User talk:Muboshgu

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 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. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

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

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• 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.

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:

• 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.
• 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).

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.

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)

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)

I've added at note to the talk page for discussion. The proposal is that impeachment should be in the second paragraph, at the least, as the most notable event in the Clinton presidency.Pop quizzed (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Pop quizzed, I'll go take a look. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify: May I edit the Clinton page to move impeachment to the second paragraph, or may I not. I ask because you previously threatened me with sanctions for making this good-faith edit to the page. I did as you asked, and posted the change first on the talk page, and then have asked you twice to take a look. Is there any reason I can't make this change to the page as a normal edit?Pop quizzed (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Already done. El_C 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

El C, thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

irfca

kindly restore the "indian railways fan club" page on wikipedia.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.63.182.43 (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Perry Gershon

Hello, Muboshgu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Perry Gershon".

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 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden

Thanks for the comment on my edit on Hunter Biden, the previous edit that was reverted had 3 items.

• The Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office recorded that Biden's legal company Boies Schiller Flexner received compensation of $283,000 in 2014
• Biden's partnership Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC received $3.4 from April 2014 to late 2015
• Devon Archer left the board after he was charged in a US Bond fraud in May 2016 and bank records from the case show that Biden withdrew from the partnership .... the 50k per month

They were all in the NYT article that other editors cited on the talk page as reliable and I referenced.

I would really like your view if any of these items are suitable for the article prior to kicking off another long talk page session :), and I understand your view that Devon Archer is off topic. Thanks RonaldDuncan (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, my thought was specifically about Archer being off topic. I think the rest is fine. Didn't I only revert Archer? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

From what I have seen, every suggestion of RonaldDuncan's (including the 3 above) has been SYNTH BLP disparagement and none of it noteworthy enough for a bio or relevant to any other article. Yes, he's wasting a lot of editor time after having had this explained to him by several editors. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and RonaldDuncan:, If there is a SYNTH component to it then it is not okay. I can't say that I'm that familiar with these particular points. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the 3 points are from the NYT article, and there is no WP:SYNTH, I put them in one edit previously got reverted and before going to the talk page just put in the Devon Archer part, since I got the mood from other editors that they were sensitive to the fees that Biden had earned. Anyway, I can see you are experienced :) in US political articles. RonaldDuncan (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope I'm not out of line reverting this edit the same day I did this change; altering the words in actual quotes seems to qualify as clear vandalism in the words of the 1RR exemptions, but I do try to play it safe. XOR'easter (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Houston Mayoral Elections

I was told my edit was not seen as constructive. I would like more information and details on why my information added by an edit was removed. I would like to know why it was not added to the 2019 Houston mayoral election page. Please inform me on what the correct way would be to add this information so that I can learn for my future edits.

I included a candidate that was left out (there are actually 12 candidates) and the current information on the page was incorrect and not accurate. I added detailed information about a candidate and their campaign and it was removed. My information made this page more accurate and detailed as I supplied another candidate. It is a shame that it was removed and the public will be misinformed with the wikipedia page that only featured a few candidates without much information.

Looking forward to hearing back on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomcacti (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Freedomcacti, content requires reliable sources. You have provided none. The candidate's website is not considered a reliable source. Also, the content I had reverted last week was overly promotional and did not match at all the way others are portrayed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

How does a candidates website not follow under a source. You can't get more accurate than a candidate's own campaign site. You rather push the mainstream media's filtering and coverage of the election. THERE ARE 12 CANDIDATES AND YOU ARE ABSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND THE FCC'S GUIDELINES BY REMOVING THIS INFORMATION. I even sent an edit in with JUST the candidate's name so the promotion is equal between all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomcacti (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Helsley

Hi Muboshgu,

I went to WP:RFPP to request protection for Helsley but I couldn't since the board is semi-protected. I'm here because you're the administrator who most recently responded to reports there. Here's what I typed out in Notepad:

Temporary semi-protection. Helsley is a part-Cherokee baseball player for the St. Louis Cardinals who just gained an extraordinary amount of attention when he declared offense at Atlanta Braves fans' performance of the Tomahawk Chop and accompanying chant. It took a few days but the racist trash has appeared to heavily attack this article. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind transcribing the above to RFPP? If that's possible. If not, would you request page protection for Helsley and we can wait for another administrator to respond? I believe the article needs protection but I'm not sure how I can make it happen. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no need for me to transcribe that content to RFPP or request another administrator to help. I protected the page for one week. I'm heavily involved in editing baseball articles and am quite familiar with this situation. Discussion on the talk page can develop a consensus for how to discuss the tomahawk chop controversy. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't consider that you could just lock it up yourself. Thank you very much; I suspect a week is exactly the right amount of time for the vandals to forget about this. 107.195.20.170 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably right. It'll be whoever blows it in the NLCS or ALCS who gets vandalized next week. Thanks for bringing the vandalism to my attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Muboshgu. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 16:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

File:Verfaillie menschloos.jpg

Verfaillie was well-known enough for this painting of his to make it to the commons...

You recently speedy deleted the article on Tim Verfaillie as a "blatant hoax". I looked at the google cached version, and the article certainly had problems, most notably a lack of references, but I saw no evidence of a hoax.

Did you do a web search on the guy, prior to your speedy, to refute or confirm whether the article was a hoax? From my cursory look the article seemed to be accurate, in so far as it went, and did not seem to contain any of the elements that would traditionally classify it as a hoax.

Could you explain what you found that caused you to endorse the hoax claim? Geo Swan (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan, the article was nominated via PROD as an "apparent hoax". When I performed a search, all I saw was mirrors of the Wikipedia article, and some social networking of living people with that name. I saw no evidence this person existed as shown in the article, and so I chose to speedy delete it as a hoax rather than as a proposed deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, are you tacitly acknowledging the deletion log entry you left was, well, in error?
• Now that you have taken a second look at the topic, is there some other criteria under which you think the article merited speedy deletion?
• Can I ask who placed the prod?
• Thanks for the quick reply. Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  Geo Swan, in hindsight, perhaps I should have deleted it via PROD, which would have left a message saying it was an "apparent hoax". But, I still see no evidence that it was about a real person. The PROD was made by IntoThinAir, and I have no reason to doubt their suggestion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  I did carefully search Google to find as many independent reliable sources as possible before prodding that page, and I prodded it because I couldn't find any such sources, just the mirrors/social network pages Muboshgu described. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Refund of deleted Eddie Moule article, please?

Hi Muboshgu, I lost track of some prodded articles, unfortunately. I was able to add sources for some of the prodded Baseball at the 1956 Summer Olympics Australian players. I did find sources for Eddie Moule, but the main source for the Olympics had his surname spelled wrongly, so I left him to look for other sources later. Would it be possible for you to move this deleted article to my userspace, please? Many thanks, RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen, done. See User:RebeccaGreen/Eddie Moule. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism

The user Elis59, not warned sufficiently?? The user was blocked for last 48 hours, after given every level of warning, not only by me but by other two editors which he ignored, and a final warning by an administrator and then was blocked, but as soon as the user was unblocked after 48 hours, started vandalising again. Plus he was abusive !!!, which the administrator point out specifically. So what warning are you talking about??????? Check again here, did you go through his talk page or not????Dey subrata (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata, assume good faith. The vandalism wasn't immediately after the release of the block, which would net a new block. You didn't warn the user at all after their return and they committed two edits of vandalism. So, not warned sufficiently. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying I have to warn him again and again, then you will take action. Wow!! I can't believe, ok I am giving him a level 4 warning and requesting again at AIV. Hope you take action. Dey subrata (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata, a level 4 "only warning" would work. This is procedure. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Warned already, let me see if ignored or still vandalise. Dey subrata (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

