User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 35

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) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

List of baseball team nicknames
Seeing you putting the tags up in the article that said 'possibly contains original research' and 'needs more citations' made me work on it. I removed some of the nicknames as I thought they're made up by editors, including those added by mine, and I added citations to some. You could check the article and see if you could finish it off, by looking for a few more to remove and add more citations. The Trashionals an IP address user added to Washington Nationals five months ago, I'll leave it up to you if that should be removed. Planet Star  23:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look later. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ha. It's okay, things can get lost in the edit rush when something like this happens. He's not so bad, is he? Enjoy the rebuild. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He's well past his prime, and he was overrated even then (couldn't win in the postseason). The real problem is that he's not known for being friendly to analytics. I don't suppose it will make a difference during the next two-three years, however. Lepricavark (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your AfD of List of largest National Football League trades
Hi Muboshgu.

Just curious. Did you come across List of largest National Football League trades because I had just linked it in somewhere? If so, our deorphaning of old isolated articles is working, that is bringing them to the attention of other editors who are in a better position to evaluate them. Eno Lirpa (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. I didn't know this article existed until I saw you edit some articles that are on my watchlist. By deorphaning it, it'll either be deleted or improved, so keep up the good work. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Eno Lirpa (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Edinburgh Comedy Awards
It would have been courteous of you to have invited me to the discussion about deleting these categories, since it was me that set them up and they relate specifically to something I am working on. If the consensus is delete, fair enough, but I would like to have been involved. Peaky76 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I usually use WP:TW to make deletion nominations but multiples in a nomination requires doing it manually. TW automatically notifies the creator, and I apologize for forgetting that step. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. Sorry to have been snappy with you. Once I read the discussion I understood the reasoning. Was just aggrieved to have my work junked without being told about it! Peaky76 (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Days of the week on Japan Series article
Why are you refusing to put days of the week on these? There is every other date indicator, why not that one? -- T orsodo g Talk 13:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that WP:DATE forbids it. A quick reread suggests it doesn't encourage it, but doesn't say not to use it either. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Well I think it would be helpful. It just fully fleshes out the exact date at a glance. I wouldn't advocate it if it were in the prose but I don't see the harm in throwing it on the title date of the box score. What are your thoughts? -- T orsodo g Talk 13:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts just boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a good reason to take it out. I thought I had MOS on my side. I think it's better as it is in the line score than it would be in the prose. I won't take it out again. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it, thanks! And thanks for your work on Japanese baseball articles. Not many of us on the English Wikipedia! -- T orsodo g Talk 18:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's difficult with the paucity of English language sources, but worth doing. These articles could be longer if only I spoke Japanese. The Japan Series is on WP:ITN/R and I want it to stay that way. Thanks for your help. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi. I'm sure this has been suggested to you a million times, but just to pile on – you really should consider running for adminship. I think you'd pass comfortably. Then you'd be able to do things like this yourself. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 03:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah my talk page archives are full of comments like this. Maybe I should. Would be useful to protect pages I see getting vandalized. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (evesdropping) That would be great! I've been hoping for this for years but figured you were tired of hearing it. I think I'll create the redlink - and wait for it to turn blue. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, checking my notes - I suggested this in December 2016 - probably about the 40th person to do so. I'd be delighted to nominate you but I'm sure you already know who you would want as nominators. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, lol. No, I hadn't thought about who should nominate me. Haven't given this much thought. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, when you do, you will have to hold a lottery or something among all the people who would want to nominate you. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 World Series
I see someone has to be the King of Wikipedia by reverting good faith edits on the 2017 World Series. Look, don't be bitter that the Yankees aren't in it. They'll be back.

