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 Nathan (talk | contribs) at 23:16, 11 August 2020 (→‎Theresa Greenfield: re). 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

Reggie Bagala

Hello, I noticed that you helped to edit Bob Glanzer and Isaac Robinson's pages after they died from coronavirus. I am wondering if you would like to also help with Reggie Bagala who has also recently died from it. - Jon698 talk 2:41 10 April 2020

Bhairava Dweepam

Could you please help here? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, this is not the sort of request that board handles. Nonfree images are resized downwards by bots as part of WP:NFCC – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, I pinged you with an alternate proposal. Since Google+ is dead, I can no longer access the high-res image in its original form. That is why I want to re-trace the original image here and re-upload it (albeit in small size), since the current revision is a distorted one created by Bhargav. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792, sorry I missed the ping. Lemme check back in. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Muboshgu

Thank you for creating 2021 Major League Baseball draft.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Troy Nehls

On 29 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Troy Nehls, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Troy Nehls, the sheriff of Fort Bend County, is the son of a sheriff and brother of a sheriff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Troy Nehls. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Troy Nehls), 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royals

Thank you [1], though fan zeal is such that he'll be re-added. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the parameter of the infobox to "Principal owner(s)" to get around this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Herman Cain

On 30 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Herman Cain, 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. —valereee (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Bass

You really seem confident you can justify removing another’s cited and completely legitimate addition to page. Ironic how you are claiming Karen Bass’s own quote added to her page is not neutral and then commence at failing to adhere to your own claim with the undo by completely removing a cited (notable reference) about plainly controversial QUOTES of supporting communist regimes and Fidel Castro by Karen Bass, instead of adding your own edits to refine it like real editors do. The fact you remove her own quote, and the outrageous assumption that her own actions and words being placed on her Wikipedia is somehow not adhering to neutral policy and warrants a complete undo is truly mind numbing with hypocrisy and in my personal opinion, highly unprofessional for someone that is a wiki administrator level editor. More reminiscent to me of an openly biased, deceptively partisan, tyrannical overlord. You are the very definition of why Wikipedia is losing credibility fast while they let partisan censorship overlords like you manipulate and twist their policies definitions to try enforcing your narrative on a public information site. You should be ashamed of your actions and I frankly don’t care what you goons try to do to my profile anymore. I really have had it with your type. I’ve always enjoyed this site, until 2017-18 when hacks like you showed up to try playing big brother and overseeing leftist cheerleaders. Fire away and send me to whatever council or slingfest. Maybe we can get placed on that lordship kangaroo court you all have here. Editors like you don’t deserve to be on such a site. Political, biased censorship hacks is all your type is and you know it. Frankly I think I will spend my time exposing all of your practices and biases here instead of trying to add to the knowledge of man while you try to hide the parts of it you don’t like with overlording censorship. This won’t last forever. It’s a wide open secret now and many many don’t like what people like you are doing to freedom of information and perceptions. It won’t work. Truly yours, Sirsentence (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Sirsentence[reply]

Warning

Information icon Hello, I'm Sirsentence. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sirsentence (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Since the user in question (Sirsentence) has failed to do so, this is notice that they've raised a topic about you in ANI. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nosebagbear, thanks for the notice. I had seen it and just posted my reply. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that you've posted a response at ANI? (I know you've posted something on BLPN) - I can't see anything and you don't have a recent edit there. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
{{u|Nosebagbear}, the reply script malfunctioned, it didn't save. My reply is there now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YGM!

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:August 2020

Unfortunately, the thing I wrote on talk was not defamatory, but fact, please watch all of his videos before assuming it is a defamatory remark ABruhRandomUser (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABruhRandomUser, the word "gaffe" is not defamatory, but the other one you used absolutely is a BLP violation. Don't do it again. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scores

Means groups of 20. Thought everyone knew that! P-K3 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnkingthree, I know what it means, but I wouldn't asume that everyone does. The term isn't used in the United States outside of the Gettysburg Address. Besides, it's better to be specific. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I guess. The trouble with "at least 50" though is that its going to need updating rather frequently. The article is already saying "at least 73" dead now.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pawnkingthree, fair point. I do think it's better to update frequently than to be vague. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scores is a general term of reference for an imprecise number equal to at least 40 but not generally more than 99. Since we did not, and still don't have a precise casualty figure, it seemed like a reasonable term that would negate the need for continuous updates of imprecise mortality estimates until the death toll is known to top 100 or a firm and final official number is released by competent authorities. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ad Orientem, the term "dozens" is far more common in today's parlance than "scores", no? And I've seen sources say "dozens", but not "scores". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scores is generally useful for defining numbers greater than two dozen. And since the death toll at the time I made the edit was already over 50, that seemed the better choice. We are not required to use exact quotes. In fact paraphrasing is often preferred as long one is doing so accurately. As for language in common use in today's world... that is a very sad subject. Let us not speak of it further. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Kim Olson

On 5 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kim Olson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that retired United States Air Force colonel Kim Olson is a Master Gardener? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kim Olson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kim Olson), 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) 00:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jagmeet Singh

Would you like to elaborate how my edits are not constructive? I am very familiar with wikipedia policies. One of my edits you deleted was the addition of a comma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QQQspadesQQQ (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QQQspadesQQQ, how is the tuition of the private school that he attended not a WP:COATRACK? You've given no explanation for the other deletions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder what the relevance of that is. It seems like collateral information, and some that might not be seen as neutral.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
Darryl Kerrigan, would you mind reverting it? I'm trying not to edit war. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tuition at his private school provides information on his early life. Moreover, the entire article reads as a campaign brochure. And yet you accuse me of being impartial? QQQspadesQQQ (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current tuition is not necessarily a reflection of the tuition when Singh attended many years ago, and QQQspadesQQ's edit is a pretty clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would come to the conclusion that is the tuition Jagmeet Singh paid. He is an old man now. The entire article reads as a campaign brochure. Is that a problem at all? When did wikipedia become so blatantly biased? QQQspadesQQQ (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QQQspadesQQQ, if you don't think that that's the tuition that was paid when he was a student, then that's your acknowledgment that it has nothing to do with Singh. Continuing to edit war will get you blocked. Discussing changes that you want to see made, preferably on Talk:Jagmeet Singh, will not. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be intimidated by you. I am going to make the article transparent and less of a campaign brochure. Please refrain from your childish attacks. QQQspadesQQQ (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cori Bush

Hi! Thanks for performing the move. I didn't realize I wouldn't be able to do it directly! Cheers, Paradoxsociety 04:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paradoxsociety, I was wondering why you moved what was there to Draft:Cori Bush (old). Yes, it's cleaner to make the move directly. It's cleaner with the edit history. I'll merge those edits back in later. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for moving too quickly there. Hope it didn't cause too much trouble. Just for my personal understanding so I don't make the same mistake again, if there's an article in Draft space that I think needs to be immediately promoted to mainspace, what's the right way to go about that? WP:RAA? Paradoxsociety 04:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paradoxsociety, publishing a draft shouldn't be done as though it's "urgent". There's WP:NODEADLINE and no rush. I acted in this case because I'm familiar with the subject matter and I've edited the draft, so I'm familiar with the quality. Admins who respond at RAA might have no idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Buttar...again

An IP has attempted to recreate Shahid Buttar yesterday by removing the redirect. The article was last deleted in April. There is currently a draft article, but would it be possible to WP:SALT the redirect until the election? Thanks, KidAd (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd, I'll take a look. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd, I applied semiprotection for three months. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. KidAd (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block failure

FYI, your block of Viktorpp is not going through, even though the block notice is appearing on their talk page. Home Lander (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Home Lander, should be done now. I don't know what happened. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, I figured a tool you were using (Twinkle?) was malfunctioning since the block message was appearing without a block. I reverted the AFD tags from the various pages they were added to. Home Lander (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Home Lander, yes, Twinkle might've malfunctioned on me. I can't rule out user error though. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Democratic Socialists of America

Autoconfirmed editors are creating unnecessary hurdles for requested edits. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those "hurdles" are necessary to prevent the article from being mercilessly vandalized. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but it's starting to feel really circular to keep explaining that consensus exists for every trivial edit request, often to multiple editors for the same request... 209.166.108.199 (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, that's how it goes. Better than having vandals run wild. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacek Deniz Troshupa

@Muboshgu: Can I, after completing with facts and info the draft article, even though it has not yet made its debut, return it to the full article? — BalkanianActuality (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BalkanianActuality, yes, you can. I see you've made the updates. Keep in mind though that it may be nominated for deletion if he doesn't actually appear in a game for the club. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, thank you for your appreciation and approval. — BalkanianActuality (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSA "seats"

Hello, I noticed you reverted my edit to Democratic Socialists of America. While the DSA is not technically a political party, they do endorse candidates, and their members do hold public office. Additionally, the page List of Democratic Socialists of America members who have held office in the United States contains a similar infobox listing the seats they hold. I think this information should be included on the main page of the organization. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot321, it's not commonplace. The Federalist Society, for instance, doesn't include its members who are elected officials in the infobox. If you disagree with my revert, seek consensus on the talk page. I may have a minority view on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll make a post on the talk page there. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Phelps

Looking at your recent edits at Fred Phelps, I note that the article is listed as a Wikipedia controversial topic and the subject is noted as controversial.

