User talk:Muboshgu

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
• Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
• Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

Holiday Greetings

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, people's rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. Always a pleasure to see your work. ―Buster7 ☎

Very frustratingly

Hunter Biden is under an enforced BRD restriction, which I think your most recent revert violated. The letter of that sanction is really giving first-mover advantage to the flood of inexperienced editors responding to the news, but I don't think there's much we can do except raise visibility and pray for ECP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a pain. This article always should have been under ECP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Would recommend either self-reverting or noting in a dummy edit summary that you're sticking with it on BLP grounds. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

BRD restriction would mean it stays out though, and the talk page doesn't say it's on 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the intention of the BRD restriction, especially given its name, is to prevent bold changes from being restored once reverted, unless there's been discussion. As stated, though, it also prevents reverting editors—like you and I—from redoing those reverts, since they're "an edit that is challenged by reversion". Meanwhile, incoming editors are free to re-do the bold edit once each, since the restriction applies to "the editor who originally made it". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a different read on it, being that BRD means the status quo should remain until a new consensus emerges, and the lack of 1RR allows us to do that. I could be wrong, but hopefully ECP and 1RR are added to clarify it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think there's a lack of clarity on the restriction. I think my interpretation holds closer to the letter of the restriction, and yours to the spirit. I would love to see ArbCom rework it to be more closely aligned with your version, as I tend to have a lot of status quo bias and would prefer restrictions have the same. I don't feel like ARCA right now... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I resubmitted Hunter's page to RFPP for CTOPS ECP just now, which can hopefully lead to more clarity at least on what to do on this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Neil Goldschmidt

On 15 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Neil Goldschmidt, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 03:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If you have time

please take a look at [1]. Vandal that you warned has now started vandalizing my user page. I just now reported them to AIV here. Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks but nevermind, they've just gotten blocked. Shearonink (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Great – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Brad Dusek

On 16 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Brad Dusek, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Willie Mays

On 19 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Willie Mays, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Muboshgu, I noticed that my recent edits to the Donald Trump 2024 campaign article were reverted, and I wanted to discuss this further to understand how we can improve the article together. My intention with the edits was to ensure neutrality and balance, as per Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guidelines. I aimed to remove biased language and provide a more balanced portrayal of policy issues and perspectives, including viewpoints from both supporters and critics. Here are some specific changes I made: Replaced loaded language with more neutral terms. Included both positive and negative perspectives on key campaign issues. Ensured that policy descriptions were presented factually and without bias. I believe these changes contribute to a more comprehensive and unbiased article. Could you please provide feedback on what specific aspects of my edits were problematic, and how I might revise them to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, Augustus2714 71.70.226.246 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

2024 Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Edits

Sorry, subject was left out in the original topic. See above comment - Augustus2714 71.70.226.246 (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Muboshgu, I noticed that my recent edits to the Donald Trump 2024 campaign article were reverted, and I wanted to discuss this further to understand how we can improve the article together. My intention with the edits was to ensure neutrality and balance, as per Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guidelines. I aimed to remove biased language and provide a more balanced portrayal of policy issues and perspectives, including viewpoints from both supporters and critics. Here are some specific changes I made: Replaced loaded language with more neutral terms. Included both positive and negative perspectives on key campaign issues. Ensured that policy descriptions were presented factually and without bias. I believe these changes contribute to a more comprehensive and unbiased article. Could you please provide feedback on what specific aspects of my edits were problematic, and how I might revise them to better align with Wikipedia’s standards? Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, Augustus2714 71.70.226.246 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that you're new. For instance, you shouldn't be editing while logged out. You also should have brought this up on the article's talk page where others can more easily see it and respond, rather than here.

Some of the changes you made were improvements, I think. Taking "vastly" out of Trump has campaigned on vastly expanding the authority of the executive branch, for instance, I think is an improvement. Other parts of your edit removed important nuance and facts in various places. For instance, I think it is a must that we note that Trump's allegations of fraud in the 2020 election are false. We cannot equivocate on things like that.

It is also easier to make changes one at a time, so we can digest them and decide on them one by one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to discuss this issue with me. I appreciate your understanding of my efforts to improve the article's neutrality.

I understand the importance of community feedback and will take your suggestion to engage more on the talk page into consideration moving forward. I am eager to hear from other editors and administrators to gather diverse perspectives and refine the article accordingly.

