User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 39

Reversion of edit on 2016 Democratic primary page
I didn't realise earlier that I should contact you here instead of the talk page. Could you please get back to me on what I replied to you there |1, so that I'm not stonewalled from editing the page?

I'm aware it'll take a few minutes to read/do, but I hope you'll go through with it given that you challenged my edit, and thus give me an opportunity to amend my contribution until it conforms to WP rules. Thank you!

Edit: In case you're short on time, just reply to what I asked in the last paragraph (my most recent reply) there. Selvydra (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Ron DiNicola for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ron DiNicola 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 Articles for deletion/Ron DiNicola 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. PRehse (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Abigail Spanberger Photo
The photo I tried to put up was from her facebook page. I was under the impression that was free license? Apologies if that isn't correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaela975 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not. Her headshot when she's sworn into Congress will be a work of the federal government, and therefore public domain. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Jared Polis
Howdy. We on Wikipedia, have been placing Acting underneath the Governor title, for newly elected governors for years. Why do you do this? and also to just one article, thus disturbing the consistency. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Governor-elect of Colorado" is the proper term for Jared Polis. "Governor of Colorado Elect" is grammatically incorrect and just plain weird. There's no rule that it should be done your way. Even if it has been done that way, that's not a reason to keep doing it that way. I've been adding "Governor-elect" or whatever the equivalent is to other pages, so don't pretend there was 100% uniformity with the exception of that one edit to Polis' page. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Check over all the other governors-elect & lieutenant governors-elect infoboxes. You should be seeking a consensus for the changes you want. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I could change each and every one of them just as easily as you can claim the consensus favors you, when I don't think there is any such consensus at all. I can also point out edits like this one that demonstrate that not everyone does it your way. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tell ya what. You go through all the governors-elect & lieutenant governors-elect bio infoboxes & make the changes you think are correct. If nobody else reverts you? then no problem. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've got a counter proposal: I'll edit as I like, as will that editor from the diff above and Corkythehornetfan and whoever else, you stop reverting edits with silly edit summaries like "How it's done on Wikipedia", and we all spend more of our time and effort focusing on things that are less pedantic? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW "how it's done on Wikipedia" should include not using small in an Infobox, because there is a rule for that. MOS:ACCESS / MOS:FONTSIZE: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've started an Rfc on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Dan Sullivan
I fear you may have missed the discussion at Talk:Dan Sullivan (U.S. senator). Please revert your move and open a new RM or move review. Brad v  03:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your out-of-process move has been reverted by another administrator, but you have not yet responded here. I'm still curious about whether this was an honest mistake, and look forward to your explanation. Brad  v  19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't respond after I saw that the move had been reverted. It was an honest mistake. I did not check the talk page for RM discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Brad  v  19:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Brenda Jones (politician)
Hey - any chance you may be able to think up of a decent DYK hook for this incoming congresswoman? I intend to nom it there, but can't really think of/word anything decently. Thanks! Connormah (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There sure is a hook to write, with the write-in campaign or the brief tenure or the dual tenure. I'll think about it. BTW I created redirects for so many candidates this year and monitored them, but Jones was the one that slipped past my notice. Thanks for starting that article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, and great job with getting everything else ready for that evening. I was also thinking about something surrounding the dual tenure, but can't really think of a decent way to word it. I suppose it's not a sure/confirmed thing at the moment either. Connormah (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

See Template:Did you know nominations/Brenda Jones (politician). Do you mind doing the QPQ for this one? I owe a few QPQ reviews already. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing - thanks for starting up the nom page. Connormah (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Updates
Hello,

It is clear that you do not seem to be using fair policies to administer pages. As an admin - your changes seem to be biased in nature and that is concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelawareJefferson (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing biased about retaining valid, sourced content. What is biased is your attempt to whitewash it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hiral Tipirneni for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hiral Tipirneni 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 Articles for deletion/Hiral Tipirneni& 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. Marquardtika (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brady Dragmire


The article Brady Dragmire has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non notable minor league baseball player"

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. Fbdave (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2018 Korean Series.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2018 Korean Series.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) 03:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes of gov-elect & lt gov-elect
Concerning the topic of how to show the title in US gov-elect & US lt-gov elect infoboxes, perhaps you & should converse. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ext-Prote; List of 2019 albums
Hello, Mubos. Can you place extended-confirmed protection for List of 2019 albums, just like you did for List of 2018 albums? Looks like edits by non-extended confirmed editors are causing disruption and giving more work to the regular maintainers of the article. Thanks. Flooded  with them hundreds 05:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not even 2019 yet... I gave it semiprotection for three months. That's significant for its first protection. I'll try to keep an eye on it but ping me if that's not enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

TJ Cox
The man is probably going to be a member of the 116th Congress. What do you really think you're accomplishing by delaying the creation of his article by four or five days? Christ. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

