[[File:Gnome globe current event.svg|thumb|center|Awarded to Muboshgu for the strongest contribution of ''In the news'' items in the 2019 [[Wikipedia:WikiCup|WikiCup]]]]
[[File:Gnome globe current event.svg|thumb|center|Awarded to Muboshgu for the strongest contribution of ''In the news'' items in the 2019 [[Wikipedia:WikiCup|WikiCup]]]]
Congratulations! [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations! [[User:Cwmhiraeth|Cwmhiraeth]] ([[User talk:Cwmhiraeth|talk]]) 09:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
== [[List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations]] ==
I noticed you made a BLP reversion on the Trump-Ukraine page. You may want to look at the [[List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations]] page and consider a similar BLP violation. I found it odd that the claimed identity of the whistleblower showed up on that random page, but not on the main article, right? -[[User:Andrew c|Andrew c]] [[User talk:Andrew c|<sup>[talk]</sup>]] 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:13, 7 November 2019
2,392
1
13
1
1
71
1
570
121
This is Muboshgu's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
In Memoriam A.H.H.What, you egg?. has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Thanks for correcting me at the Bill Cosby article. Now I will know not to cite 8 sources for a single sentence! Thanks!
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
WikiCup 2018 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.
And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.
Our top scorers in Round 1 were:
L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!
Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.
The following improvements need to be made to the page for Vicente Gonzalez (politician)
Information needs to be updated. The current information holds sources that support this update. All other updates can be sourced through resources from Vicente Gonzalez's congressional website: https://gonzalez.house.gov/
If I am not "allowed" to make these changes on a website that promotes the ability to do so, then please direct me to whoever can make these changes. If not, I will continue to push for these changes (which are verifiable), until the changes are made.
Requested changes below:
Early life, education, and early career
Gonzalez was born in Corpus Christi, Texas in 1967[2] to [Olga Cantu] and [Vicente Gonzalez], a Korean War veteran and U.S. Merchant Marine. Gonzalez attended Roman Catholic School in Corpus Christi for part of his primary education, but eventually dropped out of high school during his junior year. He went onto obtain a G.E.D. and returned to school by enrolling at Del Mar Junior College where he received an Associate’s Degree in Banking and Finance.[3][4]
In 1992, Gonzalez received his Bachelor of Science degree in aviation business administration from the Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University on the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station. After high school, and throughout college, Gonzalez traveled to almost 100 countries around the world.
In 1996, Gonzalez obtained his Juris Doctor from Texas Wesleyan University School of Law (now Texas A&M University School of Law) in Fort Worth, Texas. While a law student, he interned for then Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz (D-TX-27). He trained in Negotiation at Harvard Law School [in Cambridge, Massachusetts]. In 1997, he founded the law firm, V. Gonzalez & Associates, in McAllen, Texas. He is a member of the Bar Associations of Texas and New York.[5]
As an attorney, Gonzalez successfully recovered millions in proceeds for businesses, homeowners and public schools throughout the country. His professional successes prompted an invitation to join the prestigious Million Dollar & Multi-million Dollar Advocates Forum, a membership reserved for less than one percent of American attorneys.
Gonzalez's wife, Lorena Saenz Gonzalez, is a former educator and school administrator from McAllen, Texas.
Peter Handke edit
I did not engage in edit warring. I reverted his revert of my good-faith and objective addition only once, then requested page protection. I would like my addition to be restored and the editor to be prevented from changing it, as there is nothing inaccurate or malicious within my addition; in fact, it simply serves as further information on Hendke's page. Everything was properly cited and formated, to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbabuch (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 October 2109 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbabuch: The citations and formatting are not the issue here. The issue is neutrality. WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS violate neutrality by producing an undue emphasis on negative material. Also, that material has been relocated throughout the article, so that you are addiction of a controversy section is stating the controversial information twice. The other editors have mentioned this in their edit summaries. Therefore, your edit will not be reinserted. Any attempts on your part 2 reinsert it constitute edit warring, and may result in a block. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION is an essay. Whether something adheres to NPOV is a content dispute, which should be resolved through a discussion. You cannot give mandates like "Therefore, your edit will not be reinserted".
