User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 47
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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.
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) 01:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you
For pointing out this hypocrisy. I've been staying away from the article and talk page for the most part because my heart just aches but also because I'm tired of the constant attempt to shape the narrative to victim blaming...Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Praxidicae, thank you for this reversion that also tried to change the narrative. You beat me to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Shooting of Jacob Blake. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. With this edit you appear to be trying to "expose me" in a negative way to other editors. This is not appropriate, and I find it intimidating. Please stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Magnolia677, Don't template the regulars. You have "exposed" yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2020
- News and notes: The high road and the low road
- In the media: Storytelling large and small
- Featured content: Going for the goal
- Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way
- Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax
- Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics
- News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online
- Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles
- Arbitration report: A slow couple of months
- From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
The article Jordan Milbrath has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NBASEBALL as he's never played in a major league game per [1]. No appearances outside US I can see.
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. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
1RR/discretionary sanctions
Am I reading the policy correctly here? Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- XOR'easter, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. You didn't violate 1RR/ds. The editor who undid your undo might have, if they were aware of the 1RR/ds. I – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's what I thought. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Discuss deletion
- Hi how are you ?
please can you give us your opinion and Participate in the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_September_1 and My firned , shouldn't get me banned by someone! To discuss with you, this is not fair please --Amer Bin Omar (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were
Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.
Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.
Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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. 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), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
- A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors
must
orshould
use the articles for creation process. - A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
- An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.
A kitten for you!
Thanks for the thanks!
How do you set up archives?
- Hello! How do you set archives? Could you point me to a link that explains it? HeartGlow (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- HeartGlow30797, there is some good guidance at Help:Archiving a talk page. What page are you thinking about setting up archiving for? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I figured it out, I was tired of archiving my convos manually! Thanks for your help :D! HeartGlow (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- HeartGlow30797, great. Feel free to ask anything else if you need anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I figured it out, I was tired of archiving my convos manually! Thanks for your help :D! HeartGlow (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- HeartGlow30797, there is some good guidance at Help:Archiving a talk page. What page are you thinking about setting up archiving for? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
AN thread that mentions your edits
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Block appeal". Thank you. I'm surprised I'm the first to notify you since although it was an appeal of a block imposed by someone else, AFAICT although they didn't explicitly name you, User:Lima Bean Farmer has extensively and obviously discussed your edits even to the extent they asked why you weren't warned. But not so surprised I didn't bother to check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Flynn
I've been interested in some of Sullivan's cases for years, starting with his decisions in a 2008 case. Although some think of him as partisan, some believe that he particularly favors defendants' rights, others disagree. I usually agreed with him, but more than that, I think he has been courageously non-partisan. I think it's caused him to be both rightfully admired but also to be unfairly vilified. The Flynn lede had no almost no info on the case which I expect will dominate Flynn's biography, and how Sullivan had gotten the case, just a single line that he'd put it on hold. There was nothing on how he'd tried to resolve it, which I think is important info for even the casual Wikipedia reader to have available to them and I tried to give all that some grounding, and I followed up with that info in the section.
I've been seeing your edits for years. You've made maybe 20x as many and I have in the same time span, and I've almost always agreed with your work that I've run across. Obviously, if you want to restore any of my edits, you might find some of them useful, either in the case article or the main Flynn article. I'm certainly not contending that they're beyond reproach, but I think using a scalpel, rather than a halberd, would be more useful. Meanwhile, I'm going to read the case article, though I'm hugely tight for time at this point. I've put off creating and/or completing a few draft articles in order to give this article and case some needed attention. I even was going to create one on Sidney Powell, as she was Sullivan's biggest champion, even sending him an autographed book that she had written about the Stevens and Enron barge cases. (It was fiercely partisan, and anti-prosecution.) She's gone from that to being a detractor, and at least one reporter or pundit characterized her court arguments in Flynn as being more directed to the media than to the law or the case itself. I think both the main and the case articles need some mention of Trump's comments about the case as well. She also had an odd relationship with Alex Kozinski, who is an odd duck himself. Anyhow, I'm not sure if I can dedicate much more time to this over the next few days as I expect to be jammed until Tuesday at minimum. Thanks! Activist (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Activist, this conversation would be better served on Flynn's talk page, where we have started a section and where others may more easily engage. The content you wrote up seemed perfectly fine to me, except that it's about the court case rather than the defendant, and so should be on the United States v. Flynn page rather than Flynn's bio. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. What do you think needs to stay in the case section on Flynn's article, and what do you think might be usefully moved to the case page? I suspect when someone gets around to writing a book about Flynn, this will get considerable coverage. Activist (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Activist, I'm sure the scholars will have a lot of material to work with when we look at U.S. v. Flynn with the benefits of hindsight. I'd have to look at this more closely to see if I think anything should be added to the biography. The biography should be keeping the historical point of view and not including every back and forth between the various lawyers and judges, which can go on the case page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. What do you think needs to stay in the case section on Flynn's article, and what do you think might be usefully moved to the case page? I suspect when someone gets around to writing a book about Flynn, this will get considerable coverage. Activist (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I see that you also noticed that the two authors of these articles were trying to game the system by both editing the redirect and submitting drafts to see which they were able to do. I have given both editors a caution for American politics discretionary sanctions. We need to keep watching. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Improper and Harassing Editing
I added truthful edits to two web sites concerning elected officials, supported by citations. Muboshgu improperly edited those comments. This violates the rule of consensus and this editor is exercising unilateral control. It also reflects positive political bias trying to overcome truthful content. This politicizes content - as it skews away from one political point of view to another. This, again, renders these supposedly open forums inherently corrupt and calls into question the entire nature of wikipedia as not being true to its own terms and conditions and advertised premise. I'd like the behavior to stop and for my edits to remain unmolested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaGuy (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Republicans who oppose Trump
Please read the current list on the top of the page for what the page has listed. I will quote directly and prove to you that both of these names belong on the page. “ Among them are former Republicans who left the party in 2016 or later due to their opposition to Trump” which qualifies for Dawn Addiego. And a little more “ Among them are former Republicans who left the party in 2016 or later due to their opposition to Trump, those who held office as a Republican, Republicans who endorsed a different candidate,...” which qualifies Crist as he was the governor of Florida, Attorney General of Florida, education commissioner of Florida, and a member of the Florida state senate. He held all of these offices as a Republican. I do not want to continue edit warring on this page but these two people clearly qualify. Please let me add them back. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lima Bean Farmer, Addiego didn't mention Trump as a reason for leaving the party. And Crist left the Republican Party in 2012. They do not belong on the pge. Let's keep the discussion on the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- They both served terms in office as a Republican. It says it as a criteria for the article.
Currently we are having a dispute about this, and I know that you’re more on the deletionist side and me the expansionist, but I’m leaving out Senators that don’t specifically oppose since the meaning of the article hasn’t changed. Also, there is no consensus that those who held positions as Republicans (which is the current criteria) should be removed. Please stop removing people who fit the criteria which currently is at the page. This is just as unhelpful to the project as adding people who do not fit the criteria. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Mark Newman (baseball)
On 15 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mark Newman (baseball), 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Amy Dorris?
I'm not sure that redirect you created is necessary or appropriate. Do we really need such a redirect for a relatively non-notable person (at least up until today, notwithstanding BLP1E...)? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, WP:Redirects are cheap. And it seems like a reasonable search term to me. You can nominate it for deletion if you disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2020 (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.
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) 00:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
QPQ DYK LMNOP
QPQ needed at Template:Did you know nominations/Hans Ustrud. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I just promoted your hook to Prep 5. I was wondering if something should be added to the article about the ballpark not necessarily being that of one of the participating teams? Yoninah (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Restore deleted page
Hi – could you restore Ally Haran? Having made her debut in the NWSL, she now satisfies WP:NFOOTY. Thanks! Seany91 (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 September 2020
- Special report: Paid editing with political connections
- News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki
- In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
- Featured content: Life finds a Way
- Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests
- Traffic report: Is there no justice?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases
The Signpost: 27 September 2020
- Special report: Paid editing with political connections
- News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki
- In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
- Featured content: Life finds a Way
- Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests
- Traffic report: Is there no justice?
- Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Apologies
Hello Muboshgu! I just wanted to let you know that I have reached out to Brad v for a potential unblock on the article Republicans who oppose Trump re election. If I do get my editing privileges back, I wanted to make sure you knew that I apologize for edit warring and will do whatever I can to stop it from happening again. I’ve been making tons of edits in the past few weeks and avoided any edit wars. Even if I don’t get it back, a formal apology is still in order. Thank you for your time and happy editing! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Lima Bean Farmer, I appreciate the apology. Best of luck. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Unprotection request
Hey M, I am asking you, the protecting admin, to please unprotect Theresa Greenfield so the draft at Draft:Theresa Greenfield can be moved there. As you see from the sources listed at Draft talk:Theresa Greenfield and included in the draft, in the >3 months since the page was protected in June she has received a large amount of significant coverage in reliable sources. In my view, the protection of a page against repeated recreation is appropriate in cases where no (or few) improvements have been made with each recreation; that is not the case here. It is also not appropriate for me or any other editor to go through deletion review of the AfD, since that would only be appropriate if the former, crappy deleted page is worthy of recreation and there was some procedural problem in the previous AfD. (it is not, and there was not). Thanks in advance, and let me know if you have any questions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would second this request. Out of 69 major party US Senate nominees this cycle, 61 have articles. This includes Preston Love Jr, a Nebraska write-in candidate with no chance. To deny Theresa Greenfield a page is arbitrary and capricious, because the notability guidelines are applied in a way that is completely arbitrary. Narayansg (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @UnitedStatesian and Narayansg:, I do not agree. Draft:Theresa Greenfield is questionable at best to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: My concern is that using full protection as a unilateral way to prevent creation of a "questionable" page (despite several requests to unprotect from experienced editors in good standing) is a misuse of administrator privileges. It makes sense to unprotect it, because there is no threat of damage, just different perspectives on the notability threshold. You can then choose to nominate it for deletion, so that there can be an appropriate consolidated community discussion about the notability of the subject, instead of the discussion being split across several talk pages in a disorganized way. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- I would add too that your protection of the page in June seems problematic per WP:INVOLVED, given you were the one who nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theresa Greenfield. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: My concern is that using full protection as a unilateral way to prevent creation of a "questionable" page (despite several requests to unprotect from experienced editors in good standing) is a misuse of administrator privileges. It makes sense to unprotect it, because there is no threat of damage, just different perspectives on the notability threshold. You can then choose to nominate it for deletion, so that there can be an appropriate consolidated community discussion about the notability of the subject, instead of the discussion being split across several talk pages in a disorganized way. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
DYK for 2020 World Series
On 29 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 World Series, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2020 World Series will be the first to be held at one ballpark since 1944? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 World Series. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 World Series), 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.
Theresa Greenfield
I've raised the issue of the draft and the confusing AfC situation at WP:AN and have mentioned your involvement, seeking clarity on what should happen next. The thread is WP:AN#Theresa Greenfield. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, thanks, seems like it needed to be elevated to the appropriate board. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Savion Einstein
Hi, why did you delete Savion Einstein? i cant see the reason. --Li-reg (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I found where we interacted before
It was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerstin Emhoff. And somebody was indeed uncivil to you in that discussion but I was not the person being uncivil, I was just someone who tried to improve the article to make it clear that she was notable, which had not been obvious in its initial state. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange, yes, I think that's what I was thinking of! And if that is then I owe you an apology because indeed it was another user, not you, that I was thinking of. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- No hard feelings, I can see why it made an impression. If looking at my similar battle scars makes anything better, check out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Canova_(2nd_nomination). BTW, I ended up at both Kerstin Emhoff and Marquita Bradshaw because Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women is on my watchlist. (That is indirectly how I ended up afd-ing Tim Canova, via Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jen_Perelman (where I supported a Redirect, she was not notable IMO.)) HouseOfChange (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange, the longer we're around here, the more battle scars we get. Honestly, I was pretty keyed up by watching to septuagenarians yelling at each other last night, so this can serve as a good reminder for me to check myself before I wreck myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I salute your courage, having taken only cowardly glances at its progress via Twitter. Remember when Gore sighed during a debate, and that was a great big scandal? Ah, the good old days! HouseOfChange (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- HouseOfChange, the longer we're around here, the more battle scars we get. Honestly, I was pretty keyed up by watching to septuagenarians yelling at each other last night, so this can serve as a good reminder for me to check myself before I wreck myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- No hard feelings, I can see why it made an impression. If looking at my similar battle scars makes anything better, check out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Canova_(2nd_nomination). BTW, I ended up at both Kerstin Emhoff and Marquita Bradshaw because Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women is on my watchlist. (That is indirectly how I ended up afd-ing Tim Canova, via Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jen_Perelman (where I supported a Redirect, she was not notable IMO.)) HouseOfChange (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Howard Kurtz Media Madness.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Howard Kurtz Media Madness.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).
Administrator changes
Ajpolino • LuK3
Jackmcbarn
Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created
.
- A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely
Technical news
- The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).
Arbitration
- The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
- Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.
Miscellaneous
- The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
- Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.
Deletion review for Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
TFL notification
Hi, Muboshgu. I'm just posting to let you know that 300 win club – 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 30, 2020. 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) 02:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Giants2008, here's my thought: yay! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Helen Reddy
On 4 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Helen Reddy, 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. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Hans Ustrud
On 5 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hans Ustrud, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hans Ustrud was the first native-born South Dakotan to be elected to statewide office? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hans Ustrud. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hans Ustrud), 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.
gretchen witmer & MI supreme court rulings
You objected to the writing of the sentence about the classification of Gretchen Witmer's recent battle in the supreme court as what propelled her into the national consciousness. Can you tell me how that update should be handled since you're so quickly killing it and classifying the update as disruptive editing? Most national articles are covering only the unconstitutionality of her response, whereas only local articles cover her response. Her gaining national attention (wall street journal, AP articles, many magazines, etc.) was worth noting in my opinion. Do you disagree? I changed the sentence to only highlight the constitutionality issue, which you deleted also. I didn't realize i was not logged in when i made the changes, so if that's an issue, it's fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobylewisii (talk • contribs) 17:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jobylewisii, "Whitmer has become nationally known for her unconstitutional response to the Covid-19 pandemic" is not in compliance with WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I cited two national articles from this past weekend. One from the AP and another from the wall street journal. i can cite more if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobylewisii (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jobylewisii, if her actions have been found to be unconstitutional, that's something that can be included, in the article's body, and with neutral wording. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good. It's there, later on in the article, I was just making things easier for folks looking to figure out who she is since I'd imagine there is a large uptick in the interest in her since that's largely what would bring people to her page after this weekend. have a great rest of 2020! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobylewisii (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Help with Charlie Haeger article
Hi, Muboshgu. I'm trying to fix Charlie Haeger's article, but as I'm not an expert in baseball I'm having some trouble doing it. As you said that you follow the sport, could you help me to fill the last few remaining missing references? Also, could you check the ones I added in order to see if I didn't make any mistakes? Regards.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 23:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Todd Helton
It's getting ugly again at Todd Helton's article. Can you either protect or block?-- Yankees10 03:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Charlie Haeger
On 6 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charlie Haeger, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 13:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
ask question
hello. I want your opinion about this..can you help me? the article notability is clear but the problem is banned users created this before (i don't know about this problem until 2 days ago). i created that in my own edition and it's like my other works : Mostafa Aghajani & Mohammad Ali Kazemi & Kamal Nikkhoui ...I don't have a deleted article in my 80 works..please help to undelete. Best--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- why don't you answer me? i need your help--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mojtaba2361, apologies, I missed this. As stated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#peyman_keshavarzi_nazarloo, the article cannot be undeleted at WP:RFUD because it was deleted by a discussion, specifically at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peyman Keshavarz. You can seek to change this at WP:DRV, if you wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- thanks for answering. but be notice that i've created this on 29 September (without any history) and the reason of that Afd (on 24 September) was for something else (creation of banned user not for notability of the article), i didn't know the history of that issues before. i think user:GiantSnowman deletion of my article (G4) might not be correct because the pages wasn't similar. i was working on Sabail FK and created template, category, and one player for that club (look at my edits on that day).″Giant″ said that was wp:salt ! but again wrong! i have created 80 articles with no deletion,that was similar to my others. a solution for wp:salt is : if an article create in a correct edition (by confirmed user) and it be survive, we can get rid of repeatedly creation by banned users. that's important point. now the article has Require administrator access that's another problem. how can i solve this? What is the chance of success for the return of the article in wp:DRV? if an admin's action was wrong, another admin couldn't return the article without request in wp:drv ? my article is notable according to WP:NFOOTY that clearly says, only one match play in professional league becomes footballer notable and there is no difference between persons for same job (Area) : Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. ″Peyman Keshavarzi Nazarloo″ has played in both Azerbaijan Premier League (Azerbaijan) and Persian Gulf Pro League (Iran) and even he scored on 21 August 2020. These leagues are existed in WP:FPL as a professional's league...Best--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mojtaba2361, apologies, I missed this. As stated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#peyman_keshavarzi_nazarloo, the article cannot be undeleted at WP:RFUD because it was deleted by a discussion, specifically at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peyman Keshavarz. You can seek to change this at WP:DRV, if you wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
i don't understand what was problem of my article.my last question is if an article passes wp:SNG is enough for notability?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- again you answered all topics in your talk page except my's ! why mr Muboshgu?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mojtaba2361, the article was deleted at a discussion. So, it can't be undeleted at RFUD per the rules. If you go to DRV and explain to them that the situation has changed and the subject meets notability, they may undelete it for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Admin Noticeboard Discussion
I've posted a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RevisionDelete_Misuse regarding what looks like you using revision deletion to hide past edits and edit summaries on articles.