Regarding the issue of Trump’s allegations about the 2020 election, I respectfully hold the view that the neutrality policy allows for presenting notable viewpoints without implying endorsement. These allegations remain a continued aspect of public discourse, and it is important to acknowledge their existence while providing factual context.

Could we discuss potential ways to address these concerns together? I am open to finding a compromise that ensures the article meets Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and accuracy.

Thank you once again for your guidance. Augustus2714 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality means stating facts. Suggesting that there could have been fraud produces WP:FALSEBALANCE. The allegations are false so we call them false. On other points, I'm open to consideration on the article talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Mike Brumley (infielder)

On 20 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mike Brumley (infielder), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 20:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Lesigh

I think old Caleb is hanging out at his mom's place, maybe. Probably nothing on TV. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can try to introduce him to some people, make him some friends? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you know how this ... spree ... hissy fit .... whatever started? This. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

All I know is he showed up at Kyrsten Sinema and after I protected it moved over to Susan Collins. I don't know if he hit others last night or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

San Francisco

I believe you only removed semi-protection, as the page is still indefinitely PC-protected. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually it looks like move-protection was what was removed; it used to be admin-only. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, I did not do what I meant to do. Thanks for pointing that out! – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

CPBL Infobox

I opened a discussion on the WP:Baseball two months ago to get the guidelines changed. It is out of date period. I opened the discussion to no surprise there was about 4 people who reacted and the general consensus seemed to be that people didn't care either way on the topic. You did not participate in the discussion. The edits get reverted based off an outdated guideline that I opened a discussion on and it was a yes and two that said was situation dependent. So technically that would be a majority yes. I see zero good reason to keep the CPBL out of the guidelines if you have the KBO in there. MLB and NPB are miles and miles above the KBO and the KBO is a slight bump above the CPBL. Not like the mexican league which is a AAA league or Atlantic league that is independent. Keeping useful information like that out of the infobox seems more destructive than helpful to me. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We control the guidelines on this website lmao all it takes is someone to edit the page to change it. There is a consistent group of us that work on baseball articles and about 3 of us that pay attention to every league and have heavy knowledge following them all. Yet with how small our group is none of us agree with one another most of the time and it is constant feuding that is tiring. From my perspective and with my knowledge of the CPBL and other leagues just seems pointless and destructive to leave out stats and dates for one of the 4 main country leagues.Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It was discussed with more than four people sometime in the past, I didn't notice you try to reopen a discussion more recently. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I opened up the discussion about two-three months ago. Was me who said yes, Yankees10 who just said he was following the guidelines, Spannerol who was kind of split using Manny Ramirez as an example which I get he had a hall of fame very long MLB career and a short less than half year stint in China I don't mind that not being included and a couple other users one who said it is not even an official guideline it is just an essay that can be changed with a click basically.. But you have a player like Drew Gagnon who has spent more time in the CPBL than in the major leagues or a guy who I just added stats in for Hong-Chih Kuo who played 6 years in the majors and 4 in the CPBL (his home country). You even have a guy like Yu Chang who is leaving the Rays in a month to enter the CPBL draft and who knows if he will come back. The league is relevant enough despite it not being an amazingly skilled league that the starts are just as relevant as a league like the KBO. If we have NPB and KBO in info boxes what keeps the CPBL out? Guys bounce around that league just as much as they do with the others as they have a foreign player limit same as NPB and KBO. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 00:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

If you and Yankees are reverting and keeping out for the sole reason of following guidelines which I understand completely. What does it hurt to change that guideline?Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 00:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We can talk about it. But per WP:BRD you shouldn't have put it back in after Yankees10 reverted you. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

To be fair I left a message on his talk page after he reverted me before I reverted it again. I left an explanation after I added the stats in, he reverted, I left him a message, waited no response, I reverted again. I went through all the propers ways to discuss it and if the majority seems to not care and are just doing it based off guidelines I say we just change it. We can agree to some sort of exception for a guy like Manny Ramirez who had a hall of fame career and a 15 game stint or whatever he had just isnt relevant. A guy like Contreras had a long but wouldn't say great career I think it is just like a KBO stint truly. I haven't seen anyone who participated in the topic have a reason against it other than just what the guidelines state, which we control. I already did the WP:Baseball and if it was one vote to multiple indifferences isn't that technically majority to change it? Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 01:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)