User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 7

Edit summary
Hi there, I am quite impressed with your edits, but could you leave edit summaries? Thanks and happy editing.--TM 20:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and yes that is something I've gotten out of the habit of doing. I try to edit fast and I forget from time to time but I'll make more of an effort to leave summaries in the future. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords and the 112th United States Congress
Thanks for correcting me. I jumped to conclusions.—Markles 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is incredibly confusing. It's understandable. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We forget that news isn't always: 1) immediate; and 2) accurate. —Markles  19:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Accidental removal?
I think you accidentally removed the sentence about the killed child I inserted. If this is the case, could you please restore it? I'd rather not make any reverts. Nanobear (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's restored. It should have produced an edit conflict, but maybe reflinks doesn't produce those? --Muboshgu (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

stop
The address is very relevant. People correctly think that we should not put peoples' home address but this is not a home. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a home address, but it's not relevant at all. You are against consensus, again. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

In Cambodia, the consensus was to kill millions of people. Hitler had consensus to kill 6M Jews. When there is a logical reason, we use that in Wikipedia. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to equate us to the Nazi's or the Khmer Rouge? If so I think you should think long and hard about what you're doing here. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords citation in heading
You are likely correct. I placed the citation in the heading in response to this edit. The article needs to be watched.--Oakshade (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured as much. If there's lots of people changing the header, maybe a citation there is needed.  I have the page on my watchlist and I'm sure many have added it this weekend. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that one user is at it again. --Oakshade (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I put the citation back there. I guess we can pull it after things settle down. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And the guy actually did it yet again, breaking 3RR. . He got warmed by Slimvirgin.  I reverted him twice and am up against 3RR.  You might be interested in ensuring this is correct.--Oakshade (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll keep changing it back to "Alleged assassination attempt", the word "alleged" makes it appropriate. This way neither of us has to violate 3RR. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hernandez
Thanks for voicing your opinion. My problem isn't with people saying they're not relevant so much as the drive-by removals of his sexual orientation (and sometimes ethnicity) but not age (which as far as I know hasn't been the subject of any article, unlike his ethnicity and sexual orientation, which have been the subject of several). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw Rachel Maddow interview him tonight and she talked about his age, but not ethnicity or sexual orientation. I don't see what any of the three have to do with what he did.  That he is an intern for Giffords explains why he was there. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do note that one source, absent some sort of consensus saying so, is not to be taken as the standard for the article. The Maddow source briefly mentions his age, but the cited articles are about the way in which his ethnicity and sexual orientation are already affecting people's reaction to his intervention (search for his name on Twitter for another illustration, albeit one that wouldn't be acceptable in the article). Anyway, I'll bring it up in talk, in the hope of resolving those "age is totally important! but nobody needs to know he's gay" quibbles. I hope you'll join in. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

ce to reduce size of a rapidly growing article
Edits like are decidedly unhelpful. Sure it's growing, and may need splitting or other condensing, but whitespace aids readability and makes things more accessible to editors. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The whitespace I removed doesn't change the article itself.  I doubt it makes it much easier to edit. What it does is increase size significantly which slows down load time. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I assure you it makes it easier to read, easier for editors to edit and has little effect on page load time. Please don't fuss over this, ok? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll leave it be, at least for the time being. At what point would you consider size to become an issue?  100k? 150k? Some of the largest articles on Wikipedia load slowly for me, and I have a fast connection. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The load times of large articles is a technical issue. I'm a technical person. The whitespace is not a significant issue re load time; that's stripped-out right up front; the back-end page generation of the html is where the speed issues occur, and MediaWiki is being improved, so the page will load faster down the road than it presently does. Such issues should not be allowed to interfere with articles content or readability of the content to editors. A better approach to restraining the rapid growth of articles is to focus on content issues, like just what sources are reliable and verifiable (such as links that go dead after a few days, are slanted, &c.). Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggestion; mebbe you'd like a larger edit box; Special:Preferences→Editing, and try more rows and 'Widen the edit box to fill the entire screen'. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, again; thanks for the heads-up re Diane Kruger. In my above note, I had not recalled that we had had chatted before over this other issue. The Kruger-troll will be sorted; that ball's already in motion, so to speak. Best wishes, Jack Merridew aka david   19:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't remember either, until I went back to the edits of Perisapoon (or whatever the name was) for reference and saw you editing there as well. Thanks for the help. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Kelly
Yes it is being made to connect him to the murders. This is hardly a major part of his campaign. The only reason why it has been brought up in the past few days is simply because of what happened in Tucson. So seriously do not justify the info on the basis that it was a part of his campaign. Truthsort (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He ran his whole campaign based on gun imagery. To not mention any of it would be a whitewash. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know? Based on one small mention on a website? Truthsort (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's well sourced in the media at large, but needs expansion on his page. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This brief mention on a website has been largely in the media in association with a bigger event. If this deserves mention, it is in the tucson article, but not in the individual's bio. Truthsort (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

could we
could we rename the obama speech as the reaction, since it is a reaction?