You seem like a good site editor overall, and I'm not trying to string you up here. But I've noticed you seem to be using revision deletion much too aggressively, well beyond what WP:REVDEL allows. From what I can tell of WP policies, it looks like posting a discussion there is the correct course of action for addressing this. (Apologies if I just accidentally brought out big guns without meaning to - the guides on what complaints to post where are really not clear at all in this situation, so I made my best guess.)
Alsadius (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alsadius, Based on the log, I have used RevDel on ~15 revisions in the page's history. I don't think that's a big number considering there was a scandal about revenge porn weaponized against a bisexual congresswoman who was having a throuple with a campaign staffer that led to her resignation. Your edit contained POV language and unsubstantiated slander against Hill based on the link to RedState that includes her revenge porn. I still have the image I saw on RedState seared in my memory. I wish I didn't. The release and publication of that image is a crime. Wikipedia is not going to be used to spread revenge porn. Hence, revision deletion.
- I stand by my use of RevDel on that page. I do hope that explains the situation on Katie Hill's page, and that you are more careful when you insert sensitive information like this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I went looking at some other obvious controversial pages, for comparison. The last revision deletion on Donald Trump page was in 2018. It's been used three times on Barack Obama since then(twice for vandalism, and once for copyright issues). It's never been used once for Coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19 pandemic. I have difficulty believing that Katie Hill has been five times more contentious than those four articles combined in the last two years.
- I can't read my edit, even with your link, so I can't comment on specifics. I do recall thinking that it was breaking news worth adding, and I think I just knocked off an edit fairly quickly, so it doesn't surprise me that it was imperfect. WP:BOLD is generally my approach, because it seems like an imperfect description of a news story is better than none at all. As for the image in question, RedState censored it to the point where I don't think you can call it "porn", though I understand if you disagree about that.
- In any case, the allegations have since been admitted to, so they're factual at this point, and even before then they never met the standards for revision deletion. If your main issue here is the "I don't want WP linking to revenge porn" thing, though, I kind of get it? I still think you're breaching WP policy, but I can understand why it's one you'd feel strongly about.
- I will try to be more careful with phrasing in future, though. Alsadius (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Alsadius, you're starting off with an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. What happened to Katie Hill and on her wiki page was not what has been happening on Obama or Trump's pages. It was highly contentious for those few days before she acknowledged what was true about the allegation and announced her resignation.
- For a WP:BREAKING situation like this was, caution is needed. I don't disagree that you "knocked off an edit fairly quickly", but that was a big mistake. At the time, it was just an allegation. With hindsight, your edit was not factually correct. And yes, RedState posted an uncensored image that was released without Hill's consent. It was revenge porn that I saw. The language you used would have been enough to require RevDel for a BLP violation, and the link being included made it imperative. I did not breach policy. I used the mop as it was intended to be used. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "otherstuff" was to discuss whether it was "a big number", in your words. I think you're pretty clearly misusing RevDel, because that is specifically not what it's is for, according to the policies. But I'm obviously in the minority on that interpretation.
- I've withdrawn the request, because I might as well just save people some time. And by the same token, feel free to delete this section once you've read it.
- Have a good one. Alsadius (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Question about deleted article
Hello. A few days ago, one of the pages you nominated for deletion (Joseph Colley) was deleted. I was wondering if you have access to it, or know who would? Just in case he makes his 1st team debut, cause I dont want to recreate the whole thing again. Thanks, and have a great day. ShadowBallX2 (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- ShadowBallX2, the article was actually nominated for deletion by another editor, and as it went uncontested for seven days, it was eligible to be deleted, and I just happened to be the admin to do it. Since it was a WP:PROD, the page can be undeleted by request. So, if you want me to do it now, I can, but it may be deleted at WP:AFD. If you wait until the subject meets WP:NFOOTY, then it will last forever. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
dodger stadium
Hey.. could you put some temporary page protection on the Dodger Stadium article? It's getting persistent vandalism from obnoxious Astros fans. Spanneraol (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- Spanneraol, I was away from wiki for a bit, but I see that the article has been protected. That kind of vandalism is really annoying. "Huh huh owners!" Well, looking forwards to the NYY/LAD World Series! – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
73.71.169.122
Can user:73.71.169.122 please be blocked ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- CLCStudent, they hadn't received any warnings. I just gave them a Level 2. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, I decided semiprotection for three days was warranted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Whitey Ford
On 9 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Whitey Ford, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 21:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
DYK for L. Roy Houck
On 11 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article L. Roy Houck, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dances with Wolves was filmed on a 60,000-acre (24,000 ha) ranch owned by L. Roy Houck, a former lieutenant governor of South Dakota? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/L. Roy Houck. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, L. Roy Houck), 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) 00:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Deletion of the Sehnsucht Tour of Rammstein
This tour was important and notable for Rammstein, because in this tour they went in the United States, Australia and Japan for the first time, because it was the tour of an album at number #1 in Germany and Austria and #45 on the US Billboard and because from this tour they recorded and released their first live album "LIve Aus Berlin", so could you restore the page? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.65.241 (talk) 13:28, October 9, 2020 (UTC)
- Since it was deleted via WP:PROD, it can be undeleted now by request. However, it may likely go to WP:AFD. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.24.65.241 (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Roberta McCain
On 13 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Roberta McCain, 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. Stephen 01:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Stephen, thanks! Do you mind posting Joe Morgan too? It's RD from yesterday. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Joe Morgan
On 13 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Joe Morgan, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
How dare you block me!
If I couldn't get more IPs as easily as I can I would now have less to do in quarantine. Loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.166.113 (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Gary Peters Page
Please stop falsely accusing me. My addition to his page is sourced with Open Secrets which pulls data from the FEC. There is no reason to take it down besides malign intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeIceman (talk • contribs) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- GeorgeIceman, I've seen your contribution history. You're not editing in good faith. You are including incomplete information with the intent of it having a negative POV against Peters. If you reinsert it, I will block you. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Only warning
This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at October surprise, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 187.10.159.2 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
except for the fact everyone else on your talk page is complaining about your bias and abuse of the power Wikipedia has bestowed upon you. Unless you can refute the Federal Elections commission as a source, GFY — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeIceman (talk • contribs) 12:28, October 15, 2020 (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.
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) 23:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Alert to a vote on Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory
As you have edited the article, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, I am alerting you to a vote. You can vote Here Elijahandskip (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
WIT 2017
Hi Muboshgu - Yes, I promise that we will work on our draft. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIT2017 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
See what in the background section?
If you could clarify, I'd appreciate it. I see theories about Ukraine and the 2016 election, but no theories about the "Trump-Ukraine scandal" FROM 2016. The background section also suggests Trump had long known the conclusion of the Mueller Report, which also seems implausible. MAYBE he's just a very perceptive visionary, but he DID stare at the sun, fail to close an umbrella and lose a billion dollars in bad wagers, so I doubt it. There must be a simpler answer here? 142.51.204.154 (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- The Trump campaign began spinning the source of the Podesta hack in 2016. The background section of that article includes that Manafort suggested it was the Ukranians, rather than the Russians. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think there are too many "Trump allies", "Ukraine scandals" and definitions of "conspiracy theory" rolled into one at this article, and with Trump facing Biden instead of Clinton now, the complex timeline of which foreign cyberpower did what to or for which party's associates and when just gets stickier the more it's retold. Thanks for trying to unravel it, but I'll leave it alone as something beyond my grasp for now. If you ask me, American politics would make a lot more sense if the people elected honest judges to make the big decisions in government, including nominating a new president whenever the old one dies or quits. Maybe by 2040, cheers! 142.51.204.154 (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Evaluating vandalism allegations and a vandalTraceBot?
