Muboshgu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello there. I nominated Bob Gibson's article for GA review a few months back and with no answer. I was hoping, given your experience with GA reviews on baseball articles, perhaps you can check it out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Omnis Scientia, it takes a while for baseball bios to get picked up there. I have a baseball GA nom that's been waiting almost as long as yours. Honestly with as busy as I am IRL I don't know that I have the time and attention required for that review right now, but I'll keep it in mind if it lingers. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries! I understand. Actually, I did one GA nomination once before and it got picked up almost instantly which is why was surprised this one was taking so long. Just got lucky that time, I guess. If such a wait is not uncommon then its understandable why its taking time. Thank you for taking the time to respond, regardless.   Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you incorrectly several pages of this type recently. While "not mentioned at the target" is a rather common rationale at WP:RFD that often leads to deletion, it is not a WP:CSD and these fairly clearly fall under WP:!G6. As such please undelete the pages and list them at RFD, thanks. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:10E9:A2E3:79F6:A28E (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Duly noted. I was unaware of that essay and can agree that I did not G6 appropriately. I'll undelete and take them to RFD. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:39B9:A943:564A:3BA (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

AP did not call Good yet, due to pending recount for final result. The final tally of initial results puts him behind McGuire, but still too close to call. RS (WaPo article I used) call Bowman as the first incumbent loss against non-incumbent. KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

KiharaNoukan, I know this, but Good's race was before Bowman's, so if he did indeed lose, he lost "first". The real question, though, is: beyond the WP:RECENTISM of the 2024 election calendar, why does it matter who lost renomination "first"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, I just added it in as broader scope of existing language (first dem to lose in 2024). KiharaNoukan (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re: [1][2]

Can I get you on board with current consensus item 61? Is there a reason it doesn't apply to that thread? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mandruss I forgot about it tbh, and probably AGF too much. I'll try to remember it next time. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's not about their good faith; we shoot on sight bad faith complaints, per 61. Rather, it's about the time-wasting futility of nonspecific complaints. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

•   Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured articleonDeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
•   Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
•   Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
•   AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). 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 for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ernie Shore 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Arconning -- Arconning (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

ArielR20130725 (talk · contribs) is a clear sock of 108.41.40.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Yankees10 21:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yankees10, they should have been warned. I warned them. We encourage IPs to register accounts so I think they need more appropriate warnings for a block. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply