Jump to content

User talk:Muboshgu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 27.63.182.43 (talk) at 13:24, 9 October 2019 (→irfca: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2,392
  Total articles created 		 1
Featured Articles 		13
Featured Lists 		 1
Featured Portals 		 1
Featured Topics 		71
Good Articles 		 1
Good Topics 		570
Did you know? 		121
In The News


A cake just for thee!

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 South Carolina 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:

  1. South Carolina Courcelles (submissions)
  2. Wales Kosack (submissions)
  3. Hel, Poland Kees08 (submissions)
  4. SounderBruce (submissions)
  5. Scotland Cas Liber (submissions)
  6. Marshall Islands Nova Crystallis (submissions)
  7. Republic of Texas Iazyges (submissions)
  8. United States Ceranthor (submissions)


All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

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.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

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:

  • United States 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.
  • Denmark 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.
  • United States Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  • Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  • Ohio 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

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.

Tommy John

My name is Tommy John, son of Tommy John. I'm trying to edit the details about Mike Marshall and his role in my dad's recovery. According to my dad, Tommy John, Mike had no effect on his comeback other than a few exercises for his shoulder. We'd like this changed as it is misleading. I'd also like additions to my bio to add what I'm doing to stop the surgery epidemic and we'd also like the work we are doing together to be a part of his Post Retirement section.

Please let me know what we need to do to make this happen so my dad's page is updated with actual correct, and up to date information.

Thank you.

Dr. Tommy John — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTommyJohn (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DrTommyJohn, Wikipedia relies on verifiability, so we need reliable sources that say what you are saying. What I see suggests he worked with him on his grip too. You'd have to provide reliable sources. I can't even be sure that you're really the son of Tommy John. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. So how do I verify that the source is me, his son, and that he, Tommy John, assures his biography page, that Mike Marshall did not effect his motion? A phone call? An email from my dad? How are these resolved usually when its the actual people on the Biography page wanting details changed? And to keep the items about myself I need to have links of all the work I've been doing nationally? My book website isn't enough? Video of my dad and I aren't enough? I'm new to any of this but we vehemently want the Mike Marshall details removed immediately and would like the updated details of my book and our work in promoting a solution for youth sports injuries.

Thank you.

I'm not even sure if I responded to this the correct way. Lol. Hope all of this makes sense. Dr. Tommy JohnDrTommyJohn (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DrTommyJohn, yes, you're responding correctly. WP:SECONDARY sources are preferable to us than WP:PRIMARY sources, so if you have any secondary sources you can pass along, that would be helpful. I see looking at your father's article (I have no reason to disbelieve you, either) that the text isn't well sourced, and it says Marshall did way more than the ESPN article I found says. I can use that ESPN article to edit it down to more closely conform to that source, and any others I may find. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hey there. So you won't find any articles other than my dad stating that his mechanics were to not be altered and Mike Marshall did not help in any way. So primary source is the only way to go unless we find a reporter to do a story based around stating that Tommy John was not managed by teammate Mike Marshall during his comeback.

I also have links for the work we are doing to help stop these surgeries that are happening in his name to teens more than professionals. 

I would appreciate my section updated under Dr. Tommy John III, and my dad's life post retirement please. We are working hard at creating change in youth sports injury epidemics and this will help.  And let me know how to proceed with correcting the Mike Marshall inaccuracy. Thank you.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/experts-warn-of-rapid-rise-in-tommy-john-surgeries-among-child-athletes https://www.mlb.com/video/dr-tommy-john-talks-new-book-c2522326983, https://www.mlb.com/video/hot-stove-dr-tommy-john-c2522315583, https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2018/tommy-john-opposes-namesake-surgery.html, si.com/mlb/video/2019/03/05/tommy-john-speaks-out-against-tommy-john-surgery-youth-sports, si.com/mlb/video/2019/03/05/combatting-rising-rates-tommy-john-surgery-youth-sports, https://www3.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/06/11/now-campaigning-against-tommy-john-surgery-tommy-john/6Ua1oABxkXq4KibVK3cS9J/story.html?arc404=true https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/sports/baseball/seattle-mariners-.html https://nypost.com/2018/06/04/dont-let-sports-ruin-your-kids-life/ https://www.littleleague.org/news/little-league-exclusive-interview-dr-tommy-john/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/tommy-johns-son-wants-to-help-kids-avoid-sports-surgeries-like-the-one-named-for-his-dad/2018/08/07/3b17a796-9469-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?noredirect=on, https://theathletic.com/705995/2018/12/12/how-to-build-a-healthy-roster-addressing-pitchers-injuries-one-small-movement-at-a-time/, https://www.tribstar.com/news/news_columns/mark-bennett-tommy-john-s-regimen-a-model-for-son/article_cf9a3ddf-e06b-5458-9906-c87a84062e11.html, https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-davich-tommy-john-sports-injuries-st-0625-story.html, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-tommy-john-book-youth-sports-injuries-20180618-story.html, https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pirates/2018/06/14/tommy-john-surgery-research-jameson-taillon-nick-kingham-ivan-nova-pirates/stories/201806140109,