In the last 72 hours, @Suffusion of Yellow: reverted two very similar edits to the Wikipedia article on "political corruption" that were obvious vandalism, both written as if the current US presidential election was over, and the recent revelations in the Biden-Ukraine scandal "ended Corrupt Joe's chances of being elected President," and he lost the November 3 election by a landslide. These two cases of obvious vandalism were by User:Grayindie and User:Indanon.
Does the Wikimedia Foundation currently have anything like a "vandalTraceBot" that could do something like the following:
- Once invoked, the "vandalTraceBot" could identify other recent changes by a suspect user and present them for manual evaluation by a human in reverse chronological order.
- The evaluator would be asked to rate each edit on some scale with levels like "substantive", "minor, not vandalism", "edit farming", "questionable", "questionable and without a reference", "change citing an apparently irrelevant source", and "blatant vandalism".
- After an evaluation had been recorded, the user might then be informed of similar evaluations by others, whether the edit had been reverted, and optionally the current status of the article and passage in question.
- The "vandalTraceBot" could also optionally look for other other users using the same IP address and other IP addresses and anonymous edits from any of those IP addresses and possibly related IP addresses.
- The tracing effort of each potential vandal and IP address would be scored, so it's easy to identify users and IP addresses that actively work against the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation.
- A record of each such trace would saved for review by a Wikimedia administrator and / or a committee of users, who volunteer to do this kind of work. The most blatant perpetrators of vandalism can be blocked end their biased not-quite-vandalism edits could be prioritized for review.
- To help document the impartiality of this audit process, this evaluation should follow standard blinded experiment protocols: People who volunteer to be evaluators would be asked to evaluate more than one user at a time, with at least one having been reported and at least one other selected at random. This data analysis could also help estimate the rate of undetected vandalism as well as evaluate the reliability of reports of vandalism while also helping improve the quality of Wikipedia.
If a capability like this currently exists, how can I learn more about it? If you don't know of any such capability, what do you think about creating such?
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- DavidMCEddy, I think such a tool could be incredibly useful and have no idea how one would go about creating it. There are pages for bot requests or you could discuss it at the Village pump. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @DavidMCEddy: FYI that user has been going at it for a while. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Fishguyen. Any help in stopping them is appreciated. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- User:Joscack just made [a similar edit, reverted 32 seconds later by @Suffusion of Yellow:.
- I just copied a minor revision of the above to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)# Evaluating vandalism allegations and a vandalTraceBot? Thanks for the suggestion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Entry for Zebpay deleted in error
Hi Muboshgu,
You deleted our company's page (Zebpay) with the following note: 18:56, 10 July 2020 Muboshgu talk contribs deleted page Zebpay (Expired PROD, concern was: notability not established for yet another bitcoin exchange)
I am the Chief Marketing Officer of Zebpay (https://zebpay.com). We have over 3 million users and are the oldest and most widely-known Bitcoin exchange in India. Two-thirds of Indian crypto investors bought their first bitcoin on Zebpay. We were founded in 2014 and have been in business continuously since then, with presences in Australia and Singapore as well. We were the first company to bring bitcoin investing to India. In January 2020 a new owner and leadership team took over from the founders.
By these criteria, we are and have been notable since 2014. We also believe we are not "yet another bitcoin exchange" but rather India's first and most widely-used. I'll be happy to provide you with further supporting evidence.
Could you please remove your proposal to delete if it's still possible? If it has already gone through then I will be creating a new page for ZebPay and wanted to let you know in advance. As a longtime Wikipedia member I have enormous respect for the work that senior editors like you perform for the world.
Thanks, Vikram — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewCapVikram (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- NewCapVikram, as the article was proposed for deletion with no objection for seven days, I deleted the page. Since it was an uncontested deletion (there was no discussion that determined a consensus, I have restored the page upon request. However, I do expect that deletion discussion will take place. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Why Revert my Hunter Biden Edit?
Did you miss the part where the investigation is ongoing? Wikipedia even says so on the Biden campaign page. Right here: [1]Captainjackster (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Captainjackster, your edit said that Hunter Biden is under investigation, and that is completely wrong. The origin of the laptop is under investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Coleman, Justine (October 15, 2020). "Feds investigating if alleged Hunter Biden emails connected to foreign intelligence operation: report". The Hill. Retrieved 19 October 2020.
Copyvio
I see I got swept up in a CopyVio clean-up, but I have no idea what it was I posted as it's in a different section entirely? Am I reading the logs correctly? Koncorde (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Koncorde, yeah you did, but don't worry! Tvaughn included text copy-pasted from WSJ, and your diff (and soilbanga's) included that text because it hadn't been reverted yet. So, I had to revdel the diffs, but you did nothing wrong and your edit is still there in the pag. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, makes sense. I didn't think about the diffs. I was looking at the page and couldn't see anything missing of mine - so I'm looking at the clock reading 4 in the morning and thinking "maybe, just maybe, I should sleep because I am clearly missing something". Koncorde (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Election
You've shown some interest in this election which has updated info. Activist (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Activist, it's definitely a C-class now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- The "alleged" prime perpetrator, lawsuit defendant, is up for reelection to the county commission in 12 days. The regional paper of record outed him. I expect there will be some changes. The guy barely won election for State Senate. I expect there may be a revisiting of criminal charges and perhaps in connection with the county's water supply contract, a half-billion $ boondoggle. Activist (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
; Your recent editing history at Kimberly Klacik shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Honestly, I was not aware of this. No problem. Just don’t want to see someone in the public eye, particularly in public political elections or office being attacked by unfair means to them. I’m opting out of any involvement in this particular Wikipedia article.
I just read the Wikipedia article on protection policy, can that be applied to the whole page?
I see you’re a fellow baseball fan! What do you think of the World Series thus far? How did you feel about tonight comeback win in the bottom of the 9th inning by the Tampa Bay Rays?!
Lesla-Lar
Hi. 18:28, 5 October 2020 Muboshgu talk contribs deleted page Lesla-Lar (Expired PROD, concern was: The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and [[W) Three weeks later: [2] It's a wonderful life, full of surprises. :-) IKhitron (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- IKhitron, are you aware of how WP:PROD works? An editor can propose an article for deletion, and if it goes uncontested for seven days, an administrator can delete it. That's what happened with Lesla-Lar. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI...there's a "one revert in 24 hours" rule at Kimberly Klacik (you've made two). May I suggest you start a discussion on the talk page? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- Magnolia677, I did not remember that that page is 1RR, so that is my bad. I am glad to see a discussion started. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- It's all good. The discussion is a weird one. Klacik's campaign website says "bla bla bla". Then along comes a reliable source which says, "we cannot corroborate claims made on her campaign website". My concern is that "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation", per WP:PRIMARY, and if the only "interpretation" of the primary source is "we cannot corroborate this", then it's a sloppy edit all around and should be removed. Please join in. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You are engaging in an edit war
You have repeatedly reverted a well documented quote by Robert Reich and are engaging in an edit war. This quote has been properly sourced from both the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. You are your abusing administrative powers. If you wish to make suggestions, adjust or edit my content, do so in a constructive way. To completely remove a controversial and divisive quote wherein Mr. Reich has received a rebuke by multiple respected news sources is a clear indication of partisanship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason J. Stevenson (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- Mason J. Stevenson, and I see you have been blocked for edit warring. Next time, engage on the talk page rather than trying to ram through an unacceptable, POV edit. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for 2020 World Series
On 28 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 World Series, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
An article with your name
You've been mentioned in the news! Here's hoping we don't face too much chaos in the upcoming week. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- SNUGGUMS, yes, I was happy to speak to the author and will work to ensure no fake news makes it on this site. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
Biden Conspiracy Theories, BLP Vio
Wookian isn't redacting other than to replace hard "bribe" with "influence bought" and similar, and has double down. I think his contribs need salting because it's impossible to even discuss the topic for him to remedy without bringing up the BLPVIO topic itself. Koncorde (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Koncorde, it may be best to see if an WP:UNINVOLVED admin can address this. I want to avoid the appearance of impropriety on my part. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
(resolved)
Please refrain from making threats on my user page to force an outcome regarding the controversial article in question. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Narssarssuaq, it's not a threat. I'm telling you that you violated WP:1RR and I've been nice in not reporting you for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Larry Krasner
Muboshgu vandalized my addition of additional information on Larry Krasner. He attempted to hide details on Krasner's PAC funding, and an increase in Philadelphia crime. Muboshgu argued that he is a paid George Soros wiki editor and is just doing his job. I suggested that is no justification for suppressing relevant data and vandalizing facts that paint Soros is a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:B1B5:C0D8:BCAA:79EF (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- To clarify: We members of the Soros Cartel are not really "paid", per se. We are merely so entranced that we do our master's bidding out of blind loyalty. Think about it: If he had to pay all of us, he wouldn't be as rich as he is. - SummerPhDv2.0 00:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
1RR at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory?
