This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Muboshgu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Perry Gershon".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj ( 📧) 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

kindly restore the "indian railways fan club" page on wikipedia.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.63.182.43 ( talk) 13:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muboshgu,

I went to WP:RFPP to request protection for Helsley but I couldn't since the board is semi-protected. I'm here because you're the administrator who most recently responded to reports there. Here's what I typed out in Notepad:

Temporary semi-protection. Helsley is a part-Cherokee baseball player for the St. Louis Cardinals who just gained an extraordinary amount of attention when he declared offense at Atlanta Braves fans' performance of the Tomahawk Chop and accompanying chant. It took a few days but the racist trash has appeared to heavily attack this article. 107.195.20.170 ( talk) 23:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind transcribing the above to RFPP? If that's possible. If not, would you request page protection for Helsley and we can wait for another administrator to respond? I believe the article needs protection but I'm not sure how I can make it happen. 107.195.20.170 ( talk) 23:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There's no need for me to transcribe that content to RFPP or request another administrator to help. I protected the page for one week. I'm heavily involved in editing baseball articles and am quite familiar with this situation. Discussion on the talk page can develop a consensus for how to discuss the tomahawk chop controversy. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't consider that you could just lock it up yourself. Thank you very much; I suspect a week is exactly the right amount of time for the vandals to forget about this. 107.195.20.170 ( talk) 00:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably right. It'll be whoever blows it in the NLCS or ALCS who gets vandalized next week. Thanks for bringing the vandalism to my attention. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Verfaillie menschloos.jpg

You recently speedy deleted the article on Tim Verfaillie as a "blatant hoax". I looked at the google cached version, and the article certainly had problems, most notably a lack of references, but I saw no evidence of a hoax.

Did you do a web search on the guy, prior to your speedy, to refute or confirm whether the article was a hoax? From my cursory look the article seemed to be accurate, in so far as it went, and did not seem to contain any of the elements that would traditionally classify it as a hoax.

Could you explain what you found that caused you to endorse the hoax claim? Geo Swan ( talk) 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Geo Swan, the article was nominated via PROD as an "apparent hoax". When I performed a search, all I saw was mirrors of the Wikipedia article, and some social networking of living people with that name. I saw no evidence this person existed as shown in the article, and so I chose to speedy delete it as a hoax rather than as a proposed deletion. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, are you tacitly acknowledging the deletion log entry you left was, well, in error?
• Now that you have taken a second look at the topic, is there some other criteria under which you think the article merited speedy deletion?
• Can I ask who placed the prod?
• Thanks for the quick reply. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  Geo Swan, in hindsight, perhaps I should have deleted it via PROD, which would have left a message saying it was an "apparent hoax". But, I still see no evidence that it was about a real person. The PROD was made by IntoThinAir, and I have no reason to doubt their suggestion. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  I did carefully search Google to find as many independent reliable sources as possible before prodding that page, and I prodded it because I couldn't find any such sources, just the mirrors/social network pages Muboshgu described. IntoThinAir ( talk) 19:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Muboshgu, I lost track of some prodded articles, unfortunately. I was able to add sources for some of the prodded Baseball at the 1956 Summer Olympics Australian players. I did find sources for Eddie Moule, but the main source for the Olympics had his surname spelled wrongly, so I left him to look for other sources later. Would it be possible for you to move this deleted article to my userspace, please? Many thanks, RebeccaGreen ( talk) 17:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

RebeccaGreen, done. See User:RebeccaGreen/Eddie Moule. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The user Elis59, not warned sufficiently?? The user was blocked for last 48 hours, after given every level of warning, not only by me but by other two editors which he ignored, and a final warning by an administrator and then was blocked, but as soon as the user was unblocked after 48 hours, started vandalising again. Plus he was abusive !!!, which the administrator point out specifically. So what warning are you talking about??????? Check again here, did you go through his talk page or not???? Dey subrata ( talk) 22:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata, assume good faith. The vandalism wasn't immediately after the release of the block, which would net a new block. You didn't warn the user at all after their return and they committed two edits of vandalism. So, not warned sufficiently. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying I have to warn him again and again, then you will take action. Wow!! I can't believe, ok I am giving him a level 4 warning and requesting again at AIV. Hope you take action. Dey subrata ( talk) 22:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata, a level 4 "only warning" would work. This is procedure. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Warned already, let me see if ignored or still vandalise. Dey subrata ( talk) 22:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

As expected, he vandalised again. Now you may take action. Dey subrata ( talk) 13:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I see the edit and the article talk page, where the editor has engaged. This isn't vandalism; it's a content dispute. Take it to WP:DR if you wish. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, its no more content dispute, it has been discussed several times before, every time a new editor will come we have to discuss, it does not happen like that. We don't have time for useless things, secondly he was addressed in all possible way, he was advised to visit all previous discussion and conclusion. It totally needless to discuss which is already discussed. My name will not change if you ask me again and again. And he is doing edit warring too. Dey subrata ( talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think using legal terminology ( "cease and desist") in your capacity as an administrator is inconsiderate, especially given that the AP32- topic area is already a discretionary minefield that does not need any more wikilegalese. Thanks for your consideration. -- Pudeo ( talk) 07:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Pudeo, fair point. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Kiwifruit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has vandalism on the headings.

I reverted it. Thanks –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I was told my edit was not seen as constructive. I would like more information and details on why my information added by an edit was removed. I would like to know why it was not added to the 2019 Houston mayoral election page. Please inform me on what the correct way would be to add this information so that I can learn for my future edits.

I included a candidate that was left out (there are actually 12 candidates) and the current information on the page was incorrect and not accurate. I added detailed information about a candidate and their campaign and it was removed. My information made this page more accurate and detailed as I supplied another candidate. It is a shame that it was removed and the public will be misinformed with the wikipedia page that only featured a few candidates without much information.

Looking forward to hearing back on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomcacti ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Freedomcacti, content requires reliable sources. You have provided none. The candidate's website is not considered a reliable source. Also, the content I had reverted last week was overly promotional and did not match at all the way others are portrayed. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

How does a candidates website not follow under a source. You can't get more accurate than a candidate's own campaign site. You rather push the mainstream media's filtering and coverage of the election. THERE ARE 12 CANDIDATES AND YOU ARE ABSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND THE FCC'S GUIDELINES BY REMOVING THIS INFORMATION. I even sent an edit in with JUST the candidate's name so the promotion is equal between all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomcacti ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my edit on Hunter Biden, the previous edit that was reverted had 3 items.

