User talk:Muboshgu/Archive 42

2020 Schedules
The 2020 schedules have been released. I would sure appreciate some help on creating the new seasons. Astros1962 (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The new seasons really don't need to be created until the current seasons are finished. Just the existence of the schedules is not enough to make it necessary. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy here is WP:FUTURE. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. ... Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger edit dispute
I have made 2 recent revisions to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger page. You have flagged it as unconstructive and disruptive but it's not. For all her other occupations and accomplishments to be included but the term eugenicist to be excluded shows bias and is contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. You are disrupting the free flow of information which is what this is supposed to be about. I again asked you to reply to my revision to tell me what specifically you have a problem with and you did not. Which leads me to believe to have no intention of being reasonable and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwpom (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that has come up over and over again on the talk page. And out of nowhere, you come and add "eugenicist" to the page and edit war to reinsert it twice after it's been taken out. This is rather than follow the general policy of bold, revert, discuss, which says that if an edit is reverted, the previous version remains while talk page discussion can take place. So, your edit is unconstructive and disruptive. Go to the talk page of the article if you want to further discuss. Further reverts can result in your being blocked for edit warring. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

re: Erin Mendenhall entry
The subject is indeed a candidate for political office. I went looking for an online biography of the candidate and felt what I was finding online was lacking detail. There are two other potential candidates for mayor of Salt Lake City - the votes are still being counted to determine which of them will be up against Erin Mendenhall. Their names are Jim Dabakis and Luz Escamilla and they both have wikipedia pages with detailed information about their lives and what they have done. I begin this page in the hope that we can learn more about the confirmed candidate who has so far earned the most votes from the electorate. It has been a very long time since I created or edited anything on wikipedia, and yes I failed to include a citation. RichAlger and I are not the same person. I have a single account and I do not share that account with anyone else. I had posted on Facebook about the lack of a wikipedia entry for Erin Mendenhall, and RichAlger saw my post and suggested I could create a page. Then he saw what I had posted and added a citation. A bit after that he came in and added additional information and citations. He clearly understands better how wikipedia works than I do. So I was grateful that he became involved. This entry for Erin Mendenhall should be taken out of the draft space and made public so that others can see it and add additional pertinent information. People in Salt Lake City will need sources of information about every candidate in the upcoming election. Danithew (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate you clearing up the relationship between you and RichAlger. I moved your comment from Talk:Erin Mendenhall to Articles for deletion/Erin Mendenhall in order to keep conversation about whether the article should be kept or deleted streamlined in one place. I replied to it there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Ceran

 * Thanks for the assistance. Your block section appeared as I posted my polite request :D Koncorde (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , happy to help. I gave that user more than enough rope. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

oops
sorry about that. — Ched : ?    —  23:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it was an honest mistake. I just have no idea where that description came from. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess I just went brain dead while I was importing wikidata stuff. Certainly one of the odder ones I've seen - glad you caught it.  Thanks again and hagd. — Ched :  ?    —  08:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard / Syria: Josh Rogin vs. Tulsi Gabbard
Dear Muboshgu, I added the second source from Josh Rogin In Syria, we ‘took the oil.’ Now Trump wants to give it to Iran because it contrasts Rogin's policy for Syria with Gabbard's. Gabbard wants the US to leave Syria. Rogin wants the US to stay in Syria forever to exploit the Syrian oil fields, because the "U.S. mission in Syria is really about containing Iranian expansionism, [...] and stopping Russia from exerting influence over the region. The United States has serious national security interests in making sure that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran don’t push America out of Syria and declare total victory." This motivation stands in strong contrast to Rogin's "humanitarian concerns" over Gabbard's "long record of defending the Assad regime and parroting its propaganda, forming the basis for the assertion Gabbard has “embraced and been an apologist for” Assad". Rogin's opinion piece on Gabbard contains a lot of lies. If this is allowed to be referenced by Wikipedia, we should at least also allow the readers to gain a better understanding on what Rogin's motivations are and why he is so aggressively opposing Gabbard. Alternatively, we could remove all sources from Rogin in the Gabbard article. They are just opinion pieces, after all. WP:RSOPINION Xenagoras (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , the text "In March 2018, Rogin wrote an opinion piece, warning US President Donald Trump that the US military should not leave Syria, because the US "took the [Syrian] oil" and should not "let it fall into the hands of Iran" because the US intervention in Syria serves the purpose of "containing Iranian expansionism, preventing a new refugee crisis, fighting extremism and stopping Russia from exerting influence over the region" seems to have nothing to do with Gabbard. It's about Surian policy as a whole, and therefore a WP:COATRACK. Why do we care about Rogin's opinion? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you imply we should remove Rogin's (and other's) opinions from the Syria section altogether? User  inserted the opinion of Rogin because he thought "Gabbard's claims are outside the mainstream on Syria and have no critical response from RS". Xenagoras (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the op-eds since didn't want them either. Xenagoras (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Correction to my page
Please permit me to make the edit to the Woody Myers page in which I deleted the reference to playing football at Stanford University. It is not true, even though it was published in the LA Times. If someone check the listing of football players at Stanford for the years 1970-73 the name Woody Myers does not appear. How do I know this?- It is because I am Woody Myers. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmyersmd (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Correction to my page
Wmyersmd (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)Please permit me to make the edit to the Woody Myers page in which I deleted the reference to playing football at Stanford University. It is not true, even though it was published in the LA Times. If someone check the listing of football players at Stanford for the years 1970-73 the name Woody Myers does not appear. How do I know this?- It is because I am Woody Myers. Thank you Wmyersmd (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC) https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/stanford/1971-roster.html; https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/stanford/1972-roster.html; https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/stanford/1973-roster.html
 * , okay. Wikipedia policy is "verifiability, not truth", but it seems in this case we can verify the LA Times made an error. I'll take it out. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Rashida Tlaib
Hi, Muboshgu! I see that you recently revdel’ed some edits at this article; thank you for that. Do you think the time has come to change that article’s existing PC protection to semi-protection? I’m out of town so I don’t have access to my tools. See what you think. Thanks. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I thought about it while I revdel'd and decided one more and I would. I'll keep an eye on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. MelanieN alt (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's semiprotected now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had a feeling it wouldn’t be long. 07:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN alt (talk • contribs)
 * , you beat me to that revert by not much. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL! That's a hot article, no doubt about it. You'll probably beat me next time. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , the sooner edits like that are reverted, the better. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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) 00:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Steven Matz
I saw you reverted my edits about Stephen Matz because you said they were too detailed. I am fairly new to editing about baseball players, so if that is the case, fair enough. But is there some sort of Wikipedia guideline or policy that dictates what level of detail should be included in a baseball player article? Can you direct me to it, or give me some more guidance about what level of detail is considered acceptable? — Hunter Kahn 12:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , there isn't anything explicit, but there is policy advice in WP:NOTNEWS and Too much detail. From what I remember of your edit to Matz, you got into way too much detail about his demotion to the bullpen, and what Callaway was saying to the press about it. That's NOTNEWS. All we care about are the basic facts: he struggled, got moved to the bullpen, came back to the rotation, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That’s all fair enough, and I honestly don’t disagree with you either. As I said, this is an area I don’t edit about very often, and I probably overdid it on the detail. Lol I’d have rather we talked it out in the talk page or something so I could’ve had a chance to revise what was there rather than a blanket revert of ‘’all’’ of it... but obviously it’s preserved in the edit history, so no harm done. :) I plan to re-add a scaled-back version of the content pretty soon, and we can go from there. — Hunter Kahn 17:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've restored some of the content, but significantly scaled back the amount of detail; it's about 40% of the previous length. I think it's much tighter and limited to the most important information now, and frankly I think it's an improvement over what was there before. I do plan further additions to this article, but for earlier parts of his career, I don't expect to add more to this particular portion. Just wanted to let you know in case you wanted to check it out. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b><b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Ka</b><b style="color:#595454">hn</b> 03:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'll take a look at it and trim (rather than revert) if necessary, later. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

