User talk:Muboshgu

2,392

1

13

1

71

1

570

121

This is Muboshgu's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57: 14 days

If I have left you a message: please answer on my talk page, else inform me.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Muboshgu}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

A cake just for thee!

In Memoriam A.H.H.^{What, you egg?}. has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Thanks for correcting me at the Bill Cosby article. Now I will know not to cite 8 sources for a single sentence! Thanks!

Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

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.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

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. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

The following improvements need to be made to the page for Vicente Gonzalez (politician)

Information needs to be updated. The current information holds sources that support this update. All other updates can be sourced through resources from Vicente Gonzalez's congressional website: https://gonzalez.house.gov/

If I am not "allowed" to make these changes on a website that promotes the ability to do so, then please direct me to whoever can make these changes. If not, I will continue to push for these changes (which are verifiable), until the changes are made.

Requested changes below:

Early life, education, and early career

Gonzalez was born in Corpus Christi, Texas in 1967[2] to [Olga Cantu] and [Vicente Gonzalez], a Korean War veteran and U.S. Merchant Marine. Gonzalez attended Roman Catholic School in Corpus Christi for part of his primary education, but eventually dropped out of high school during his junior year. He went onto obtain a G.E.D. and returned to school by enrolling at Del Mar Junior College where he received an Associate’s Degree in Banking and Finance.[3][4]

In 1992, Gonzalez received his Bachelor of Science degree in aviation business administration from the Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University on the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station. After high school, and throughout college, Gonzalez traveled to almost 100 countries around the world.

In 1996, Gonzalez obtained his Juris Doctor from Texas Wesleyan University School of Law (now Texas A&M University School of Law) in Fort Worth, Texas. While a law student, he interned for then Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz (D-TX-27). He trained in Negotiation at Harvard Law School [in Cambridge, Massachusetts]. In 1997, he founded the law firm, V. Gonzalez & Associates, in McAllen, Texas. He is a member of the Bar Associations of Texas and New York.[5]

As an attorney, Gonzalez successfully recovered millions in proceeds for businesses, homeowners and public schools throughout the country. His professional successes prompted an invitation to join the prestigious Million Dollar & Multi-million Dollar Advocates Forum, a membership reserved for less than one percent of American attorneys.

Gonzalez's wife, Lorena Saenz Gonzalez, is a former educator and school administrator from McAllen, Texas.

Peter Handke edit

I did not engage in edit warring. I reverted his revert of my good-faith and objective addition only once, then requested page protection. I would like my addition to be restored and the editor to be prevented from changing it, as there is nothing inaccurate or malicious within my addition; in fact, it simply serves as further information on Hendke's page. Everything was properly cited and formated, to boot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbabuch (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 October 2109 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbabuch: The citations and formatting are not the issue here. The issue is neutrality. WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS violate neutrality by producing an undue emphasis on negative material. Also, that material has been relocated throughout the article, so that you are addiction of a controversy section is stating the controversial information twice. The other editors have mentioned this in their edit summaries. Therefore, your edit will not be reinserted. Any attempts on your part 2 reinsert it constitute edit warring, and may result in a block. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION is an essay. Whether something adheres to NPOV is a content dispute, which should be resolved through a discussion. You cannot give mandates like "Therefore, your edit will not be reinserted".

Why not just tell everybody to go to the article talk page or WP:BLPN? There is a discussion at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Peter Handke. One editor said "I don't think it's unreasonable that the controversies take up almost half Peter Handke". This was on 10 October, when there was a separate controversy section. Politrukki (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain?