• The Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office recorded that Biden's legal company Boies Schiller Flexner received compensation of $283,000 in 2014
• Biden's partnership Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC received $3.4 from April 2014 to late 2015
• Devon Archer left the board after he was charged in a US Bond fraud in May 2016 and bank records from the case show that Biden withdrew from the partnership .... the 50k per month

They were all in the NYT article that other editors cited on the talk page as reliable and I referenced.

I would really like your view if any of these items are suitable for the article prior to kicking off another long talk page session :), and I understand your view that Devon Archer is off topic. Thanks RonaldDuncan ( talk) 22:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

RonaldDuncan, my thought was specifically about Archer being off topic. I think the rest is fine. Didn't I only revert Archer? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

From what I have seen, every suggestion of RonaldDuncan's (including the 3 above) has been SYNTH BLP disparagement and none of it noteworthy enough for a bio or relevant to any other article. Yes, he's wasting a lot of editor time after having had this explained to him by several editors. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@ SPECIFICO and RonaldDuncan:, If there is a SYNTH component to it then it is not okay. I can't say that I'm that familiar with these particular points. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, the 3 points are from the NYT article, and there is no WP:SYNTH, I put them in one edit previously got reverted and before going to the talk page just put in the Devon Archer part, since I got the mood from other editors that they were sensitive to the fees that Biden had earned. Anyway, I can see you are experienced :) in US political articles. RonaldDuncan ( talk) 02:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope I'm not out of line reverting this edit the same day I did this change; altering the words in actual quotes seems to qualify as clear vandalism in the words of the 1RR exemptions, but I do try to play it safe. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your recent work on Mark Zaid. Bearian ( talk) 15:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Chris Jones (pitcher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Career minor league player; never reached majors; hasn't played since 2016; fails WP:NBASE

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NatureBoyMD ( talk) 13:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Drew Granier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBASE and WP:NCOLLATH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NatureBoyMD ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Reid Redman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBASE and WP:NCOLLATH

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. NatureBoyMD ( talk) 14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
57		Cruis'n ( talk)	Add sources
39		Trustee Georgia ( talk)	Add sources
20		2019–20 Swiss Cup ( talk)	Add sources
1,071		Adlai Stevenson II ( talk)	Add sources
86		Democratic Leadership Council ( talk)	Add sources
5		Tim Hummel ( talk)	Add sources
55,483		Abhijit Banerjee ( talk)	Cleanup
51		Tea garden ( talk)	Cleanup
357		Guard dog ( talk)	Cleanup
268		Bowser Jr. ( talk)	Expand
425		Little Einsteins ( talk)	Expand
37		2015 in baseball ( talk)	Expand
389		Aeroponics ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
155		United States housing market correction ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
443		Plautus ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
145		Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development ( talk)	Merge
217		Plantation complexes in the Southern United States ( talk)	Merge
637		Plantations in the American South ( talk)	Merge
5,397		Joe Girardi ( talk)	Wikify
53		2006 United States Senate election in Connecticut ( talk)	Wikify
6		The Russia Forum ( talk)	Wikify
17		Rajith Kumar ( talk)	Orphan
8		Crop share rent ( talk)	Orphan
34		Gender roles in agriculture ( talk)	Orphan
478		NHL 20 ( talk)	Stub
4		Mark Wasinger ( talk)	Stub
38		2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Kansas ( talk)	Stub
4		Bill Risley ( talk)	Stub
20		Journal of Development Economics ( talk)	Stub
51		Watson Lake Airport ( talk)	Stub

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) 00:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I edited the Clinton page, and you reverted my edit, and I reverted your edit. Then you threatened to block me, and posted a note about sanctions. Is that a fair description? I'm new, but can you explain why my reversion resulted in a threat, and therefore must have been inappropriate, but your reversion was appropriate? Would I have been doing things correctly to respond to your original reversion by posting a threat and a note about sanctions? If not, why not?

In any case, I've posted a note on the Clinton talk page for discussion. The idea that the impeachment of Bill Clinton is a less notable part of his presidency than the Gramm Bliley Leach Act seems pretty silly, no? Pop quizzed ( talk) 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Pop quizzed, I do apologize for the way that I did that. It was too quick an undo and I should've looked at it more closely. However, the notice about the sanctions is fair: you can read more about it at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions, which covers a lot of controversial subjects The lead has been crafted over time and discussion, and changes should discussed on the talk page. I'll read over what you've written and comment later. I'm sure others will, too. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 03:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added at note to the talk page for discussion. The proposal is that impeachment should be in the second paragraph, at the least, as the most notable event in the Clinton presidency. Pop quizzed ( talk) 16:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Pop quizzed, I'll go take a look. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify: May I edit the Clinton page to move impeachment to the second paragraph, or may I not. I ask because you previously threatened me with sanctions for making this good-faith edit to the page. I did as you asked, and posted the change first on the talk page, and then have asked you twice to take a look. Is there any reason I can't make this change to the page as a normal edit? Pop quizzed ( talk) 17:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk)

Why are you taking a stand on this in this article? I only went as far back as 1996, but it is in every single one of those yearly World Series articles, including the FA 2004 World Series. It's also been in every Japan Series article since 2005, when they started to become more fleshed out. The GA or GB helps give context to the records. It helps to indicate how good that team was compared to their league that year. Also, like I said in my revert, it indicates if a team won the pennant or not for their league. If you feel strong enough that it shouldn't be in the infobox, then perhaps it should be discussed as you are going against years of practice. -- Torsodog ^Talk 20:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Torsodog, maybe this is a new opinion of mine, I don't remember having thought it out too much before, but the late person doesn't know anything about baseball is not going to know what either of those term stand for. And the info box isn't the place to provide the context to explain it any further. I took out the games ahead and games behind in all the 2019 MLB postseason articles and nobody Said anything about it. But perhaps a discussion on the baseball project discussion page would be appropriate. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If the infobox isn't in the place to provide context for the records that it is displaying, then why display the records at all? If neither of us are going to come around on this, then I supposed a discussion should be had. Like I said, this seems to have been standard for many years at this point. -- Torsodog ^Talk 20:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've started the discussion here. Also, I was thinking, to alleviate your concern about a lay person not being able to know what the terms mean, we could always pipe in links to Games behind. -- Torsodog ^Talk 21:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Torsodog, I replied there. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Tim Pool (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You misused your rollback privileges [1] to revert in a content dispute and finally semied the article to win a dispute [2] and protected obvious BLP violations (contentious material about a LP sourced to garbage sources). Please explain. Politrukki ( talk) 00:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Politrukki, "content dispute"? That was edit warring / deletion vandalism. I did not protect an "obvious BLP violation". –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you know what is not vandalism? Check WP:NOTVAND. Edit-warring is not vandalism (though vandalism may include edit-warring). Deletion of poorly sourced material is not vandalism.