point of view
I would ask that if you are INVOLVED, in the discussion and having political opinions, that you kindly stop threatening me. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you've been blocked before for violating discretionary sanctions. I am reminding you of them and that you could be blocked again. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiEdits
Hi, Muboshgu,

Wikipedia is a source of free speech, and therefore - Wikipedia - a source edited by millions can make minor edits just as long as the editor is professional and 100% accurate with his/her choice of words. You seemed to have removed the word "respected" from Wikipedia because it had to have a good reason. As a subject to opposition, respect seems to carry a heavily armored and in-depth meaning. Just because I included the word "respected" does not disobey any law or any restriction regarding Wikipedia or the Universe. In fact, minor edits transpire every single day by millions of people - just like you and me; which is what makes Wikipedia a fun but professional source for your daily read. I thank you again for the message that you have sent me and I hope you get back to me soon on fixing the deletion of the word respected.

RepKevin (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC) RepKevin
 * , the word "respected" is WP:PUFFERY and does not adhere to a neutral point of view. NPOV is one of the five pillars that Wikipedia is founded on, so, yes, it "disobeys" a "Wikipedia restriction", if you want to put it that way. Also, I reverted your changing the article's mentions of him from "Kenendy" to "Joe", because of MOS:SURNAME. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I will admit my mistake. However, I did not see any reason to remove the fact that JFK was our 35th President, whether you love him or hate him - which don't get me wrong - does not break Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RepKevin (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I agree that stating that JFK was the 35th POTUS is NPOV. I could've been more careful there to not remove that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Will Dismukes
Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New York City portal selected lists


A tag has been placed on Category:New York City portal selected lists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New York City portal selected biographies


A tag has been placed on Category:New York City portal selected biographies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Bezos erroneous warning to investors
When Jeff Bezos warned the early investors that there was a 70% chance that Amazon would fail, neither he nor anyone else knew what was going to happen after that. Bezos gave them the worst possible advice when he told them not to buy the stock. If those investors had ignored his advice and put all of their money into that one particular security, they could be billionaires today.

For your information, I met Bezos' brother Mark about seven years ago. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a sibling of the richest person in the world.Anthony22 (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , he may have been absolutely right that there was a 70% chance the company would fail. That still means a 30% chance it doesn't. That must be something, being the brother of a billionaire. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:New York City portal selected articles


A tag has been placed on Category:New York City portal selected articles requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion nomination for Brock Bond Muboshgu - you reverted my edit without discussion. Minor-league American baseball players never get wiki pages. Is there a reason you are shepherding this article? Is there any notability here beyond the scope of the article? Thank you tiptopper Tiptopper (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , please read up on WP:PROD. Any editor can remove a prod notice without giving any reason, and I gave a reason in my edit summary. "Minor-league American baseball players never get wiki pages"... absolutely not true. Check out Category:Minor league baseball players, there are many who never reached MLB and remain notable because they pass WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu - thank you. Tiptopper (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

WP BLPNAME?
Does this only apply to improperly sourced names? Not to names released to the general media. --69.115.242.17 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We generally don't want to include the names of non-notable minors, just to err on the side of their privacy, even if their names and DOBs have been reported on. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

MLBPAA Heart and Hustle Award
Good morning,

My name is Alex and I'm a representative of the MLBPAA. We're looking to update our Heart and Hustle Wikipedia page, however due to the protections on the page we are unable to make any edits. While I understand the reasoning behind this, we want to make sure this page does get accurately updated. I noticed very recently that Mookie Betts was finally added to the page and I thank you for doing that. In the future, if there's a better way to make sure these updates occur in a more timely manner, please let me know and I will be happy to assist.

Thank you! Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLBPAA (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , hi. I see that Betts was indeed added months after the fact. That's an error on our parts. I see the next winner is announced on November 7. I will endeavor to remember that. If the page isn't updated within a day or two of the announcement, ping me again and I'll add it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I will keep an eye out and reach out if I don't see an update shortly after Nov. 7. I appreciate your help! MLBPAA (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * User:MLBPAA, a couple of notes. First, please review Paid-contribution disclosure for details on your needing to reveal your status as a paid editor (as you have done here, but have not done for every edit or in a way that can be applied to all edits), as well as Conflict of interest. Second, if for some reason Moboshgu is unavailable, you can also seek out editors interested in baseball at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. isaacl (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , isaacl is correct. You can ask for anyone's help on Talk:Heart & Hustle Award, in case I don't respond. But, if you do want to make sure I see the H&H winner, give it to CC Sabathia. :) – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about requesting a Reassessment on a Baseball Article
I have been editing Jesse Burkett, and have nearly doubled the size of the article and have added 21 references (including books and online sources) and believe the class of the article is above Start-Class. I would post on the Assessment page on the Wikiproject Baseball but it seems as if there hasn't been any activity since 2018. As you are an active editor in the Project and a member of the Old-Time baseball task force and hall of fame task force I felt like you would be the best to reach out to. Please let me know if I should reach out to someone else or post on the assessment page.