May I just add that the portion of the election article discussing the up in the air nature of the race was removed by one of your powertripping buddies. Westroopnerd (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Probably" fails WP:CRYSTAL. I read the other day that Mia Love "probably" beat Ben McAdams. Keep election updates on the election article. Re: "power tripping", assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apples to oranges, Love and McAdams both had articles before the election itself and the race was never called for either of them on the election article. As it stands right now, there is no place on all of Wikipedia that contains vital information about the still-a-tossup nature of CA-21. It's misleading, and at the very least we should include something on the election article (something I'm trying to do right now). Westroopnerd (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Because Love and McAdams are notable due to their careers before the 2018 election and Cox is not. I added the info to the election article. It should not have said Valadao won. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP/N notice
There is currently a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding Steve Watkins (politician). 24.5.8.227 (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict
HEY! Why'd you do that? Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first edit was not WP:NPOV. Your second edit, I don't know what you were trying to do. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

GRRR! What was that for? That was actually useful! I know you said something about "good faith", but what?! Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was both a WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:EASTEREGG problem. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You around?
To help with this? Much appreciated if so thank you! Marquardtika (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It has been fixed, phew. Staring down a giant unfixable typo you've just made to a page title is the worst feeling! Marquardtika (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not available at the time, but I'm glad the whole thing got sorted out. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering how ti do that!
But didn't know who to ask. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad that helps! – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Erin Zwiener
Hello! Your submission of Erin Zwiener 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! Kosack (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, it's been two weeks and the QPQ still hasn't been provided. Please let us know on the nomination page whether you still plan to do one. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops, I thought I was caught up after the November elections. I'm two behind. I'll do them now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if...
I would appreciate it if you gave me more of your time than just the 1 minute needed to revert my edits, and thereafter didn't respond to any of my attempts to reach out. It seems you didn't read the discussion I had with User:Avial_Cloffprunker on the Talk page of this page, where they suggested the addition of a section on Controversy:


 * "During the general election in 2004, and to a much lesser extent, in 2008 and 2012, there was some controversy over various voter irregularities. I think that the current Wikipedia articles have a balanced and proportionate treatment of these issues, and thus can also serve as potential models for this page."

Your objection is duly noted, but why is this election different from others where controversy took place? Would it work if I gave the section a more appropriate title, or how do I go about avoiding it being a section on 'Controversy' without omitting all mentions of controversy on the topic entirely (as is the bias problem with the article now)?

I will remove the YouTube link from any further versions. I didn't know about that policy; apologies.

Also, if consensus "cannot be assumed," does it mean that if someone reverts my edit and thereafter disappears, it means I am barred from any further edits of that page? Surely there is some reasonable avenue for me to work towards editing a page, just as people have done before me? I've now spent several hours making edits that are reverted, with no end in sight, as cooperation is in effect refused, and thus when I make the edit there is inevitably something unsatisfactory about it. Selvydra (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Edit: Given that my attempts to add new content have repeatedly been rebuffed, I will (for now, anyway) make a smaller edit that neither you nor User:Avial_Cloffprunker have objected to in any segment of your critiques, to date. It mainly fixes the language that previous editors have left in. In a way, this is me reverting their edits (which you can only do by manual editing after someone else has edited after them), challenging their use of language. The main problem I object to in their work is using an overreaching straw-man (say, "X were accused of rigging the election,") then rebutting it, and landing on an implicit WP:OR conclusion that the election was free of any controversy. The citations that these editors have used, however, are more nuanced than that. (Say, "the election was unethical in parts, but it wasn't rigged.") Selvydra (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your second edit tonight mostly looks reasonable to me, although I have some reservations about the exact wording and just the sheer length of the intro. I'm still not quite sure what you mean in your critique of the older version for OR. As for the rest of the edit that got reverted, I think the problem is that it still has a lot of synth and implicit POV like I had mentioned previously. That's my view; it would certainly be helpful to hear from User:Muboshgu or any other interested editors. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the second edit is better, but I also have some concerns similar to Avial. I completely oppose ever adding a "Controversy" section. And I've been busier in the past month with 2018 elections than 2016 elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * and : – (Please read this if nothing else:) Lets address the second edit first, then. Which parts of the wording do you have concerns over? It's possible I went over what is considered WP:NPOV in one or more points, but I need to know where so I can address and/or fix it.
 * – Re: intro length: it was already that long before my edit. It only net-adds 33 words to a section that already had 734. It has been added to before in similar vein, so I hope it isn't my change that somehow broke the camel's back. I'm open to truncating it if you think it did, though.
 * Re: Critique of older edits: Here are specific examples to complement the broad explanation already given (here and on the article's talk page):
 * "Democratic Party Chairwoman Donna Brazile [...] was shown in the emails leaking primary debate questions to the Clinton campaign before the debates were held, although a senior aide to Sanders said that Brazile was also in touch with and provided guidance to the Sanders campaign."
 * This equates the leaking of debate questions with "providing guidance to a campaign," whereas, in the source [14 ], that wording is used of Brazile contacting campaigns in general, not in reference of the leaks. (I did leave this in, though.)
 * "Other media commentators have disputed the claim that Sanders' campaign was sabotaged, and assert that DNC members' internal preference for Clinton did not lead to any actions that changed the outcome of the race."
 * I have explained this specific one in more depth on the article's talk page (Ctrl+F a part of the quote to find). In short, it leaves the reader with a strong impression that what the DNC leaks showed had no effect at all on the race (whereas their hostility could have influenced the race by, say, cutting the debate schedule, helping the opponent with money-funneling, etc.). The commentators in these citations, however, don't dispute that it could have had some effect. As such, the edited version stresses this.
 * "In November 2017, Brazile alleged in her book and related interviews that the Clinton campaign and the DNC had colluded to bias the primary to Clinton.[122] This was subsequently contradicted when internal memos revealed the nature of the agreement between the two organizations, and Brazile shortly after retracted her remarks.[123][124]"
 * In those citations, Brazile never retracts her claim of the primary containing *bias* – rather, she clarifies that she didn't mean to imply it was rigged or criminal. Wording it such that she retracted (all) of her remarks goes against WP:SYNTH (subsection of WP:OR) in: "[D]o not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." In my edit, I changed this wording with direct quoted words from the article(s) in question.
 * I hope you can see now what I meant by: "using overreaching straw-man, then rebutting it, and landing on an implicit conclusion that the election was free of any controversy."
 * It's understandable you've been busy. I just wish you had taken 1 minute during these ~9 days to look at my userspace draft, as you could have told me sooner about it containing a WP:CSECTION and how they're undesired.
 * But, more to the point: Since the pages on the other presidential elections have content on controversy here, here and here, it's odd to me that this one should be an exception. I thought User:Avial_Cloffprunker's suggestion (in our Talk page discussion) to model this page after those made sense. Could there not at least be a section with a more specific title, so as to avoid having a blanket WP:CSECTION? Or, perhaps some of these could be added to earlier sections on the states' specific primary elections/caucuses?
 * Lastly, I wanted to point out I'm not the only one with these concerns despite being the only one to take the time to edit to address them. If you look at the talk page, the 3 out of 4 of the other sections (preceding our discussion) were all made by people critical of the fact that controversy has been mostly omitted from the article. But I do appreciate and reflect your wishes for a nuanced outcome. Selvydra (talk) 07:46, 2 December 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) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svgk Chan

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
 * A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
 * A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news
 * Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
 * To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
 * Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration
 * Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous
 * In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
 * Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries
 * (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing cont.
Well he would still be in the Phillies organization. NukeiCat (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * True, he is. But, the years in the infobox refer to seasons, and now we're in the offseason. He wasn't a member of the Phillies in the 2018 season, and the 2019 season doesn't start for five months. Spring training doesn't count. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't rule out the unlikely but possible scenarios. Like, what if they sign Machado to play shortstop and flip Segura somewhere else? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Andy Levin
Mifter (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Antonio Delgado (politician)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joey Votto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nee ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Joey_Votto check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Joey_Votto?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Sharice Davids
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Rfcs concernings infoboxes of politicians.
Howdy. I've requested closure of the two Rfcs at WikiProject Biography/Politics and government :) GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace Dove Christmas
Happy Holidays. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   23:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Brandon Hyde / Baltimore Orioles Manager
Hello, I know that you are very active in baseball articles and specifically ensuring that articles are not edited to reflect transactions awaiting official announcements. I have been keeping an eye on the Brandon Hyde and Baltimore Orioles pages as I've noted they have been getting a steady amount of edits in recent hours. I don't want to be viewed as excessively undoing other contributor's edits, each of which have to do with the mentioning of Hyde as the Orioles manager. MLB itself reported that he has not yet been hired. (https://www.mlb.com/orioles/news/latest-on-orioles-search-for-manager/c-301734770)

In any event, I just wanted to respectfully make you aware of this in case it is something you wanted to keep an eye on. I do my best to keep on top of baseball related pages, but I will be busy over the next 24 hours with exams.ChrisWilliam1995 (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and protected the article for a day, and hopefully the deal is done by then. I'll keep my eye on the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dan Crenshaw
— Maile (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Convinced?
Looks definitive to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Foote (talk • contribs) 18:14, December 12, 2018 (UTC)