As for sources in my case? I'm pretty sure the Wikilinks provided are enough. Jgera5 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has policies, including using reliable sources and not including WP:TRIVIA. If you want to see this article posted on the main page when there's a winner, it has to conform to basic standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can i be bitter that my team is in the series for the first time in ages and i cant afford the $1,000+ that tickets are going for on stub hub? lol... any way, wikilinks don't count as sources... but i found one and re-added some of your info. Spanneraol (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I be bitter that your Dodgers left The Grandy Man off your 25 man roster? Might have to root for Houston, with Beltran and McCann. I'm not bitter that my team exceeded expectations so spectacularly, not at all. I'd just like to see the article be of top notch quality so it can make English Wiki's front page and possibly be worth a GA nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you see Grandy's at-bats in the previous rounds? He really has looked terrible. I'd like it to be top quality also.. I'll be more involved with it this year since my team is in the series for once. Spanneraol (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering how I wanted to watch every pitch of the ALCS and maintain positive relations with my wife, I didn't watch much of the NLCS this year. Thanks for adding those sources where there were tags. I had added some sources but had those on my to do list. These articles go well when updated in real time, like I've been doing the last few years. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The other World Series articles
Howdy, please check over the other Year World Series articles. They don't have such summaries in that manner, in them. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:LEAD needs to summarize the article. Do you have a better way to summarize this? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree a summary is in order, like in FA 2009 World Series. Articles that don't have them can be written off as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * But we don't have to summaries every game in the WS. After the WS is over, follow the style of the other Year WS articles & give a less detailed/more overall summary. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not every World Series is the same. They flow differently. And the FA 2009 WS article has the same basic format I put in, only with more detail. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it just these three sentences that are this issue? That's too brief, if anything.—Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do as you wish. PS: It appears as though MLB is gonna let the Astros win anyway, so they can present a post-Hurricane city feel good story ending. Therefore, you'll have the "Astros win first-ever World Series" bit, to work with. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm a bit disappointed you removed the Game 2 summary without preserving it somewhere else or discussing further at Talk:2017_World_Series.—Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought that discussion ran its course. I thought the consensus was to do it this way. It should be uniform, and that game stuck out like a sore thumb. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was going to add to Game 1 until I noticed the deletion. There is no deadline (it wasn't going to be an ITN showstopper).  I've never agreed that work-in-progress articles, which is most of WP, having to be consistently bad instead of inconsistently good. I guess it'll be less contentious to do this after the WS, though I'll likely have less energy to pursue this after the fact also.  Best.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I interpreted your silence for acquiescence, which is my bad. Restart the discussion now, while the game is still going on. Nothing will be decided until the series is over, so we'll have that stability during the series. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You must have missed the top of this post. It's ok, I think it's paralysis by analysis at this point.  Will wait until after the series (if at all).—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I did miss it. My bad. The series sure looks like it's about over. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
 * Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
 * Featured List – and  both produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
 * Featured Topic – has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
 * Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
 * Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
 * In The News – had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
 * Good Article Review – completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - please send  an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

NOTDEFINING
Re this revert, did you see their contribs? Any guesses as to how much of that is good? In my opinion they should be required to self-revert all of that. I'm sure not cleaning up after them. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a mess that I don't want to dive into. But I might. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2017 (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) 19:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Move request User:Muboshgu:Eline Powell → Eline Powell

 * Page User:Muboshgu:Eline Powell has 3 edits, all redirects. Nothing to move. Someone has redirected Eline Powell to Anita B.. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't my edit creating redirect be the first edit, not that edit moving the redirect? See WP:EDRED. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Eline Powell
Why I did what I did? You actually haven't seen, an article for Eline Powell was mad up under the actual lemma, whereas your "page" is just a redirection. recently, there were some talks, that actor's links, who don't link to a full article, but to a film or anything else (an other example for this is Ilfenesh Hadera, btw.) are use- and senseless. I don't start an article for Elaine Powell with you being credited as the page creator. A section blanking wasn't possible, but I try it again now. If no article blanking is possible the page needs to be (re)created anew. so simple.--Robberey1705 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is simple. If you want to make an article where there's already a redirect, you create the article where there's already a redirect. You do not try to move the redirect into somebody else's userspace. I created the redirect before you tried to create the article, and that's part of the article history. See WP:EDRED. In the case of Powell, you didn't provide sources that establish notability for the subject, so it's a moot point. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

