Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:03, 16 June 2010

This is Muboshgu's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 4 months

Things I can do to help WikiProject U.S. Congressedit list Ongoing: Upload Ongoing: Upload new district maps and incorporate them into articles (November 19, 2013) Ongoing: Apply {{US Congress party summary}} on all Congresses (February 20, 2018) Ongoing: Create edit notices for all articles. (February 15, 2010)

Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Major League Baseball awards/archive1

We've finally finished off the topic guys! Given your role as a major contributor to one or more of the articles in this topic, please stop by the FTC when you get the chance! This is what Wikiprojects are all about! Staxringold _talk 01:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

You need to consult the editors of the Senate articles before you can get rid of them. Not to mention, what you did wasn't necessary considering the fact that it can be used to link to the previous election (2004).--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion during the 2008 election. I'll have to dig it up later. The whole point of the infobox is to show the party nominees and the results. We have none of that information at this time (except the nominees in Illinois). As for the link to the 2004 election, it's contained in the state election templates that are already on the page. Furthermore, there's a policy on Misplaced Pages of being bold as a method of making changes. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That, and I am one of the editors of those articles. I don't remember seeing anyone ask for consensus for adding those in the first place. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What's happening with this? The infoboxes really don't make any sense at all before the primary, and even then don't make much sense until after the election. At least not for individuals—there's nothing wrong with the ones at the main House and Senate election pages because they actual convey information such as the party leaders and previous election results. -Rrius (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. I'm going to continue to remove them from the individual Senate election pages later today, though I'll leave the Illinois one up, unless you want that down too. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

After the Pennsylvania primary, May 18, 2010, we will know who the two major party candidates are going to be for United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2010, and we might know who some of the minor party candidates may be, too, since some of them may have filed nominating papers by then. At that point, is the Infobox we are discussing useful, or not? I am unsure, so I am asking for more information from other editors here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Grote & the Colt 45s

I brought up a debate concerning Jerry Grote and the Colt 45s at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball. I'd like your input on the topic.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of Merit

		The WikiProject Baseball Major League Order of Merit
		Whereas Muboshgu has participated in the promotion of various and sundry lists and articles toward the admirable end goal of creating the Major League Baseball awards Featured Topic; and Whereas the project expresses its appreciation to the participants for their hard work and dedication to furthering the coverage of the sport of Baseball; and Whereas the aforementioned Featured Topic has been recognized by a group of peers and promoted to Featured Status on March 5, 2010— Therefore, Muboshgu is hereby presented with the inaugural WikiProject Baseball Major League Order of Merit, in recognition for steadfast and meritorious service to the Project, the Cause, and the Encyclopedia. This Order of Merit presented by KV5 (Talk • Phils) on 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC) as a representative of WP:MLB. Guaranteed free of performance-enhancing substances.

Diane

Hey Muboshgu

I am just trying to put the picture which depicts Kruger as more beautiful. The picture your putting is not the best pick of Kruger. So I am trying to put a better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peisapooran (talk • contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

David Malpass

I tried to fix up what I could, can you do more? Bearian (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed!

As a frequent editor of American politics, I would appreciate if you put your two cents into the debate over the conservative support for President Obama in Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

You are invited to help consider a common template policy for all WP:SPORTS biography articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Template_policy_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Important figures

If you don't mind, can you direct me to the discussion on removing the "important figures" section from MLB infoboxes? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Here it is. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor league teams

I didn't save the link to the discussion or anything like that, but there was a discussion where it was determined that minor league teams SHOULD be left in infoboxes for players who are still in the minors. If we have rivaling consensuses then we have rivaling consensuses. Either way, I don't like your edits with the unnecessary headlines, and other things you've added.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if we could find that to have a full and thorough debate. My other edits, aside from removing the teams and awards/honors from the infoboxes, may not have been the highest quality. I was killing a little time at work. Any ways to improve them are of course appreciated. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, it wouldn't surprise me if this topic has been debated more than once, and there exist rivaling consensuses. I suppose we could pose the question again.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do tell... Why did you revert those edits? I put it exactly the way it was discussed it should be. Check Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Baseball, we just finished having a discussion about it. --Johnny Spasm (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do Misplaced Pages administrators get paid for their services or do they actually hold down a real job? I've noticed that Misplaced Pages administrators make something like 50 - 100 edits and contributions every single day. Where do they find the time to do this? It's like they start editing articles at 3:00 A.M. and don't stop until 11:00 P.M. that night. I've also noticed that they will edit articles if it doesn't conform to "their" standards or satisfaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.67.149 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010

Muboshgu,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewer granted

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

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

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

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

On June 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Augie Schmidt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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