the proper thing to do with the reactions section is to let it grow. if you oppose a separate article, it is bad to try to distroy the section so someone can "prove" that it is not too big. the proper thing would be to let it grow then split it off as wp:slit says we should do. once split, we can decide what to keep and what not to keep. that is the more honest way to do it. i understand what you want but others with less ethics (with similar views as you) are doing it the wrong way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrid 2020 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the information being removed is unencyclopedic, actually. We have to consider the long term for notability in these events, as they are shifting from "current event" status to something more historical.  Inclusion criteria changes in that shift. Discussion is always ongoing at the article talk page as we try to reach consensus, which does not mean 100% agreement. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Jon Stewart
Your added tags of "recentism" and "undue": 1. WP:RECENTISM is not Wikipedia policy - and not relevant to the material. The show's format was broken without notice and due to special circumstances which needed to be explained in context, just as the mention of the 9/20/01 show does when format broke for unplanned reasons. 2. WP:UNDUE is WP policy but irrelevant to the article. The material was delivered in NPOV - citing opinions as belonging directly to Stewart. No undue weight was placed on his opinions regarding the shooting or subsequent news coverage - the opinions were cited because they were the reasons Stewart gave for the show's format being suddenly and unexpectedly broken. I have reposted the material with citation. In the future, reversions are not to be made (even from BLP) unless the material is contentious, likely to be challenged (in this case, it cites a specific episode which can be instantly verified without citation with a little effort), or completely nonsensical. Otherwise, it is common courtesy, as always, to assume good faith and place a "citation needed". Since I know it is always best to be safe than sorry, I don't blame you for erring on the side of caution. Just reminding you of the WP policy on WP:NOCITE - dealing with unsourced materials. Encyclopediaclown (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for adding the date on the Yanks roster. I'm usually hardcore on that, can't believe I missed that! Thanks :-) Kjscotte34 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It happens to the best of us, including myself :) --Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

who knows why
colberts work is considered by many a overcompensation for a lack of genitals, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.35.6 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

hey sorry bout those comments thats was my freind jimmy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackkattackk247 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectful request
Hello,

Would you please take a thoughtful look at the article about Barack Obama's speech at the Tucson memorial, and carefully reconsider the notability of this specific topic? I think that the comments by five historians are particularly relevant, especially since four are presidential biographers and two are Pulitzer Prize winners. Also relevant are that almost all the sources cited discuss the speech as the primary topic, rather than a subtopic of coverage of the shooting. We also see news organizations conducting polling about the speech mentioning it in their discussions of the lead-up to the State of the Union speech next Tuesday. Substantial commentary on the speech has been published in media outlets world wide. Also, no other Obama speech has received such a favorable response from Obama's most consistent critics. Taken together, I believe these items demonstrate notability, and that this topic deserves its own Wikipedia article along other historically significant U. S. presidential speeches. I await your response. Cullen328 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take a look later today. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate that. Cullen328 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reread the article, and I stand by my initial position on the article, though I acknowledge it is clearly a better article now than it was when I first found it. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite my disgreement with you about this particular article, I appreciate you taking the time to reconsider. I wish you well and am sure we will come to agree on other matters in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry
Sorry about interupting your edits. I thought was completely in-between yours. The WP edit conflict really needs to be improved to make it easier to make the changes without screwing up someone elses work. Arzel (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I figured you weren't screwing with me :P That was a really big problem when that particular page was hyperactive, in the first days. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal
Hey. I saw you in the Onion's edit history, and thought you might find this interesting: a couple days ago, I proposed a WikiProject that specializes in the Onion. Vote for-or-against it here! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) —Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC).