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Politrukki, Muboshgu is an administrator who frequently is forced to act in the area of politics and BLPs. You can safely assume that such an editor is aware of DS. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot assume that and you know that or you definitely should know that. They say Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but DS are bureaucratic in nature and awareness has very specific criteria.
I also checked WP:DS and saw that Muboshgu's name does not appear there. Your claim of "area of politics" has nothing to do with this: BLP alert is not directly related to any area of politics. Obviously I noticed that Muboshgu is aware of AP2 DS. But for example Peter Handke is under BLP DS, but has very little to do with AP2 DS. I read the discussion about Handke few days ago, so I was going to participate the discussion (I participated the discussion at BLPN) and post a BLP DS alert anyway.
Just few months ago, Muboshgu did not know that alerts have an expiration date.[1] (Though at that date they had already become aware of AP2 DS through alerting someone on 7 April, so that April AP2 alert was pointless.)
My third link shows that, in a period of on year, Muboshgu has sent 13 alerts. Most of them are about AP2 and one is about abortion. This will be my final post to this thread as it would be pointless to continue unless you show that Muboshgu was aware and explain how I neglected to check awareness. Who cares, anyway? Cheers, Politrukki (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Muboshgu! I am here with a helpful tip and hoping to encourage others who read my comment to take advantage of an option that is currently available to us, quite helpful and is in use by admins and editors alike. It actually helps avoid situations like what happened above. See User_talk:Atsme/Archive_32#Your request at ARCA. There are other discussions on that same page you may find helpful. Happy editing! AtsmeTalk📧18:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it, Isaac - The proposal - it's ready to go. In that same archive I wikilinked first, you can see the test edits and exchanges. I have a custom notice (humor) at the top of my UTP for aesthetics (and fun). Try to add the standard AP2 DS alert to my page and see what happens. 😊 AtsmeTalk📧19:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, ah, Yes, that. I discovered that template after the incident in the section, and as you can see, it is at the top of my talk page. Thank you for bringing it to my attention though. I'll take your word for it on the tattoo. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You misused your rollback privileges[2] to revert in a content dispute and finally semied the article to win a dispute[3] and protected obvious BLP violations (contentious material about a LP sourced to garbage sources). Please explain. Politrukki (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what is not vandalism? Check WP:NOTVAND. Edit-warring is not vandalism (though vandalism may include edit-warring). Deletion of poorly sourced material is not vandalism.
And so on. Finally you participated in the edit-war with a rollback. No explanation for inserting the material. You never even even warned the user. How did you choose which revision to protect? Politrukki (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And so on? An edit war was waged by a multitude of IPs. That Muboshgu didn't give an edit summary for this revert is easily explained: rollback is used legitimately to revert vandalism. What Muboshgu reverted was an unexplained removal of verified content--that is, the edit was disruptive and easily qualified as vandalism. Moreover, it is possible that the IP was participating as MEAT in an edit war. So, what version to protect? The non-vandalized version. Now, I have never edited this article and could easily take over the protection, if Muboshgu were involved--but they are not, and your tedious posts here, with their half-truths and misleading comments and insinuations, are a kind of harassment: Politrukki, consider this a warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Politrukki:, sometimes admins have to struggle to decide whether a content dispute actually constitutes disruptive editing. Sometimes, it's really borderline and difficult to determine because it's a combination of both. It looks to me as if Muboshgu did the best they could with the information available to them at the time. Your latest two sections on their user talk page, I'm sorry to say, are coming across as a bit much. In regards to this latest one, especially, please try to approach queries with a modicum of good faith — pose a question rather than basically prosecute an alleged violation in the affirmative. By the way, I'm advising you this, in part, as the uninvolved admin who just fully protected the article on the other version. Thanks. El_C03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: This is a coincidence; I was just about to contact you about something completely different. Thank you for protecting the article and thank you for your advice.
