you're well aware the project is about to no longer be your playground. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Alex, if you honestly believe that Wikipedia is in fact a game, then it would be best if you did stop editing and left. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Your hard work will never go unappreciated. Iamhungey (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's always nice to be appreciated :) – Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for George Kelly (baseball)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Yoennis Céspedes

Orlady (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 19:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Marlins roster templates

Blue on black is not that hard to read, in my opinion. Blue is an accent color and should not be a primary color. Black and orange are. Ositadinma 21:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The color is black (at least on the jeserys), not graphite. Those colors swatches were wrong at least from looking at the jerseys not the logos with the bare eye. Ositadinma 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Then it should be corrected on Miami Marlins. I have to look for the guidelines about colors on wiki, but to me the blue on black is tougher to read than the orange on black. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the primary logo, the colors look like; black, salmon, electric blue, some short of yellow and white. But the Marlins revealed a black and orange jersey with the same accent colors on others, not graphite and salmon like the photobucket color swatch has said. Grahite and salmon are ugly and not even floridian colors. Ositadinma 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I found this source, lists the hex triplets. Ositadinma 22:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Josh Romanski

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Elmer Stricklett

Hello! Your submission of Elmer Stricklett at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Giants2008 (Talk) 21:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Muboshgu. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 17:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Allie Reynolds

Thanks for your help with Allie Reynolds' page. I appreciate you adding notes from the Gittleman text - it really helps to fill out the narrative.

Let me know if you have ideas about remaining improvements. I am going to look into adding data about his no-hitters and his general importance to those championship Yankee teams.

Gstables (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I put this article on my "list of articles to expand" not too long ago. That Gittleman text gave me good info for his amateur and minor league years, but the article could use some talk about the no-hitters and more season-by-season recapping. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Rex Ryan

Given NFL Records are posted in a endless supply of locations - I'll submit to the obvious and post the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsktsktsktsk (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the Jets have finished behind the Patriots in the regular season standings is not being questioned. However, you are attributing it to Ryan's coaching strategy without any verification. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hideki Irabu

Hello Muboshgu, you just left a message on my talk page about a little correction I made to the Hideki Irabu article, and I use the word correction because it was actually about accuracy and not about censure; the fact is that I’m a Yankee fan and I have been all my life, and I clearly remember the incident between the Boss and Irabu, I also remember the YELLOW PRESS attributing the words “fat pussy toad” to the Boss, when the real term he used was “fat toad”, not a big deal anyway, I just think that sensationalism should be kept away of Wikipedia, since people search articles here and this information is widely accepted as factual and highly regarded; as I said before, no big deal to me, but just like me, there are a lot of people out there that will recognize that not all the information posted here is completely accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DerKrakeMann (talk • contribs) 20:39, December 5, 2011

Actually, I recall that the newspapers censored the full quote at the time. The accurate quote was "fat pussy toad". – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Allie Reynolds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Halfback

Braggo Roth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Jack Barry

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Birdie Tebbetts

Thanks for the encouraging words, but I don't have the writing chops to get an article up to publishing standards. Too many misplaced commas and so forth. I can get them close, but it takes a better editor than myself to get them to GA standards.Orsoni (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

T. Wilson

Wanted to get your opinion on something. Should I make an article for the Jets' safety Tracy Wilson? He was promoted to replace Emanuel Cook and is the only active roster member without an article. He did play against the Redskins this past Sunday. Does he deserve an article or does he fail WP:Athlete? -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that playing in at least one NFL regular or postseason game is enough to meet WP:Athlete, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the same impression I'm under. I just figured I'd get a second opinion before I dove headfirst and some said "by the way" after the fact. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Elmer Stricklett

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Robert Eenhoorn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links to 1988 Olympics, Eastern League and Waivers

Birdie Tebbetts (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Army Air Corps

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem with script?

Possibly an issue with a script you're using - your last couple of posts to WP:RFPP removed a number of other entries from the page. See [2], [3]. It doesn't look intentional, so you might want to look into what's happening... WJBscribe (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. If you look a little further in the page history, you'll see that's the second time its happened to me today. Twinkle occasionally gives me that problem, but usually more spread out. Thanks for the info. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Mungo

Hi Muboshgu, responding to your question while moving "Van Lingle Mungo" to "Van Mungo". I think the article was called that because Mungo was often referred to as Van Lingle Mungo, for some reason, I don't know why. When he is mentioned in baseball books that I've read, his middle name is always there. There was a famous song written about baseball players, and its title was Van Lingle Mungo. If you do Google searches for Van Mungo and Van Lingle Mungo, there are slightly more hits for Van Lingle Mungo. I don't mind the title change really, just letting you know. - PM800 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)