Thanks, Hamma085 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , great job with the expansion! I think it's now a C-class at least. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , I thought so too, is there a proper protocol for assessments or shall I message one of the active editors (or you)? Hamma085 (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's nothing too formalized about it. You can ping me for any pages you expand and I'll take a look at them. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , also, I gave you credit for the expansion at the The 50,000 Challenge. Please sign up and list any of your work there. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Paul Waner Assessment
I have been working on improving Paul Waner from Start class, I've added 27 references (mix between books, newspapers, and online articles). Before, the article was a mash up of career stats with very little flow and had different portions of his career mixed in with stats from different years. Now it follows the timeline of his career with additional detail that was missing from before. Cleaned up grammar and removed redundant pieces of information that were mentioned many times. Added citations to statements, quotes and other miscellaneous facts that were not referenced before.

I'd like a re assessment to the article. Thanks. Hamma085 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , easily C-Class. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019
<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) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Woody Myers
valereee (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Beth Van Duyne
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Steven Matz question
Hey Muboshgu. Saw your most recent edits to my Steven Matz edits, most of which I am fine with or, or at least I accept them. I noticed, however, that you removed the final paragraph of 2018 that summed up his career stats at the conclusion of that year, with the rationale " we don't list his career stats after each season". It seems to me this is worthwhile information to include, and I wanted to know whether there was a policy-based reason for your removal? Is this just your subjective opinion that it's too much detail, or is there some sort of MOS for baseball-articles that specifically says such information should be excluded? It seems to me its inclusion meetings Wikipedia policy, but I haven't re-added it yet because I wanted to ask your explanation first... — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b><b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Ka</b><b style="color:#595454">hn</b> 02:36, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that was my subjective opinion. You can raise it with others at WT:BASEBALL if you want to get more opinions. I don't believe I've seen an article give career stats at the end of each season; we usually just give the season stats at the end of each year and career stats at retirement, if I'm not mistaken. I suppose it could be WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOMUCH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm personally of the opinion that it's worth including, but I'll raise the issue at WT:BASEBALL as you said to see if there's a consensus on it, and I'll abide by that. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b><b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Ka</b><b style="color:#595454">hn</b> 17:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I will as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Personal bias?
Editors will lash out at us for making edits yet no one will fix the bias on President Trumps page Dmmeds56 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , based on this edit, it seems like the personal bias is yours. Do not add unreferenced material for no purpose other than to disparage a subject you personally do not like again. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Floquenbeam • Lectonar
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news
 * Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
 * The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous
 * A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Chris Duncan
 Spencer T• C 22:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu, Thanks for taking up this ITNC. This would not have suceeded without your efforts. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wild Card
Hey, I was wondering on these MLB teams on the WC berth achievement years, I don't think it's spelled right. Don't the C supposed to be capital? Like is it supposed to be 'Wild Card berths' instead of 'Wild card berths'? Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it's correct. I don't think wild card in that sense is a proper noun. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, are you sure though? Because like 'World Series' and 'Central Division' are proper nouns. On TV and social media they have it spelled 'Wild Card'. I guess some is right. The NFL has it as 'Wild Card' berths Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If it is a proper noun I'm willing to edit it for every MLB team on here. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am absolutely not sure about whether or not "Wild Card" is a proper noun. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Jrrbrts69
I blocked him for the attack on your talk page. I also reverted him at the same article for his atrocious use of commas - they really made a mess. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

66.204.4.
Hello. Warned where: on the user_talk page of a range? Or—as you opted to—on user_talk:66.204.4.192 which didn’t make a single edit to en.Wikipedia? ☺ If you are about any of 64 individual user_talks, then a plenty of warnings exists: see user_talk:66.204.4.220 and user_talk:66.204.4.206 for examples. Your pointless round-about may only frustrate Wikipedians who spend their personal time to report vandals. Ask your script developer to disable operations with ranges because s/he was unable to handle it correctly. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not familiar with dealing with IP ranges. I see now the last part of the IP you warned included a range. That should have been made more clear in your report, and I would've left it to another admin to deal with. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * did not warn anybody in the /26 – other Wikipedians did it. My report presented a range which was unambiguously stated by the / character impossible in usernames, individual IPs included. The IPvandal template generates correct Special:Contribs and Special:Block links for ranges, hence it isn’t clear why should take any special precaution. Other sysops processed my rangeblock requests without complaints. If your software (in a very broad sense) errs on ranges, is it my problem, indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , like I said, I didn't notice the slash. Your text warning was not explicit about it, so I failed to notice it. The "software" that didn't catch it was my brain. Remember that you're dealing with humans here, and none of us are perfect. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a thread WP:Administrators' noticeboard. Wouldn’t you comment? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Scott Taylor politician edits
You described the edits on the Scott Taylor page as "unconstructive." That may be your OPINION, and that is all that it is. The language reported on the Scott Taylor page is absolutely not facts or a fact. Poorly written newspaper articles are not enough to rely on, especially when people's names are included in wikipedia articles in a negative light. The names are irrelevant to Scott Taylor's page. You do not know any of the facts regarding this issue, and others do. Yours is not the final authority on what happened, by whom and when. Enough of your high and mighty Wikipedia resolution procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptune47 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Your edit history on that page and you are uncivil tone in this message are quite unconstructive. engage in discussion on the top page about this issue without edit warring on the page itself or you may be blocked for disruptive editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu - Your incessant de-editing about a subject you know nothing about leads me to conclude that you are not acting in good faith and you are being unconstructive. Why is the language presented on this Wikipedia article unable to be edited by people who actually know facts about the matter? What or whose agenda are you promoting? Many of the sentences in this article are not verifiable and are flat out nonsense, yet you continue to delete good faith efforts to fix them. I am going to contact Wikipedia about you being unable to engage in actual dialogue and for promoting inaccurate information on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptune47 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Horrible journalist
Hi Muboshgu, hope all is well. I saw you deleted Horrible journalist. Would it be possible to salt the article? I don't see it on the title blacklist and I can't think of any reason for this article to be recreated. Thanks! --   LuK3      (Talk)   00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure. Happy to. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Bumgarner
My apologies, I must have misclicked something when checking recent changes without realizing it. ♥ Melody ♥ 01:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's okay. I misclick often on my watchlist, especially on a touchscreen. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Independent Democratic Conference
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Independent Democratic Conference 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 Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Ibraheem Samirah page
I made an effort to ensure that my edits were entirely factual. For example, Samirah has spoken publicly about his support for BDS. Please explain why you believe that my comments are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandar1 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the sources you used. Big League Politics is a right-wing source. Headlines of "Democrat Lawmaker With Ties To Hamas Front Group" and "Virginia Democrat Delegate Candidate Said Israel Is Worse Than KKK, Told Ariel Sharon To Burn In Hell" are not neutral. Surely if he's spoken in favor of BDS there are mainstream sources that back that up? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Cole Sulser
valereee (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Stop Your Unwarranted Threats and Bias
Including yet another example in a series of violations of military policy by a uniformed officer by quoting her own words is not disruptive editing. Stop abusing whatever power you think you have and allowing your bias to conceal important facts about a candidate for office.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you're doing is disruptive, and you have three editors telling you so. Stop now or you will be blocked. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Explain how exactly it met the definition of disruptive? That is a lie. 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Resinserting something that another editor objected to is disruptive. I further explained the troubles with the content on Talk:Tulsi Gabbard. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It was not reinserting. The other editor objected on the supposed grounds that what I said suggested that a law had been broken. All reference to the relevant law was removed. The second post was only of her own tweet and a direct quote. Now that you have been proven wrong once, explain how that was disruptive, or else restore the contribution immediately and report the editors who did this.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To what purpose did you reinsert the tweet? When do we ever include something somebody tweeted without any context? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

In the context of the paragraph that immediately preceded it. In the context that it is a policy position of hers, and a controversy, which are both related to her service in the military. Does every political page not include policy positions and controversies without further context? I have to say, the further I go back on your talk page, the more it looks like there is a pattern of bias in favor of liberal political parties, and the more I see liberal editors asking you to intervene on their behalf, including in relation to Tulsi Gabbard and Rashida Tlaib. That needs to stop. That is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Quoting a controversial policy position stated by a presidential candidate is not.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC) "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In the context of the paragraph that immediately preceded it. The paragraph that discussed that she did something mixing the military with politics and was rebuked for it. In other words, you're still suggesting with the inclusion of the tweet that she did something wrong. This is original research, and not approproiate for inclusion. Meanwhile, your right-wing political bias is showing regarding your comments about "liberal editors". We have no "liberal editors", just people who try to uphold Wikipedia's policies including NPOV, and people who don't. Again, please stop including your disruptive material and abide by the policies Wikipedia has set out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

That is a completely false statement. You are inferring that she did something wrong because of your interpretation of what she said. I did not saying anything to that effect, or anything at all other than her rank and that she was referring to the President. Quoting a person's own words is not research. Niether is quoting the law, but we can set that aside for now, until a third-party legal scholar does claim that she broke the law. You cannot possibly hope to convince anyone who is not heavily biased that I cannot quote what she says about the military while she is serving in the capacity of an officer in the military because quoting her would somehow constitute research. And I was referring to the paragraph above what I posted from over a year ago by a completely different editor as being the context, not anything I wrote. On what grounds do you presume to rebuke me for simply quoting an American politician accurately with a reference. Let's examine the OR policy in greater detail and see if quoting someone meets that definition. I'm copying our discussion thus far and moving it to the talk page for the article.174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you are implying she did something wrong, and clearly on the wrong side of this issue. There's nothing for me to accomplish here in this discussion with you, and I have more important things to do than run around in circles with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are placing material from a primary source next to material from another source in an attempt to imply the Tweet in some way demonstrates a "pattern" from the prior source. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and contentious claims about living people.
 * "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (WP:BLP) You do not have an independent reliable source stating that Tweet is in any way relevant to this article or the prior source.
 * "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." {WP:BLP} If you restore the material again, you will be blocked again.
 * This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue of policy. The same reasoning prevents us from posting a source discussing, for instance, a president or senator's claim followed by a tweet from that president or senator apparently contradicting that claim, unless the tweet is directly discussed in that context by independent reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Independent Democratic Conference
The article Independent Democratic Conference you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Independent Democratic Conference for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

November Sei block
Hello, I was wondering what comment if any you might have on November Sei's unblock request. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

331dot, I'll comment over there.– Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack William 22 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Move
Thanks for all your help with that. I'd tried a number of different ways to fix it without any success at all. Thanks so much for all your assistance. 00:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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) 12:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

S. Nagarajan
Hi, I have noticed you have deleted the article S. Nagarajan due to notability issue. Can you please move it to my namesapce, to avoid loss of effect made on article creation. so that I can include more references while I have chance to find it. -Neechalkaran (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have placed the content at Draft:S. Nagarajan. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty-Four
Hello,

I'm just replying to the message you left me about Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell. To begin with, English is not my native language. More importantly, the rules to properly post anything at all on Wikipedia without the looming threat of instant deletion almost require an encyclopedic knowledge of editorial etiquette - and this is only the third time I contribute to any article, since I created an account on Wikipedia. Also, I am not even sure this is the proper way to contact you, as it is the first time I ever answer anyone on Wikipedia.

So, assuming you do get this message, I would like to have a better explanation than the long definition you gave me. As I said, English is not my native language and all I understand is that, for some reason involving sources, my contribution was not appreciated.

Here is the contested material :

underlying theme of religion Big Brother is revered almost religiously and the Party has instated a cult of personality around him. For all matters and purposes, he is omniscient and omnipresent (as demonstrated by the fact that he has many spies, telescreens and listening devices). His word is law and he can manipulate the past, the present and the future (thanks to propaganda and the Records Department or by stating that dinosaurs were not real - which is a creationist point of view) and rewrite the laws of Physics and nature (by saying that the stars are only one kilometer away and adopting a geocentric model). He can also transform any number into any other number (by deciding that 2+2=5 or that, sometimes, 4 can either be 3 or 5 or any other number that the Party wants).

At the end of the novel, it is revealed that the christian god has been outlawed (which is why a poet landed in the Ministry of Love, after failing to replace "god" by another word rhyming with "rod") and replaced by "power" or Big Brother. O' Brien also said that Big Brother is immortal (since the Party will continue to use his image for ever). Many subjects that have always been considered sins and heresy by religions throughout History (such as sex) are considered crimes by the Party. It is also just as easy to use Doublethink as it is to say that a certain god "works in mysterious ways". The everlasting war between the Superpowers could be seen as the never ending war between good and evil (and, of course, the Party decides which side the people are supposed to consider either good or evil).

Of particular interest is the fact that each Ministry is reminiscent of a horseman of the apocalypse. The Ministry of Plenty's purpose is to starve the people : MiniPlenty is Famine. The Ministry of Peace's purpose is to deal with war : MiniPax is War. The Ministry of Truth's purpose is to lie : MiniTrue could be seen as Pestilence, as it's lies can be seen as a plague that pollutes the mind of its victims. The Ministry of Love's purpose is to enforce the law. Its methods are reminiscent of the inquisition (though the Party prefers to convert its victims, before killing them) and always consist of torture and execution : MiniLuv is Death. Just as the horsemen of the apocalypse are agents of god that bring the armageddon to the world, the four Ministries are tools of Big Brother that bring misery to the citizens of Oceania.