Dr. Tommy JohnDrTommyJohn (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DrTommyJohn, okay there's a lot in there to parse and I'm not sure what you're looking for specifically. The ESPN article I linked above says Marshall helped John with the grip, and says John acknowledged that is true. It would be better if we continue this discussion at Talk:Tommy John, where other editors can contribute. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah, the grip is agreeable, but changing the pitching motion or altering of his mechanics in any way absolutely is not accurate although Mike Marshall is promoting that because he has a baseball school that specializes preying kids and parents to change their motions to prevent injury.

I'd love to carry the conversation on that "Talk Tommy" page forgive me but I'm not sure how to add or where to comment once I go there. Sorry about that.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTommyJohn (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DrTommyJohn, sorry, I forgot to respond to this. I think we may be settled because the page now only mentions Dr. Mike's work with your dad on the grip, nothing about the motion or mechanics. If you like, go to Talk:Tommy John and start a new section, just like you did at my talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Reliquary & notability

As a relative newcomer (not in years but in participating as an active editor) I want to save us both some work. I see the tag you added to the Baseball Reliquary page and understand the need for some additional secondary sources to support the page's inclusion under the notability guidelines. I also noticed that you reverted at least one of a series of inserts I've done to add a reference to the Baseball Reliquary's Shrine of the Eternals on the pages of its inductees (most recently, today, on Don Zimmer's page).

I think given a little time on a non-work day I can find sufficient secondary support for the notability of the Baseball Reliquary page. If I successfully support its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia and find a secondary source for the simple notations on inductees' pages, would that solve the problem I've created? I raise this now because it may spare you a number of reversions that I can pre-emptively "save". (Or not...just wondering what's the best approach here.)

You may also have seen an addition I made to the Project Baseball Hall of Fame task force talk page asking for consideration of the Shrine of the Eternals for inclusion under the umbrella of that task force.Pat&matt (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pat&matt, if you can find more secondary sourcing, that would be good. As of now, the page relies predominantly on primary sourcing that doesn't establish notability. That NYT piece from 2007 is good, but it's only one article. I'll hold off for a while though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, thanks for giving me a little time. I didn't look too closely at the Baseball Reliquary page before, but it's an interesting organization that adds some good perspectives to the more traditional "hall of fame" approach. I'll work on that page this coming weekend with a focus on adding reliable secondary sources and content supporting notability, and take it from there. Pat&matt (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) P&m, if I can add some advice here, I'd say that it would be best to raise the issue at the main WikiProject Baseball talk page, not just the Hall of Fame task force, as more editors are likely to be watching the main project talk page. It's especially good to gain input from the larger project when the intention is to add similar information to a bunch of articles at once. I'm personally not convinced that this honor is significant enough to add to all of these articles, as the Baseball Reliquary itself seems to be borderline in terms of notability, but that's only my opinion and others may differ. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl DeMaio Edits

All language added to Carl DeMaio's page has citations demonstrating verifiable facts. It is written from a neutral standpoint highlighting the effects of his policies. Citations include Court Records from the California Supreme Court, San Diego County Registrar of Voters and numerous local newspapers. While they may not paint Carl DeMaio in the most favorable light, they remain to be verifiable facts.

