User talk:Muboshgu

Incident

There is currently a discussion at Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stone walling. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitchen Knife (talk • contribs) 15:23, February 2, 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Will Lamb (baseball) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Will Lamb (baseball) 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/Will Lamb (baseball) 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 20:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Deidre DeJear" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Deidre DeJear and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 3#Deidre DeJear until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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 Needed.

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. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for J. R. Richard

I have nominated J. R. Richard for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Royce Clayton

The article Royce Clayton you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Royce Clayton for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Russell Wilson

Sorry, I think that my Russell Wilson edit was good. It specifically said "reports arose", not that he was traded to the Broncos. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

SteelerFan1933, the article doesn't include the reports about the trade to the Bears, correct? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct. That said, I want to give a quick thank you for being such a good Wikipedian. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course I know your edit was in good faith btw, no need to worry about that part. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

But I thought the bears trade surfaced With the addition that the Seahawks declined. What's more, we do not know much about the offered trade. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Protection of NSPORT

Hi Muboshgu

The question has already been worked out on talk in an RFC; there is a consensus for those changes. Some editors disagree with those changes, but that doesn't allow them to reject their implementation. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There's an edit war. I stopped it. That's all for my involvement with that RfC and its implementation. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is an effort by editors opposed to the consensus to prevent its implementation. As such, I don't believe you can implement page protection and wipe your hand of the matter, as there is a consensus that indisputably needs to be implemented. I note that both Levivich and I have directed comments towards you at the talk page of NSPORT; I believe it would be beneficial to respond to those comments and provide additional guidance in the context of your page protection. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely can. If there are issues with implementation, those need to be resolved. I am not versed enough in this issue to dive into it and I don't have the time to either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There are no issues with implementation; the consensus is clear that all criteria based solely on participation need to be removed. There are no editors who disagree with what constitutes participation (with the exception of managers, coaches etc, which was being discussed on the talk page and was unrelated to the edit war you saw), but there are editors who disagree with that consensus, and that is where the issue is coming from. I understand that you don't have time to become involved in this, but in that case I would ask that you lift your protection and allow another admin, with sufficient time to look into the situation, to reimplement if they believe that would be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think 3 days is long enough! I'm willing to reimpose protection if the edit warring resumes on March 12th. The two sides are just too entrenched to be satisfied with gradual changes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Liz, as an uninvolved admin with hopefully more time available, could you take a look at the situation and provide some guidance on how to implement the consensus? BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Please sort this out, there are people voting at AfD according to the old guidelines that do not reflect the consensus achieved in the RfC. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is beyond me to "sort out". Go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Review_of_RFC_closure. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Please partially block edit-warring editors instead of fully-protecting the page. The rest of us would like to do some work. Thanks, Levivich 21:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, I haven't checked in there recently. What work is agreed upon? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(Thanks for the quick response!) Actually, all of the recent edits are "agreed-upon":

• Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Here is the 12kb edit just before your first protection
• Here is the 2kb edit just before your second protection

The changes made today are different from the changes that were made last time around, the difference being that the changes made today only changed the things that were undisputed (i.e., not being reviewed at AN) and/or that were agreed-upon in recent discussions during the recent page protection (changing "presumed to be notable" to "significant coverage is likely to exist" per subproposal #8, which is not under review, and was confirmed at WT:NSPORTS#Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (the first one).

I may have missed some aspect of today's changes that do not have consensus, but I posit that editors have made progress over the weekend during the initial round of full protection, and we are now at the point where we can implement some changes, which are not controversial, while holding off on implementing other changes that are still being discussed. We've narrowed the points of disagreement, and further editing will help us narrow the remaining points of disagreement. At this point, I think full protection is counterproductive, and instead what needs to happen is the more targeted exemption of those editors who are editing against, rather than towards, consensus. (NB: one such editor has already been p-blocked, a second has been warned.)

I get the whole protection-v-blocking balance, but I think today, the scales weigh towards blocking. Levivich 22:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, unfortunately I will have to delay response because of IRL commitments but I'll be back to this later today. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't rush back on my account. I left the above message before I saw Wug's pblock and message below. I appreciate you taking the time to engage with me on this. I'm sure you and Wug can figure it out without me, and I think I'd better bow out of this part to simplify things. Thanks again for the prompt response and considering my point of view. Levivich 23:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from InterstateFive

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) § Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (5). My edit request was for the actual page, not the talk page. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 21:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Self-trout – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