Basically, are you saying I should cite the exact passages where telescreens are mentioned ? Should I cite the exact passage where O'Brien tells Winston that "god is power"? Should I cite the exact passage where the poet is sent to MiniLuv for failing to find a proper rhyme ? Should I cite the exact passage where O'Brien shows 4 fingers to his victim and says that 4 can either be 3 or 5 or any other number ?

Should I leave the remark about the negationism of dinosaur remains, but delete the comment that creationists also deny the reality of fossils ? Should I leave the remark that Big Brother's Party claims the stars are only one kilometer away from earth, but delete the fact that the Party adopts a geocentric model - even though O'Brien clearly says ‘What are the stars? [...] .They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.’ ? Should I add the citation ‘We are the priests of power [...] God is power' ? Should I justify Big Brother's immortality by the dialogue between Winston and O'Brien ‘Will Big Brother ever die?’ ‘Of course not. How could he die? Next question.’ ?

Since O'Brien makes a point of reality only existing inside the human mind, should I really explain that Big Brother's powers (immortality, omniscience, violations of the laws of nature and physics, ...) are really just metaphorical ? Should I also explain that, ultimately, it does not matter if they are just metaphorical, as O'Brien makes it clear that reality is exactly what the Party decides it to be ?

As for Big Brother's cult of personality, it is made perfectly obvious, throughout the entire novel, as his face is shown everywhere and he should always be loved and obeyed and never questioned and never disputed - just like any guru or deity. Should I really explain it in greater detail, when it is really impossible to read Nineteen Eighty-Four, without noticing it ? Also, Ingsoc, neo-bolchevism and Death Worship are the exact same thing - it just has different names, in different places in the world. This appellation of Death 'Worship' does add to the whole religious undertone.

I thought the parallel between the Ministries and the horsemen was worth mentioning and, in all honesty, I was surprised it had not been made before, but I can understand that it might not have been the proper section to include it in. Should I move it to a 'Trivia section' ?

Was every single part of my contribution deserving of a 'memory hole' ? What parts should I alter, exactly ?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack William 22 (talk • contribs)
 * , this is the appropriate way to contact me. I don't believe that the content you provided is appropriate at all. First of all, you didn't provide any references. If this was an expert's interpretation of the novel, there should be some sort of citation for that. If the interpretation of the novel is yours, then it does not belong as we do not engage in original research or synthesis of existing sources on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Do these qualify as references, other than the passages in the book I have just mentioned ?

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-signifigance-idea-religion-nineteen-eighty-52367 https://prezi.com/8ty0yvw_g-n9/religious-ideology-in-1984-by-george-orwell/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/23556566?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.academia.edu/1674073/Nineteen_Eighty-Four_and_Religion_Parallels_in_Totalitarianism_and_Thought-Control https://www.millennialstar.org/1984-orwell-and-religion/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell#Religion (though not solely related to Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell's own Wikipedia page mentions that 'Orwell's writing was often explicitly critical of religion, and Christianity in particular' and shows how - just like Winston Smith and Big Brother - Orwell believed in god, without loving him) https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/library/gordon-bowker-george-orwell-and-the-church-of-england/

When you believe the content is not appropriate 'at all', are you contesting the fact that Nineteen Eighty-Four does contain religious themes or are you only talking about the missing references ? Do the references I have just posted qualify ? Should I cite specific passages from them ? What is the basis on which one could judge if they can be considered experts or should be entirely dismissed ? Should I mention in which exact passage the citation ‘We are the priests of power [...] God is power' appears ?

Since the content is not appropriate 'at all', I don't understand if the problem is about the fact that some people such as me do find religious themes in Nineteen Eighty-Four, whereas others fail to see that - in which case, it would just boil down to a difference of opinions (and, in that case, it would just be impossible to objectively favor one over the other) or if the problem is only about the fact that I did not initially mention these references above ?

If it's about the fact that you don't see the religious themes in the novel, we're just going to bicker until one of us loses interest in that debate - and that would be me, even though I'm fairly certain you do not want to waste time bickering any more than I do. If it's just about the references, please, do tell me if the ones I have just provided now are eligible and reliable, by Wikipedia's standards. If they are not, could you explain why - as well as provide a short list of what journals, programmes, lessons, courses and websites Wikipedia deem reliable ? If my sources are indeed reliable, should I start including them, with footnotes and direct citations from them ? I admit I have difficulties understanding all of the numerous rules one should follow, just to edit content in Wikipedia, as I am neither a journalist nor an editor and I do understand that I probably should take a hell of a lot more time to perfectly master the art of properly editing 'the free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit', but I was genuinely hoping (not expecting, as your attributions probably revolve more around editing content you may find unfit than about guiding new members - which I can understand) to have more useful assistance from an administrator than a declaration that my contribution is 'not appropriate at all'.

If there's something to salvage, help me salvage it, so I can contribute to this Wikipedia page. If not, I would rather leave it at that and just read books to myself, without going through the trouble of sharing knowledge with other members of this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack William 22 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

João Félix
Could you please re-apply ECP to this article with a rationale of "persistent disruptive editing". Currently, WP:AN shows this page is ECP'd with no stated rationale. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , my bad. It is done. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries! Thank you!!! Buffs (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Scyller Borglum
Vanamonde (Talk) 00:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden
I'm a bit worried that the article Hunter Biden will need some level of page protection with the Ukraine story bubbling up big in the news this week. At the very least, the more eyes on it, the better. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've added the page to my watch list. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And I see you already caught a disruptive edit while I was off catching up on my own backlog. Thanks again! XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message
Dear Muboshgu, thank you for your message. I am always looking for ways to improve. The "repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions" you mentioned include those by "Beyond My Ken", who has repeatedly reverted my edits on 4 pages (I edited 6 total), even when I included correct citations for said changes (e.g. on the "National Rally (France)" on "In God We Trust" pages). It looks as though this has happened to other editors as well (User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken) and I will contact BMK directly. I do not know if Beyond My Ken is going around purposely reverting 2/3 of my edits, and I did not revert his edits of my formatting, but I did revert his deletions of sourced, verified content. If there is a better way to address this issue, please let me know. Other edits consisted of me correcting a few pages by including the real names of people who were previously mentioned by their pseudonyms only. I did not include sources because I do not know if White Pages or voter records are standard procedures, but can do so if needed. It is my understanding that, whenever appropriate, Wikipedia includes the full, real names of people who go by pseudonyms (e.g. Derek Jeter, The Rock, Beto O'Rourke, Cardi B, etc.). If there is a better way to address the real names vs. pseudonyms, I'd be very curious to know. Many thanks again! A2pa (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I am aware that there are some issues with, and so this serves as a good opportunity to remind BMK not to edit war, as well. Edit warring is bad, no matter who does it, no matter if they are "right" or not. I don't know much of anything about the situation you're involved in, but I've seen the edits happening and wanted to gently guide you to engage in talk page discussion, not edit wars. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Understood! I will re-read these guidelines. Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2pa (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you change a person's name in a high-visibility controversial article, making it something that the source cited in the article does not use, you need to provide a citation from a reliable source showing that your "corrected" name is legitimate. It looked like vandalism to me, which is why I reverted it, and it still should not go into the article until you provide a source. Per WP:Verfifiability, unsourced information can be removed at any time, and removing vandalism -- if that is what it was -- is an exception to WP:Edit warring.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , these edits are not "obvious vandalism" exempted per WP:3RRNO. This seems to be a content dispute, which is not exempt from 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Webber Edits
Hi, Muboshgu,

Thanks for your recent edits on Alan Webber’s page. They all seem appropriate.