I saw your comment at Narssarssuaq's talk page, warning them about 1RR at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Where did you see that 1RR was applied to that page? WP:AELOG shows 1RR at Hunter Biden but not at the conspiracy article page. I'm just curious because there's no AE log entry, editnotice on the page, or talk page template warning about it, so if it is in place those should be added so editors don't accidentally run afoul. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- Ope, looks like ST47 just applied it: [3]. I don't think it was in place before, but it is now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I thought I should explain myself, as you seem rather nice
Look, I know I'm obnoxious and disliked, but I want to make wikipedia as good as it can get when it comes to American politics. The fights I got into, I usually won and were necessary. Somewhere around half the articles were created by me. I had lots of trouble getting them there. Now, most of these bear no resemblance as to what I originally designed, and that's GOOD!!!! I've no problem with that. Thing is, is that all presidential election cycles starting in 1972 are pretty much the same and like the phases of the Moon, can be predicted.
The only major fights I got into were over one FUGLY picture of Joe Biden and whether or not Rocky de la Fuente should be listed as a "Major Candidate". What's weird with that, is that almost as soon as I lost that one, consensus qualified Rocky as a major candidate and he is up there on the primary page. I also tried to say that Trump had won those primaries that he was running unopposed in. What the heck is wrong with that?
Look, the next few weeks are going to be brutal, and we should be prepared for it. Have a nice weekend!Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Arglebargle79, I know that your intent is positive. I haven't followed the discussions you've been involved in to have a full picture of it. I have noticed what looks like general anxiety to me on the 2020 U.S. prez talk page, and I hope that you aren't stressing yourself about it. There are 1,000,001 possible outcomes from this election, and one million of them won't come to pass. Also, we are prepared to handle misinformation. I expect there will be some chaotic moments, but we should get through this. I mean, at least Wikipedia will. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Muboshgu
Thank you for creating Keith Amemiya.
User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Thank you for this new article, but note that an earlier article on Amemiya was deleted because he was merely a candidate for office. If he loses the upcoming election, much more evidence of his notability will be required and future editors could call for the article to be deleted again. If he wins, the article could be easily expanded.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 00:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Doomsdayer520, I only created it as a redirect. I haven't looked deeply enough into it but I would expect it to fail at AfD if he loses. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. The histories that we see for the New Pages Patrol tend to cover up situations like yours, in which you only created a redirect. Hopefully someone will update that article accordingly whether the guy wins or loses the election. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Grady Fuson
Hello! Your submission of Grady Fuson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hog Farm Bacon 18:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Luzhin Defence, The Vandalism
Hello Muboshgu,
Thank you and sorry for my ridiculous vandalism on Beau Biden's page!
I am a high school teacher and have been covering fake news with my students. Simultaneous to that, I wanted to show them the strength/weakness of wikipedia - its open-editing nature. Hence, my "contributions". Just wanted to get it on record somewhere what I was doing :).
Thanks.
LuzhinDefence,The (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet
, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.
- Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection
Technical news
- Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
- Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
- Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.
Arbitration
- The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
- The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.
Miscellaneous
- A reminder that
standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
(American Politics 2 Arbitration case).
- A reminder that
The Signpost: 1 November 2020
- News and notes: Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
- In the media: Murder, politics, religion, health and books
- Book review: Review of Wikipedia @ 20
- Discussion report: Proposal to change board composition, In The News dumps Trump story
- Featured content: The "Green Terror" is neither green nor sufficiently terrifying. Worst Hallowe'en ever.
- Traffic report: Jump back, what's that sound?
- Interview: Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner
- News from the WMF: Meet the 2020 Wikimedian of the Year
- Recent research: OpenSym 2020: Deletions and gender, masses vs. elites, edit filters
- In focus: The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia
"Matt Lipka (baseball)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Matt Lipka (baseball). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Matt Lipka (baseball) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
"Arnaldo Hernandez" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Arnaldo Hernandez. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2#Arnaldo Hernandez until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Spanneraol (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Kevin Lenik for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Lenik is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Lenik until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
WikiCup 2020 November newsletter
The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is 
Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by .svg){kind=small}
Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. 
The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with 
Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.
The other finalists were 
Hog Farm (submissions), 
HaEr48 (submissions), 
Harrias (submissions) and 
Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!
All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.
Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.- Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.- Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.- Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
- Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.
Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Electioneering
You locked the Hunter Biden page, so this is for you.
"In October 2020, Hunter Biden was the subject of an incident in which the contents of his laptop were leaked to the public. Social media censored the information, and Wikipedia and its reliable sources falsely labeled it "Russian disinformation". An FBI investigation into money laundering is ongoing."
After the election, there will no longer be any reason to keep a basic summary of events out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.133.0.190 (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Stetson Allie for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stetson Allie, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stetson Allie until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks
… for this. Would have responded at ITN but I'm sure there would have been about 5 ECs before I could get it in. I must have been trying to post my comment at ITN while you removed the "legal challenges" language. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Whether Shanahan and Ratcliffe constitute "Unsuccessful nominations to the Cabinet of the United States"
Dear Muboshgu, I was wondering if you'd seen my response to you on the talk page of Unsuccessful nominations to the Cabinet of the United States. I recognise that your message was a long time ago. (And it's entirely understandable if you've forgotten it!) I was wondering if it would be okay to put Shanahan and Ratcliffe back in the page, as they seem to fulfil the criteria set forth in the article.
Kamala Harris edit
You closed the issue I submitted saying to check the FAQs. What am I supposed to be looking for in the FAQ specifically???? FactsRFun2020 (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2020 (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.
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) 23:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of Josh Tobias for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Josh Tobias is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Tobias until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Molly Gray
Hello! Your submission of Molly Gray at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Font size infoboxes at US Congresses articles.
Howdy. If I agree to go with regular size font, even though it would crowd up (see 93rd United States Congress) the names? Will you agree not to add the brackets, which only crowds up the names more? GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- GoodDay, no brackets is fine. But MOS:SMALLFONT is otherwise non-negotiable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Howdy. Just in case you missed the ping. A new editor has joined the discussion on this topic, over at 117th United States Congress article. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
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
You posted that my recent editing history at Kimberly Klacik shows that I am currently engaged in an edit war
DYK for Grady Fuson
On 19 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grady Fuson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Moneyball depicted Grady Fuson being fired by the Oakland Athletics, though in reality he left voluntarily? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grady Fuson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grady Fuson), 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.
Please made a move protection on the page of Narendra Modi
Honourable, Muboshgu I 969 Movement 2 (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC) request you to made the page of current Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi move protected. Thaking you
2020 US Senate races in Georgia
I wasn't able to undo the reverses I made. PS - Hopefully, somebody will open another RM, with a better result and/or better reading of that result. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Mark Robinson (American politician)
On 22 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mark Robinson (American politician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that that when he is sworn in next year, Mark Robinson will become the first Black lieutenant governor of North Carolina? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Robinson (American politician). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mark Robinson (American 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.
Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Women's history
Hi. Thanks for all your amazing contributions! Just a quick note to share that Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History includes contemporary women who have made history or are groundbreaking in their roles in the world. Lauren Boebert is the first woman to represent her district, that is historically significant in her community and in her district. Therefore, she qualifies for inclusion in the project. Feel free to also add Wikipedia:WikiProject Women if you'd like. As a participant in Wikipedia:Women in Red, we often add one or the other to a biography, but there is no rule saying we can't have both, too. Cheers! Missvain (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Removal of DOJ Information from Steele Dossier
Hi, your user page says you're interested in truth but you are quick to remove it from the Steele Dossier page. Do you dispute the Department of Justice findings? Does the DOJ not meet your threshold as a source?