 * I proposed a task force like Brad said to. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy. Hope you join! —Preceding signed comment added by Nicky Nouse (talk • contribs • wikia) 06:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Byron McLaughlin
Thanks for the assistance on Byron McLaughlin. There's still three points need addressing. Brad78 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, meant to say I'll get to this tomorrow, if it's not already done before then. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Talk:SarahPalin
Sorry if you think I'm changing your comment. As far as I can tell I merely changed the heading to reflect the discussion. Perhaps you should consider posting your comments as comments rather than as headings. Thanks.Tryggvi bt (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sport rosters
Can you find a wiki-policy describing roster changes, for players who are rostered by do not play a game for said team. At the moment, it is reliably sourced that Napoli was a member of the Jays. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it's not written out in a specific place, but I believe it's been discussed in the Baseball project talk page somewhere. I'll raise the question again at WP:BASEBALL. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Frank Thomas
Yea, it was brought up there. I'll get to it shortly. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Justin Duchscherer
why did you revert it? there even was a link there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.143.127 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the title says "signed", but the body says "agreed to". The deal is not completed, as it is pending a physical examination, and a player with an injury history like Duchscherer's is not guaranteed to pass a physical. The WP article already has a sourced notation about the pending deal. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You For that insight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oriolephan2 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Damon
Question, if both MLB.com and johnnydamon.com (his official site) have him listed as a member of the Tampa Bay Rays (as does the TBR site) why do you keep reverting it back to free agent? Vyselink (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He wasn't listed on MLB.com until today. The Rays are announcing the deal officially today.  Therefore, it was inaccurate up until today to say he was a member of the Rays.  I won't revert it any more because I would now be wrong to do so. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Have a good one. Vyselink (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You too. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Elections
I don' see your point. Hypothetical polling is not historical at all. It doesn't matter. There is no wikipedia policy on this (I believe), if I am wrong show me. I devote much time to updating these pages, including adding polls. I feel like my work is for nothing, and it is frustrating. Maybe I should just leave, cause my input does not appear to be welcomed. You act like it is your way or the highway, and it isn't. Maybe we could compromise and have a seperate section for "declined polling"(name could be worked on), although I doubt you will agree.America69 (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to add to your frustration. There aren't alot of well defined policies, and that causes problems in various ways. I remember taking this idea that polling data should remain from Template:Historical election article, which suggests that information shouldn't be deleted. Granted that refers to individuals, but these polls are snapshots of the situation at a point in time. In some cases, these polls can shape a politicians' decision to run or not. We should probably take this to the appropriate WikiProject to establish some consensus, find something we can all accept and then just go from there. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Took a few deep breaths... I see where you are coming from. I have become use to removing, or seeing polling of declined(or defeated)candiates removed. To me that seems to have become the "norm". With that said, I am always open to discussion. I should have taken a better approach, and moved the polling to another section, instead of a down right delete. I just feel keeping all those polls, to me, and this is just my view, clutters up a page. If you feel this should go to a Wikiproject page, which I can't think of which one it could, I would concur. If you think we could, maybe we could just come up with something, so this isn't drawn out, and we can all go on with our editing. Thanks! America69 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Rivalry Templates
I wanted to talk to you regarding two things. First is the content. The related articles are articles of a similar nature. The Yankees-Giants, Yankees-Dodgers, Mets-Yankees are all related under Subway Series. Taking out the rivalry articles is taking away something relevant to the whole topic of MLB rivalries of NYC teams. Second is the color scheme. Initially, someone had changed the Mets-Yankees template. I agreed with it because the topic should be neutral and thus the color scheme of one team dominating doesn't seem balanced. I can appreciate disagreeing with my color choices though, so if you do want to change the color scheme to be more aesthetically pleasing I won't object at all, but I would ask that we keep the templates as color neutral as possible except maybe the team titles. Arnabdas (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Regarding the appearance, I agree that it would be good to find a way to make it team neutral.  Going with the default colors for the title bar and team colors for the above bars, though, is visually unappealing.  All the navbox subgroups are unnecessary, and also visually unappealing.  Regarding content, I think alot of the articles that are put there, like Interleague play for instance, are barely related topics, and only those most essential should be kept in there to avoid clutter.  Team history articles to me seem too unrelated, though I grant there is an argument for keeping those in there.  Consider me undecided at this point on those. --Muboshgu 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * User:SNIyer12 was the one who came out with the format. I'm just concerned about the content. I think the histories should be included. However, regarding your concern about clutter, we could take out the references to the other rivalry articles now and just have a reference to Subway Series since we have a Subway Series template. Arnabdas (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Economic History of the Dominican Republic