But I would like to ask you to chunk them into smaller self-consistent portions and provide explanations of why you’re making changes. Otherwise it’s hard to sort out what you’re doing. This single commit is a good example, even Wikipedia’s comparison engine is confused:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Webber&diff=next&oldid=916367247

Thanks,

— Andy 15:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that I was editing quickly and did not use the edit summaries to maximum effect. I'll do better next time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Baseball Reliquary & notability
As a relative newcomer (not in years but in participating as an active editor) I want to save us both some work. I see the tag you added to the Baseball Reliquary page and understand the need for some additional secondary sources to support the page's inclusion under the notability guidelines. I also noticed that you reverted at least one of a series of inserts I've done to add a reference to the Baseball Reliquary's Shrine of the Eternals on the pages of its inductees (most recently, today, on Don Zimmer's page).

I think given a little time on a non-work day I can find sufficient secondary support for the notability of the Baseball Reliquary page. If I successfully support its notability for inclusion in Wikipedia and find a secondary source for the simple notations on inductees' pages, would that solve the problem I've created? I raise this now because it may spare you a number of reversions that I can pre-emptively "save". (Or not...just wondering what's the best approach here.)

You may also have seen an addition I made to the Project Baseball Hall of Fame task force talk page asking for consideration of the Shrine of the Eternals for inclusion under the umbrella of that task force.Pat&#38;matt (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you can find more secondary sourcing, that would be good. As of now, the page relies predominantly on primary sourcing that doesn't establish notability. That NYT piece from 2007 is good, but it's only one article. I'll hold off for a while though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for giving me a little time. I didn't look too closely at the Baseball Reliquary page before, but it's an interesting organization that adds some good perspectives to the more traditional "hall of fame" approach. I'll work on that page this coming weekend with a focus on adding reliable secondary sources and content supporting notability, and take it from there. Pat&#38;matt (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) P&m, if I can add some advice here, I'd say that it would be best to raise the issue at the main WikiProject Baseball talk page, not just the Hall of Fame task force, as more editors are likely to be watching the main project talk page. It's especially good to gain input from the larger project when the intention is to add similar information to a bunch of articles at once. I'm personally not convinced that this honor is significant enough to add to all of these articles, as the Baseball Reliquary itself seems to be borderline in terms of notability, but that's only my opinion and others may differ. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 20:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Carl DeMaio Edits
All language added to Carl DeMaio's page has citations demonstrating verifiable facts. It is written from a neutral standpoint highlighting the effects of his policies. Citations include Court Records from the California Supreme Court, San Diego County Registrar of Voters and numerous local newspapers. While they may not paint Carl DeMaio in the most favorable light, they remain to be verifiable facts.

DeMaio, along with then-Mayor Jerry Sanders, was a co-author of the illegal Mayoral initiative known as San Diego's June 2012 Proposition B, which was found by the California Supreme Court as being specifically designed to circumvent "meet and confer" provisions of California Labor Law. DeMaio led the drive to place Proposition B, titled "Amendments to the San Diego City Charter Affecting Retirement Benefits," on the ballot.[2][3]Proposition B proposed (1) limiting of compensation used to calculate city employee pension benefits; (2) eliminating defined-benefit pensions for many new city employees, substituting a defined-contribution (401(k)-style) plan; (3) eliminating death and disability benefits for most future employees including Firefighters. (4) requiring substantially equal pension contributions from the City and employees; and (5) eliminating the right of employees/retirees to vote to change their benefits.[2]During a low turnout Primary Election with less than 38% of eligible voter participation Proposition B was approved by San Diego voters by a 2-to-1 margin on June 5, 2012.[5]Since the passage of Proposition B San Diego Fire-Rescue Department began struggling to hire and retain sufficient Firefighters to adequately staff all Fire Apparatus necessary to quickly respond to fires, rescues, and medical emergencies. The escalating staffing crisis facing the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department has resulted in the Department using extraordinary amounts of overtime to fill vacancies and full-fill minimum daily staffing requirements. ForesakenFF (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , " illegal Mayoral initiative " is not neutral language. There's also an WP:OR / WP:SYNTH concern and a WP:COATRACK concern as you are relying on WP:PRIMARY sourcing and two San Diego Union-Tribune articles that do not mention DeMaio. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay but I think there is a bit of a catch 22 here: The fact that the CA. Supreme Court found Prop B illegal is not in dispute. It is a matter of verifiable fact. "Mayoral initiative" is the precise language used by the Justices of the CA. Supreme Court. If the fact that something is illegal as determined by the CA. Supreme Court can not be used in conjunction with the exact language used by Supreme Court Justices to describe Prop B can not be used, what language can be?

I can provide additional citation for sourcing the effects of Prop. However, to clarify, the fact that Carl DeMaio was a co-author of Prop B is not in dispute, correct? Merely the effects of Prop B need additional citation correct?ForesakenFF (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , if he authored a proposition that was nullified by the CA Supreme Court, that wouldn't be in dispute. To say "illegal mayoral initiative" is not neutral because he didn't write something illegal, he wrote something that was found to be illegal, or unconstitutional more likely. "Illegal" is a high bar to prove. Is that the language the SC used? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I will find the exact quote from within the written opinion of the Justices as well as additional citations for the effects of Prop B.ForesakenFF (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Independent Democratic Conference
The article Independent Democratic Conference you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Independent Democratic Conference for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

GRRM
In my defense, I only saw the change to past tense before I reverted. I didn't notice their fake cause of death. I usually do treat this hoaxing seriously. Next time, I'll be harsher.Crboyer (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , gotcha. We all can miss details like that from time to time. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Muboshgu. I'm just posting to let you know that 1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 21. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 20:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , nice! I'll take a look. And probably do some more work on the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Gas van
Hi, regarding your protection of the Gas van article, the IP is actually right: his edits are in agreement with what the article's talk page discussion says. The IP removed no references, just put them in a correct context. In reality, as the talk page discussion demonstrates, it is not correct to say that gas van was invented in USSR, for the sources do not say so. Moreover, in reality, there was just one single source, a 1990 tabloid article, where a single case of gas van usage was documented (and other sources just tell the same story). Taking into account that even Solzhenitsyn didn't know anything about that before 1990, it is hard to believe usage of gas vans was massive, and that Nazi took this idea from NKVD. In contrast, the only primary source the tabloid paper is based on is an NKVD interrogation protocol of Isaj Berg. That means the current version creates a false impression that gas van usage was widespread in USSR, and Nazi took this idea from them.