My harsh tone was due to seeing a lot of poor judgment from Muboshgu in a short period of time, but I also acknowledge being totally tone-deaf.I did not mean that Muboshgu was literally trying to "win" a dispute (which they had no stake on). I meant to say that there was some poor judgment and using rollback gives the impression that there were firm policy-based reasons (reverting obvious vandalism, obvious socking, etc.) to restore the content. If see an administrator doing revert+protect and the reason for revert is not crystal clear, I assume they must have strong evidence of socking. If not, they are giving at least partial endorsement to the "right version". I'm sorry, but in this case, I don't buy that "blanking" unverifiable content is evidence of vandalism.Serious question: if someone requests semi-protection for "BLP policy violations"[9], do you automatically assume that NOT including contentious and poorly sourced claims would be such an egregious violation of BLP that you must restore the claim as an administrative action even if you are not sure (and it is easy to check) that the content adheres to BLP policy? Or would you rather semi-protect the article and let registered users calmly settle the content dispute, if they are not the problem? Obviously reverting is justified in many cases; for example reverting this or this would have been uncontroversial.
You mention "latest two sections", if the other section you refer to is #Discretionary sanctions alert, what is the problem with alerting someone if I have done my due diligence to check whether that someone was aware? If you are suggesting that that alert was linked to this controversy, your assumption would be fair but incorrect. I hope we can put this to rest.
Sorry for the wall of text. I'm going to post the rest in smaller pieces and it should be considered more like food for thought and I'm not necessarily expecting a reply. Please take your time reading. I'm not going anywhere. (Not until "they"... sssssh... come to get me.)
TL;DR, in my opinion, Muboshgu has some history of having poor judgment, there was a BLP vio, and Drmies does not have clean hands.
Before this kerfuffle, I had already "organically" collected a handful of diffs because I wanted to discuss Muboshgu's behaviour with them. I have now refreshed my memory and collected some more. I don't to bore you and will skip most of them, but let me just provide one example of Muboshgu's weird understanding of what constitutes vandalism:
Judging by your comment[14] at Talk:Tim Pool you seem to think there is no BLP violation or you are trying to figure out why others have called it a BLP vio. Questions:
Is Media Matters (RSP entry) a reliable source? It is a hyperpartisan advocacy group that mainly publishes opinions. Those kinds of sources are very rarely suitable for BLPs.
Before my first post here, I reminisced this report I saw at ANEW long time ago. One administrator concluded that even though BLP exemption was never revoked, it was fine to keep deleting properly attributed content (a) because the quote from NYT was too long and (b) because at RSN there was no consensus whether The Daily Wire was a RS. Even the NYT quote alone was later considered a BLP vio by another admin, who removed the invoking BLP.
Can you explain without conducting synthesis how the cited sources support your claims, specifically "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist"?
Do you think poor quality sources can be used for WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements if the allegations are attributed?
For example at Rachel Maddow Muboshgu reverted an addition of "conspiracy theorist", first with an edit summary "uh, no, that's not happening",[15] then using rollback,[16] and finally blocked the user for edit-warring, never invoking BLP. Do you think that using attribution would have been a good compromise? I did not read the sources, but I hardly think so, because I don't consider them super good sources for a BLP.
Finally, Drmies and I have not had many direct interactions, but we do have some history. The most obvious example is when Drmies's breached 1RR at Donald Trump:
When Drmies escaped sanctions in this area due to some technicality (not the first time), they tried to get me sanctioned for making one revert that did not even go against consensus.
I take your advice seriously, but I cannot take Drmies seriously. If they frivolously template me[17] for "harassing" Muboshgu over this, I can just laugh it off now, but what shall I do in the future if and when someone weaponises Drmies's silliness against me? Politrukki (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Politrukki: yes, if you don't ping me, I may not see it. Anyway, I fully protected the page, in part, for a possible BLP violation — this notwithstanding the fact I think there probably isn't one. As mentioned, that is something that, perhaps, ought to be decided at BLPN, as I don't think the latest RfC is going to be of much help. As for your hypothetical question, I can't answer that — I make decisions according the particular circumstances (and level of severity) of any given case. In regards to that 2018 event, I'm not sure you're representing it fairly, but at any case, that seems rather stale. El_C17:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on improving Chuck Klein to above a start class. I've added 20 references (mix of books, news articles, game logs), and added inline citations throughout the article and added more information about his career, especially between 1928-1933 where he was one of the best hitters in the National League. Added information about notable achievement including winning the triple crown, his four home run game and his career at the Baker Bowl.
I added a sentence about criticism of Jagmeet Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagmeet_Singh. But it was removed by Muboshgu by saying that it is not neutral.