What I am saying is that a large number of people in the Dominican did not have indoor plumbing. If Bartolo Colon had the money to purchase and utilize baseball equipment his family had to have been upper middle class, in their own local economic terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordSessions (talk • contribs) 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and that's why your edit said nothing about baseball equipment. --Muboshgu 16:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Precedent
What you said in the United States Senate election in Texas, 2012 is 100% false. I have contributed to every U.S. Senate election in 2010 election cycle and every cycle prior. We put the Democratic primary first because it goes by alphabetical order.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, one of us is wrong then because I contributed to most (I don't think all) of the Senate articles and I remember incumbent party going first. That seems more fair than alphabetizing, Republicans could see that as bias towards the Democrats.  This should probably go to the appropriate WikiProject. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Look I'm not gonna go back to every single U.S. Senate election article and change it. Let's do alphabetical order Democrat primary first.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But I don't agree with that. Choosing alphabetical order is arbitrary and favors one of the parties over the other.  Going by incumbency favors the incumbent regardless of party, which accurately reflects elections.  I'll take it to a WikiProject for further discussion. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a thread. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:2010–2011 Arab world protests
Hi, I would be most grateful if you would explain your removal of the See also section which I just added to the above template, together with the link to the 2011 Iranian protests. Whilst Iran is not an Arab country the Iranian protests are clearly directly related to the protests/revolutions taking place in Arab nations and a reference in a See also section seems to me reasonable and useful. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies, please ignore the above, I just noticed that you didn't actually delete Iran, but merely moved it up to the top of the template.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I forgot to put an edit summary that would have avoided any confusion, so my apologies. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning
Warning!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.. Kurdo777 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
 * 3) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * On what article am I edit warring? --Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What part of Iran is not an Arab country, don't you understand? What consensus are you talking about? Read WP:consensus to see what it means. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be an Arabic country to be related to the protests in the Arab world. You're getting overly hung up on a strict definition of a word which is unnecessarily limiting.  Yes, protests began in 2009, but they resumed now in response to Egypt.  There is an overwhelming consensus on the talk pages of the main articles and templates that it should belong in a "related" section, separating it from the Arabic countries themselves.  When we settle on a better name for the main article, you'll have no reason to complain.  But we have no WP:DEADLINE for that. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That Iran is not an Arab country is "getting overly hung up on a strict definition of a word". You're essentially implying Iran not being Arab, is a minor issue. "They're all the same" anyways, right? Come on, this is like saying Koreans are Chinese, or Germans are Swedes... Kurdo777 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, this is saying that the term "Arab world protests" is imperfect as it doesn't encapsulate the full scope of what's going on. You should assume good faith and not suggest I'm a racist. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said that. You seem like a good guy, you're just not getting the point. A temple titled ARAB PROTESTS, does not belong on IRANIAN PROTESTS page. This is not a minor issue. Kurdo777 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying that the main article and template need to be renamed something more inclusive, that it's an ongoing discussion, and it shouldn't necessitate the removal of the article from consideration of the overall template. I understand your point, and I think you understand mine, so it's an issue to discuss in the larger community. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An article's talk page should not be used to use to discuss other editors. Please read WP:NPA. "Discuss content, not the other editors". Please do not restore the attacks against me. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those aren't attacks against you, it's related to the content of your contributions, and in no way derogatory. All that was on the talk page is a link to the discussion about your contributions. I'll leave it to the editor who opened up that discussion to reinsert if if he pleases. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One again, read what I said. An article's talk page should not under any circumstance be used to discuss another editor, derogatory or not, article's talk page discussions should be limited to the content of the page, and content of the page only. By the way, you have officially violated WP:3RR on 2011 Iranian protests by reverting 4 times within 24 hours. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