Moreover, this edit, which was reverted by the IP, is obviously antisemitic (that user stresses the point that Berg was a Jew), which is unacceptable (see a talk page).

In connection to that, the version restored by the IP is balanced, correct, neutral, and it contains the all sources. Therefore, by restoring the contributions of regular users, this IP was not edit-warring, and there is no need in article's protection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I protected the page from edit warring. If I misconstrued the edit war, you can freely reinstate talk page consensus text. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are secondary sources better than direct quotes
Sorry to bother you. As a relatively new editor (still learning the hard way), and after I saw your post here. I am honestly confounded. I thought that nothing was better than the words that come out of one's own mouth, but your comment seems to indicate that a secondary source, which very well  could be that reporter, editors version is better than a persons own words. Can you please explain. I didn't want to ask the question on that article talk page as it is irrelevant and could be taken as argumentative. It isn't, I need to understand so I don't make future mistakes. Thanks Oldperson (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , we have to consider the context. In the case of Zelensky, he's in a difficult position. He's trying to be diplomatic because of very real pressures. We can use quotes to say what was said, but the analysis of WP:SECONDARY sources is preferable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Great example I totally understand now. Zelensky is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand he is susceptible to blackmail from DRJ because he needs the weapons that DRJ controls, on the other hand Trump may not be there forever (he has threatened not to leave office and claims to have the cops and army behind him), so Zelenski has to worry about a subsequent administration. The only alternative is to read between the lines, and since a Wikipedian can't do that we live it to RS. Does that sound about right?Oldperson (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate info on a now Protected page
Hello Muboshgu, Thank you for putting a protection lock on the page of Cai Xukun. However, the vandalizer might have entered the misleading information before the protection taking effect. Under the Occupation, they tried to labelled Cai Xukun as a basketball player, but in fact, he is not and has never worked as a basketball player. It was a fabrication created by online trolling against him. It will be great if you can remove that from the page. Thank you. CL28 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019
<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) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Dean Marney (footballer)
You may also want to remove the edit summary "Reverted edits by (username hidden) to last version by Kinetic37" too. Iggy (Swan) 16:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I sure do. ✅ – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections
valereee (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Philadelphia Mayor Race
While I agree that FB and YouTube are not reliable for facts, this is in fact where the Philly Captain made his announcement for his Mayoral run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:5DDC:B8D7:A998:E8DA (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that, but it doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. He's not a notable individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Joe Aresimowicz
Hey Muboshgu, hope all is well. Thank you for your help with the copyvios over at that article. It looks like all of them are RevDeleted. It does look like that IP has nearly identical edits to who was blocked for the same thing. --   LuK3      (Talk)   01:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , that's a lot of revdel'd edits. Let me know if it fires up again. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Barkeep49
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno
 * Pictogram voting rename.png JamesBWatson →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Evad37

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news
 * As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration
 * The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
 * The arbitration case regarding was closed.  While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous
 * The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverting an edit on Kathy Boockvar's page
Hi, A user deleted a lot of information in a wikipedia page and so I undid that edit, but you undid my edit. The information was important, so I am adding it back in; please do not undo it again.
 * The edit appears unconstructive and you should not be edit warring to include it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for John Cooper (Tennessee politician)
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Tōru Nara
Hi, since you attended the blocked user's request you could revert the edition again as it was before because as you know I translated it from Japanese Wikipedia although it is very difficult to improve the writing of Tōru Nara's personal life and well it would be better to correct it. Here: 1 this is my review.

Thanks. 148.0.112.100 (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I saw sufficient disruption to merit protection, regardless of the block of the user who requested it. I take no sides in any content dispute as I don't know who is right or wrong. I suggest you use the article's talk page for any requests such as this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Tommy John
My name is Tommy John, son of Tommy John. I'm trying to edit the details about Mike Marshall and his role in my dad's recovery. According to my dad, Tommy John, Mike had no effect on his comeback other than a few exercises for his shoulder. We'd like this changed as it is misleading. I'd also like additions to my bio to add what I'm doing to stop the surgery epidemic and we'd also like the work we are doing together to be a part of his Post Retirement section.

Please let me know what we need to do to make this happen so my dad's page is updated with actual correct, and up to date information.

Thank you.

Dr. Tommy John — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTommyJohn (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia relies on verifiability, so we need reliable sources that say what you are saying. What I see suggests he worked with him on his grip too. You'd have to provide reliable sources. I can't even be sure that you're really the son of Tommy John. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. So how do I verify that the source is me, his son, and that he, Tommy John, assures his biography page, that Mike Marshall did not effect his motion? A phone call? An email from my dad? How are these resolved usually when its the actual people on the Biography page wanting details changed? And to keep the items about myself I need to have links of all the work I've been doing nationally? My book website isn't enough? Video of my dad and I aren't enough? I'm new to any of this but we vehemently want the Mike Marshall details removed immediately and would like the updated details of my book and our work in promoting a solution for youth sports injuries.

Thank you.

I'm not even sure if I responded to this the correct way. Lol. Hope all of this makes sense. Dr. Tommy JohnDrTommyJohn (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, you're responding correctly. WP:SECONDARY sources are preferable to us than WP:PRIMARY sources, so if you have any secondary sources you can pass along, that would be helpful. I see looking at your father's article (I have no reason to disbelieve you, either) that the text isn't well sourced, and it says Marshall did way more than the ESPN article I found says. I can use that ESPN article to edit it down to more closely conform to that source, and any others I may find. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey there. So you won't find any articles other than my dad stating that his mechanics were to not be altered and Mike Marshall did not help in any way. So primary source is the only way to go unless we find a reporter to do a story based around stating that Tommy John was not managed by teammate Mike Marshall during his comeback.