Accordingly, I think the description in the lede may be taken as reflecting consensus and it is up to you to gain support for your changes in discussion there. --Pete (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring, the talk page template is for editor guidance. The article space has to follow WP:MOS and WP:LABEL specifically says not to use words like "highly controversial" in the article space. LABEL is a Wikipedia guideline that has to be followed in article mainspace. Starting an article with an unattributed "highly controversial" description biases the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not true, is it? Looking at the guideline, the actual words employed are "best avoided". A Google search on Fred Phelps brings up many reliable sources describing the man and his actions as controversial. I'm not seeing how misquoting a stylistic guideline is helping our readers understand a controversial subject. That's like describing Adolf Hitler as "a German politician". It takes us five more paragraphs before we admit that he was also "gravely immoral". NPOV is one thing, but I'm not sure we really need to tiptoe so gingerly around the elephant in the room. --Pete (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skyring, yes, LABEL does say these words are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Putting it before even his nationality with no sources is unattributed text. WP:LABEL also says Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Interesting example, choosing Adolf Hitler's page, as it does lead with him being "a German politician". The content itself is enough, in both Phelps's and Hitler's cases, to explain who they were. In Phelps's article, the lead includes the quote describing his church as "arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America".[2], with its source. Imagine leading Barack Obama's bio with "highly controversial American politician", just because some sources can be found to label him in such a a way. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I read enough of the Adolf Hitler lede to get to the fifth paragraph, I would have thought it obvious that I had read the first sentence which I directly quoted. But if you would be so very kind as to point out where in WP:LABEL the word "not" appears, which you not only say is specifically used, but italicise for emphasis, then I might admit that my own reading comprehension is deficient.
My point here is that Phelps is widely described as controversial; it's not just a few fringe publications sneaking the word in. In contrast, Barack Obama's association with controversy seems to centre around a tan suit, which I will agree does not warrant us using the tag, especially in comparison with the atrocities to follow. --Pete (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skyring, the italicized "not" was my error, as the page says it should be avoided but says that no phrases are explicitly forbidden. I've only put direct quotes into direct quote templates. I understand that Phelps is much more widely seen as controversial than many other figures I could think of. I think that NPOV requires us to let the reader learn that for themselves as they get to the whole "God Hates Fags" thing, rather than tell them he was controversial before we even state his nationality. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Greenfield

This page has been protected, but a lot has changed since mid-June. There is quite likely more than enough references and basis for notability for an article, a stub at minimum. Nathan T 00:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan, I don't think anything has changed. We're waiting on the results of November 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield closed as "redirect" and a draft at Draft:Theresa Greenfield was just declined three days ago. If you want to prove the subject is notable now, you should work on the draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's kind of ridiculous. A major party candidate for a closely contested Senate election in the U.S., who has received coverage in major American news outlets... Can't really explain how this doesn't pass the Pokemon test for notability. Nathan T 01:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, read the AfD and the three deletion reviews then. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was absurd then, and still is now. I realize now that you proposed it for deletion, interesting that you decided to protect the redirect yourself. In any case, even Bearcat noted that she had direct coverage in major national news outlets (her complaint was that not all mentions of her were about her, but some were just about the race... which rather proves the point that some were about her directly). If we applied this level of notability scrutiny to ever topic area, I suspect we'd have millions fewer articles. I can see not automatically assuming that every nuisance candidate for every election is notable, but a Democratic or Republican nominee for a United States Senate race? It's ridiculous. A small boulder floating in the Atlantic with a 100 year old flag merits a 1 line article with a GPS location, but somehow Theresa Greenfield is too irrelevant for even a stub. Nathan T 20:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan, I protected it to stop edit warring. I also created the redirect in the first place. There is no way I would go against three deletion reviews that endorsed the AfD decision to redirect. If you can't accept the results of the AfD and three deletion reviews, I don't know what to tell you. WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments aren't going to help. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As big and popular as it is, the English Wikipedia is still a tiny little bubble, It doesn't surprise me at all that repeated reviews, with a lot of the same voices, came to the same wrong conclusion. I've left the bubble enough that the WP:RANDOMLETTERS approach to discussion also really doesn't feel very persuasive. In the end we live in the real world, and the criteria by which things make sense or not doesn't immediately twist because of the URL of the page we're on. Charitably I'd like to blame the timing on the fact that the early discussions kept the page a redirect; realistically, the fact that it has remain locked and the DRs failed to change the outcome reinforces how insular and backward Wikipedia's culture often is. Nathan T 23:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muboshgu&oldid=972414702"