 
 * I'm responding to the first link you provided . I'm convinced that they have "agreed" to a deal that could fall through. See the title: "Source: Cutch, Phillies agree to 3-year deal". So it's from unnamed "sources" and is only an "agreement" to finalize a deal, not a finalized deal. The article goes on to say "But a source told MLB.com..." ... who's the source? Could they be wrong? Possibly. Because the article also says the agreement is "pending a physical", which could be failed. They have failed and nullified deals before. Also, "The club has not confirmed the signing." So there you go. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not an ESPN Insider so I can't read the whole Olney link. He's right 99% of the time but we need to consider the 1%. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And the 6ABC link uses the same language to hedge: "sources", "agreed", "unconfirmed". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the free time or energy that you have to argue with your totally indefensible reversion. It's a done deal with the Phillies, and you know it.  So, do what you will. Terry Foote (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From ESPN "The Philadelphia Phillies and outfielder Andrew McCutchen have agreed to a deal, sources confirmed to ESPN." How much more definitive do you need?  Anything less than admitting your wrong just makes you look like...........well, not good.Terry Foote (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But it's not a done deal. It's an agreement in principle. We wait for finalized, official deals. This ain't it yet. Deals fall through. Here's a partial list of deals that have fallen through. "Sources confirmed to ESPN" isn't definitive at all. Who are the sources? We need to hear from the Phillies organization directly. I'm not wrong. You're impatient. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. I think acknowledging a good faith edit from a longtime user would be greatly with your perview as a seasoned editor.  Treating me like a random IP address floating in and putting in random gossip just makes me wonder why I even bother editing.  Terry Foote (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If I came across as too snippy, I apologize. You can imagine how many premature edits are made in the offseason, especially during the Winter Meetings (like yesterday the run of people putting Syndergaard on the Yankees). But assuming good faith goes both ways, and you talked about my "totally indefensible reversion", "It's a done deal with the Phillies, and you know it", "Anything less than admitting your wrong just makes you look like...........well, not good." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You could've easily put in your reversion note "reverted good faith edit...", but instead you dismissed me like a random IP address. It just really makes me wonder why I bother having anything to do with Wikipedia at all.  BTW, look who took the photo of McCutchen.  Not bad, right?  Anyway, the Phillies are my team, Cutch is one of my favorite players, and yes I was excited that he's playing in Philadelphia now.  The sheer number of good faith edits I make that are factually correct but reverted is stunning to me. So, my point is, you struck with lack of good faith first, so how was I supposed to respond?  Anyway, as I've said, I don't have the time, energy or patience for this.  Anyway..........I see your edits frequently, and I respect you, so I hope we can work in the future peaceably.  Terry Foote (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, yes, I should've marked it good faith. Remember if you need consider "why you bother" editing here that we don't break news here, and we don't repeat "BREAKING NEWS" from others either. I do hope to see you editing around and in future collaborations. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Ken Rosenthal and Jeff Passan have both confirmed this deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbyBahama (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not the Rays. They have been wrong before. And you didn't present any sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I literally just got an account 10 minutes ago and I'm just trying to navigate the system. Excuse me for my unknowingness. So once the Rays confirm it, will I be able to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbyBahama (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's okay. I'm happy to provide any guidance that I can. When the Rays confirm it, we can regard it as official. The teams will usually make a post on their official Twitter accounts to let us know. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK
My edit summary says that I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Brenda Jones (politician) to prep 4, but I'm just letting you know that I moved it to prep 6 because the other prep area already has a US politics hook. SL93 (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I really don't care which prep area it goes into. Thanks for the update. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. I just didn't want anyone to wonder why my edit summary was wrong. :) SL93 (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity to what the other US politics hook is, I looked, and it's one of mine too. :) – Muboshgu (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nothing Breaks Like a Heart
Can you semi-protect the page to persistent block evasion by User:MariaJaydHicky. 183.171.113.16 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Erin Zwiener
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

kamala harris
Hi Muboshgu,

You and someone else seem to have reverted my additions to the Kamala Harris wiki on the basis that they are "disruptive." I beg to disagree, please allow me to explain. I am a highly regarded investigative reporter, see www.peterbyrne.info In 2003 I wrote the first major profile of Ms. Harris for a well known publication, SF Weekly, see: https://archives.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/kamalas-karma/Content?oid=2149429

And in 2017, I wrote another profile for the well known publication American Consequences, see https://americanconsequences.com/the-kamala-contradiction/

Both of these professionally reported articles report PROVEN FACTS that do not appear elsewhere in the existing wiki. I have no intention of "disrupting" anything, and I am, in fact, politically non-partisan. I do not have experience editing wikipedia, so I may have done something that violates policy. If so, please explain so I can learn from this. Both of the articles I referenced contribute facts that do not appear elsewhere in the wiki.

I can be reached at pbyrne@sonic.net

142.254.104.88 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)÷−≤Peter Byrne
 * Hi. It was disruptive to reinsert the content that another editor had objected to without any discussion. I appreciate you reaching out now. I have a WP:NPOV concern about how you mentioned her campaign contributors, suggesting that they have control of her, or of Willie Brown having control of her, without any evidence of such. I think it would be best to continue this discuss on Talk:Kamala Harris, since some eof that article's editors won't be looking here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Brenda Jones (politician)
Alex Shih (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