As posted:
The above paragraph, and assertion of conspiracy theory, is directly contradicted by the Department of Justice's Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation report published in December 2019. Among the findings from the DOJ, "the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a FFG reporting that, in May 2016, during a meeting with the FFG, then-Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos 'suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Mrs. Clinton (and President Obama)... We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefn2637 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hefn2637, adding a paragraph to an article that says "the above paragraph ... is contradicted" is not how we write articles. Especially since "the above paragraph" is factual and supported by reliable sources that are WP:SECONDARY. You meanwhile use only a WP:PRIMARY source, with no context or analysis from the reliable sources, which discuss the axe the Trump/Barr DOJ has been grinding. Your addition is not helpful. For future attempts to improve the article, use the article's talk page, not mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Fred Malek
You've edited Fred Malek in the past. I think the current conversation going on there could benefit from additional voices. Would you care to offer your thoughts on this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
A tag has been placed on Category:Old requests for baseball peer review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
2020 Japan Series
Your help was sorely missed on 2020 Japan Series. Let's just say that I was happy that the series only went 4 games lol. Hope things are going as alright for you as much anything conceivably can in 2020 and happy holidays. --TorsodogTalk 23:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Oi
Why did you delete my edit! Its on the news! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1983cakkyboy19831983 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- 1983cakkyboy19831983, edits of a sensitive nature like that, on a biography of a living person, require reliable sources. I see none. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Its all over the news! Don't you watch TV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1983cakkyboy19831983 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
TJ Cox
Can you please explain why you are reverting my edit when this has been done for every defeated incumbent. The race has been called by the AP for Valadao. 108.14.43.250 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Putting an end date takes away the note that he is an incumbent, which he still is. There was a note there that you deleted that says not to put a successor there as a result of a discussion that formed a consensus. Listen to the note. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok well I didn't reinstate the end date I just put "succeeded by: David Valadao (elect)" as has been done with other defeated incumbents (such as Ben McAdams). The race has been called by the AP, it's over.
- At WP:VPR there is an RfC in progress about how the successor field should be used, and participation so far leans heavily toward waiting until the successor has taken office. If it closes with such a consensus, it won't matter what has been done with other defeated incumbents. One could argue that you are probably wasting your time and effort. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok well I didn't reinstate the end date I just put "succeeded by: David Valadao (elect)" as has been done with other defeated incumbents (such as Ben McAdams). The race has been called by the AP, it's over.
DYK nomination of Stacy Garrity
Hello! Your submission of Stacy Garrity at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- All set but for the QPQ, just let me know! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Innisfree987, great, thanks. I owe a few QPQs so will get on that today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- ==DYK nomination of Stacy Garrity==
- Innisfree987, great, thanks. I owe a few QPQs so will get on that today. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Stacy Garrity at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Closing edit requests
Hi. Please see User talk:MelanieN#Closing edit requests. Maybe someday we'll all be on the same page. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mandruss, noted. I've seen it become more widespread with all of the repetitive "requests" and saw no problem with it. I'll stop that unless the thread becomes disruptive. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. In my opinion it would be more helpful to help educate all editors that edit requests are, by definition, not discussions – that they are explicitly for things that don't require discussion. I think closure just tends to blur that distinction. (Frankly, I think edit requests are a royal pain in the ass at articles like that, and there should be a way to turn them off at article level – which would still allow discussions to be started by people who can't edit the article. Maybe someday.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mandruss, I think educating these individuals would be great, but they don't seem to want educating. They seem to be the type who watch OANN and Newsmax and then come here thinking the nonsense they just heard is accurate. How do we get through to people like that? You're right though that these mindless edit requests are a PITA. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I meant educating the experienced editors who don't know that edit requests are not discussions and persist in treating them as if they are. The correct response to a misuse of the edit request facility is to advise the OP that they are misusing the edit request facility and inform them about how to start a discussion. That should be the end of the response, but many editors can't resist responding to whatever content issue the OP raised. If we're not going to enforce correct usage of the edit request facility, we should get rid of it. It was never intended as a convenient substitute for the "New section" link at the top of the talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mandruss, that seems to be the minority of requests around these pages these days. Most of it, like the new one I see on the inauguration of Biden page, boil down to "Biden isn't president elect because litigation". When I see a more legitimate editor not knowing the process, I do my best to educate. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- I meant educating the experienced editors who don't know that edit requests are not discussions and persist in treating them as if they are. The correct response to a misuse of the edit request facility is to advise the OP that they are misusing the edit request facility and inform them about how to start a discussion. That should be the end of the response, but many editors can't resist responding to whatever content issue the OP raised. If we're not going to enforce correct usage of the edit request facility, we should get rid of it. It was never intended as a convenient substitute for the "New section" link at the top of the talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mandruss, I think educating these individuals would be great, but they don't seem to want educating. They seem to be the type who watch OANN and Newsmax and then come here thinking the nonsense they just heard is accurate. How do we get through to people like that? You're right though that these mindless edit requests are a PITA. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. In my opinion it would be more helpful to help educate all editors that edit requests are, by definition, not discussions – that they are explicitly for things that don't require discussion. I think closure just tends to blur that distinction. (Frankly, I think edit requests are a royal pain in the ass at articles like that, and there should be a way to turn them off at article level – which would still allow discussions to be started by people who can't edit the article. Maybe someday.) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 November 2020
- News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"
- Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia
- Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia
- Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria
- Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election
- News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker
- GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large
- Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup
- Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail
- Essay: Writing about women
The simplest truth
If you don't already recognize Democrat lies, no amount of evidence or reminders about them is going to make you start now. It's something you have to want to see, and if you ever do, Google and rereading past disputes you've had with "the other side" on this will be way more helpful in your potential discovery than I could be. If you never want to know, just keep asking the way you have been, rhetorically inviting to knock whatever follows down, or dismiss it for coming from a more conservative outlet than is generally preferred by most Wikipedians.
Anyway, Clinton lost and Harris won, so my work in this sphere is done. Unless and until Kane and The Rock square off, I'll leave post-1932 American politics for whoever wants some to come get some. I've sometimes been confused and annoyed by you on petty differences like these, but 90% or so of the time, I respect your general intelligence and work ethic. Whatever you decide to focus on, I'd endorse you for Wikipedian of the Month any month, brother. Just leave whatever applicable preliminary application form(s) on my desk before February 3, 2021.
Do you have any idea how many full moons I've seen in fifteen years?!? Enough to make me legit forget how multiplication works. Seriously, I'm getting 200, "in my head", that can't be right...BRB. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- 180, thanks Google! Seems appropriate. And not just because we're in Section 18 here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, still waiting on any reliable sources. The Democrats and the Republicans are not the same, and shouldn't be treated the same. They both lie, sure, but the level and audacity of the lies they tell are apples and oranges. Nobody other than some cranks claimed there was widespread voter fraud in 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Waiting won't work, wanting will. If you want the truth, you know where to find it. Google is our mutual friend, my friend! But yes. Their lies are polar opposites, not the same by design. And no. I wasn't talking about 2016 at the 2020 election article. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk, still waiting on any reliable sources. The Democrats and the Republicans are not the same, and shouldn't be treated the same. They both lie, sure, but the level and audacity of the lies they tell are apples and oranges. Nobody other than some cranks claimed there was widespread voter fraud in 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Mauree Turner
On 30 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mauree Turner, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mauree Turner is the first publicly non-binary individual elected to a U.S. state legislature? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mauree Turner. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mauree Turner), 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.
DYK for Bryson Rash
On 30 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bryson Rash, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that White House correspondent Bryson Rash started in radio at the age of 12 by voicing Buster Brown? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bryson Rash. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bryson Rash), 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.
Baby Yoda
has disappeared. I can't quite figure out how to fix it. Yikes. Praxidicae (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Praxidicae, I may have hit the "delete" or "move" button twice when I tried undoing it? It's back now to your last version. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, our master untangler Primefac figured it out. I suspect this might warrant some admin move protect for a while. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Praxidicae, I may have edit conflicted with them. I have move protected the page for a week. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, our master untangler Primefac figured it out. I suspect this might warrant some admin move protect for a while. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).
Administrator changes
- Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.
Technical news
- Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Angie Nixon
My revisions to Angie Nixon's page keep reverting, removing all of my additions due to it being 'promotional.' It is not promotional... it is is a historical account of her contributions as a community organizer and activist along with her documented plan as a house representative. Please advise what the issue is specifically with the additions I made so I can make necessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petlansky (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Petlansky, you're new here, and I get the enthusiasm, but this is an encyclopedia and we write encyclopedically. We also don't edit war to get what we want, so consider the actual problems with your edits. There is a lot of promotional writing, and phrases like
Angie is the mom of a real life superhero
are not encyclopedic at all. If you want to work out the wording with other editors, use the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)- Also, take a look at this run of Earwig's Copyvio Detector between Petlansky's content and https://angienixon.com/flourishplan/ (which has a clear copyright notice). Score of 96%+... Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Shearonink, great catch! Petlansky, you cannot copy-paste from websites here. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, take a look at this run of Earwig's Copyvio Detector between Petlansky's content and https://angienixon.com/flourishplan/ (which has a clear copyright notice). Score of 96%+... Shearonink (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Angie Nixon
Hi, I appreciate the information. I was not intending to edit war and apologize if it came off that way. I didn't think there would be an issue with providing the information directly from Angie Nixon's campaign page to lay out her plan in her own words. I have removed any wording that came from her site and removed all promotional wording. I hope it is okay now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petlansky (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Petlansky, it's better, but did you copy text from angienixon.com/about? It appears that some of the text is the same. Please see about Wikipedia:Copyrights. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Andrew Clyde
On 5 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Clyde, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Andrew Clyde became involved in politics after being subject to a civil asset forfeiture of nearly $1 million by the Internal Revenue Service? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Clyde. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Andrew Clyde), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.