K, I'll ask...
why? - the WOLF  child  04:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I agree with this. I should've said so in the edit summary, my bad. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So others have attempted to make a similar edit, only to again have it reverted by you. Smells like WP:OWN. You say "everybody is short of a birthday"... but how many are short of their 100th birthday? And a major league player as well. It's a worthwhile note to add and you cant just repeatedly remove it just because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. You should consider reverting yourself. - the WOLF  child  05:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not owning anything. If anything, the proper policy to consider is WP:BRD. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, it's a worthwhile note to add to the article. Obviously I'm not the only one to think as such. But for some reason, you don't want it there. You haven't provided any good reasoning to not have it included. Considering all your contribs and your actions here, you are brushing up against WP:OWN and with a lack of good reasoning, this is a case if WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And we are doing BRD right now, so what? Can you provide a better, more sound reason to not include this notation? Something say, supported by policy that would override the obvious consensus in support of inclusion? - the WOLF  child  22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I said that I agreed with the reasoning of the other editor, which is that everybody is short of a birthday, and being five months short of a birthday, even a 100th, is insignificant. It's extraneous, it's trivial, and it can be deduced by anyone looking at his DOB and DOD in the infobox. You're not the only one to think it should be in there, and I'm not the only one to think it shouldn't be. BRD should include the wider community on the article talk page, we're not going to accomplish anything here going back and forth with you accusing me of trying to own the article because I undid one of your edits that someone else had similarly undone previously. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, like I said... But, whatever. I'm gonna move on now. You keep an eye on that article and make sure it stays the way you like it. Ciao - the WOLF  child  23:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018
So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Branden Kline
I understand that the majority of the world uses km/h over mph, however this is an article about a player in an American sports league where the accepted unit of measurement is imperial. If we favor his pitch speed in km/h instead of mph, why is the universal, international wiki of Baseball written with imperial measurements followed by metric measurements in parentheses?

Additionally, Kline's page has very little international significance as he is a low-level minor leaguer. So why the emphasis on metric measurements when the aforementioned Baseball wiki is geared more towards imperial measurements? Wages444 (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is written for the global audience, even though he Kline has strong national ties to the U.S. Those strong national ties are why velocity is presented as mph (kmh), which is emphasizing imperial over metric measurements. Articles for Japaneses and Korean baseball players should present velocity as kmh (mph). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Man, I must really be losing my mind. I could’ve sworn that the article on Kline had metric measurements before the imperial ones. I just checked the edit history and it was always in its current format, which, I agree, is correct. At the time of my initial edit, the km/h numbers didn’t seem substantial, but I understand now. I wouldn’t have even had to talk to you if I checked the edit history beforehand and saw that it was always like the way it is now. Sorry about that! Wages444 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Mulaney CFPB directorship
Did you read the 3 citations? He is the director effective this afternoon. The acting director has filed an injunction which has not been ruled on yet. Did gays begin getting marriage certificates just because suits were filed in court? Of course, not. It is not disputed (legally) just because someone files a grievance. Please *read* the citations, do your own research to procure more citations, and revert your own revert without an editing war based on emotional, not legal, perspective. Until the acting director is made director, by the court, Mulvaney is director. It's all in the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebreakrun3 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The citations clearly demonstrate the directorship is clearly under dispute as a judge decides whether or not to issue an emergency restraining order. Pesky facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You reverted all my edits, not just the “disputed directorship.”
I tried to help from an objective, researched point of view, because the page's neutrality was flagged. I wrote just as much from “President” Obama's perspective (yes, I placed “President” before each instance of his name) as I did from the House Republicans' point of view (which I quoted and cited). You removed hundreds of words of objective, historical text, and citations, just because of one valid, legal technicality, which was supported at length by multiple citations. You reverted back to several erroneous paraphrasings which I had corrected. Did you even read the multiple citations? Not just the “disputed directorship” citations; did you read *all* the citations you deleted? Did you look for, and cite, additional sources before you deleted all of mine? Did you even *re-read* the CFPB's talk page before erasing all of my work? I did.

You reverted text, placement, headings, re-organized chronological order, and years and years of the Bureau's cited history just because of an imagined self-aggrandizement, one that causes you to feel pain from politics. Politics, that in fact, have very little effect on actual policies which affect constituents. Just because of one fact you’re not yet ready to accept into your self-isolated, self-affirming community of mutually-masturbated false realities, you deleted all my work. Your type of behavior has only happened to me once before on Wikipedia, in 2003. I said it then, and I'll say it now, “Your condescending, dismissive attitude, which only serves to justify a petty, vindictive behavior, serves only to prevent social harmony, not to benefit it.”