Can you please explain how my edit was unconstructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd1schroeder (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jd1schroeder, you don't see how your edit had a clear point of view? This is to say nothing of the fact that the Clinton impeachment was highly partisan. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rejecting a multiply-cited edit based on sources from Major League Baseball, a major local newspaper, the Minnesota Twins, and Josh Donaldson himself based on the fact that a particular roster move has not YET been made. KateBergerMpls (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KateBergerMpls, the real source that will tell us if the Twins have signed Donaldson is this page. As of now, he's not listed. Because, the Twins have a full 40-man roster. They are not allowed to have 41 players on their 40-man roster. Someone has to be jettisoned before they can sign Donaldson. Also, Wikipedia is not a breaking news source. We are an encyclopedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting the page Maltese (dog), but you've committed a little mistake: as you can see here, and as I'm sure you already know, as far as a new consensus is reached the previous consensual version is kept in a challenged page, and the previous consensual version of that page was this, with the pronunciation of the dog's name, not the one modified by "Magnolia677" whom I've been reverting to the consensual version; I'm asking you to restore the consensual version for the moment, please, currently there's a discussion in the talk page where it'll be decided if the pronunciation will be kept or not, but till that moment the previous consensual version must be kept, this is how Wikipedia works (unless it works like that just when it's convenient for the user who request the protection...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.186.195 (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, reply to my message, thanks.

I responded to a request to protect the page at WP:RFPP. I am not at all involved in discussion on that page, and have no idea what the consensus is. If you want an autoconfirmed editor to make a change to the page, ask on the article's talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I'm not asking you to take a position about the matter, I'm just stating this: the "consensus rule" works as shown in the diagramme, if an edit is challenged (the removal in this case) the pre-edit version is the one to keep until a possibile new consensus is reached, but the current version is the challenged edit version, not the previous consensus version (lasting from years ago). I'm asking you just to apply the rules of Wikipedia, that is restoring the stable consensual version for the moment, which will be modified if a new consensus is reached in talk (where there's a discussion currently). I'm asking "you" because you're the user who protected the page, and I can't restore it because I'm not registered. Nothing more, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.186.195 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let me know if you can fix this procedural error. If you can't, tell me whom I may ask please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.186.195 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, I did protect the consensus version. This is why you should check with an editor who is familiar with the page, because I am not familiar with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've understood. Then let me explain better what happened. The last consensual version is this. The difference between that version and the version you protected is this (which is, except for some fixing in the page that I've done myself, identical to this, the first removal). The difference is that the Italian pronunciation template "[mal'te:ze]", which has been present in the page for years (watch here), was removed by the user himself who asked the protection! It's absurd, can't you see? A user removes a content, then he's reverted, so he asks to protect the page so that "his" non consensual version is kept. Absurd... And that user is the only one familiar with the page lately, I even tried asking explainations over and over in an old talk page of mine and in the current discussion about the matter, but he keeps ignoring me, as if I'm a noisy insect. Nobody else but you can do this, which is nothing but respecting the rules. To resume:

I've shown you that the consensual version was the one with the pronunciation;
I've shown you that the pronunciation has been there for years without being challenged so it has to be considered a stable consensus;
I've shown you that the version you protected isn't consensual because the pronunciation was removed without consensus;
I've shown you that the user who asked to protect the page is the one who made the challenged edit and his behaviour didn't correspond at all to the consensus diagramme because he just kept on making his edit again and again althought it was being challenged instead of stopping;

the only thing you should do is, for the moment, restore the previous version, the non challenged version, the consensus version, call it as you prefer, nobody but you can do it because the only other user who could is the one I've just written about in the last point above. Please, give me a hand to fix this procedural mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.186.195 (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any particular benefit to the revision you pointed out, as there are only minor spacing differences, as well as a typo of Maltese groomed with 3'(<'05839(;';(9993992988 Ir that I don't want to restore. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to know a thing before going on: tell me, sincerely, if you're mocking me, please. In case you are, it's useless I spend more time writing explaination messages. In case you aren't, I'll try explaining once more what I naively thought it wasn't necessary to explain in such a detail.

This is the difference between the last consensual version and the version you protected, the difference I linked yesterday.
This is one of my edits, to be precise it's the edit where I didn't just restore the pronunciation removed by the user who asked the protection but I also made several fixes such as the "Maltese groomed with" part you talked about, if you compare this edit with the previous you'll notice they're absolutely identical except for the removal of the pronunciation.
This is the difference between my previous edit and the version you protected, as you can see the only difference in the text is that the pronunciation was removed.
This is the first edit by that user consisting in removing the pronunciation, it's identical to the previous difference except that here I hadn't added a source yet.

So, what have we understood from these differences? That between the last consensual version and the current version the differences are 2: the removal of the pronunciation and the general fixes. The general fixes I made, for their own nature, haven't been challenged, so it's all right leaving them there. The removal was challenged. The pronunciation has always been in the page, it was stable and corresponding to the consensus, removing it without discussing was an error, was "breaking the rules of Wikipedia". The version you protected, without the pronunciation, is a challenged version, and according to the consensus diagramme in a case like this the challenged version has to be undone and restored to the previous consensual version (which is my edit where I fix mispells and restore the pronunciation). So please, for the last time (let's hope), restore the previous consensual version, i.e. re-add the pronunciation which was removed without consensus and without discussing about its removal; if in the talk page is decided to remove it, then the user who is willing to remove it will remove it again, but "for the moment" the consensual version of the page is this, not this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.186.195 (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how else to explain this: I am not involved in editing that page and I'm not going to involve myself in editing that page. Other editors are editing the page, and the protection will expire soon enough anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I've understood "this". The thing "you" haven't understood is that you, in your action of "protecting the page", made a procedural mistake. It wasn't your fault, you just didn't check because you trusted the user who requested the protection who, instead, disguised you: you couldn't be aware that the version you were protecting wasn't the consensual version but the challenged version (which, because of the protection, wouldn't have been possible any more to restore to the consensual version), you couldn't know that such a trusted user's aim was actually "using the page protection to prevent an anonymous from making the rules of Wikipedia be respected"; if you'd checked you'd have verified that and, so, restored the previous version before protecting the page (I hope). You made a mistake, nothing terrible at all but it remains a mistake, just please fix it, I'm not asking for anything inconceivable: to respect rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.186.195 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm happy to see that here, in Wikipedia, people who are responsible for taking decisions about issues and acting to solve them don't behave at all as people who have the same tasks in the real word, e.g. policemen: here, as far as I can see, they who're given special powers to ensure the correct running of Wikipedia are free not to care at all when they commit mistakes in carrying out their duties; out of here, in real life, they'd be either sanctioned or summarily fired... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.186.195 (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy

As Americans we can "be" knights (or doctors) or clowns—just not while actually jousting (or practicing) or whatever—and you're absolutely right about the infobox (BLP). Meanwhile, please Ctrl+f1 honorary and think NPOV (six?). Preachy ate chew. --Brogo13 (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brogo13, Americans can not accept an official knighthood, lordship, or other peerage from a foreign government. If he wanted to be "Sir Rudy", he'd need to renounce his American citizenship first. I don't know what you mean by NPOV through a Ctrl + F1. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Ctrl+f. (Hey computer, find me this word so I can see what other words are nearby.) I simply noticed that the subject (Sir Doctor?) perhaps shouldn't come up six times. --Brogo13 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for David Glass (businessman)

On 20 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article David Glass (businessman), 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. Spencer^T•C 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gays For Trump Removal Question

Hi, I do not believe I removed any information from the Gays For Trump page, in fact, I believe I added information. There was some incorrect information that I did change to reflect the correct information after reading the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7valentine7 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7valentine7, not Gays for Trump, Talk:Gays for Trump. Specifically, this edit. We do not remove or refactor other people's talk page posts under any circumstances, other than the most severe BLP violations or hate speech. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize it was my mistake. I did not mean to remove anything from the page, I was trying to add a note to the page. I have indicated this on that talk page. 7valentine7 (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7valentine7, I see. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I do agree that that post on the talk page is fairly nonsensical. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I followed up your request for deletion of Peter Boykin from wikipedia 7valentine7 (talk) 24:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bridich Vandalism

Hello,

With the Nolan Arenado and Jeff Bridich news in full force, there's been some vandalism on Jeff Bridich. Nothing major, but it might be enough to make the page semi-protected, I don't know where the Arenado and Rockies trade dispute saga will end but his name will continue to get brought up I'm sure.

Thanks, Hamma085 (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamma085, I think that was just enough vandalism to justify page protection. I also think the page needs to be updated, since there's nothing on him since his appointment as GM. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Michael Olmsted for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Olmsted is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Olmsted (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naples United FC page?

Hi there. Since Naples United FC is going into its fourth National Premier Soccer League season and just qualified for the 2020 U.S. Open Cup I was going to make it a page but it seems only you can do that (plus three others have already tried to make it a page).