DYK for August Pfluger
On 7 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article August Pfluger, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Representative-elect August Pfluger's great-great-great-great-grandfather founded Pflugerville, Texas? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/August Pfluger. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, August Pfluger), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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.
There is a mountain of evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-Aa3D7tIFQ&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR31k2gkOGvB46Smqtb3x0t9isseRSI96cD978ydA1p_YDSRDzIVKSctgtY
Muboshgu, I have reported what YOU have done to Trump Attorney Jenna Ellis.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/col-phil-waldron-tells-michigan-lawmakers-truckloads-ballots-joe-biden-inserted-2020-election/?fbclid=IwAR3iqKXIIMLLrqv-xdg84MnBqgzMiTXQwNh61W5ApNpxAL4YGhHrciLl3XI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomklem (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Tomklem, oh I hope you've reported me to Jenna Ellis. Unlike her Twitter feed and public statements, we only report what reliable sources report, and that is that there was no fraud. Hence, claiming fraud is false. The Gateway Pundit is not a reliable source, and neither is whatever that YouTube link is that I'm not clicking on. AG Barr said there was no fraud. None of the Trump campaign court filings actually claim any fraud. That's the "evidence" disproving fraud. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Same user who was banned keeps removing information
Hi! Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCSB
His only concern for a few months is to destroy the name of this club. Maybe even for years, I think he uses other doors.
He wants to completely erase the name of this club from each paragraph, as if it did not exist and was not part of the club's history. No user agreed with it but continues to do so on various users or IPs. Look at this! He clearly edits from his mobile phone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.197.83.47
Then later he comes to strengthen the idea with his user from PC. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCSB&diff=992764094&oldid=992721333 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCSB&diff=992764478&oldid=992764094 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0F:3014:6500:B839:1741:925A:C6BF (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- And possible sock puppet? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1986_European_Cup_Final&action=history
Here he edited with this account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gunnlaugson Then comes with this user doing the same after it was corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1986_European_Cup_Final&diff=992787078&oldid=986049467
This guy is simply should not be on Wikipedia, has been warned for several times he is breaking any rules and disrespects the users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0F:3014:6500:B839:1741:925A:C6BF (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- His sockpuppet investigation. Matthew Hk has 14 years on Wikipedia, I also think like him this guy is using about 2 computers with different internet company. And also his mobile phone. Not sure if also VPNS but surely some router.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dante4786/Archive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0F:3014:6500:B839:1741:925A:C6BF (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Firstly, this is not how you report an user. Read the rules and try again. I should be told of this, so I can defend myself. For any admin who is interested, feel free to verify my ip. I have nothing to hide. This is my only account. Also, it should be noted that even this user wrote "This was good" if you check FCSB: Revision history. So he was in fact agreeing with me. Also, I'm editing on wikipedia for almost 3 years. His first edits were made today, just to undo my work and report me.Dante4786 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
devon kerr professional women's footballer
Good afternoon hope you are well I really do not know how to use wikipedia However my daughter Devon Kerr, who is a professional women's soccer player with the Washington Spirit asked me to contact you She used to have a great wiki page and fixed the birthdate on it and one of the camp submissions however it seems to have been deleted MOst likely because we did not follow the proper protocols - humble apologies what prompted this request is her partner Ryan Feltner who is a professional baseball player with Colorado Rockies visited the washington spirit wikipedia page and her name is the only one that is not linked to anything please let me know what we can do to fix her page was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devon_Kerr&action=edit&redlink=1 thanks kindly ≈≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAQUEL KERR (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- RAQUEL KERR, since the article was deleted via WP:PROD, without a discussion taking place, I have restored the article upon your request. However, if Devon Kerr doesn't meet the notability guidelines of WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG, be aware that the article may be nominated for deletion, which would result in a discussion. Best to the kids. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Platinum Glove
Platinum glove really is an award that should be listed, but if you really believe otherwise then you must remove it from Manny Machado and any other player that has it listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1F60:15E0:C59F:5E95:22C9:D6BE (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Roger Moret
On 10 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Roger Moret, 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. SoWhy 10:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry
Hi Muboshgu - please accept my apologies. I just noticed you'd declined a protected edit request at the Eric Swalwell page after which I essentially added the bulk of the content that you'd declined. When I went to make the edit I checked the edit history and saw it was a lightly trafficked article, but neglected to check the Talk page first. Please feel free to revert or remove my edits. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Chetsford, no need to apologize. I declined the request mostly on procedural grounds (the edit protected template is for when there is already consensus) and was undecided on the content itself. You added it neutrally, and have no interest in reverting it. Cheers. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Ashley Moody
You reverted one of the changes I made to make the article more neutral. You left this comment "There is no evidence of fraud, and having states choose their own electors is unconstitutional" Having state legislatures choose their own electors is NOT unconstitutional, and it is literally stated in the constitution that they have the power to do so. Straight from Article II, Section 1 of the USC: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;" Furthermore, the texas lawsuit does not claim to invalidate the election results, they ask the SCOTUS to give the power BACK to the legislatures, instead of other government bodies / politicians that have the power currently. How can you claim this is unconstitutional? Also, there is evidence of voter fraud. There is evidence of voter fraud in every election, this one being no different. Claiming there is none is biased, and is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:C302:D1D0:D40C:C4A4:9F3:C312 (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- Edit summaries are too short to be a good place to discuss anything, so let me be a little more clear. Having states choose their own electors in the way that is being proposed, as in not as a result of the popular vote in those states, is unconstitutional. The states have their own procedures, and these lawsuits violate those laws. And no, there is no evidence of voter fraud, just some nonsense affidavits (that are not evidence) which have been disregarded by every court that has seen them.
- More to the point, your edit to Ashley Moody's page reduced neutrality. Please stop suggesting that states invalidating their own results is at all a possibility. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I would like you to point me to the section in the constitution where it says that legislatures cannot appoint electors in disregard of the popular vote. You are interpreting the constitution on your own terms, and are adding bias to the article in doing so. There is evidence of voter fraud, just not WIDESPREAD fraud. Disregarding the 300+ "nonsense" affidavits there have been multiple groups that have searched voter registrations and found that dead people have cast ballots. It doesn't matter how many, just being that even one is enough proof that there WAS fraud. You are adding bias to the article by taking hardline stances on specificities, in order to reflect your own political bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:C302:D1D0:D40C:C4A4:9F3:C312 (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- You want analysis? Here's some from the NY Times, WaPo, US News, Politico, Lawfare Blog, and ProPublica. I'm not the one interpreting the constitution, or the faithless elector SCOTUS case. The analysts say it's unlikely at best, and that's charitable, so we will not give the WP:FRINGE view that this can happen WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no evidence of dead people voting, or anything else you're suggesting. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2020 (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.
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) 23:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
DYK for Stacy Garrity
| | On 12 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stacy Garrity, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Pennsylvania Treasurer-elect Stacy Garrity was nicknamed "The Angel of the Desert" in the Iraq War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stacy Garrity. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. 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. |
Christine Fang
I request your help with Christine Fang. You seem to know something about the policies of WP:BLP.