And now I will add this: I have no political affiliations on which to act; I am only an observer. However, it is quite ironic, in my opinion, that your type of attitude, emotional response, and self-righteousness is exactly what propelled Donald Trump into the White House. Your self-serving disregard for others, your self-entitlement, is what so many conservatives find so appalling when engaging with “liberals.” It was a backlash against people like I have just described, like Hillary Clinton, that rallied people for Donald Trump. A pity. Another reason why I remain a political observer.

I expect you to feel self-satisfied with your demonstration of ego-centric destructive power. However “self” is an attribute I usually avoid, and now I will.
 * I undid your last edit, then saw that didn't go far enough so I undid them all. If I did undo too much, I apologize and I'll take a look at that. I also thought that "fake news from the left" comment was yours, but I see through the edit history it's an unsigned comment from an IP.
 * For future reference, comments like "self-isolated, self-affirming community of mutually-masturbated false realities" don't help collaboration. See WP:CIVIL. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Vi Lyles
Hello! Your submission of Vi Lyles 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) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Done. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. Nothing wrong with the nom, just the timing! Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Vi Lyles
— Maile (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2017 (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) 23:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Chase Headley Page
You have just removed my edits from the Chase Headley Wikipedia page because of not providing a reliable source. I was in the process of that when my edits were removed. Here is the source if you want to re edit it: http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/12/12/report-yankees-trade-chase-headley-to-the-padres/amp/ Ethan04108 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an unconfirmed report. We are not a breaking news site; we wait until the teams confirm, because otherwise we risk running with a false report. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Phil Niekro page edit.
I finished editing Phil Niekro's Wikipedia page. I did the best I could. Please look it over. This was the first major edit I've ever done on Wikipedia. Thank you. --Dannyyankee12 (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From a first glance, it looks good to me! Keep going, I'll check in on it later. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Blash
I removed the template off his page after you made the changes following the trade being official. Hope I wasn't being too premature on that. Thanks for helping keep everything clean earlier (like always)! Kjscotte34 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No not premature at all. Thanks for taking it off. Sometimes I forget to remove the template after the deal is done. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael Pineda
The Michael Pineda to Twins deal is done. It's in the transactions and his MLB page is changed from Yankees to the Twins. RobDe68 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that using reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jaime Harrison


The article Jaime Harrison has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Obvious ad. Fails NPOL and GNG; only non-local coverage is one reference, no public office held."

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 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 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. James (talk/contribs) 22:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"tis the season...."
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Muboshgu: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   22:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Andrew Albers
Hey, question on the source for the Andrew Albers signing, is him tweeting it out not enough? Just curious because I doubt that MLBTR is going to post when pen goes to paper it'll probably only be updated if the deal somehow falls through. But I just felt that Albers tweeting it himself was a solid enough source.  Kingryan227  ( Decrees •  Acts ) 18:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I forgot to respond to this sooner, but this is the sort of source we're looking for. I had no doubt from Albers' tweet that it would happen, but not that it had. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Muboshgu: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 02:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Requests for adminship/Muboshgu
Hi there, you might want to fill out the answers to the questions first. Best of luck, Alex Shih (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just did. I think they didn't come up until I subst'd the template. (And I'm not even sure I did it right?) Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the extra comment about substituting for you. It's ready to transclude. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest having a few other editors to go over the nomination statement prior to submitting; you are an excellent candidate, but minor mistakes can often sink nominations. My first impression was that the statement looks impulsive, and a collection of diffs on the number of editors wanted you to run can look self-congratulatory. I will proof read it some more, if you don't mind. Alex Shih (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, the point is moot. Good luck. Alex Shih (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing. I appreciate the feedback, the statement is indeed off the cuff and the diffs seeming self-congratulatory are not my intent, so I'll edit that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks better. Your AfD stats doesn't look ideal, so I would prepare some potential answers now. I haven't been able to find any significant past conflicts. Anyway, I have asked two questions on the candidate page, if you could answer those when you have time, that would be great. Alex Shih (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. I'll answer those questions later today. I have some work-related things to deal with first. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a swing at question seven because it's one of the more ridiculous questions I've ever seen at RfA. I encouraged you to not answer, but no worries if you decide to ignore that part. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Answered it anyway! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Passing along some words given to me before. Cheers—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not a jinx, because the only other time I mentioned this to someone (I'm not all that active on RfAs) they pulled out their big guns and came from ahead to lose. Enjoy the holidays.—Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh. I thought that user had the mop already. I see how that feeling goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

I wanted to let you know that I read your answer to the question 16 and supported your nomination. I have done extensive research; I believe what I did was right.