The edit war began on 18 October when 103.77.137.6 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a bunch of garbage content and then 103.77.137.247 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) – obviously still the same person – started edit-warring against multiple users:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]

And so on. Finally you participated in the edit-war with a rollback. No explanation for inserting the material. You never even even warned the user. How did you choose which revision to protect? Politrukki ( talk) 01:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

And so on? An edit war was waged by a multitude of IPs. That Muboshgu didn't give an edit summary for this revert is easily explained: rollback is used legitimately to revert vandalism. What Muboshgu reverted was an unexplained removal of verified content--that is, the edit was disruptive and easily qualified as vandalism. Moreover, it is possible that the IP was participating as MEAT in an edit war. So, what version to protect? The non-vandalized version. Now, I have never edited this article and could easily take over the protection, if Muboshgu were involved--but they are not, and your tedious posts here, with their half-truths and misleading comments and insinuations, are a kind of harassment: Politrukki, consider this a warning. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 02:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Politrukki:, sometimes admins have to struggle to decide whether a content dispute actually constitutes disruptive editing. Sometimes, it's really borderline and difficult to determine because it's a combination of both. It looks to me as if Muboshgu did the best they could with the information available to them at the time. Your latest two sections on their user talk page, I'm sorry to say, are coming across as a bit much. In regards to this latest one, especially, please try to approach queries with a modicum of good faith — pose a question rather than basically prosecute an alleged violation in the affirmative. By the way, I'm advising you this, in part, as the uninvolved admin who just fully protected the article on the other version. Thanks. El_C 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@ El C: This is a coincidence; I was just about to contact you about something completely different. Thank you for protecting the article and thank you for your advice.

1. My harsh tone was due to seeing a lot of poor judgment from Muboshgu in a short period of time, but I also acknowledge being totally tone-deaf.
   I did not mean that Muboshgu was literally trying to "win" a dispute (which they had no stake on). I meant to say that there was some poor judgment and using rollback gives the impression that there were firm policy-based reasons (reverting obvious vandalism, obvious socking, etc.) to restore the content. If see an administrator doing revert+protect and the reason for revert is not crystal clear, I assume they must have strong evidence of socking. If not, they are giving at least partial endorsement to the "right version". I'm sorry, but in this case, I don't buy that "blanking" unverifiable content is evidence of vandalism.
   Serious question: if someone requests semi-protection for " BLP policy violations" [8], do you automatically assume that NOT including contentious and poorly sourced claims would be such an egregious violation of BLP that you must restore the claim as an administrative action even if you are not sure (and it is easy to check) that the content adheres to BLP policy? Or would you rather semi-protect the article and let registered users calmly settle the content dispute, if they are not the problem? Obviously reverting is justified in many cases; for example reverting this or this would have been uncontroversial.
2. You mention "latest two sections", if the other section you refer to is #Discretionary sanctions alert, what is the problem with alerting someone if I have done my due diligence to check whether that someone was aware? If you are suggesting that that alert was linked to this controversy, your assumption would be fair but incorrect. I hope we can put this to rest.

Sorry for the wall of text. I'm going to post the rest in smaller pieces and it should be considered more like food for thought and I'm not necessarily expecting a reply. Please take your time reading. I'm not going anywhere. (Not until "they"... sssssh... come to get me.)

TL;DR, in my opinion, Muboshgu has some history of having poor judgment, there was a BLP vio, and Drmies does not have clean hands.

By the way, your ping did not work, see Help:Notifications: "if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent". Politrukki ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism and judgment

Before this kerfuffle, I had already "organically" collected a handful of diffs because I wanted to discuss Muboshgu's behaviour with them. I have now refreshed my memory and collected some more. I don't to bore you and will skip most of them, but let me just provide one example of Muboshgu's weird understanding of what constitutes vandalism:

1. Closes a discussion. [9]
2. Reverts a comment that was added post close by Phmoreno. [10]
3. Administrator closes the same discussion. [11] (Whatever that means.)
4. Issues a level 4 vandalism warning to Phmoreno, who posted a comment in the closed discussion. [12]

I'm sure you have already read these discussions above: #Peter Handke edit, #Bill Clinton, #Legal terminology (I somewhat disagree with the premise), and #BRD and involvement. They all indicate some kind of short temper. Other things that concern me is that I know for a fact that they have used AP2 sanctions several times, but have never logged any sanctions to WP:DSLOG. Politrukki ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The essence of BLP violation

Judging by your comment [13] at Talk:Tim Pool you seem to think there is no BLP violation or you are trying to figure out why others have called it a BLP vio. Questions:

1. Is Media Matters ( RSP entry) a reliable source? It is a hyperpartisan advocacy group that mainly publishes opinions. Those kinds of sources are very rarely suitable for BLPs.
   • Before my first post here, I reminisced this report I saw at ANEW long time ago. One administrator concluded that even though BLP exemption was never revoked, it was fine to keep deleting properly attributed content (a) because the quote from NYT was too long and (b) because at RSN there was no consensus whether The Daily Wire was a RS. Even the NYT quote alone was later considered a BLP vio by another admin, who removed the invoking BLP.
2. Can you explain without conducting synthesis how the cited sources support your claims, specifically "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist"?
3. Do you think poor quality sources can be used for WP:EXCEPTIONAL statements if the allegations are attributed?
   • For example at Rachel Maddow Muboshgu reverted an addition of "conspiracy theorist", first with an edit summary "uh, no, that's not happening", [14] then using rollback, [15] and finally blocked the user for edit-warring, never invoking BLP. Do you think that using attribution would have been a good compromise? I did not read the sources, but I hardly think so, because I don't consider them super good sources for a BLP.

Politrukki ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Drmies

Finally, Drmies and I have not had many direct interactions, but we do have some history. The most obvious example is when Drmies's breached 1RR at Donald Trump:

• 22:08, 21 December 2018 – first revert
• 21:41, 22 December 2018 – second revert
• Then they falsely claim I "jumped blindly into something you seem to know little about" even though I participated in consensus building from the beginning, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 94#Description of Mueller inquiry in lead
• When Drmies escaped sanctions in this area due to some technicality ( not the first time), they tried to get me sanctioned for making one revert that did not even go against consensus.