See my proposal on the template's talk page. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Jason Isringhausen
first of all Metsblog is a credible news site, in addition to editorialism. The secondary references were cited there. Second, what use is a Cardinals picture now? It is out of present scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Met20a (talk • contribs) 02:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It's gonna be updated tomorrow by someone else. Wikipedia is supposed to be real time. Right now, Isringhausen is a Met. This is cited fact, not theory. You are hindering the purpose of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Met20a (talk • contribs) 02:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Metsblog is one of the better blogs, but that post was blank other than the title and reader comments. I see Newsday reporting it on twitter now, so it should be only a matter of time before we have a good source. I am not "hindering" this site, I am defending it through WP:V. His status will be updated as soon as it's verified.
 * Also, the Cardinals picture is of higher quality, and it's the consensus of the Baseball WikiProject that the highest quality picture should be used, regardless of quality. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Source
I'm sorry, how is this not a legitimate source? - Marcusmax ( speak ) 04:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The site is biased and pushing a point of view. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

are u the person who made this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trystan929 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since modesty prevents him from speaking out on this, I'll speak for him: Yes, he is the person who made this site. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was busy running the show from my ivory tower. Now get back to work Bugs! --Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this picture of the proverbial Ivory Tower. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was picturing a slightly different ivory tower. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Even better. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
Alright, so. You've been reported for edit-warring again. Seeing how this is the second time in 24 hours, most people would be placing a hefty block on your shoulders; I'm not, though. I'd like to help you guys work a solution out.

Before I do that, please understand that a content dispute does not know the meaning of 'right' or 'wrong'. It doesn't matter if somebody goes to the article about blue and says that blue is actually the colour red; you can't edit-war with them. It leads nowhere and disrupts the encyclopedia. If there's something that you can't resolve on a talk page, contact an administrator. Reverting somebody over and over will only get you blocked, and that's not a good thing.

Anyway, fill me in on your side of this. From what I can see, you think that 2011 Iranian protests should be categorized with the Arab-world protests. People disagree with you. Anything else I should know?

Thanks, m.o.p  05:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the mediation rather than the immediate block. I was unaware that I had been warned previously.  The 3RR template Wayiran refers to was placed by a different user (Kurzo777) in regards to a different page (the template related to the article) and I may be wrong but I believe it was applied inappropriately.  I want to settle this on the talk pages of the relevant articles like everyone else, not with reporting users. Consensus has always been that the Iran protest article is related to the Arab world protest articles, but that the "Arab world" name is inappropriate because Iran is not Arab. However, Wayiran has been intractable in debate, and Kurzo777 has only recently begun to debate calmly. Things have since calmed down and we're working on the consensus. I lost track of the number of edits I made on that page when things got heated, but they have cooled and I will stay cool.  I apologize for my part in this. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. I don't like blocking people when we can talk instead. As for you not being told the second time you were reported, I'll follow up on this.
 * I've started a topic on the 2011 protest talk page to get outside consensus, but keep in mind that Wayiran's opinion is still valid. If you guys end up locked in a debate which doesn't seem to be going anywhere, feel free to get me and I'll see what I can do.
 * And thank you for apologizing - it's much-appreciated. I'm glad we were able to sort this out civilly! I'm always around my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Cheers, m.o.p  14:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'm concerned about the inflexible stand taken by the two contributors which is solely based in semantics.  Since Iran is not technically an Arab country (though they do have Arabs living there), they object to the inclusion of Iran even in a "related" section, despite the fact that these protests are clearly and undeniably related to what has happened in Egypt and the other countries.  We just can't find another title to change the main article and template to at this time, as you can see on the talk pages, but I don't think that should mean Iran is removed from the template in the meantime, and I'm not alone.  --Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Though, as mediator, I don't take sides, I can recommend looking for sources to prove that reliable media see the conflicts as related. For example, 1, 2, 3. Cheers, m.o.p  15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd be a pretty lousy mediator if you did take sides :P. I was just further explaining my side. That's a good suggestion, I'll do that now. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, hopefully I'm not a lousy mediator! Anyway, I'll leave you to it - I've got some work to do that requires three hours of driving. I'll check back later. Cheers, m.o.p  15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning

 * On a side not, you also should learn to be more sensitive and open to differences and nuances in foreign cultures and peoples. This is especially true when editing articles on subjects, topics and groups that you clearly know very little about. It might not be your intention to come across as bigoted or racist, but that very quickly can become the case. The Scythian 19:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted your deletion of my talk post, should've been more careful not to remove yours. Nothing I have said or done has been racist or has been construed as racist by anyone but you. I don't appreciate being called a racist or the idea that you don't think I know about this subject. You need to learn to assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Stating or pushing a world view that one ethnic group really does not exist, or simply is a part of another, is a form of bigotry, regardless of intent. This does not matter wither it is out ignorance, or a deliberate act. This can be compounded by both historical actions, and modern events. I used the example before, of westerners referring to all East Asians as "Chinese." I think it is great that you want to edit articles dealing with exciting world events. Just realize the nuances of the places and regions you are editing. There is nothing bold about angering editors from a specific region. In the case of the Iranians you pointed out, they already have a government that does that for them. Your notion that the Iranian editors are somehow biased towards the Arab world is phrased wrong. They are biased at having their own history and culture erased. Besides, Wikpedia is not a place for you to school members of an entire ancient civilization, on how they should "think." Unless of course, you just really like getting a rise out of lots of people. In that case, be my guest. The Scythian 19:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When did I ever say or suggest that "one ethnic group really does not exist, or simply is a part of another". I'm saying that these protests are related.  That's all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem rather intelligent, so I figure I'll at least torture you with my take on all this.