DeMaio, along with then-Mayor Jerry Sanders, was a co-author of the illegal Mayoral initiative known as San Diego's June 2012 Proposition B, which was found by the California Supreme Court as being specifically designed to circumvent "meet and confer" provisions of California Labor Law[1]. DeMaio led the drive to place Proposition B, titled "Amendments to the San Diego City Charter Affecting Retirement Benefits," on the ballot.[2][3]Proposition B proposed (1) limiting of compensation used to calculate city employee pension benefits; (2) eliminating defined-benefit pensions for many new city employees, substituting a defined-contribution (401(k)-style) plan; (3) eliminating death and disability benefits for most future employees including Firefighters. (4) requiring substantially equal pension contributions from the City and employees; and (5) eliminating the right of employees/retirees to vote to change their benefits.[2]During a low turnout Primary Election with less than 38% of eligible voter participation[2]Proposition B was approved by San Diego voters by a 2-to-1 margin on June 5, 2012.[5]Since the passage of Proposition B San Diego Fire-Rescue Department began struggling to hire and retain sufficient Firefighters to adequately staff all Fire Apparatus necessary to quickly respond to fires, rescues, and medical emergencies.[3]The escalating staffing crisis facing the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department has resulted in the Department using extraordinary amounts of overtime to fill vacancies and full-fill minimum daily staffing requirements.[4] ForesakenFF (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ForesakenFF, " illegal Mayoral initiative " is not neutral language. There's also an WP:OR / WP:SYNTH concern and a WP:COATRACK concern as you are relying on WP:PRIMARY sourcing and two San Diego Union-Tribune articles that do not mention DeMaio. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S242034.PDF
  2. ^ https://www.sdvote.com/content/dam/rov/en/archive/201206bull.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2019-09-05/recruiting-retaining-firefighters-is-a-challenge-for-san-diego-fire-rescue-department?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true
  4. ^ https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/watchdog/story/2019-07-26/san-diego-firefighter-overtime-exceeds-46-million?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Okay but I think there is a bit of a catch 22 here: The fact that the CA. Supreme Court found Prop B illegal is not in dispute. It is a matter of verifiable fact. "Mayoral initiative" is the precise language used by the Justices of the CA. Supreme Court. If the fact that something is illegal as determined by the CA. Supreme Court can not be used in conjunction with the exact language used by Supreme Court Justices to describe Prop B can not be used, what language can be?

I can provide additional citation for sourcing the effects of Prop. However, to clarify, the fact that Carl DeMaio was a co-author of Prop B is not in dispute, correct? Merely the effects of Prop B need additional citation correct?ForesakenFF (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ForesakenFF, if he authored a proposition that was nullified by the CA Supreme Court, that wouldn't be in dispute. To say "illegal mayoral initiative" is not neutral because he didn't write something illegal, he wrote something that was found to be illegal, or unconstitutional more likely. "Illegal" is a high bar to prove. Is that the language the SC used? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I will find the exact quote from within the written opinion of the Justices as well as additional citations for the effects of Prop B.ForesakenFF (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GRRM

In my defense, I only saw the change to past tense before I reverted. I didn't notice their fake cause of death. I usually do treat this hoaxing seriously. Next time, I'll be harsher.Crboyer (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crboyer, gotcha. We all can miss details like that from time to time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Independent Democratic Conference

The article Independent Democratic Conference you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Independent Democratic Conference for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, Muboshgu. I'm just posting to let you know that 1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 21. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 20:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008, nice! I'll take a look. And probably do some more work on the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are secondary sources better than direct quotes

Sorry to bother you. As a relatively new editor (still learning the hard way), and after I saw your post here. I am honestly confounded. I thought that nothing was better than the words that come out of one's own mouth, but your comment seems to indicate that a secondary source, which very well could be that reporter, editors version is better than a persons own words. Can you please explain. I didn't want to ask the question on that article talk page as it is irrelevant and could be taken as argumentative. It isn't, I need to understand so I don't make future mistakes. Thanks Oldperson (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldperson, we have to consider the context. In the case of Zelensky, he's in a difficult position. He's trying to be diplomatic because of very real pressures. We can use quotes to say what was said, but the analysis of WP:SECONDARY sources is preferable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Great example I totally understand now. Zelensky is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand he is susceptible to blackmail from DRJ because he needs the weapons that DRJ controls, on the other hand Trump may not be there forever (he has threatened not to leave office and claims to have the cops and army behind him), so Zelenski has to worry about a subsequent administration. The only alternative is to read between the lines, and since a Wikipedian can't do that we live it to RS. Does that sound about right?Oldperson (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gas van