Do you think it should be brought back with additional sources from the NPSL [1] [2] [3] and U.S. Soccer [4] [5]? ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ColeTrain4EVER, the page was deleted via a discussion, and then recreated twice, which is why it's been protected from recreation. That said, we could have a page there if new information that would render the old decision outdated. None of those sources, though, would do that. They are not independent of the subject. U.S. Soccer would surely promote the 2020 U.S. Open Cup. If there are any independent sources, that would strengthen the case for making an article. Alternatively, you could try to draft an article at Draft:Naples United FC and use the WP:AFC process to get it accepted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu I could try to find different sources, but those might come after the U.S. Open Cup tournament starts. Some coverage has begun with SoccerAmerica and ProSoccerUSA mentioning the team, though its a smaller side in the NPSL and seems to get coverage based on who they play in the NPSL season. However, since the team made the U.S. Open Cup that by default would make it eligible for a page according to WP:FOOTYN, right? Quote from club notability: "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria." ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium

News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia

Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta

In the media: Turkey's back up, but what's happening with Dot-org and a new visual identity?

Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019

Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments 2019, we're all winners

News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations

Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015

In focus: Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!

Recent research: How useful is Wikipedia for novice programmers trying to learn computing concepts?

From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015

On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?

WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report

Humour: Predicting the 6,000,000th article

Obituary: Remembering Wikipedia contributor Brian Boulton

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for John Altobelli

On 27 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article John Altobelli, 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Notice

Hello, Muboshgu. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Celestina007 (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Noice. Good job, I guess. Pi=3.14(Nick) (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstate deleted page?

Recently you deleted Ed Dailey's Wiki. I was hoping to convince you to reinstate it. Thebrad509 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Dailey doesn't seem to be notable, from what I see on the administrators' noticeboard on simplewiki. Nigos (talk • Contribs) 07:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference to the discussion on simplewiki, see this.

Help With Recent Changes for Jamie Moyer

Hello,

I could use your guidance for making recent changes, that are accurate, for Jamie Moyer to be accepted. Or how to make edits that will not get rejected. I have read Wikipedia’s policy on “Biographies of Living Persons” Section. “Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.” The changes to remove marriage information has multiple reasons:

1. It is inaccurate. 2. Jamie Moyer is a retired professional with minor children and desires privacy. 3. Information about his current marriage status not public information. Nor should it be public.

If this communication is private I would be glad to obtain private records to document the accuracies for your editors. I would like to better understand the rights of privacy for a retired person with minor children as well. It seems Wikipedia policy favors privacy for living people. Jamie Moyer is retired and would favor privacy about his personal life and his 8 children (some of which are minors).

Please do advise as to what is needed to remove inaccurate personal information, but, at the same time, not continue to place personal information into the public.

I would be glad to share more details and documentation if you can confirm this thread is private.

I also reference: “The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names

Thank you in advance for your guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavit1333 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mavit1333, we do hue towards exclusion of information on non notable individuals, but not in cases where they are public figures. Karen Moyer seems to not be trying to hide her identity.[6] nothing in that paragraph that you deleted seems inappropriate. His minor children are not named, which wouldn't be okay. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dusty Baker

Please restore my edits. MLB.com is also reporting according to sources Baker and the Astros are in agreement. If MLB.com isnt reputable, what is? I would be happy to link you the article as well, or update the reference if you restore it. Thanks! Sneakycrown (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sneakycrown, when I reverted those edits, mlb.com was reporting that the hiring was "according to sources". That's not confirmation, especially since mlb.com is independent of the teams. Jim Crane has since announced the hiring, and that is how we know that it is real. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilhan Omar

I've given a DS alert to the editor you reverted and explained that they are not allowed to edit that portion of the article. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Staples Center protection

Hello Muboshgu, hope all is well! Just wanted to give you a heads up regarding Staples Center. It looks like editors are still adding a nickname however there is no consensus to add it at this time (see the relevant talk page section). It may need another semi-protection may be in order. I can post a request over at RFPP but wanted to make sure you're aware. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LuK3, it doesn't need another protection at this moment, but it might. I'll keep an eye on it. If I'm not around and it does become problematic, file another request. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to me from September 2019

Hi,

This is response a message that you left for me back in September 2019, "Please stop your disruptive editing....blah blah". First of all, I did not know that I was being disruptive by editing posts. How would I know? I'm not a programmer or anything. It was never my intention to be across that.