 * Iran relates to all this in the fact that both camps within Iran are trying to use it to their advantage any way they can, singly to gain political advantage and influence. The Iranian government hopes it's outside influence over various Arab nation-states will fill the vacuum of waning U.S influence. Sort of like how the old Soviet Union used to support communist movements in Latin America, Southeast Asia, or even Western Europe.


 * The Iranian "Green movement," still operating quite soundly underground since the summer of 2009(it never went away), is hoping to gain advantage over or even with the current Iranian powers that be in the regime, whom themselves are split into different camps and factions. I.E, the want to be players to. The "greens" are really just another faction, but one that is popular with Tehran's middle and upper-middle classes. What happened in North Africa were poverty riots, caused by out of control corrupt governments, and zero economic progress in decades. That is certainly not what is taking place in Iran, or motivating the Green's. Ironically, it is the lower and working classes in Iran that most support the current regime, and it's power structure.


 * Even amongst the Arab states, there are large differences in the causes of what is currently taking place. What is happening in the Gulf Arab states is ethnic rioting, caused by a minority ruling with an iron fist over the majority. Not poverty. Just old-fashioned inter-ethnic oppression. Plenty of money and progress in Bahrain, ten times over. In contrast, what is happening in Iran is an ideological power struggle between various governmental factions, their interests, and their attempts to either gain or solidify power. This has been going on for over half a decade in Iran, and became viral in 2009. There is no real economic angle in Iran, and certainly not an ethnic one. Just only who gets to control the revolution of 1979, and which direction it is going to go in the present and future.


 * Sadly, this is the case. I hope that clears things up a bit.


 * Here is a caption from an article that lays out rather nicely the current extent of Egyptian views of Iranian involvement in the new revolution.




 * The Egyptians were neither inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution, the 2009 uprising of the Green movement, nor any of the current howling of either the Iranian government, or any of it's reformers. In contrast, the entire Arabic speaking world was energized by a single man burning himself to death in protest in Tunisia a little while ago, and we are seeing the results of it today. If I bored you to death, my apologies in advance. The Scythian 00:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent Speedy Deletion Tag Placed On Ryan Chiang
I am in total agreement with you on deleting this entry. Looking at the history of the editor I do see other articles that were vandalized and another hoax article that was created. Being new to Wikipedia I do not know how to handle such actions as deletion processes and am more in the area of reverting vandalism. If you would not mind going back and looking through the editor's contributions list I think that you will find more vandalism. Andrew Kurish (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind regarding the second hoax entry I just saw that you have already tagged it. Andrew Kurish (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Western Sahara (Revisited) on Talk page of 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests
Hi, can you please take a look at the talk page of the article 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests in the section "Western Sahara (Revisited)" and leave your opinion? Thanks.TL565 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. I've been a bit busy and it's taken away from my involvement in that article, but I'll check that section tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Herb Jackson (baseball)
Hi. Thanks for reverting my CSD on Herb Jackson (baseball) - I'd seen two acts of vandalism by User:Darkanus123 and initially thought they were two new creations, and when I spotted my error you had already sorted it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. It caught my eye since I have the creator's talk page watched still and it seemed odd a page he'd create would receive a CSD. Vandals happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2012
Sorry 'bout that; I thought it looked like a legitimate edit. Half Shadow  00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's okay, it did look like a legit edit, but we've had people add David Duke to that page before, so I was on alert. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review
Hello! You might be interested in Talk:Sam Fuld/GA1. Cheers, Hey  Mid  (contribs) 18:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tx
... for helping out at the Fuld article. Nice work on the refs. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. If you wouldn't mind returning the favor, keep an eye out for Derek Jeter, which I plan on nominating for FA in the next week or two, once I find the time to fix a couple small problems. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)