Nevertheless, there is something about the answer to the question 16 that irks me. You decided to act upon the case, but why checking the source itself was not the first thing you would do?

Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * D'oh!, the real question is why didn't I think of that? The answer is probably that given the focus on the editor conduct, I simply didn't even consider the obvious. Maybe I took it for granted with four editors of good repute disagreeing with the IP, and assumed that the source didn't support the IP. That question is a good learning experience and I thank you for supporting me even though I forgot the due diligence step. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's just say the next time this happens, it won't be so simple as four editors in good standing. What if it is two editors in good standing plus one socially awkward editor who has a history of having received replies from admins containing a link to WP:DV? He or she would definitely put up the most heated discussion, casting a shadow over the credibility of the other two who don't have such a history.
 * All I am saying is, when you want to deploy an admin tool against someone, you'd better be sure that he or she deserves it. So, please do check the source.
 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Examining the source is not required because the policy on edit warring essentially states that no one should edit war even when they are right. Edit warring may lead to a block of anyone participating in an edit war whether or not they started it and whether those who are warring are anonymous contributors, registered users, other admistrators or wikimedia foundation employees. Simply disagreeing with the contents of a particular source is a content dispute and is not grounds for administrator intervention let alone a block unless one or more of the participants are violating Wikipedia policy in the process. 97.35.1.64 (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What you say is completely right. And completely irrelevant too. 3RR violation is the bright-line policy for administrator intervention. And, by God, your IP address looks familiar. I'd better unwatch this page before things gets unpleasant. If you want to write a reply that I definitely see, try my talk page. Just a heads up: I am disabling ping notifications for mentions. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Civility should be met with more civility. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Grandmaster
Uh, looking over your User page, it appears to me that you are entitled to upgrade two notches to the “Grandmaster” title. Congrats, and also on your pending adminship, which appears to be in the bag. Looking forward to you wielding the mop! Jusdafax (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, I shall upgrade myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

American Politics
If you're looking for some help, ever, of a different perspective, I'm generally seen as more right than the typical Wikipedian and I'm happy to discuss an issue or cooperatively patrol or close discussions.--v/r - TP 23:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll will keep that in mind going forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA
It's obvious at this point that your RfA is not going to pass, so I suggest you save face and withdraw it before it fails. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * {joke) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * :P – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's safe to release the breath hold...
It appears to me that your adminship started out and stayed a shoo-in. I can't begin to tell you how delightful it is to see more content creating/FA promoting/BLP savvy editors accepting this thankless job and substantial responsibility. I want to be the first to congratulate you and THANK YOU for stepping up to the plate!! What a great way to start the New Year!! 🎉 🍾🥂 Atsme 📞📧 15:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am fairly excited about this. Looking forward to working with you in ITN/C and DYK! Alex Shih (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Honesty!
The honesty and transparency in your replies at your Rfa are highly commendable. It's a lesson for editors on how truthfulness trumps everything. Thought I'll stop by and tell this to you... Advance congrats on the Rfa and advance wishes on the new year. Warmly,  Lourdes  03:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I strive to be honest, whether or not people like my responses. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although all admins are welcome to delete constructively on Wikipedia, at least one of your recent deletions, such as the one you performed on the Main Page, did not appear to be constructive and has been undeleted. Please use Jimbo Wales' user page for any test deletions or blankings you would like to make, and read about our main page deletion guideline to learn more about deleting things on this encyclopedia. Thank you. — usernamekiran (talk)  15:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC) Oh wait, I am like 5 hours early. I guess my time machine isnt working properly again. Here is one more reference. Looking forward to see you as an admin. All the best! :) — usernamekiran (talk)   15:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a mistake, or a joke I'm not getting? I'm not an admin, and I haven't deleted anything from the Main Page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * erm... You deleted an entire page! The main page.
 * Ah, just as you sent that reply I noticed the ":p" in your edit summary. Sneaky, sneaky. Can I borrow your time machine once you get the kinks worked out? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dont you have one? I thought everybody has mobiles these days. Mobiles, and computers have pre-installed time machines. But I still prefer my Casio. That machine tells me the time of my current city, and NYC/EST. I would recommend reading Don't delete the main page, and Wheel war. Maybe someday we might engange in wheel war on round robin moves. When I was new, I even edit warred with AIV helper bot on AIV page, I thought it was malfunctioning lol. I am just a knowledgeable goofball i guess. See you around :) — usernamekiran (talk)  15:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

IRC
In response to your RFA statement which mentions being unable to contact an admin as quick as you'd like for REVDEL stuff; have you tried WP:IRC? &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I might've, once. I had forgotten all about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You may wanna give it a try. It can be quite useful. I recently used the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-revdel and got a response in a minute or two. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations
Plaudits are all yours, and well deserved. I have no doubt in my mind that you will be an exceptional admin. It will be good to have another angel looking after and streamlining the process over at ITN/C. Congratulations on earning the mop so emphatically. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful
Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the Administrators' guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Take it slow with the new buttons -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 18:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SMirC-chuckle.svg Classic!! With a user name of suggesting to "Take it slow". Love it! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although all admins are welcome to delete constructively on Wikipedia, at least one of your recent deletions, such as the one you performed on the Main Page, did not appear to be constructive and has been undeleted. Please use Jimbo Wales' user page for any test deletions or blankings you would like to make, and read about our main page deletion guideline to learn more about deleting things on this encyclopedia. Thank you. Congratulations on your adminship and Happy New Year! Linguist un Eins uno 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for adminship !!  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations :). – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on becoming an administrator! I can't wait to see the wonderful work you will be doing for the community. Best of luck,   CookieMonster755  ✉    19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats! It's about time. Lepricavark (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well done boss. We often disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't think you'll be a fine admin.  Just remember us minions are putting in shifts though... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as you acknowledge me as your boss :) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah so this is a whole thing then... – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! L3X1 (distænt write)  22:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey there.. congrats! Hopefully you won't wind up getting so overwhelmed by administrative stuff that your content work suffers like it has for other people. Spanneraol (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am all about the content. Planning another push of article improvements for early 2018. Now I can protect pages and block vandals too! – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Enjoy the new tools! GABgab 01:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and Happy New Year! -Mifter (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, best of luck and Happy New Year! Donner60 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Welcome to the world of unpaid toil and pain. You'll love it. —With best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Muboshgu
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg None