As you can see, I do not post much. Maybe I need a tutorial on editing, which you could have suggested, administrator. You did not have to leave that shitty message. You could have simply stated to me: "Your editing is to some of the post on here is disruptive. Please view our tutorial on how to edit a post. If you continue to be do, so we reserve the right to ban you." That would have made me seek assistance from you or others. In fact, you did not even tell or show me how I was being disruptive. How can I stop being disruptive, when I don't know what it is/was that I affected. As an administrator, you need to be a better communicator to users.

You can do as you please with my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizzlegizzle (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jizzlegizzle, in September, you vandalized the page. The page was subject to enough vandalism from your account and others that I protected the page. I do see that I could've given you a cautionary warning that was less abrasive than that one. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Pete Stark

On 30 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Pete Stark, 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. Spencer^T•C 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in response to reply to: "Help With Recent Changes for Jamie Moyer"

Karen is indeed a public person. However, the description surrounding their marital status is inaccurate. The problem I am having is that providing any reference material on the details of this inaccuracy would put non-public persons' information in the public light, which would be inappropriate and also potentially harmful. Putting non-public persons information in light is protected against.

- see Wikipedia policy on "privacy of names" section for biographies of living persons "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context...The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.”

This is a "catch 22." But the marital information on this page is inaccurate. Since the current information is inaccurate, and adding additional references & information to update this would subject non-public persons to publicity & is protected against by Wikipedia policy, it seems the best solution is to remove the inaccurate sentence.

Also as far as I understand, even though Jamie is a celebrity, he does in fact have a right to privacy according to Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, being a celebrity does not mean he has no right to privacy at all. See:

- Wikipedia policy, Biographies of living persons, paragraph 3: “Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.”

Perpetuating inaccurate personal life and inaccurate/outdated sensitive religious affiliation (and even if it were accurate) does not seem to adhere to “written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.”

Do you see a way to reconcile this? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavit1333 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Barr

On the page, "William Barr," I added two lines of important information about the relationship between William Barr, his father Donald Barr, and Jeffrey Epstein. The edits were small, convey uncontroversial and biographically relevant facts, and were backed up with reputable journalistic news sources. You undid my revisions and gave the following rationale: "Donald Barr hiring Jeffrey Epstein has nothing to do with William Barr." This is false. William Barr was confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States in 2019. In that role, Barr ran the Department of Justice, the executive branch agency that oversees the Metropolitan Correctional Center, the prison in which Jeffrey Epstein died on August 9, 2019. On August 12, 2019, Barr announced that he had ordered DOJ officials to investigate the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death. That Donald Barr, William Barr's father, had a years-long professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is clearly relevant to the public's understanding of William Barr's handling of the Epstein case. Therefore, these edits obviously belong in a biographical page about William Barr. If you believe this information deserves to be re-located within the article, please let me know. Otherwise, your reversal of my edits are unjustified and, frankly, a bit bizarre. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1120:60:F8AE:4E8:E3C5:353F (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:SYNTH. Donald Barr hiring Jeffrey Epstein in 1974 has nothing at all to do with Epstein's death in prison in 2019. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Administrator changes

Ergo Sum • Nick Moyes • QEDK • Wugapodes

Dennis Brown

Aude • BrownHairedGirl • CALR • Jengod • John Reaves • J.smith • Kim Dent-Brown • K1Bond007 • MECU • Refdoc • RHaworth

CheckUser changes

Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You but Want your assistance

@Muboshgu:, Thank you for protecting Saba Qamar, but i want to let you know that user:Kthxbay who was requesting to protect this page and that other IP was same and you can see that through visiting this article's history. The article is protected but he continue to vandalise [8]. This article is B class and well sourced but this user is removing the sourced material and tagging this article with maintenance tags since few days. Regards 221.132.118.17 (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]