Hi, regarding your protection of the Gas van article, the IP is actually right: his edits are in agreement with what the article's talk page discussion says. The IP removed no references, just put them in a correct context. In reality, as the talk page discussion demonstrates, it is not correct to say that gas van was invented in USSR, for the sources do not say so. Moreover, in reality, there was just one single source, a 1990 tabloid article, where a single case of gas van usage was documented (and other sources just tell the same story). Taking into account that even Solzhenitsyn didn't know anything about that before 1990, it is hard to believe usage of gas vans was massive, and that Nazi took this idea from NKVD. In contrast, the only primary source the tabloid paper is based on is an NKVD interrogation protocol of Isaj Berg. That means the current version creates a false impression that gas van usage was widespread in USSR, and Nazi took this idea from them.

Moreover, this edit, which was reverted by the IP, is obviously antisemitic (that user stresses the point that Berg was a Jew), which is unacceptable (see a talk page).

In connection to that, the version restored by the IP is balanced, correct, neutral, and it contains the all sources. Therefore, by restoring the contributions of regular users, this IP was not edit-warring, and there is no need in article's protection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert, I protected the page from edit warring. If I misconstrued the edit war, you can freely reinstate talk page consensus text. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate info on a now Protected page

Hello Muboshgu, Thank you for putting a protection lock on the page of Cai Xukun. However, the vandalizer might have entered the misleading information before the protection taking effect. Under the Occupation, they tried to labelled Cai Xukun as a basketball player, but in fact, he is not and has never worked as a basketball player. It was a fabrication created by online trolling against him. It will be great if you can remove that from the page. Thank you. CL28 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CL28:, I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Marney (footballer)

You may also want to remove the edit summary "Reverted edits by (username hidden) to last version by Kinetic37" too. Iggy (Swan) 16:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy the Swan, I sure do.  Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections

On 2 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Robert Mueller, who investigated foreign interference in the 2016 US presidential election, foreign interference in the 2020 US elections is ongoing? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Philadelphia Mayor Race

While I agree that FB and YouTube are not reliable for facts, this is in fact where the Philly Captain made his announcement for his Mayoral run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:5DDC:B8D7:A998:E8DA (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that, but it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. He's not a notable individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Aresimowicz

Hey Muboshgu, hope all is well. Thank you for your help with the copyvios over at that article. It looks like all of them are RevDeleted. It does look like that IP has nearly identical edits to Integrityforthepeopleofconnecticut (talk · contribs) who was blocked for the same thing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LuK3, that's a lot of revdel'd edits. Let me know if it fires up again. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting an edit on Kathy Boockvar's page

Hi, A user deleted a lot of information in a wikipedia page and so I undid that edit, but you undid my edit. The information was important, so I am adding it back in; please do not undo it again.

The edit appears unconstructive and you should not be edit warring to include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Cooper (Tennessee politician)

On 4 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Cooper (Tennessee politician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Cooper is the first political candidate to defeat an incumbent mayor of Nashville since the city consolidated with Davidson County, Tennessee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Cooper (Tennessee politician). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Cooper (Tennessee politician)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tōru Nara

Hi, since you attended the blocked user's request you could revert the edition again as it was before because as you know I translated it from Japanese Wikipedia although it is very difficult to improve the writing of Tōru Nara's personal life and well it would be better to correct it. Here: 1 this is my review.

Thanks. 148.0.112.100 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw sufficient disruption to merit protection, regardless of the block of the user who requested it. I take no sides in any content dispute as I don't know who is right or wrong. I suggest you use the article's talk page for any requests such as this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton

I edited the Clinton page, and you reverted my edit, and I reverted your edit. Then you threatened to block me, and posted a note about sanctions. Is that a fair description? I'm new, but can you explain why my reversion resulted in a threat, and therefore must have been inappropriate, but your reversion was appropriate? Would I have been doing things correctly to respond to your original reversion by posting a threat and a note about sanctions? If not, why not?