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news
 * The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
 * The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration
 * Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 2, 2018
Governor vs. governor: see MOS:JOBTITLES. (It's off the Main Page, so I won't revert.) It's a little complicated:
 * "The Governor", referring to a particular person.
 * "Governor of Kentucky" (exactly those words), if you're referring to the office and not a person, because it's a proper noun, that is, the uppercasing tells you that that's the (or sometimes, an) official name of the office.
 * "Governor Whatshisname" ... again, a proper noun.
 * I always lowercase in other cases, following the usual practice at FAC (and following MOS). - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 3 January 2018 (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) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Fire and Fury
I apologize for my petty comment. I have struck through the sentence. I have no excuses; I made a poor choice and I'm truly sorry. I was aware the book was coming out and imagined the media attention it would receive. I might have !voted delete except military miniatures is a specialized field with which I'm knowledgeable. To be completely honest my first thought was to assert delete. I wrote it all out and admitted my familiarity with the game and its players, still !voting delete. And then before I hit the publish I performed the gsearch, just to make sure I wasn't making MYSELF look foolish, found the two sources mentioned in my post. So I'm a hypocrite and a rude contributor all at one. Just wanted you to know you are not alone. BusterD (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's okay. I appreciate your self-reflection, and your knowledge of the sub-field of military miniatures, which I know nothing about. I understand from my recent RfA that I tend to be a bit more deletionist than the community consensus, and WP:BEFORE was brought up there, so it's something on my mind that I'm striving to be aware of. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your understanding. For the record, I did know you were a new admin when I threw that shade, so I'll confess it was a dick move on my part. And while I'm working on a DYK I came across your work on the book DYK so of course you'd be clearing dead wood if possible. Nice to have a new admin or two. Gone are the huge bearish admins of old... BusterD (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I prefer ALT 3 too. Easily cited and so unusual as to be a "what?" moment. BusterD (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion. I think we're gathering consensus that the game should be kept. If you were to withdraw the nomination, we could ask for close, you could move the game to its disambiguation space, make the new book the primary topic (I don't think that's controversial) and put hatnotes atop each page instead of using a DA page. I can't imagine anyone in the AfD objecting, although it might complicate your DYK a bit (moving during the process). Would it be better to wait until the DYK is approved, then move to primary topic space? I'm not so seasoned recently so I don't know what the done thing might be. I'm just thinking your new page is going to get lots of views, and the sooner we direct eyes to the appropriate space the better. BusterD (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Clearing dead wood" is a good way to phrase it. I agree with you, no need to string out the AfD. And if it's a matter of personal preference, I prefer a page to be moved before it goes on DYK than after. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll find an uninvolved admin. BusterD (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Having 7K pages on my watchlist is helpful for finding admins working currently. Tony has taken care of the hard work. I did the easy move from book to primary. Great little page. You should get several thousand page views in the next 24. Good job anchoring it. It will be fun to watch the chaos which always ensues a current event in progress. Now you have a bit to do at DYK, but you can handle that. Always glad to help. I'll perform the cleanup and sourcing on the game page. BusterD (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You don't always see a POTUS put out a cease and desist letter, but then again, you don't always see a POTUS act like this one... – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jerry Van Dyke

 * I don't deserve credit for that nom. User:TDKR Chicago 101 does, for fixing it up. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We all do for this hard work! Great job all around! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Indefinite instead of 6 months
Hello, regarding the protection on Star Wars: The Force Awakens, could you please adjust it to be indefinite? Since being unprotected in February, there has been consistent and frequent vandalism from unregistered users, which hasn't abated, so I feel like it is futile to let it be protected and then unprotected. Overall, I strongly suggest indef semi for the page. Thank you. Hummerrocket  (talk)  20:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did consider your request to semi-protect indefinitely. I'll tell you why I didn't. The last page protection was for 3 months, and we tend to make our protection durations increase incrementally. The page has been protected a number of times in the past, but it was last protected from December 2016-February 2017. The fact that it hasn't been protected for 11 months tells me that the problem isn't bad enough necessarily to merit indefinite semi-protection. The older Star Wars movies don't have indefinite semi-protection, and hopefully TFA will settle in to that treatment. If the problem continues in July, ping me and I'll protect it for longer, either a year or indefinitely. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hope Hicks talk page deletion
Just wanted to let you know that I've replaced the text which disappeared from my entry on the above mentioned talk page. I'm surprised that you felt it was necessary to delete a new section of a talk page, as opposed to an actual article page. My practise is to add a new section, then add the text. I'm happy to learn of another method. Sadly, the text that I immediately wrote after creating the new section was lost. Perhaps you had reverted my edit creating the new section before I published the edit filling out the text. It's hard to spend the time on making Wikipedia better when edits are lost before being published. Maybe it was my error? I don't know. I'm still wondering why a talk page would be policed so hard, it's where we are supposed to "talk about" the page. Wouldn't it make sense to say "Hey, where is the text?" as opposed to deleting the new category? I'm interested in your thoughts. -Knowsetfree (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no purpose to having an empty section, on either a talk page or content page. I didn't know if you were planning on adding any text there or not, so I deleted the empty section. I suggest going forward that the next time you plan to add a new section to a talk page, you wait to add it for when you have your initial text. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