As expected, he vandalised again. Now you may take action. Dey subrata (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I see the edit and the article talk page, where the editor has engaged. This isn't vandalism; it's a content dispute. Take it to WP:DR if you wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, its no more content dispute, it has been discussed several times before, every time a new editor will come we have to discuss, it does not happen like that. We don't have time for useless things, secondly he was addressed in all possible way, he was advised to visit all previous discussion and conclusion. It totally needless to discuss which is already discussed. My name will not change if you ask me again and again. And he is doing edit warring too. Dey subrata (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Legal terminology

I think using legal terminology ("cease and desist") in your capacity as an administrator is inconsiderate, especially given that the AP32- topic area is already a discretionary minefield that does not need any more wikilegalese. Thanks for your consideration. --Pudeo (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, fair point. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

protected kiwifruit article still has vandalism

The Template:Kiwifruit has vandalism on the headings.

I reverted it. Thanks – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your recent work on Mark Zaid. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter Hendke 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)

@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)

Proposed deletion of Chris Jones (pitcher)

The article Chris Jones (pitcher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Career minor league player; never reached majors; hasn't played since 2016; fails WP:NBASE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Drew Granier

The article Drew Granier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBASE and WP:NCOLLATH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reid Redman

The article Reid Redman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBASE and WP:NCOLLATH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
57		Cruis'n (talk)	Add sources
39		Trustee Georgia (talk)	Add sources
20		2019–20 Swiss Cup (talk)	Add sources
1,071		Adlai Stevenson II (talk)	Add sources
86		Democratic Leadership Council (talk)	Add sources
5		Tim Hummel (talk)	Add sources
55,483		Abhijit Banerjee (talk)	Cleanup
51		Tea garden (talk)	Cleanup
357		Guard dog (talk)	Cleanup
268		Bowser Jr. (talk)	Expand
425		Little Einsteins (talk)	Expand
37		2015 in baseball (talk)	Expand
389		Aeroponics (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
155		United States housing market correction (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
443		Plautus (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
145		Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development (talk)	Merge
217		Plantation complexes in the Southern United States (talk)	Merge
637		Plantations in the American South (talk)	Merge
5,397		Joe Girardi (talk)	Wikify
53		2006 United States Senate election in Connecticut (talk)	Wikify
6		The Russia Forum (talk)	Wikify
17		Rajith Kumar (talk)	Orphan
8		Crop share rent (talk)	Orphan
34		Gender roles in agriculture (talk)	Orphan
478		NHL 20 (talk)	Stub
4		Mark Wasinger (talk)	Stub
38		2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas (talk)	Stub
4		Bill Risley (talk)	Stub
20		Journal of Development Economics (talk)	Stub
51		Watson Lake Airport (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Mark Hurd

On 19 October 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mark Hurd, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.

Apologies if you have already received BLP alert or alerted someone recently, but I could not find evidence whether you have. Politrukki (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Politrukki, you're supposed to check before you give out discretionary sanctions alerts. If you don't know how to check, then you shouldn't be giving out the alert. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, apologies if I missed a something.

I checked from these

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muboshgu&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=602&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3AMuboshgu
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchUser=Muboshgu&wpSearchPeriodStart=&wpSearchPeriodEnd=&wpSearchTitle=&wpSearchImpact=0&wpSearchAction=any&wpSearchActionTaken=&wpSearchFilter=602
4. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Muboshgu&page=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&server=enwiki&max=100

What did I miss? When did you became aware of BLP DS? Politrukki (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Tim Pool

Tim Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You misused your rollback privileges[1] to revert in a content dispute and finally semied the article to win a dispute[2] and protected obvious BLP violations (contentious material about a LP sourced to garbage sources). Please explain. Politrukki (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Politrukki, "content dispute"? That was edit warring / deletion vandalism. I did not protect an "obvious BLP violation". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

The edit war began on 18 October when 103.77.137.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a bunch of garbage content and then 103.77.137.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) – obviously still the same person – started edit-warring against multiple users:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]

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)

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)