I take your advice seriously, but I cannot take Drmies seriously. If they frivolously template me [16] for "harassing" Muboshgu over this, I can just laugh it off now, but what shall I do in the future if and when someone weaponises Drmies's silliness against me? Politrukki ( talk) 17:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Politrukki: yes, if you don't ping me, I may not see it. Anyway, I fully protected the page, in part, for a possible BLP violation — this notwithstanding the fact I think there probably isn't one. As mentioned, that is something that, perhaps, ought to be decided at BLPN, as I don't think the latest RfC is going to be of much help. As for your hypothetical question, I can't answer that — I make decisions according the particular circumstances (and level of severity) of any given case. In regards to that 2018 event, I'm not sure you're representing it fairly, but at any case, that seems rather stale. El_C 17:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

El C, it seems this user has been following me and taking notes. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I added a sentence about criticism of Jagmeet Singh /info/en/?search=Jagmeet_Singh. But it was removed by Muboshgu by saying that it is not neutral. The Jagmeet_Singh article has zero mentions of his criticism so I found it imperative to add a sentence about his criticism. It is sad that it is removed.

The sentence was (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vashisthg ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Vashisthg:, your adding a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION violates WP:NPOV. Further, the content may be a WP:BLP violation, so I'm redacting it here. Use the article's talk page for discussing specific content for the article, not my talk page. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been working on improving Chuck Klein to above a start class. I've added 20 references (mix of books, news articles, game logs), and added inline citations throughout the article and added more information about his career, especially between 1928-1933 where he was one of the best hitters in the National League. Added information about notable achievement including winning the triple crown, his four home run game and his career at the Baker Bowl.

I'd like a reassessment. Hamma085 ( talk) 15:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hamma085, C-Class. Nice work. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, while the ECP of Joe Girardi was short-lived, you still need to log your actions here per the ArbCom ruling on BLPs. Please do so. Buffs ( talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, I was not aware of this. I'm reading up on it now. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Buffs ( talk) 04:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. So, I added the edit notice to the mainspace and changed the talk page notice from the (impossible?) consensus required and enforced BRD to a naked 1RR (per overall consensus about being selective with these extra restrictions). Hopefully, this will make things simpler in the immediate sense. If needed, one of these two other restrictions may be added later. Hope that makes sense and is okay with you. Regards, El_C 05:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

El C, yes, thanks. (Though I don't know that "naked" is the best choice of words given her predicament.) –  Muboshgu ( talk) 05:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hah! El_C 05:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Back again! I've made a fair bit of updates to Kiki Cuyler expanding on his career and personal life. He was an incredibly interesting hall of famer that gets overlooked. I've cleaned up the references and added over 30 references, with newspaper articles, and multiple biographies. If this is getting tedious for you, please let me know. Hamma085 ( talk) 23:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hamma085, no, not tedious at all. I learned quite a bit working on the GAs I've worked on, and I didn't know much about Cuyler. You're doing a great job, and I want to help you continue to do better. I think you could take some of these to WP:GA class. It takes a deeper review than I'm currently doing. Take a look at other GAs (including the comparables on Baseball Mountain, and let me know what you think. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 03:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thank you for the kind words. I nominated Paul Waner as a GAn a few days ago, because I think it has the strongest case, and there is more information available on his life than the other Hall of Famers that I've improved. It's tough with GAs because a lot of baseball related GAs (non current players) passed a while ago so it's tough to gauge the level of detail needed for current baseball GAs, Nap Lajoie is a fantastic article and I usually use that as a meter for measuring the articles I've improved. I think I'll add some more details and information on Kiki Cuyler and then nominate it. Hamma085 ( talk) 12:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you very much for ending what had became a dispute, I am acting on behalf of the subject Mr Gordon Walker, he did not create the page nor has ever edited it and he does not use computers. I feel that this page should reflect the person and the profession they do and why their Wikipedia page is of interest. My Walkers Interest page is that of he is a figurehead in the world of bagpiping, and I have also tried to elaborate on his success (which have been deleted regularly by the other person) and not cause Mr Walker distress, yes there was a legal case, and that is over so I can't agree that having personal and sensitive information is relative.

yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capbadge ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Capbadge, you seem to be deleting valid sourced info about a person due to a conflict of interest. You should engage in talk page discussion with others and not edit war.

It doesn't seem like a really high-effort tattoo done by an artist who had a lot of skill. It looks like some cheap Spring Break shamrock tattoo, like what someone got from a selection that included stars, hearts, yin-yangs and other popular and easy-to-draw symbols. An iron cross is usually not going to be part of that kind of selection.

I'm not even a fan of hers, but I'd say there's less than a 50% chance that she decided, "I'm going to show my racist pride by getting a really cheap iron cross tattoo next to my private parts." Then again, she was born in Abilene, Texas, but on the other hand, she grew up in Santa Clarita, California. Odds of her being a closet racist: who knows? Probably pretty high, now that I think about it; one doesn't get that far in politics without at least privately embracing some race realism.

Idk, it just seems like the iron cross tattoos I've seen have been more elaborate, detailed, and high-quality than that. I really think it's just a shamrock. Not even a Maltese cross, but just a good-luck symbol. Maybe she was fond of Lucky Charms so decided to put one on her body as a throwback to childhood memories. Зенитная Самоходная Установка ( talk) 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Зенитная Самоходная Установка, a lot of what you're talking about here sounds like original research. I haven't seen the tattoo, so I don't know what it looks like. I don't know who published the photo, and if it's revenge porn, I don't want to see it. All we know for sure is that there are many different possible explanations and we should not publicize the worst possible ones without concrete evidence. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I looked at it so that you wouldn't have to! Зенитная Самоходная Установка ( talk) 19:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, multiple IP addresses keeps putting that Jayce Tingler is managing the San Diego Padres on the page List of Major League Baseball managers and I have to constantly keep changing it back to vacant because it is just reports. What do I do to stop this from happening? AstrosRocketsTexans3522 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

AstrosRocketsTexans3522, I just protected the page for three days. Thanks for letting me know about the disruption. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you really appreciate it. AstrosRocketsTexans3522 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I asked that if anyone did not agree with my changing the image caption to discuss it first. This was ignored and my edit reverted via twinkle in a manner that amounts to using rollback, or in this case twinkle, to revert an edit by me that was not vandalism but a constructive edit. assume Good Faith rather than slapping a warning template on an anonymous editor. I have broken no rule. Thank you. 86.145.182.119 ( talk) 22:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You made an edit regarding a photo caption [17] which was reverted by MrX [18]. You then made another edit to the photo caption with the edit summary "Do NOT revert without discussion" [19], which is not how WP:BRD works. The edit was reverted by Gandydancer [20] and you undid that undo with an edit summary that misrepresents WP:3RR [21]. So, yes, you are edit warring. You have been told to take it to the talk page, and you are refusing to do so. That's why you get a warning template. WP:BRD is the cycle that you are violating, as it is you, the initiator of the change, who is supposed to initiate talk page discussion. If you continue to edit war, the next step is a block. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a rule, it is a suggestion. I was being bold in changing a caption that made no sense. The wording of the caption is, at best, an opinion since the image does not support what the caption states. It can not be said WHAT the protestor means by their placard. To say she is comparing ANYTHING to the use of concentration camps is disingenuous at best and putting forward a non-neutral pov at worst. I'd ask that you undo your revert and bring the issue to the talk page of the article, as I asked in the first place. I was the first to ask for discussion. My AGF edit was reverted without discussion. That is not how Wikipedia works. I know the rules here as well as anyone else (I used to be a steward) so please don't threaten me with a block. I am not vandalizing the project but trying to improve the article by changing a caption that is clearly wrong. As it stands now the article asserts something that is not evidenced by the image itself. The 86.145.182.119 ( talk) 23:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems the warning template you bemoaned has had the intended consequence of getting you to discuss this issue rather than continue to edit war. This is good. You were bold the first time, but then you edit warred the second and third time, and the next one is a 3RR violation. I suggest you continue to discuss this on the article talk page rather than mine, if you want to establish any consensus. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nah, I'll leave it as is. If those working on that page want to let an obviously wrong statement stand, then who am I to try to improve it? Thanks for your professionalism. Bye 86.145.182.119 ( talk) 23:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed deleted wrongfully. Thanks. My first draft is still there LUCKILY, I had saved it there but what I had worked on and submitted was deleted and I have emails and proof that my page was deleted. You’re saying that this is not what this page is used for but I am 100% that I have the right to post about what I wrote about and I have the permissions to do so. I can write about anything or anyone as many others including yourself have. The person I wrote about is an artist therefore there will be other pages with lyrics for fans to access. Samantha Mia 23:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)SAMANTHAamia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthaamia ( talk • contribs)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2022 Major League Baseball All-Star Game. Since you had some involvement with the 2022 Major League Baseball All-Star Game redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that pointing out one of Hannibal Buress' occupations, with a cited link, is "disruptive editing" or "vandalism" and would kindly ask that you reconsider this before throwing out these claims. I've created a section on his talk page so this can be discussed in the open: /info/en/?search=Talk:Hannibal_Buress#Hannibal_Buress_is_a_landlord Cmahns ( talk) 18:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies if you have already received BLP alert or alerted someone recently, but I could not find evidence whether you have. Politrukki ( talk) 00:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Politrukki, you're supposed to check before you give out discretionary sanctions alerts. If you don't know how to check, then you shouldn't be giving out the alert. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, apologies if I missed a something.

I checked from these

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Muboshgu&action=history&tagfilter=discretionary+sanctions+alert
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=602&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3AMuboshgu
3. /info/en/?search=Special:AbuseLog?wpSearchUser=Muboshgu&wpSearchPeriodStart=&wpSearchPeriodEnd=&wpSearchTitle=&wpSearchImpact=0&wpSearchAction=any&wpSearchActionTaken=&wpSearchFilter=602
4. https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Muboshgu&page=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&server=enwiki&max=100

What did I miss? When did you became aware of BLP DS? Politrukki ( talk) 01:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Politrukki, Muboshgu is an administrator who frequently is forced to act in the area of politics and BLPs. You can safely assume that such an editor is aware of DS. Thank you, Drmies ( talk) 02:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I cannot assume that and you know that or you definitely should know that. They say Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but DS are bureaucratic in nature and awareness has very specific criteria.

I also checked WP:DS and saw that Muboshgu's name does not appear there. Your claim of "area of politics" has nothing to do with this: BLP alert is not directly related to any area of politics. Obviously I noticed that Muboshgu is aware of AP2 DS. But for example Peter Handke is under BLP DS, but has very little to do with AP2 DS. I read the discussion about Handke few days ago, so I was going to participate the discussion (I participated the discussion at BLPN) and post a BLP DS alert anyway.

Just few months ago, Muboshgu did not know that alerts have an expiration date. [22] (Though at that date they had already become aware of AP2 DS through alerting someone on 7 April, so that April AP2 alert was pointless.)

My third link shows that, in a period of on year, Muboshgu has sent 13 alerts. Most of them are about AP2 and one is about abortion. This will be my final post to this thread as it would be pointless to continue unless you show that Muboshgu was aware and explain how I neglected to check awareness. Who cares, anyway? Cheers, Politrukki ( talk) 17:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Muboshgu! I am here with a helpful tip and hoping to encourage others who read my comment to take advantage of an option that is currently available to us, quite helpful and is in use by admins and editors alike. It actually helps avoid situations like what happened above. See User_talk:Atsme/Archive_32#Your request at ARCA. There are other discussions on that same page you may find helpful. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, can you provide a little bit more context? I don't see what the request at ARCA was that got carried or where it may have been archives. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely - give me a few minutes to find the links. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, no rush. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the new {{ DS/aware}} template, whose placement now qualifies as an indication of awareness of a given authorization for discretionary sanctions? isaacl ( talk) 19:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that's it, Isaac - The proposal - it's ready to go. In that same archive I wikilinked first, you can see the test edits and exchanges. I have a custom notice (humor) at the top of my UTP for aesthetics (and fun). Try to add the standard AP2 DS alert to my page and see what happens. 😊 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, ah, Yes, that. I discovered that template after the incident in the section, and as you can see, it is at the top of my talk page. Thank you for bringing it to my attention though. I'll take your word for it on the tattoo. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Muboshgu - it just dawned on me to check your code, and you used lower case which may be the reason it didn't trip the filter. See Template talk:Ds/aware#Is the exact title important? If so.... There are other bits of good info on that page as well. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't there before, but I capitalized the d now. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You need to be more self aware of Embracing napoleonic awards. A self proclaimed “ Emperor” otherwise known as a megalomaniac equaled by Stalin and chairman Mao Se? Bestowing each other with Royal titles? Randall Pearson ( talk) 01:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Randall Pearson, you are too funny. Or, you need to understand what is tongue-in-cheek. I'm guessing it's that since I think you're serious about believing the lies you're told about the "Liberal Deep State Unelected Bureaucracy". –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Muboshgu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " George Brauchler".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 11:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden ( submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden ( submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski ( submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber ( submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack ( submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce ( submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb ( submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique ( submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 ( submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber ( submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski ( submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher ( submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden ( submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK ( submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski ( submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu ( submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! ( submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