IP 85.92.183.210
Hi Muboshgu. I just noticed that you declined the AIV report just before I blocked them. So I went back and checked their contrib log which is not very long. I can't find any constructive edits. This looks like a static IP being used by a vandal. I think the block is sound but as you had just declined the report I will defer to your judgement. If you disagree feel free to reduce or lift it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just saw you block the IP. You have more experience doing this, so I'll defer to your judgment. Based on the stricter interpretations, there wasn't much vandalism lately, but I do agree that there has been lots of vandalism in 2017. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello
It doesn't matter in the slightest, but if you happen to be itching to try out the user rights interface now that you are an admin, I noticed that you still have the extended confirmed right on your account which, I believe, is a right included in the admin tool set. -- Dolotta (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been primarily getting my feet wet in RFPP and AIV, but I will keep growing as an admin. What exactly do you mean by "user rights interface"? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I probably misspoke, not being an admin. I had just noticed that you currently have both extended confirmed and admin rights. -- Dolotta (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the user was referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserRights/Muboshgu Hope this helps, and congrats on the bit, sorry I missed it! Samsara 16:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, I had never seen that page. Are any of those unchecked rights in the right column things I can't currently do? Not that I have any intention of sending mass messages anyways, but I have those abilities as an admin now, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mass message senders (the answer is yes). If there are any rights included in any entries in that column that you don't currently have, then technically you can grant them to yourself, although I'm not 100% on etiquette in that case. Have never investigated that myself. Samsara 16:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about revert on this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS
Hello, you 'reverted' my edits to this page and I was wondering why? I changed the 2014-2017 listings to comport with the official NCAA guide, and cited it so not sure why a reversion was made to an incorrect listing?

Thank you.

Stephenj666 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. This revert was made primarily because you broke the table syntax by removing the ending '|}'. I'm not sure whether UCF should be listed or not, and that would be a good discussion for that article's talk page, if it's not already happening. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, just be careful with your use of rollback. That was definitely inappropriate usage.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was done in haste and it was a mistake. I should've manually fixed the table. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand, but now those edits are being tagged, admins in particular need to be wary. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Co seal.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Co seal.gif. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about revert on .... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS
Hello Muboshgu,

I saw your reply to my previous question about College Football Champions on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muboshgu#Question_about_revert_on_this_page%3A_https%3A%2F%2Fen.m.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FCollege_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

But call me stupid, i am having difficulty navigating the wiki communication. For example, i see your reply to my question, and that someone names "Rambling Man" replied to it, but at least on my page, i don't see a way for me to contribute with a reply of my own. I don't see a "reply" option there.

FWIW, i appreciate your explanation as to why you reverted my edit. I fear this could lead to an "edit war" with others, is there a way to resolve such a dispute about content?

Thanks again ... Stephenj666 (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully Talk page guidelines can help explain how talk pages work. That conversation is above on my talk page, and you could respond there, or open a section on the talk page of the college football article if you want to discuss something specific pertaining to that article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

2016 World Series
Why are you deleting my edit? If you want to discuss sports broadcasting calls during historic events, I’m right here. There are literally 100’s of pages on sports events where the broadcast is quoted. Are you deleting all those?

I don’t care if you’re an administrator. I will defend my edit until the end. Your opinion isn’t king, and I will make sure your disruptive deleting your will be documented
 * Thank you for starting to engage in discussion. Unfortunately that's what should have been done from the start. You added it, I removed it, then discussion should have begun, per WP:BRD. So, in keeping with BRD, I'm going to remove it again, and suggest that the next step is to discuss this at Talk:2016 World Series, where we can get further community involvement. I will say that there being "literally 100’s of pages on sports events where the broadcast is quoted" doesn't mean that it should be on this page, too. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It should really be removed from all of those pages. "Final broadcast calls" add nothing to the already large articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually think that particular call might have a place on that page... not sure he's putting it in the proper place though... should definitely start a discussion about it rather than engaging in a revert war. Spanneraol (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it has a place. An encyclopedia records history and it wasn't just any historic call. I would encourage FiveOh1084 to calm down and negotiate in good faith. See you at the talk page.&#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   06:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have started an Request for Comment at the articles talk page. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   06:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting the RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Danica Roem
Hello,

Please stop threatening me. Thank you.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a threat. It was a promise. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see. You're some kind of a social justice warrior. Here's a Ben Shapiro quote: "Facts don't care about your feelings". Please some making me promises. Thank you.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry if I hurt your feelings, but the reasons for undoing your edit are on the article's talk page. Cheers. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2017 World Series
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2017 World Series you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)