The Jagmeet_Singh article has zero mentions of his criticism so I found it imperative to add a sentence about his criticism. It is sad that it is removed.
Hi. So, I added the edit notice to the mainspace and changed the talk page notice from the (impossible?) consensus required and enforced BRD to a naked 1RR (per overall consensus about being selective with these extra restrictions). Hopefully, this will make things simpler in the immediate sense. If needed, one of these two other restrictions may be added later. Hope that makes sense and is okay with you. Regards, El_C05:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Back again! I've made a fair bit of updates to Kiki Cuyler expanding on his career and personal life. He was an incredibly interesting hall of famer that gets overlooked. I've cleaned up the references and added over 30 references, with newspaper articles, and multiple biographies. If this is getting tedious for you, please let me know. Hamma085 (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hamma085, no, not tedious at all. I learned quite a bit working on the GAs I've worked on, and I didn't know much about Cuyler. You're doing a great job, and I want to help you continue to do better. I think you could take some of these to WP:GA class. It takes a deeper review than I'm currently doing. Take a look at other GAs (including the comparables on Baseball Mountain, and let me know what you think. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, thank you for the kind words. I nominated Paul Waner as a GAn a few days ago, because I think it has the strongest case, and there is more information available on his life than the other Hall of Famers that I've improved. It's tough with GAs because a lot of baseball related GAs (non current players) passed a while ago so it's tough to gauge the level of detail needed for current baseball GAs, Nap Lajoie is a fantastic article and I usually use that as a meter for measuring the articles I've improved. I think I'll add some more details and information on Kiki Cuyler and then nominate it. Hamma085 (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for ending what had became a dispute, I am acting on behalf of the subject Mr Gordon Walker, he did not create the page nor has ever edited it and he does not use computers. I feel that this page should reflect the person and the profession they do and why their Wikipedia page is of interest. My Walkers Interest page is that of he is a figurehead in the world of bagpiping, and I have also tried to elaborate on his success (which have been deleted regularly by the other person) and not cause Mr Walker distress, yes there was a legal case, and that is over so I can't agree that having personal and sensitive information is relative.
Capbadge, you seem to be deleting valid sourced info about a person due to a conflict of interest. You should engage in talk page discussion with others and not edit war.
I took a look at the tattoo
It doesn't seem like a really high-effort tattoo done by an artist who had a lot of skill. It looks like some cheap Spring Break shamrock tattoo, like what someone got from a selection that included stars, hearts, yin-yangs and other popular and easy-to-draw symbols. An iron cross is usually not going to be part of that kind of selection.
I'm not even a fan of hers, but I'd say there's less than a 50% chance that she decided, "I'm going to show my racist pride by getting a really cheap iron cross tattoo next to my private parts." Then again, she was born in Abilene, Texas, but on the other hand, she grew up in Santa Clarita, California. Odds of her being a closet racist: who knows? Probably pretty high, now that I think about it; one doesn't get that far in politics without at least privately embracing some race realism.
Idk, it just seems like the iron cross tattoos I've seen have been more elaborate, detailed, and high-quality than that. I really think it's just a shamrock. Not even a Maltese cross, but just a good-luck symbol. Maybe she was fond of Lucky Charms so decided to put one on her body as a throwback to childhood memories. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Зенитная Самоходная Установка, a lot of what you're talking about here sounds like original research. I haven't seen the tattoo, so I don't know what it looks like. I don't know who published the photo, and if it's revenge porn, I don't want to see it. All we know for sure is that there are many different possible explanations and we should not publicize the worst possible ones without concrete evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Conyers, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring.