What disruptive editing? I simply added facts with footnotes to the information already there that described him as a conservative. If I was disruptive then whoever added this statement surely is "Edwards is a conservative Democrat[2] who is anti-abortion and pro-gun rights.[3]" He did in fact contribute cash to the campaign of Stacey Abrams, a leftist from Georgia. What's wrong with adding those facts?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBFreeman ( talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• IBFreeman, dude. Seriously? You added coded language sourced to the Epoch Times (as unreliable as it gets)--and "abortion on demand"? What does that even mean? Drmies ( talk) 00:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

IBFreeman, you called a politician a Socialist and abortion on demand candidate". Now you call her a "leftist". Are you serious? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 02:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hold it. She is proud to be a lefist. What is wrong with that? Is this link more reputable to you Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

The reasons these two facts are relevant to Mr. Edward's wiki page is because you allowed him to be described as "conservative" and "anti abortion" but he did in fact contribute $5000 as I linked to the campaign of Ms. Abrams. How are my linked statements disruptive commentary and the others are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.38.56.221 ( talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, you called a politician a Socialist and abortion on demand candidate, and now you are calling her a leftist. And you don't think this is disruptive? You somehow think identifying Edwards' anti-abortion stance(s) is disruptive? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there an ANI thread, SPI case or any page that you know of with more details on this IP vandal (the one who randomly changes photos over congressional articles to outdates or cropped versions)? Just asking out of curiosity. I did notice that another admin did a range block recently, but I just reverted a whole bunch more recent edits (ugh). Connormah ( talk) 04:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Connormah, I don't know if there is one, but they're really should be. Whoever this person is, they come back again and again and it is annoying cleaning up their messes. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 04:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Let a boi soil it once in a while — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viennasausageultra ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

please check the Juli Briskman article - perhaps it will be fixed by the time you read this but it is presently directed to a corporation article. thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 18:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I don't believe we've ever determined her to be independently notable. The article it redirects to is the corporation that fired her. Maybe now she exceeds WP:BIO1E concerns. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think of that. Hopefully someone will soon create an article. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 19:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Gandydancer, maybe I will when I get a chance. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. Somebody else did. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For improving several articles surrounding the 2019 Kentucky gubernatorial election (and many others involving politics!) –– Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations! Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you made a BLP reversion on the Trump-Ukraine page. You may want to look at the List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations page and consider a similar BLP violation. I found it odd that the claimed identity of the whistleblower showed up on that random page, but not on the main article, right? - Andrew c  ^[talk] 20:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrew c, thanks for pointing that out. I applied Rev-Del to the addition of the name, but the problem is the name still remains in all the successive edit histories, for now. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not funny. Wikipedia white washing is a life or death reality for this site. Vandalism -- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pete_Buttigieg&diff=924562200&oldid=924561059 -- vandalism -- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pete_Buttigieg&oldid=924469624 . Stop vandalizing! Also drmies did what? One cannot make a living lying / deleting truths on Wikipedia from now on. 172.58.238.177 ( talk) 02:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.238.137 ( talk)

"Life and death", lol! Maybe you should go into comedy. Removing copyright violations and information not supported by a source is not vandalism. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Latest "copyright violation" suppression was not a copyright violation. Certainly the latest one was not.. And this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pete_Buttigieg&diff=924562200&oldid=924561059 was actually quite well sourced. Why did you delete that one? And then you "protected" the article from "vandalism". Retire your account. 172.58.227.184 ( talk) 23:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It was not well sourced as the content in the yet it was not in the source. And I did not protect the page. So, Doug Collins, let's make sure we get our facts straight. And you should be using your account not editing while logged out, because that is essentially sock puppetry. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Jacqueline Coleman at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 11:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 23:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

For all the page protection and rev/deletion this evening. Much appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 04:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my redirect page. - St3095 ( talk) 00:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Muboshgu", you have reverted an edit which I made to clarify thudding language (which, now, is again unclear) and to eliminate disparagement of a living person ("Trump falsely claimed" changed to "Trump claimed", while leaving intact allegations which, if proven, might refute Trump's claim). I did so for two reasons: first, and saliently, no irrefutable and conclusive proof has been given as yet either for or against Trump's assertion; and, second, the article to which "falsely claimed" referred does not contain information about this "claim" -- indeed, the article doesn't even mention either the Ukraine or Hunter Biden.

Why, then, was an edit which removes an unproven assertion and which clarifies wooden prose reverted? You or I may like the Bidens or dislike Trump; so, also, our readers; but personal opinion not backed by with irrefutable evidence really doesn't belong in what presents itself as a compendium of fact, not opinion. If you have such proof (as you implicitly state you do), would you please add that to the article? Otherwise, we look quite foolish. Firstorm ( talk) 22:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstorm, because we call falsehoods "falsehoods". What Trump has suggested about Hunter Biden has no basis in fact. This has been talked about on Talk:Hunter Biden at length. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest, then, that you place that verified information in a substantiating footnote for the sentence in the introduction to the article itself, not in "Talk". As I mentioned above, with the reversion the only evidence which the reader will find (most do not read "Talk" pages, as your statistics can show you) is a link to another Wiki' article which in fact does not mention the subject at all (a bit of sloppy work on someone's part, linking to an article which is a false lead). Without such substantiation, we look careless, biased, or foolish. Firstorm ( talk) 00:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