Years ago, Fang was followed by the FBI for fundraising with the Chinese community and fraternizing with politicians. The FBI didn't make a case, and when rumors circulated in 2015 she left the country. Scandalous details were leaked a few days ago to Axios, with a sensational conclusion spies are aggressively attacking the US. It became newsworthy for the embarrassment to politicians "linked" to her (Eric Swalwell). This biography page is just a readout of the Axios article. None of the usual biographical details are known, but the top line factually says she was an "intelligence operative for the Chinese Ministry of State Security". Other editors have dismissed my calls to follow WP:BLP and seem determined to emphasize all the circumstantial evidence to persuade readers she really was a spy. Thanks for your assistance. Travelmite (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Travelmite, I had no idea Christine Fang had an article. I only became aware of her with the Axios story, though I see someone was aware enough of her to create a redirect in 2010. I'll take a look at it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- based on the most recent talk page section, I imagine we're talking about this edit. I don't think the factual accuracy tag is needed. We cannot dispute that there are media reports about Fang making these claims, and we can report on them here as long as we do so neutrally, making clear she has never been charged, etc., but these are the allegations. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Draft article
Nice work starting Draft:Darrell Blocker. It looked interesting, so I expanded it, and I at least think it has enough now for you to bring it live if you agree. You might even want to expand on the music/singer part, or focus on something else, and make it a DYK, if you think that is interesting. --2604:2000:E010:1100:8813:945C:33AD:2B50 (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is certainly the goal if he is chosen. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm thinking there is enough now that it passes GNG. And there will be interest in him now, as he is in the news as a candidate. And since DYKs seem to take a period of time, it's not a bad idea perhaps to post it now as an article. Unless you think - perhaps - that it is better to wait until you are sure you can mention him being the new CIA director in the hook, and therefore want to wait for that. Your call. 2604:2000:E010:1100:2C4E:2E91:1458:2ED (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Rich McCormick
Hello, Muboshgu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rich McCormick".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Bias
Hello I have done some research and you are very liberal. Could you give a neutral point of view? I understand we all have different opinions, and that is all right. Sorry to waste your time. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4F40:40:544C:D2BF:AFB4:6A3 (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- This comment is not helpful. Where is my "bias" coming through? I would need specific examples. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You are not dumb. You know what I am talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4F40:40:654B:E0A8:DC66:8F87 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't Wikipedia strive to be neutral here? All these weasel words like "subverting", "falsely alleging", "conspiracy theories", etc in the 2020 election article are completely unnecessary, especially when followed by statements from officials who, at the time they made those statements, wouldn't have had enough time to review any of the legal evidence presented. How would YOU feel if I listed climate change as a conspiracy theory. It is not fair. Also What the HECK does Muboshgu mean is that some Indian name? I am not trying to be mean. Oh yeah somebody said something bad about trump you said something like while I appreciate this coming from the left is is incorrect as the MAGA sh*t is annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4F40:40:654B:E0A8:DC66:8F87 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
You know what, I give up. The Liberal Media will always win.
I am truly sorry for wasting your time and have a great day and Merry Christmas! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4F40:40:654B:E0A8:DC66:8F87 (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that I am not dumb. I thought that this was what this was about, but I'm not trying to read anybody's mind. This particular IP address had no edits made before you posted on my talk page, so I couldn't trace it back to any particular action. And I see now that you have since made an edit on Greta Thunberg's page to call her "retarded". And yet, I'm going to continue responding to you anyway.
- There is nothing WP:WEASEL about the words "subverting", "falsely alleging", or "conspiracy theories" as they are being used in the context of the 2020 presidential election. Joe Biden won, and Donald Trump and his allies have falsely alleged a conspiracy theory to steal the election, which has been called "subverting" American democracy by reliable sources. There has been time to "review legal evidence", and there is none. The courts have rejected almost every single case as moot because there is no evidence presented. It IS neutral to point out that the Trump campaign is attempting to subvert democracy by getting SCOTUS to throw out Joe Biden's electoral college win to simply declare Trump the winner. That was the whole premise of Texas v. Pennsylvania. It would be biased to imply anything else.
- I do vaguely remember saying something along the lines of "while I appreciate this coming from the left" in an edit summary a week or so ago. Most of the conspiracy theorizing I've seen relating to the 2020 election has come from the MAGA crowd, but that particular comment I responded to came from someone left wing. It was a benign comment on a change of pace, and I rejected that anti-Trump comment as quickly as I have the pro-Trump comments that are similarly silly.
- What difference does the origin of my username make? If I say that it is of Indian origin, does that somehow discredit me? Do I have to have a name that reflects White Anglosaxon Protestants to be seen as "American"? Otherwise, I really don't know why you asked that question.
- To summarize, if you want to collaborate here on articles, that's great. Please stay and do so. However, we adhere to various reality-based protocols, like WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS, and that does involve acknowledging that Biden is president-elect on pages that consider the recent election. If you can't handle that, you may have more fun on Parler than Wikipedia. Happy holidays. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi i'm a very biased very liberal democrat and you are to biased for me In cabinet of joe biden you keep undoing edits by myself about there not being conservatives in bidens cabinet do you have a problem with republicans and only want to hear liberal BS go fuck off to North Korea i even liked the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammyWaffle! (talk • contribs) 15:42, December 16, 2020 (UTC)
- SammyWaffle!, you finally use a talk page and this is how you choose to use it? You are edit warring, reverting edits without explanation. That pie chart makes no sense as Joe Biden promised a diverse candidate in gender, race, and ethnicity, not party affiliation. If you would like to avoid getting blocked, I suggest you revert your edit and strike the uncivil remark you made to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Muboshgu That pie chart is there incase the reader is curios duh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SammyWaffle! (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Muboshgu,
I was surprised you told an editor who requested an undeletion of an article deleted through an AFD to contact the closing administrator Cirt who you must remember has been blocked and inactive for 4 1/2 years. You're kind of sending them off on a errand that will be unsuccessful since the administrator is not around to respond to a talk page message. It just seems like curious advice to offer a very inexperienced editor. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Brad Raffensperger
There is no evidence disproving the president of the United States claims of fraud are "false". They may have not been proven to be true either; so, "false" should be left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomklem (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Tomklem, there is no evidence of fraud at all. They are false allegations. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
That simply is not true, Muboshgu, whoever you are with the pseudonym. I contest your participation as a Wikipedia Admin. William Barr was late to look at the fraud, and you falsely quote him: He said, "... to date." Barr has since been fired for incompetence.
https://www.deepcapture.com/patrick-byrne/ whose Bone fides begin with, "Patrick received a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and Asian studies from Dartmouth College, a master’s in philosophy (ethics) from Cambridge University as a Marshall Scholar, and a doctorate in philosophy (focusing on political theory, jurisprudence, and economics) from Stanford University. He has taught at the university level and frequently guest-lectures on business, the Internet, leadership and ethics.
"Patrick served as chairman, president and CEO of Centricut, LLC, a manufacturer of industrial torch consumables, then held the same three positions at Fechheimer Brothers, Inc., a Berkshire Hathaway company that manufactures police, firefighter and military uniforms. Patrick Michael Byrne is the former CEO of Overstock.com, Inc., a Utah-based internet retailer that has been publicly traded since 2002..."
Byrne is a reliable source. Here is what he posted on the fraud:
https://www.deepcapture.com/2020/11/election-2020-was-rigged-the-evidence/
Again, I contest, Muboshgu, your being given any authority to engage in editing of Wikipedia for political advantage. Your are a fool with an agenda. Futhermore, you are darkening the reputation of Wikipedia itself, reported in public media, here (Redacted) itself censored by Wikipedia. [Citaiton]: (Redacted) [End citation]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomklem (talk • contribs) 05:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- Tomklem, please keep that garbage from Breitbart off of my talk page. There's a reason that source is unacceptable on Wikipedia. You're citing the former CEO of Overstock.com as an expert on voter fraud? Also, don't make personal attacks. I have nothing else to say to you other than that if you do it again you will be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Josh Winegarner
Hello, Muboshgu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Josh Winegarner".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Betsy Dirksen Londrigan
Hello, Muboshgu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Betsy Dirksen Londrigan".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
.jpg)
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to:
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020.
CHEERS!
{{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.(Sent: 04:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC))
Thanks
Hello, I know that we have our differences but I just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work. I am sure you don't get these much but I think it is important to. Anyways, Thank you for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:4F40:40:A561:B2AA:69A4:C3F4 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Biden cabinet religious diversity
Hi, I was hoping you could explain a bit more about the reversing of my edit to the Cabinet of Joe Biden. I am unclear why that quote you cite makes religious diversity original research - there are other types of diversity that aren't mentioned in that quote (for instance, that quote also doesn't mention LGBTQ diversity, yet that is included in the diversity section). Would the addition of citations make it okay or is it original research for another reason? Several of the articles on those individuals mention their religious beliefs already. What changes could I make so it could stay? Kyjama (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
New message from Narutolovehinata5
Message added 11:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, thanks for the ping. Responding now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Congratulations
Congratulations! With 13,609 views, your Mauree Turner hook is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of December. All the more impressive since it garnered these views in a non-lead/photo slot and during a 12-hour queue. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS December. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)