User talk:Bensweetra

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

January 2023

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Your recent edit appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Miguel Rojas (baseball), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. The sources go after the text that they support in the body. And in this case, the Rojas source says a trade has been "agreed upon" but not that it's been executed. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Zack Greinke, you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of the editing I have done has been accurate.

February 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tayler Saucedo. Materialscientist (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I PUT A SOURCE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!! Bensweetra (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this case, you did, but that's not how to cite sources in articles. Sources have to go next to the text in the body, like so. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS, https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/ is not. Materialscientist (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist I consider it to be reliable. And I edit in baseball alot. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what would the link go next to in Tayler Saucedo’s page? Bensweetra (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mlbtraderumors.com is a reliable source for baseball transactions and if you think otherwise, you should probably find a better use of your time than checking how people edited a baseball player’s page. Bensweetra (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia includes content that has been published in reliable sources (←←←click this link and read it). What we do not include is unsourced content or content that is published by websites that publish speculation and rumours and/or that do not have a history of accuracy and fact checking. If you cannot differentiate between a reliable and unreliable source, please do not continue to add or change content in articles until you become better acquainted with the requirements. See Help:Referencing for beginners.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, this site does post rumors, but they're always clear on what is a rumor and what is not. MLBTR is reliable for baseball transactions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the word “rumors” is in the website name doesn’t mean they are inaccurate, unreliable, or produce only “rumor” articles. Do you follow baseball and follow their website? If so, can you provide me with some examples where they produced false articles? Or are you just making an assumption based off of the website’s name? Bensweetra (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bensweetra and @Muboshgu: The website name and their own "About us" page, which states that their primary focus is publishing rumours, doesn't instill a lot of confidence for its use. The only time I can see that it was discussed at WP:RSN there was little participation but the consensus was it should not be used for BLPs. If the website is being used to verify content in BLPs, there should probably be a discussion held at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to give it the all clear. Also, if the website is publishing material that is not considered a rumour, wouldn't it appear in more traditionally reliable sources, in which case we should use the vetted source instead?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo, that's not a particularly in depth discussion there at RSN. I would've weighed in otherwise. The "About us" page also has significant praise from people in the industry. They use it as a source of information. Looking at some of their recent posts on transactions, they're all accurate, like this one for Chad Green (pitcher)'s signing with the Blue Jays. They use the word "reportedly" for the salary details, which indicates to us to not take them as gospel. You are correct, though, that these transactions will be reported in other, preferable media. MLB.com (editorially independent of MLB) and WaPo verify at least some of the salary information MLBTR reported (WaPo is behind a paywall, I'm not a subscriber). They also report on lesser deals, like this one with Yolmer Sanchez that I'm not seeing picked up on by standard RS yet, but they are reporting on a team announcement. They also have posts like this one that speculate on how a player will do in 2023, but it contains verifiable information in statistics that can be useful to us.

There's also the nature of the reporting on transactions that have not been verified by teams to examine. Let's take Carlos Correa as an example. He was a free agent from the Twins this offseason, agreed to a deal with the Giants that fell through, then agreed to a deal with the Mets that fell through, then ended up back with the Twins. Here is their post on the Giants agreement. The headline says they "agreed to" the deal, not signed it. The second sentence of the article says San Francisco is reportedly in agreement with Correa..., indicating the nature of the report. The very bottom gives their sources, Jeff Passan of ESPN first reported Correa and the Giants had agreed to a 13-year, $350MM contract. Jon Heyman of the New York Post reported the deal didn’t include any opt-out provisions but contained a full no-trade clause. This article is very similar to Jeff Passan's article about it at ESPN.com. Then, this article is how MLBTR discussed when the deal began to fall through. They reported that the Mets swooped in, that he took a physical with the Mets, that the Mets had concerns with his physical that delayed their deal. They reported on talks with the Twins reopening, then accelerating, and then reported on the deal with the Twins thusly. All of this appears to be validated by accepted RS.

So, tl;dr, I consider MLBTR to be a reliable source of transaction and statistical information on baseball. They do also post rumors that do not belong on Wikipedia articles, but so do the traditional RS. I do prefer those "traditional RS" when they are available, but some lesser transactions, like minor league contracts, sometimes don't get written up by other publications. It's up to editor discretion to know what to use and what not to use, but that's an issue independent of the sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what do all of you need from me to stop bugging me? Because I’m not going to stop. I love baseball and I only edit things that I’m confident are accurate. Bensweetra (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to defend your use of MLBTR, but this is probably a discussion better had at WP:RSN. For you, please read Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1 for how to add inline citations in articles and please ask any of us if you have questions about how to do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]