In any case, I've posted a note on the Clinton talk page for discussion. The idea that the impeachment of Bill Clinton is a less notable part of his presidency than the Gramm Bliley Leach Act seems pretty silly, no?Pop quizzed (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pop quizzed, I do apologize for the way that I did that. It was too quick an undo and I should've looked at it more closely. However, the notice about the sanctions is fair: you can read more about it at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions, which covers a lot of controversial subjects The lead has been crafted over time and discussion, and changes should discussed on the talk page. I'll read over what you've written and comment later. I'm sure others will, too. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Biden's "Vandalism"

Lol this page is so full of people describing your shady tactics I'm amazed you're an administrator. I'll ask again, provide a QUOTE on how I vandalized Hunter Biden's page? I'm sure you're going to describe this as another attack in some feeble attempt to have me blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfHook (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WolfHook, yes, people who edit like you get reverted and don't like me. I wear that as a badge of honor. And hey, at least this time you didn't call me a "cuck" or "communist shill". What your edit did do was add a lot of information to Hunter Biden's page that doesn't relate to Hunter Biden at all, in an attempt to attack him and his father. Looking at your edit history, you seem to be quite busy adding partisan attacks to articles. You appear to be more suited to edit Conservapedia, the encyclopedia that enjoys creating its own narrative of events, as opposed to Wikipedia, where we deal in facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing a quote, just you sidestepping the issue because we both know that if you attempt to quote my changes its not going to go your way intellectually. And yes, I'm tired of you people providing a single narrative on every single politically active page. Me providing a quote of Joe Biden describing how he had Shokin fired and having it sourced with both news articles and VIDEO EVIDENCE as well as providing quotes from Burisma on exactly when the investigations ended (which by the way, is superior to a single reuters article as a source) is Vandalism? Lol youre a joke. WolfHook (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WolfHook, you're leaving out thatt Biden was speaking on behalf of the whole Western world to get a prosecutor fired who wasn't doing the investigating, and that this would actually put Biden's son at more risk. But, that doesn't fit your predetermined narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing any quotes. You realize that I specifically clarified that the claims against Hunter Biden were entirely conjecture as part of my edit right? "However, Biden did seek removal of Shokin and used executive pressure to do so, though whether this was to protect his son is largely conjecture. To quote:

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’” " to quote my edit.

The fact is, that Joe Biden's tactic of using aid money to Ukraine in order to pressure the removal of Shokin is at the crux of the claims against Biden (whether or not those claims are true), and it warrants being seen in the page in order to provide a narrative without bias, and not entirely favoring one side or the other. Shutting down the opposition due to YOUR own bias is specifically against the values of wikipedia as it was originally conceived, though i see its fallen far.WolfHook (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WolfHook, and again, the issue at play is that the POTUS is using his personal lawyer to pressure a foreign nation to dig up dirt on his political opponent by withholding Congressionally mandated foreign aid. And this made up controversy about the Biden's he and you are pushing is not relevant. This has been covered on all the relevant article talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean threatening to with-hold congressional mandated aid exactly like Joe Biden threatened to do? By his own admission? WolfHook (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WolfHook, no, quite different. Biden was pushing the Ukraine to deal with corruption. Trump was pushing the Ukraine to investigate a political rival. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Considering both of those claims regarding Trump and Biden's motivations are literally your opinions, given the uncertainty of the present political climate (by this I mean neither motivation has been substantially proven), I find it hilarious how incredibly non-self-aware you are.75.174.91.125 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, these things (there being no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden and plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by Trump) are not opinions. They are clear facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BRD and involvement

Hi, I saw the warning you posted in an edit summary stating "this is controversial so respect WP:BRD If you don't want to get blocked". I was wondering why did you threaten someone with a block for failure to adhere to an explanatory supplement that is not a policy nor a guideline. And I don't know if I'm mistaken but it looked like you were involved in an edit controversy and were threatening administrative action because the editor reverted your revert, which doesn't look quite right. Am I missing something? Is the article under discretionary sanctions? --Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, as I acknowledged to the other involved editor two sections up on this talk page, I erred in that case. I escalated that too quickly. Also I think the article should be under discretionary sanctions, but then I noticed the talk page doesn't suggest that it is yet. I may add the discretionary sanctions template to the talk page, as it is about post-1932 US politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done. El_C 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El C, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jane Eskind

On 9 October 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jane Eskind, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jane Eskind was the first woman to win a statewide election in Tennessee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Eskind. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jane Eskind), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

irfca

kindly restore the "indian railways fan club" page on wikipedia....

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muboshgu&oldid=920387564"