For your information, if you are interested
See this edit summary:. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess I was too quick. It happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. The main thing is that my mistake got reverted, and it doesn't matter a lot who reverted it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Joe Cunningham (American politician)
Alex Shih (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox changes
Who are you to unilaterally change the format of an infobox? It just doesn't look right. You need to get consensus from your fellow editors. Is there any way to change it back? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Who am I?" Ever hear of WP:BEBOLD? Anyway, I included the MOS link in my edit summary. It's clear. MOS:ACCESS / MOS:FONTSIZE are clear: "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections." There's no room for debate on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But some templates should be left alone, for consistency. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * All infobox and navbox templates should have small removed from them. I'm doing it wherever I find it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have said, you need consensus from your fellow editors. They may not like what you did either. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need consensus for that. The consensus is already baked into MOS. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, you need to let other interested editors know. There's WikiProject Television Stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No editor is expected to go to every relevant WikiProject when making edits to an article. Especially this, an edit that's trying to keep up with MOS. I can tell you now, that alot of the WP:TVS articles are out of compliance and I've requested a bot to take care of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Careful
This was not a "bold edit" but a revert. That bit has been in and out of the article a few times in the past 48 hours, and it's currently the subject of an RfC at the bottom of the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then, consider that my one revert for the day. (I didn't see the RfC. I didn't scan all the way down the page.) – Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Andruw Jones
Hello Muboshgu, the edits I made on the Anduw Jones page are sourced from french CBC television program Podium on Dec.8th that featured Joshua Jones as a 13 year old baseball player. It also showed an interview with his mother and coach. Please revert back my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mactin (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope that you can understand that a claim as significant as parentage in a WP:BLP is best treated as a sensitive issue. I didn't immediately find that story when I looked in English-language sources, but I do see it now on radio-canada.com. We need to have that reference in the article as an inline citation because of BLP rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for 2018 National League Central tie-breaker game
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for 2018 National League West tie-breaker game
Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Your warning about vandalism
My edit to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was serious and not vandalism. It contained two author references. Also, the discussion was hatted, but I am almost certain it was not closed. My question is was it in the process of being closed but not quote done when I made my edit, or was there a written notice on the header? I would not have made an edit if it had been blue background with standard notice.Phmoreno (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I hatted the discussion. That should've been enough to signify discussion was closed. And those authors you mentioned are definitely WP:FRINGE. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This consistent and repetitive recommendation of unreliable sources worries me. An ability to vet sources for reliability is an essential skill here, so competence seems to be an issue. There also seems to be an issue with ignoring many warnings and much good advice from many editors on this point. Many editors who share Phmoreno's political POV and support for Trump in real life still manage to follow our policies and avoid the use of unreliable sources here, which is fine, but Phmoreno can't seem to do that. If they continue to do this in articles and in discussions, well.....then something will need to be done. A topic ban from American politics may be a solution if they persist. Let's hope that won't be necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, don't lecture me about POV.Phmoreno (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't done that. Read more carefully. It is your use of unreliable sources that is the problem, not your political POV. It's that you "can't seem to" "follow our policies and avoid the use of unreliable sources here". You use unreliable sources. Stop doing that here. In your personal life you can do that, but here it's not an option. You must not do that here.
 * Granted, you'd have to maintain a sort of split personality to maintain that separation of personal beliefs from editing practices, but you'll have to do that. Ideally you'd show a positive learning curve by learning from RS and changing your personal views. Then it would be easy for you to believe and do what's right all the time. That doesn't seem possible for you, so you'll just have to censor yourself and keep your personal views, and the unreliable sources they are based on, away from this place. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Muboshgu: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


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

DYK for Kyle Regnault
Mifter (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Wade Boggs Statistics line deletion
Hello and good evening. I see you are knowledgeable about baseball, you have done a lot of things on Wikipedia, however I have done stats lines for other players and I don't see what the problem was with this one. Do you want me to do it in another format? If so, I will. I can do his career stats another way. Please let me know what to do, I see nothing wrong with what I did, I have used the same format with other Hall of Famers and non-Hall of Famers. Other position players and pitchers have stats lines not citing a specific source. I used Baseball Reference as a source. Have a good evening and thank you for your time.2601:581:8000:21B0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Defense of page"Dale Manzo"
Can you please explain to me why you have nominated the page "Dale Manzo" for deletion? I have put multiple references on the page, (12) to be exact as of now. All references are from across the state of Missouri and two are even from official government websites. This page is not an autobiography, I do know Dale Manzo and that is how I was able to create this page, but the content is 100% neutral and neither supports or opposes this person.D63025 (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Forrest Dunbar for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Forrest Dunbar 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 Articles for deletion/Forrest Dunbar 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. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  21:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ro Khanna
Thank you & sorry for the inconvenience. I was creating a Ro Khanna page in wikiquotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ro_Khanna and didn't realize i was in wikipedia at that point... thank you for catching/correcting my error. I realized what i had done in less than 1 minute, but when went to correct it, you had already done so. So, terribly sorry for inconveniencing you & thank you for your fast response and for your millions of contributions to wikipedia! Om777om (talk) 22:06, 28 December 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) 00:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Matt Shoemaker
Hi. Thanks for the correction. I found an official article from Major League Baseball (https://www.mlb.com/news/blue-jays-matt-shoemaker-agree-to-1-year-deal/c-302237612), so I have restored the comment about him signing with the Blue Jays because this is an official article. Thanks. Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The key line in that mlb.com article is "Toronto officially announced the signing." Prior to that, articles say the agreement is "according to sources", or "pending a physical examination", which indicates it's not a done deal and could still fall apart at the last minute. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Galobtter
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Orangemike
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BorgQueen •  Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Addshore



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD:
 * G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is db-disambig; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
 * R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion).  This is db-redircom; the text is unchanged.
 * G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use db-blankdraft.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
 * Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news
 * Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length . All accounts must have a password:
 * At least 8 characters in length
 * Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the [//github.com/wikimedia/password-blacklist Password Blacklist library])
 * Different from their username
 * User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
 * Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
 * Copyvio-revdel now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration
 * Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , ,.