MLB lockout

Is it safe to proceed with updating team pages for the 2022 season? For example, updating schedules to reflect that April 7/8 is the first game and things like that. Thanks. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say so, since the owners and MLBPA have ratified the CBA. A steady stream of free agent signing reports that are premature are coming. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good. And thanks for the warning about incoming premature reports. I appreciate your solid work and dedication to the MLB pages on Wikipedia. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Something else for you

Hey, last line of this section uses a direct source from NATO back from 2019. You should revert it and call the guy out for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Fephisto (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Fephisto, When asked if their country should defend a fellow NATO ally against a potential attack from Russia, a median of 50% across 16 NATO member states say their country should not defend an ally, compared with 38% who say their country should defend an ally against a Russian attack. It's Pew Research, not NATO for one. It isn't OR/SYNTH, because it's directly supported by the source, though that line could use some copy editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Page Addition - Cameron Gibbens

Hello, Muboshgu. You have new messages at Muboshgu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey Muboshgu.

Cameron Gibbens here. Australian professional pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers organisation. I came across your page and found you create pages for a few friends of mine (Baseball Athletes ,Jon Kennedy, Daniel Mcgrath). I would love for you to create my page on Wikipedia.

Could you please do this for me? Is there any process I need to go through.

My email is [email protected]

Let me know.

Thank you in advance.

Regards,

Cameron Gibbens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.218.98 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Cameron. In the cases of Jon Kennedy (baseball) and Daniel McGrath, they met our notability guidelines because they played for the Australian national baseball team. Have you? Are there reliable sources of your career that would demonstrate notability? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Muboshgu. Thanks for the response. In my case there are a few sources that can be considered notable. for example: Minor League Profile Page, Tulsa Drillers Roster, Baseball Reference and a variety of other news publications. will that suffice? 24.252.218.98 (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Also a few links to wikipedia pages i am referenced in

Los Angeles Dodgers Minor League Players

Melbourne Aces 24.252.218.98 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but those alone are pages that every minor league player is mentioned in. I hope you have a great season. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Has the A’s-Braves trade been officially announced by either side? GoWarriors151718 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

GoWarriors151718, it appears to have been [1][2] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright. Fair enough. Thanks for the source. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks also, Muboshgu. I was coming here to ask the same question. BilCat (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Trades get done faster than FA signings, for whatever reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Giants–Jets rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Giants–Jets rivalry 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/Giants–Jets rivalry 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.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

NSPORTS

Hi Muboshgu, I just saw your protection at WP:NSPORTS and wanted to get on the same page (cc Liz). I warned both Avilich and Nfitz about edit warring. About 15 minutes after I warned them, and simultaneous with acknowledging the warning. Nfitz reverted again. I p-blocked as a clear violation of edit warring, but it seems moot now given the protection. How should we move forward here? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wugapodes Levivich is also making the case above for p-blocks. I could see doing that instead. I have to be busy IRL for a little bit now, so if you want to lower protection that's fine by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I also had meatspace stuff to finish up. I think the protection is fine for now, though I guess I'm wondering how we unwind this. My concern in lifting protection right now is that someone's next edit is going to be a revert, so I'd prefer the most recent edit request be resolved first. As for the block, I'm going to leave it be for now in case the page does get unprotected. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Mobushgu, was this edit made on the correct page? I'm a bit confused because you've responded to an edit request with a comment about unprotecting and p-blocks which is not what's being requested there. I don't expect you to be the one to restore the pre-edit-warring version but I was surprised to see you actively oppose it. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Dlthewave, I thought I had protected the pre-edit warring version and do not know what the differences are between the two versions, as I hadn't looked. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

See this diff. The version that was essentially stable since the 12 March included the language of subproposal #8 ("Significant coverage is likely to exist"), and you must have inadvertently protected the version edit-warred by Nfitz which uses "presumed notable". All we're asking is that the version before today's edit warring be restored, as described in the edit request at NSPORTS. I think this is why you're getting so much push-back. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Surely the version previously frozen was the stable version, from when the review started and it was frozen. Surely we should always go the status quo. Though I don't know why NSPORTS wasn't originally frozen to the pre-RFC state ... Nfitz (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Helene Hathaway Britton

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Helene Hathaway Britton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada: Revision history

The source in this article wasn't linking to Front Row Insurance website. It was linking to SOCAN website, where Front Row is mentioned. So, how is that only being done for self-promotion purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.224.228 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You're adding it here for promotional purposes. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Helene Hathaway Britton

On 16 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Helene Hathaway Britton, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Helene Hathaway Britton (pictured), the first woman to own a Major League Baseball team, was unsuccessfully pressured by other club owners to sell the team? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Helene Hathaway Britton. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Helene Hathaway Britton), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)