I am not edit warring. I asked that if anyone did not agree with my changing the image caption to discuss it first. This was ignored and my edit reverted via twinkle in a manner that amounts to using rollback, or in this case twinkle, to revert an edit by me that was not vandalism but a constructive edit. assume Good Faith rather than slapping a warning template on an anonymous editor. I have broken no rule. Thank you. 86.145.182.119 (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You made an edit regarding a photo caption[18] which was reverted by MrX[19]. You then made another edit to the photo caption with the edit summary "Do NOT revert without discussion"[20], which is not how WP:BRD works. The edit was reverted by Gandydancer[21] and you undid that undo with an edit summary that misrepresents WP:3RR[22]. So, yes, you are edit warring. You have been told to take it to the talk page, and you are refusing to do so. That's why you get a warning template. WP:BRD is the cycle that you are violating, as it is you, the initiator of the change, who is supposed to initiate talk page discussion. If you continue to edit war, the next step is a block. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD is not a rule, it is a suggestion. I was being bold in changing a caption that made no sense. The wording of the caption is, at best, an opinion since the image does not support what the caption states. It can not be said WHAT the protestor means by their placard. To say she is comparing ANYTHING to the use of concentration camps is disingenuous at best and putting forward a non-neutral pov at worst. I'd ask that you undo your revert and bring the issue to the talk page of the article, as I asked in the first place. I was the first to ask for discussion. My AGF edit was reverted without discussion. That is not how Wikipedia works. I know the rules here as well as anyone else (I used to be a steward) so please don't threaten me with a block. I am not vandalizing the project but trying to improve the article by changing a caption that is clearly wrong. As it stands now the article asserts something that is not evidenced by the image itself. The 86.145.182.119 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the warning template you bemoaned has had the intended consequence of getting you to discuss this issue rather than continue to edit war. This is good. You were bold the first time, but then you edit warred the second and third time, and the next one is a 3RR violation. I suggest you continue to discuss this on the article talk page rather than mine, if you want to establish any consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'll leave it as is. If those working on that page want to let an obviously wrong statement stand, then who am I to try to improve it? Thanks for your professionalism. Bye 86.145.182.119 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was indeed deleted wrongfully. Thanks. My first draft is still there LUCKILY, I had saved it there but what I had worked on and submitted was deleted and I have emails and proof that my page was deleted. You’re saying that this is not what this page is used for but I am 100% that I have the right to post about what I wrote about and I have the permissions to do so. I can write about anything or anyone as many others including yourself have. The person I wrote about is an artist therefore there will be other pages with lyrics for fans to access.
Samantha Mia 23:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)SAMANTHAamia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthaamia (talk • contribs)
You need to be more self aware of Embracing napoleonic awards. A self proclaimed “ Emperor” otherwise known as a megalomaniac equaled by Stalin and chairman Mao Se?
Bestowing each other with Royal titles? Randall Pearson (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randall Pearson, you are too funny. Or, you need to understand what is tongue-in-cheek. I'm guessing it's that since I think you're serious about believing the lies you're told about the "Liberal Deep State Unelected Bureaucracy". – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:
All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!
Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.
Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.
We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What disruptive editing? I simply added facts with footnotes to the information already there that described him as a conservative. If I was disruptive then whoever added this statement surely is "Edwards is a conservative Democrat[2] who is anti-abortion and pro-gun rights.[3]" He did in fact contribute cash to the campaign of Stacey Abrams, a leftist from Georgia. What's wrong with adding those facts?
IBFreeman, dude. Seriously? You added coded language sourced to the Epoch Times (as unreliable as it gets)--and "abortion on demand"? What does that even mean? Drmies (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it. She is proud to be a lefist. What is wrong with that? Is this link more reputable to you Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
The reasons these two facts are relevant to Mr. Edward's wiki page is because you allowed him to be described as "conservative" and "anti abortion" but he did in fact contribute $5000 as I linked to the campaign of Ms. Abrams. How are my linked statements disruptive commentary and the others are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.38.56.221 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you called a politician a Socialist and abortion on demand candidate, and now you are calling her a leftist. And you don't think this is disruptive? You somehow think identifying Edwards' anti-abortion stance(s) is disruptive? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
US Congress photo vandal
Is there an ANI thread, SPI case or any page that you know of with more details on this IP vandal (the one who randomly changes photos over congressional articles to outdates or cropped versions)? Just asking out of curiosity. I did notice that another admin did a range block recently, but I just reverted a whole bunch more recent edits (ugh). Connormah (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Connormah, I don't know if there is one, but they're really should be. Whoever this person is, they come back again and again and it is annoying cleaning up their messes. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:
Courcelles (submissions)
Kosack (submissions)
Kees08 (submissions)
SounderBruce (submissions)
Cas Liber (submissions)
Nova Crystallis (submissions)
Iazyges (submissions)
Ceranthor (submissions)
Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).
Atsme Talk 📧 21:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:
Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points
Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
Guideline and policy news
Arbitration