When multiple = 2: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marin Marić.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bagumba, I only noticed Terry Maston's article because I was patrolling expired PRODs. I was unaware of other nominations like that one, though that article does look to have more sourcing than Maston's. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing like WP:REFBOMBs and indiscriminate WP:ANYBIO claims.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
14		Flint Cultural Center ( talk)	Add sources
398		.224 Valkyrie ( talk)	Add sources
3,048		Scarface (1983 film) ( talk)	Add sources
813		Publix ( talk)	Add sources
4		Oh, the Things I Know! ( talk)	Add sources
2,608		2019 Major League Baseball season ( talk)	Add sources
6		Michael V. Ciresi ( talk)	Cleanup
107		Master list of Nixon's political opponents ( talk)	Cleanup
621		Suffolk County, New York ( talk)	Cleanup
82		Drinking water quality in the United States ( talk)	Expand
23		Alicia Ashley ( talk)	Expand
171		Mike Nifong ( talk)	Expand
56		NFL Street 2 ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
342		Steve Henry ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
13		Santa Clara Broncos baseball ( talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,511		The Wall Street Journal ( talk)	Merge
42		Legal case management ( talk)	Merge
117		Phosphoric acids and phosphates ( talk)	Merge
306		John Carreyrou ( talk)	Wikify
91		ProStars ( talk)	Wikify
1,038		Mark Goudeau ( talk)	Wikify
26		Murder of Mary Quigley ( talk)	Orphan
24		219th New Jersey Legislature ( talk)	Orphan
2		Annie Smyth ( talk)	Orphan
205		2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New York ( talk)	Stub
155		Jack Coleman (politician) ( talk)	Stub
1,656		Matt Blake (baseball) ( talk)	Stub
31		2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky ( talk)	Stub
6		Robert K. Sweeney ( talk)	Stub
172		Lauren Riihimaki ( talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 23:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Why did you tag [23] an editor with 4,000+ edits as a single-purpose account? Politrukki ( talk) 16:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Politrukki, thousands of edits that appeared to me to be within the single purpose of pumping up conservatism. Meanwhile, you seem to have the single purpose of trying to find anything that you can use against me. Why is that? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the essay attached to the template and what it says about who not to tag? I think you should apologise to the user. Cheers. Politrukki ( talk) 17:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Templates aside, it's a reasonable observation that this account is NOTHERE and is only editing Wikipedia to pursue a certain political agenda above all else. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep. That's why I tagged the edit and that's why I won't apologize for it. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out yesterday. The vandal returned, this time as an IP, and although they self-reverted, their aim appears to have been to leave highly misleading edit summaries. Two more candidates for revdel? Dorsetonian ( talk) 10:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Dorsetonian, revdel done. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Very many thanks! Dorsetonian ( talk) 17:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Dorsetonian, I've watchlisted the AfD, but if I miss any further disruption, please let me know. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 02:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, You've protected Timothée Chalamet for half a year, which is a good thing overall because the page does get trashed pretty regularly. Note however that you've protected it after registered users have undone a correction to the article. The correction that was made was sourced, as shown in the talk page (which hasn't been answered) and the edit notes. I understand that you acted swiftly on the notion that there is "vandalism against consensus", but it's rather misleading. There is a bunch of users who're attempting to correct the information quite regularly, and recently backed it up with sources; and a handful of folks who basically don't feel like it and call their opinion a consensus. Maybe a way to solve it would be to keep the page locked, add in a POV reflecting the current situation, and call in a mediation/seasoned admins to look at it. Thanks!

I'm not involved in the content dispute. I suggest messaging on the talk page and letting an autoconfirmed user who is involved in editing that page handle it. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 03:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you restore Gilberto Celestino? Just got added to the Twins 40. Also played in the Premier12.-- Yankees10 00:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

And merge C. J. Chatham and C.J. Chatham?-- Yankees10 01:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yankees10, Celestino done. Chatham will be a bit more complicated. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 03:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that you warned Nocturnalnow about his editing on Hunter Biden. Did you now that Nocturnalnow is topic banned from "American Politics after 1932" per this disucssion? Yet American politics seems to the only thing Nicturnalnow edits. Bitter Oil ( talk) 20:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Bitter Oil, I was not aware of that. You should bring up the violation of that ban on the notice board. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 21:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I added a whole bunch of information, edited down the hagiography, and added secondary sources. Then I removed your prod tag. If you still think it's not notable, feel free to go to WP:AfD. Please ping me as to your next steps. Bearian ( talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Bearian, it looks much better at a quick glance. I don't think I will pursue it further. Good work. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've mentioned your name at ANI after I blocked the obvious sock, who admitted socking but tried to retract it. I've blocked Alainlambert for a week, and recommend indef, but since I've reverted in the past I leave that to others, and the block for others to review. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Acroterion, I saw, thanks. I opened a case at SPI to see the CheckUser results. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure I'll give you a reason. Wikipedia is not a place for leftist garbage. Stupid bigoted leftists hoping that Dameron will be a gay character should be left to the gossip magazines and garbage sites, not on an online encyclopedia. StrokeSwift ( talk) 19:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		This is for your outstanding performance in Wikipedia as an administrator. I appreciate your selfless effort in serving Wikipedia. Your efforts are really grateful. Your quick troubleshooting abilities are a gift for Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 13:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

If you would scroll to the bottom, the bottom reference from soapboxie is, in fact, the reference. I don't want to take this any higher. Please, just tell me the problem. If soapboxie isn't reliable, then what about CNN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua12450 ( talk • contribs)

@ Joshua12450:, I do not know "soapboxie". There should be a citation immediately following the content it is citing. I suggest using the article talk page to form consensus. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello dear Muboshgu Hope yiu are well. I improved the article, please check out it. Music in Iran is forbidden and prohibition for women but she do, and if you read the sources you will find that many countries have written about this person that this is not the usual and there is very few artists in the world are at this level of globalization. . this article has more than 20 URL's of different & reliable sources related to subject. She has many news coverages & awards & she released a world peace music album & collected 12 countries artists to this album to show world peace & UN 7 Unicef supported her for this album “Dreamy World”. The following is also my reasons for verifiable an article based on Wikipedia rules: Based on Wikipedia  : Notability (music) , based on the following paragraphs, the notability is valid :

-Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

-Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

-Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

-Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

-Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.

-Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. -Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

& based on general notability; f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

& based on notability (people) People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. e person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Also based on Wikipedia: Proof, Wikipedia: Referrals and Wikipedia: Neutral Perspectives, this article introduces an artist who has just introduced her & is Impartial and all the statements are referenced to reliable sources (valid news agencies from several countries that is shown her internationally recognized) and can be verified, & also articles of Iranian artists similar her are all confirmed and featured on Wikipedia. & also based on Wikipedia: the removal policy, this article is not eligible for removal. ( If order and need, I will translate all Persian news in English too ) Special thanks Best wishes Kind regards Sahar410 ( talk) 18:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Per this reply, what do you mean by "Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection"? Here is a non-exhaustive list of reverts that we've had to make to the article in the past week: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Almost all of them concern the addition of an unsourced premiere date. What constitutes enough "disruptive activity to justify protection"? -- / Alex/ ₂₁ 14:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yet another [39] since. -- / Alex/ ₂₁ 23:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21, I believe that when I looked at it yesterday, I saw high edit volume with many constructive edits by IPs. Perhaps I was wrong. I just protected the page for three days. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; it's greatly appreciated. -- / Alex/ ₂₁ 23:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Even though Mr. X undid my edit for no reason on the Joe Biden page I tried to discuss it with him but he just gave me all sorts of B.S. reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiladelphiaPhilliesFan ( talk • contribs) 22:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC) IT WAS NOT A REVERT FOR THE 5TH BILLION TIME! IT WAS A NEW EDIT!!! WHY CAN'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT?! NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!!NEW EDIT!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NOW?! IT WAS NOT A DAMN REVERT! IT WAS NEW A EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can understand this guy, it's really annoying how you antagonize people and then enforce irrelevant wikipedia rules while ignoring facts. Wikipedia is falling down and I'm beginning to understand why the quality has deteriorated in recent years - suggest name change to Wikipinion -- Wikireadia2020 ( talk) 00:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikireadia2020, I suggest you'd feel more at home on Conservapedia. The agenda you're trying to push will fit in there. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not trying to push an agenda - it is you who is trying to push an agenda. I'm interested in knowledge and facts - that's what I thought Wikipedia was all about? I was wrong. https://thesaker.is/here-is-the-dirt-trump-wanted-from-zelensky-about-the-bidens-and-why-zelensky-doesnt-want-to-give-it-to-him-hidden-by-rampant-falsehoods-in-the-press/ Wikireadia2020 ( talk) 00:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's just offensive to me as an intellectual all the anti-intellectualism.. I hate conservatives as much as Democrats, they are all greedy and corrupt. I'm a libertarian.. an anarchist. It's just difficult to watch the poorly defended thesis, I'm posting links to facts and you are throwing food at me. Sorry. Wikireadia2020 ( talk) 00:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikireadia2020, if you want knowledge and facts, start by recalibrating which sources you trust and which ones you don't. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, you are referencing sites that are known to be either highly biased or outright pushers of fraudulent material. Please realize that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. And no one cares what you are. What any of us believe is irrelevant to what we add or remove. We simply follow the guidelines as best we can to ensure WP:NPOV. You are basing your edits on known sites that push goofy conspiracies. O3000 ( talk) 01:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You guys are a bunch of opinionated bureaucrats. You are experts at rules (form) but have no understanding of essence (what things really are). Wikipedia is the site that pushes goofy conspiracies, not the other way around, that's why I decided to join. I can tell you for a fact that 50% of the content on Wikipedia is incorrect. But it's correct according to your rules. Respectfully, you have a lot of homework to do. And what you believe is very relevant because it is based on your views and opinions, and political bias, that you decide what is a conspiracy and what is a fact. It's not objective, and that's why no one takes Wikipedia seriously anymore. CNN is a known site that promotes goofy conspiracies, yet for Wikipedia it's considered a highly credible source. Wikireadia2020 ( talk) 02:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I realize that you try to contribute to something, however something obviously doesn't work. I've been a writer for 20 years on complex topics and I've used Wikipedia as a source (CITATION) reference in articles, hundreds of articles, books, research reports, PhD thesis, readers would chastise me and I defended Wikipedia. Recently I've noticed that when you go to a page to get the facts, they have been 'edited' and then if you try to fix them here comes a troll to 'override' you. I've been using Wikipedia since day one heavily but never contributed. The content quality has seriously deteriorated, so please tell me why this is happening, and why since 2016? If it's not trolls, what is it? Wikipedia **used to be** an encyclopedia, now it's a quasi forum/blog whereby administrators push their opinion by overruling any dissent. Wikireadia2020 ( talk) 02:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. ( T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

hi, I saw that you removed what I had added to his page. I had two sources about what I was adding to the page. the sources are: https://mlb.nbcsports.com/2019/12/02/report-reds-ink-mike-moustakas-to-four-year-64-million-deal/ and https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/video/david-samson-breaks-down-mike-moustakas-4-year-deal-with-the-reds/

Unconfirmed. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as being neutral that would mean you stand in the middle and do not take any sides. You can explain the rally and such but Kessler simply tried to arrange a Unite the Right (to free speech) and a bunch of idiots showed up. That was not his fault. Does the Black lives Matter page say they are Black Panthers and black supremacist? Please try to as you said make the article neutral and let people make their own mind up. There were blacks that were standing with him. KimNFred ( talk) 17:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

KimNFred, Kessler is a white supremacist and it's no accident that his Unite the Right rally attracted many white supremacists. Do not pretend that this wasn't the purpose of the rally. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please provide sources/proof of him being a white supremacist. No fake news please. He simply wanted to have a voice for white people as blacks have their own. My brother-in-law is black and he does not feel he was being a white supremacist any video Kessler made stated he never spoke of hate or taking sides. I am Italian. To call him a white supremacist is wrong and incorrect. The Black lives Matter movement is filled with hate. Do you believe Michael Jackson is guilty? I don't. I believe Michael Jackson was a good person and an excellent entertainer. I love MJ and will always back his innocence. Again, I'm going to go check now, does the Black lives Matter movement say they are Black Panthers or Black Supremacist? Let's be neutral as you stated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KimNFred ( talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, while reading the French Wikipedia Hunter Biden page I was astonished by the quality of it, it is a copy-paste of GOP and FOX talking points only referencing damaging private details (cocaïne, prostitues, adultery...) why also promoting debunked conspiracy theories.

I tried to modify the page, first I deleted all which was maybe excessive, but then I only tried to translate the English Wikipedia page, which is more neutral into French. Even that was blocked though. I referenced all this on the discussion page but got no response except blocking attempts by russian trolls. I was told to contact the french page owners, but seeing all what was referenced and biased on it, I truly have little trust in them. Could some redacters from the English Hunter Page wage on this with French-speaking Wikipedia administrators, as the differences of quality on information on English and french page are appalling, it's like two opposing stories. And it is really unacceptable what is currently printed on the french page, it's not neutral, full of debunked lies or not relevant. ty for any help to restore some dignity or truth... -- Nicolas.eisbar ( talk) 10:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nicolas.eisbar, I unfortunately do not speak any French. I'll copy-paste your comment to Talk:Hunter Biden for wider discussion. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 16:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)