Miscellaneous
 * Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
 * Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

recent page moves
Why did you arbitrarily move List of current members of the United States Senate and List of current members of the United States House of Representatives pages without a move request עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The moves are not arbitrary. I said why. MOS:CURRENTLY / WP:PRECISELANG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * arbitrarily means without getting any input that is what the RM is for, you put in an RM and state your reason for it and wait for consensus עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Arbitrary" means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system", and I'm making page moves based on the Manual of Style. Not every little thing requires community consensus. MOS was established with long discussions to establish it as consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes its your personnel whim that decided that MOS:CURRENTLY / WP:PRECISELANG applies in this situation you should put in an RM to see if anyone else agrees that it applies here, I believe it doesn't as the members do change all the time either through resignations, deaths, or elections. עם ישראל חי (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I complained about Muboshgu when he "arbitrarily" changed the formatting on TV station infoboxes. I told him he needed input from fellow Wikipedians. The "new" format just doesn't look right. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:ACCESS / MOS:FONTSIZE isn't "arbitrary" either. Just because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean I need to seek consensus for any edit that conforms to MOS. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% sure about what changes were made, but I am guessing from the wikilinks given as the reason is that the issues of small text was being fixed. Fellow Wikipedians have been making these changes too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Page moves and edits that remove "current", as per MOS:CURRENTLY / WP:PRECISELANG and edits that remove small from infoboxes, as per MOS:ACCESS / MOS:FONTSIZE. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is what I thought. You are clearly following the current consensus on Wikipedia. If another user has a problem with a format for infoboxes then they need to bring that up in appropriate venue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * In which venue should I bring up the infobox issue? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Talk:MOS:ACCESS could be a place to start. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Those changes to bigger fonts, are making the infoboxes content appear crowded :( GoodDay (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Compared to with small font, I'm sure it does appear comparatively "crowded". MOS:ACCESS exists to make articles easier to read for people with disabilities, and people without as well. I always have to strain my eyes to read small text in an infobox or navbox. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Enlarge your entire page. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't want my font size to be any bigger than it already is. And me zooming in doesn't help the people with disabilities. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Scott Walker for President
Hey Muboshgu, here are a couple articles proving a guy by the name of Scott Walker from Delaware, a Democrat, has intentions of running for president in 2020. And he is forming an exploratory committee. (Not to be confused with the other Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor.)

As far as the Delaware Scott Walker, he is a former manager of a couple recovery houses.

https://www.delaware1059.com/news/scott-walker-says-his-campaign-signs-are-staying-up-i/article_fbf0dc20-1025-11e9-8dfd-2fd5b874bcd2.html

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/07/now-democrat-delawares-scott-walker-eyes-bid-white-house/2232981002/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rammstein05 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the Delaware Scott Walker. I thought he most recently indicated he'd run for the House. Is your comment in response to an edit I've made? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

ITN section link
Hey. I fixed the link to the archived section (with this edit). If this is what you wanted, then you may want to look at Percent-encoding. If this wasn't what you wanted, please revert me. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or wikipedia's help page Help:URL --DannyS712 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , that totally makes sense. I knew it'd be something I wasn't thinking of. Thanks! – Muboshgu (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Spare cycles?
Would value an uninvolved opinion or closing at Template_talk:Infobox_college_coach. Also see the main template's recent edit history. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll take a look. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox college coach
Muboshgu, I just reverted your edit at Template:Infobox college coach. My edit summary contained typos so I wanted to clarify. I see you were concerned that the heading "Current position" was subject to becoming dated. But the fields in that section only apply when they are current. When the person retires, those fields are no longer applicable and should be cleared out. In other words, the heading "Current position" will never be dated, unless the data fields directly below it are also out-of-date. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/2018 Florida Amendment 4 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Shellwood
I thought semi or ECP creation protection would be better so Shellwood or another experienced user could create it in the future. Sorry, I should have specified that in my request. EclipseDude (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , no problem. I can adjust it down. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure User:Jimboswife was trying thoughtfully to create that RfA. We should all let that great Wikipedian do that. --Samthecannon (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your attention please
User:AdamBGregory keeps putting entries on the Texas Rangers minor league players page. Up to close to a dozen. Just wanted you to beware of it and see if any of the players he added are notable. 24.162.134.57 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent adds to Rangers minors list
All recent adds have been either a recent high round draft pick, recently acquired player, and or player awarded a 2018 organizational award. Most of them are also on a Baseball America/milb team top 30 list, or will soon be on when they update before the start of the 2019 season. AdamBGregory (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , it should be based on notability, or rather, near notability. None of those things matter much if there isn't some sourcing behind them. I haven't looked through them all, but Demarcus Evans looks weak. Just The Baseball Cube, MiLB.com stats page, and a tweet? Are there no newspapers writing about him? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ro Khanna edit
Why did you undo my citation needed addition(s) to the Ro Khanna page? The fact remains; there are statements made that have no cites, and frankly, are poorly-worded. Asaturn (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't undo any of your edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Is your account secure? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ro_Khanna&type=revision&diff=878107398&oldid=878075146 Asaturn (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, it is. There were several edits in between your edit mentioning "no cite for Roe and Rooney and Sarbanes" and my two minor edits on January 12. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Adam Ottavino
Hey Muboshgu,

Just wanted to let you know that Adam Ottavino signing with the New York Yankees is NOT as previously stated as being "anonymous sources" is NOT TRUE.