I also have links for the work we are doing to help stop these surgeries that are happening in his name to teens more than professionals. I would appreciate my section updated under Dr. Tommy John III, and my dad's life post retirement please. We are working hard at creating change in youth sports injury epidemics and this will help. And let me know how to proceed with correcting the Mike Marshall inaccuracy. Thank you.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/experts-warn-of-rapid-rise-in-tommy-john-surgeries-among-child-athletes https://www.mlb.com/video/dr-tommy-john-talks-new-book-c2522326983, https://www.mlb.com/video/hot-stove-dr-tommy-john-c2522315583, https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/info-2018/tommy-john-opposes-namesake-surgery.html, si.com/mlb/video/2019/03/05/tommy-john-speaks-out-against-tommy-john-surgery-youth-sports, si.com/mlb/video/2019/03/05/combatting-rising-rates-tommy-john-surgery-youth-sports, https://www3.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/06/11/now-campaigning-against-tommy-john-surgery-tommy-john/6Ua1oABxkXq4KibVK3cS9J/story.html?arc404=true https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/sports/baseball/seattle-mariners-.html https://nypost.com/2018/06/04/dont-let-sports-ruin-your-kids-life/ https://www.littleleague.org/news/little-league-exclusive-interview-dr-tommy-john/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/tommy-johns-son-wants-to-help-kids-avoid-sports-surgeries-like-the-one-named-for-his-dad/2018/08/07/3b17a796-9469-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html?noredirect=on, https://theathletic.com/705995/2018/12/12/how-to-build-a-healthy-roster-addressing-pitchers-injuries-one-small-movement-at-a-time/, https://www.tribstar.com/news/news_columns/mark-bennett-tommy-john-s-regimen-a-model-for-son/article_cf9a3ddf-e06b-5458-9906-c87a84062e11.html, https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-davich-tommy-john-sports-injuries-st-0625-story.html, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-tommy-john-book-youth-sports-injuries-20180618-story.html, https://www.post-gazette.com/sports/pirates/2018/06/14/tommy-john-surgery-research-jameson-taillon-nick-kingham-ivan-nova-pirates/stories/201806140109,

Dr. Tommy JohnDrTommyJohn (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , okay there's a lot in there to parse and I'm not sure what you're looking for specifically. The ESPN article I linked above says Marshall helped John with the grip, and says John acknowledged that is true. It would be better if we continue this discussion at Talk:Tommy John, where other editors can contribute. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, the grip is agreeable, but changing the pitching motion or altering of his mechanics in any way absolutely is not accurate although Mike Marshall is promoting that because he has a baseball school that specializes preying kids and parents to change their motions to prevent injury.

I'd love to carry the conversation on that "Talk Tommy" page forgive me but I'm not sure how to add or where to comment once I go there. Sorry about that.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrTommyJohn (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I forgot to respond to this. I think we may be settled because the page now only mentions Dr. Mike's work with your dad on the grip, nothing about the motion or mechanics. If you like, go to Talk:Tommy John and start a new section, just like you did at my talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's "Vandalism"
Lol this page is so full of people describing your shady tactics I'm amazed you're an administrator. I'll ask again, provide a QUOTE on how I vandalized Hunter Biden's page? I'm sure you're going to describe this as another attack in some feeble attempt to have me blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfHook (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, people who edit like you get reverted and don't like me. I wear that as a badge of honor. And hey, at least this time you didn't call me a "cuck" or "communist shill". What your edit did do was add a lot of information to Hunter Biden's page that doesn't relate to Hunter Biden at all, in an attempt to attack him and his father. Looking at your edit history, you seem to be quite busy adding partisan attacks to articles. You appear to be more suited to edit Conservapedia, the encyclopedia that enjoys creating its own narrative of events, as opposed to Wikipedia, where we deal in facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a quote, just you sidestepping the issue because we both know that if you attempt to quote my changes its not going to go your way intellectually. And yes, I'm tired of you people providing a single narrative on every single politically active page. Me providing a quote of Joe Biden describing how he had Shokin fired and having it sourced with both news articles and VIDEO EVIDENCE as well as providing quotes from Burisma on exactly when the investigations ended (which by the way, is superior to a single reuters article as a source) is Vandalism? Lol youre a joke. WolfHook (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , you're leaving out thatt Biden was speaking on behalf of the whole Western world to get a prosecutor fired who wasn't doing the investigating, and that this would actually put Biden's son at more risk. But, that doesn't fit your predetermined narrative. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Still not seeing any quotes. You realize that I specifically clarified that the claims against Hunter Biden were entirely conjecture as part of my edit right? "However, Biden did seek removal of Shokin and used executive pressure to do so, though whether this was to protect his son is largely conjecture. To quote:

''“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”'' " to quote my edit.

The fact is, that Joe Biden's tactic of using aid money to Ukraine in order to pressure the removal of Shokin is at the crux of the claims against Biden (whether or not those claims are true), and it warrants being seen in the page in order to provide a narrative without bias, and not entirely favoring one side or the other. Shutting down the opposition due to YOUR own bias is specifically against the values of wikipedia as it was originally conceived, though i see its fallen far.WolfHook (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , and again, the issue at play is that the POTUS is using his personal lawyer to pressure a foreign nation to dig up dirt on his political opponent by withholding Congressionally mandated foreign aid. And this made up controversy about the Biden's he and you are pushing is not relevant. This has been covered on all the relevant article talk pages. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You mean threatening to with-hold congressional mandated aid exactly like Joe Biden threatened to do? By his own admission? WolfHook (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, quite different. Biden was pushing the Ukraine to deal with corruption. Trump was pushing the Ukraine to investigate a political rival. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Considering both of those claims regarding Trump and Biden's motivations are literally your opinions, given the uncertainty of the present political climate (by this I mean neither motivation has been substantially proven), I find it hilarious how incredibly non-self-aware you are.75.174.91.125 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, these things (there being no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden and plenty of evidence of wrongdoing by Trump) are not opinions. They are clear facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

BRD and involvement
Hi, I saw the warning you posted in an edit summary stating "this is controversial so respect WP:BRD If you don't want to get blocked". I was wondering why did you threaten someone with a block for failure to adhere to an explanatory supplement that is not a policy nor a guideline. And I don't know if I'm mistaken but it looked like you were involved in an edit controversy and were threatening administrative action because the editor reverted your revert, which doesn't look quite right. Am I missing something? Is the article under discretionary sanctions? --Thinker78 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I acknowledged to the other involved editor two sections up on this talk page, I erred in that case. I escalated that too quickly. Also I think the article should be under discretionary sanctions, but then I noticed the talk page doesn't suggest that it is yet. I may add the discretionary sanctions template to the talk page, as it is about post-1932 US politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✔️. El_C 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Jane Eskind
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)