Furthermore as per previous message, here is the link as you had asked.

By the way for official disclosure, I DO NOT POST FALSE POST ABOUT ANY PERSON, PLACE, OR THING on WIKIPEDIA.

When i posted that Ottavino signing with the Yankees, it was reported on by the team and on Newsday (based in Long Island, NY) Newspaper website.

The claim being premature was already refuted by two sources as mentioned above.

Here's the link

https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/yankees-adam-ottavino-1.26056262 — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.D. Benedetto (talk • contribs) 15:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't say it was a "false" post, but it is premature. The team did not comment on it. Newsday says "The team did not announce the deal, which is pending a physical." Physicals can be failed. It's not unprecedented for a deal to be leaked only for it to fall apart. The reporters who do this work are WP:BREAKINGNEWS as part of their job. We are an encyclopedia and need to wait for things to be verified. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Adam Ottavino
How many sources does one need to have for it to be verified, by the way it's been reported on YES Network last night (YES Network) the New York Yankees Channel. Where's there so called "Premature". It's already confirmed by more than two sources.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ottavad01.shtml http://web.yesnetwork.com/index.jsp https://www.mlb.com/yankees

I'll trust YES Network over ESPN any day of the week.

So "WP:BREAKINGNEWS" it is beyond that, however out of deference of arguing semantics regarding last minute deals falling apart, I agree so let's see the PRESS CONFERENCE on YES Network start and finish before we put Ottavino as a Yankee on Wikipedia. DEAL?

I think that's beyond fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.D. Benedetto (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, we want to wait for an official team announcement that the deal is done. Before that, there's still a chance an agreement could fall apart. YES Network is partly owned by the team, but it has editorial independence from the team, like MLB.com and MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

AJ Pollock
I can't deny that it's not official yet, but it's been reported to ESPN, The Athletic, AND Ken Rosenthal. The only thing stopping it from being official is a physical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.117.227.2 (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What if he fails the physical? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eline Powell


The article Eline Powell has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No indication of notability. There are three possibly-useful references beyond a bunch of interviews, other non-independent sources and passing mentions, HLN, Deadline and Hollywood Reporter. Deadline doesn't say much and not what it's cited for, and Hollywood Reporter uses a single sentence to pan Powell's performance in what appears to have been her most notable role. HLN is 'local woman has big success'-style human-interest reporting. That's not enough."

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. Huon (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Since the article had already been discussed previously, I made it a new deletion discussion instead of proposing the page for deletion; you can find it at Articles for deletion/Eline Powell (2nd nomination). Sorry for the incorrect message above. Huon (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Seeking your Assistance w/ ongoing Vandalism on my Wikipedia Page
What is being added is not factual. Is there a way for me to proceed with Wikipedia so I can have the page closed?

Thank you for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:700:354C:F0D7:C606:EE5B:4CE8 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What about it is not factual? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate for the subject of a Wikipedia article to seek to remove factual and relevant information from her page (issues regarding a congressional candidate's honesty, brought up during the campaign, creating a controversy and being published in major newspapers certainly are relevant to the biography of a politician) merely because it is embarrassing to her? And am I the only one who finds it curious that the account "GovernmentTiger" was created right after the subject of the article complained about the embarrassing information about her, and GovernmentTiger's first (and, so far, only) two edits have been to remove the information to which the subject of the article objected? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , probably not. I imagine per WP:DUCK that the IP and "GovernmentTiger" are one in the same person. I can't read the Boston Globe article because of the paywall. So, I can't tell if the info contained in it is WP:UNDUE or totally appropriate to include. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I find it disturbing that she complains about what is included in "her article" and asks how to remove the article itself, as if it were a private Facebook page or campaign website or something. The content, not to mention the existence, of an encyclopedia article on a prominent person should not be subject to the whims and caprices of the subject of the article.


 * I was able to read the Boston Globe article (one gets three free articles per month), and it is a straightforward news article, not an opinion piece. The article states that Matias "has repeatedly told voters she once served as an immigration attorney," and gave several examples of her having referred to herself publicly as an attorney:


 * 1. "At a debate in Lowell in late April, she emphasized her connections to the district, saying she returned to the area after law school as an “immigration attorney defending children in deportation proceedings.”"


 * 2. "Weeks earlier, she described herself to the Lowell Sun’s editorial board as both a “legal aid attorney” and an “immigration attorney,” according to the newspaper and a video it included online."


 * 3. "And in a campaign video Matias released in December — and as of Friday morning [May 25, 2018], was promoting at the top of her official Twitter account — she tells viewers she was a “justice AmeriCorps attorney.”"


 * The Boston Globe article further provides that Matias did not pass the Massachusetts bar until seven months after leaving her job at AmeriCorps, and that she was formally admitted to the bar four months after that.


 * The article's discussion of the ramifications of having claimed to be an attorney prior to having passed the bar was presented in an unbiased and balanced way, with quotes both from law professors pointing out that it was a violation of the rules of conduct of Massachusetts attorneys and Matias supporters who defended her by pointing to the lack of intent to mislead and asserting that the type of work that she did as an "advocate" was similar to what an attorney would have done.


 * So the information provided in the Wikipedia article is (i) public, (ii) factual and (iii) true to a reliable (and well respected--it is the Boston Globe, not the National Enquirer) source. The only plausible reason for the deletion of such information from the Wikipedia article would be if it were not relevant to the article, but factually based and publicly reported accusations of dishonesty (or, in the light most favorable to Matias, puffery) with respect to a then-sitting state legislator and congressional candidate would be a relevant topic for a biographical article on a politician even if such accusations did not lead to official sanctions.  If a politician (or her proxies) are able to remove such information from an article merely because it is inconvenient or causes embarrassment, would the article on Joe Biden need to be stripped of references to the accusations of plagiarism that plagued his 1988 presidential run because the Delaware bar did not commence proceedings against him, or would we have to delete references to the Keating Five from the article on John McCain because McCain was never charged with a crime?


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity platform such as Facebook. Articles should be factual and unbiased, and relevant information should be included even if the subject of the article would rather have people forget about embarrassing things in her public life.  AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's definitely factual, sourced, and presented neutrally (at least after I had made some edits). Again, the only question I have remaining is whether or not it is WP:UNDUE weight. Since it is a short article, this lawyer/advocate thing becomes a large percentage of the total content, which could be undue. Expanding the article elsewhere could help, but I didn't see much on her when I created the article, and I don't know how much more there is now, for a one-term state representative. Was there really any significance in the lawyer vs. advocate thing? The article says it "could be" an ethics violation, but she wasn't charged with anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This is what the article had to say about whether her claims to having acted as an "attorney" violated ethics rules:


 * 1. "But during the 11 months she was legally allowed to appear in immigration court as an advocate, Matias had yet to be admitted to the Massachusetts bar. To claim to have been a lawyer at that time is both “unacceptable,” according to legal ethics experts, and a potential violation of the code of conduct used to police the state’s legal profession.


 * “I think it is false and it’s inaccurate to say you were working as an immigration attorney if you were not admitted to the bar,” said Nancy J. Moore, a Boston University law professor and former prosecutor who specializes in professional ethics. “We have students who are licensed in clinics to go into court to perform the work of an attorney under supervision. But they would be clearly instructed to never refer to themselves as a lawyer.


 * “That, to me, is unacceptable,” she said."


 * 2. "But, experts say, there’s a clear distinction between an attorney and a legal advocate — a term Matias has also used at times to describe her work, including on her campaign website.


 * Even in the context of the campaign trail, her claim of being an immigration attorney could run afoul of the Supreme Judicial Court’s Rules of Professional Conduct, experts say. Moore, the BU professor, said it could violate one rule that states an attorney “shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services.”"


 * 3. "Michael Cassidy, a Boston College law professor who trains attorneys nationally on their responsibilities under professional conduct rules, said her comments could also violate a different section of the rules, which defines “professional misconduct,” in part, as conduct “involving dishonesty.”


 * “Technically, it could be construed as a misrepresentation under the rules,” said Cassidy, though he said he doubts any disciplinary board would pursue formal action against Matias given she isn’t currently practicing.


 * “It’s up to the public to judge whether they think that’s a big enough deal to undercut her qualifications for public office,” he said."

I don't believe that it is giving "undue weight" to the accusations of having misrepresented her past service when the Wikipedia article includes one sentence on the controversy and a short follow-up sentence saying that she later joined the Massachusetts bar (which, as you noted, you cleaned up to remove even a hint of bias).

But I do think that the sentence that reads "While campaigning for Congress, Matias claimed that she was an immigration lawyer when in fact she was an advocate who had not yet been admitted to the Massachusetts bar" should be moved to the final paragraph (which is devoted to the congressional run), along with a reference to her claims having become an issue during the campaign. I also would rephrase the biographical sentences in the long paragraph so that they read "She worked as an immigration advocate before going to work for her family's construction company, and was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in June 2016" (which would eliminate the reference to the fact that she passed the bar on the third try, which isn't really all that relevant--had she taken the bar for the first time in February 2016 (when she passed), it still would have meant that she wasn't a licensed attorney when she provided immigration-advocacy work). Would you mind if I took a crack at reworking the article in the way that I just described? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I saw what you did, and it looks good to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg
Thanks for creating Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign. Just FYI, the Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign article was redirected to Andrew Yang (entrepreneur), so don't be surprised if someone attempts to do the same thing here. Personally, I'd rather see standalone articles for both campaigns, but maybe the Yang campaign article just needs a bit of expansion. Happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I imagine it's less likely to be redirected because he is an elected official, albeit not at the level typically associated with major candidates. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Edgar Martinez
Thanks for expanding it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamma085 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)