User talk:Bagumba/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Bagumba, and

welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions
. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page
, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant

How is it sufficient when on Michael Jordan's page it has it in the info box? Why are you against it being in Kobe's page? And who gave you the right to say that alone is sufficient? When I stated valuable reasons why it should be there.ScottieAngelo (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better for you to discuss with general public in the article's talk page. I was simply
being bold. My right stems from being an editor such as yourself. Ultimately, it is the community that will form a consensus, and any one editor's opinion, including my own, is just one step to ultimately reach it one way or another. Bagumba (talk
)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages
.

For the guideline on reviewing, see

here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here
.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject NBA invite

Please accept this invite to join the WikiProject National Basketball Association, a WikiProject dedicated to improving National Basketball Association related articles. Simply click here to accept!

—Chris!c/t 06:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lebron James

Hi, please don't write on my discussion page, as you did earlier today. Thanks!!!Mexicomida (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem if you are now aware of adding unsourced claims on living living people. Bagumba (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Gloves

Good call, I missed fixing that one. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LeBron James/2010 Sports Jerk Award

Considering that the READERS of the Tank McNamara comic strip voted LeBron as the 2010 Sports Jerk of the Year, I'd say that's cultural enough (and how can one link multiple references to the strip anyway?)

talk) 03:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

if you can show
original research you would have a better case. Bagumba (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

The comic itself is reliable. How much more reliable do you need? I can link to the comic, and to the Facebook page where people cast ballots, and I'll bet you'll STILL says it's "unreliable"...

talk) 03:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

assume good faith. nobody disagrees thAt the comic exists. WhAt is needed is reliable source that says why reader should treat it significantly since it is a fictional award. Please place any further discussion on article talk page. Thanks Bagumba (talk
)|

Third Opinion: Clare Balding

Thank you for providing such a carefully considered third opinion so swiftly, it certainly helps.

talk) 11:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Cookie

Thank you so much for the barnstar. I greatly appreciate being of assistance to the issue at hand. Enjoy this warm fresh cookie while you edit to improve wikipedia and all the articles you find of interest.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Micheal Fitzgerald

Hi, I am really trying to update the citations you requested for Micheal Fitzgerald. Please can you give me a little time to complete the edits as I've already noticed the revision was reversed before it was completed. Thanks in advance Hunterscarlett (talk)

Hi, I have updated further the Micheal Fitzgerald article. Please can you confirm you are satisfied that Mich"eal" & Mich"ael" are one and the same. Mich"ae"l is an English transltion of Mich"ea"l when the writer has not known that Mich"ea"l is a valid Gaelic native name. This is requiring far more of my student time that I had expected. I'm trying to move on with other contributions to Wikipedia. Hunterscarlett (talk)

No, the article still has not demonstrated that the actor and the race driver are the same people. I added back the dubious tag that you removed without resolution. Please read
WP:V. Also, since this deletion review is being done by others and not just myself, you may want to direct your comments to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Micheal_Fitzgerald
. However, I can answer any personal questions if you prefer.
Aside from whether these are two people or one, the main problem with the article is that notability has not been established and the article relies mainly on non-independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions noted - all talk now on Micheal Fitzgerald article discussion page. Hunterscarlett(talk) 01:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ching chong article

Hi, although we disagree on many points we both likely agree that a good article about this phrase would be nice. I suggest trimming off the quote parameter for any online source that someone can simply verify themselves and only use it for offline sources where there really is a dispute about what is presented. I am bias of course so have stayed away from the article. I feel that someone, whoever the main writer there, had some point they needed to express but unfortunately was going about it in the wrong way. Fruit (slang) is an example that might help, it doesn't try to lay blame as much as simply inform. The whole top of the article is information about where and possibly why the phrase was used. Then it lists usages. O'Donnell made a mistake, scene over but the comments about the mistake speaks towards the impact and significance of the phrase itself and peeled into a paragraph minus the blaming could be very good and benefit all concerned. It also helps other people understand that even though they didn't known how hurtful their words were, they still did hurt and explain possible reasons why. People who don't care about O'Donnell or whichever person in the example, may never even get that far but they likely will read the top several paragraphs if they are neutral and concise. In any case I wish you the best and I hope to see that article really come together. Jnast1 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the use of the quote parameter in citations, you seem to have missed the discussion on your edit in August 2010 at
WP:IMPERFECT). Editors have managed to remove all the unsourced trivia references to its usage in a movie, TV show, etc. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, what happens on the ching chong article is pretty much out of my hands, I've tried to address the issues so wherever the article goes from here is wherever it goes. As for the quote parameter you might also note that it is merely an optional one, what you do on the ching chong article is no longer of my concern but I refuse to let the O'Donnell article serve as the cursed goat sent to sacrifice to make a point. i have a feeling it shouldn't be in the article at all but if it must be there in needs to be kept at a minimum. On the ching chong article the O'Donnell content is certainly a notable and appropriate example even if presented poorly. On the O'Donnell article it simply did not figure greatly into her life as the two main controversies did. Jnast1 (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3O for Austan Goolsbee

Thanks for your help in providing a third option. I was hoping that you could clarify the intended meaning of it? Thanks very much. - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U Corbridge

Hi Bagumba. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a

WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks

Thanks for updating the documentation for

Template:Infobox NBA biography. I know that I promised to do that when I started the discussion, but I just came back from unplanned wikibreak. Anyway, thanks for your help, really appreciated. — MT (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks

Well done! (I wasn't looking forward to doing that.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaquille O'Neal page

Hello, Baguma. Good catch on the O'Neal page: I did not intend to eliminate the page protection. An oversight. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We're all here to catch each other's mistakes. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Bryant – Shaquille O'Neal feud

Just want to know how you find all these sources? I tried to find references for the Scary Movie 4 sentence but wasn't able to. Also, you did a great job sourcing the article. Keep up the great work. Cheers.—Chris!c/t 18:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say it's anything more than Google. The one from the Chronicle was just a matter of luck while skimming through results on the search of the previous quote in the article. I usually just look for sites I recognize to sift through all the crud. Then, I gave up on the previous quote, and I think I just went "scary movie 4 kobe site:latimes.com" For LA-related stuff, I usually limit to latimes first to improve quality and to limit number of results. —Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am wondering if I should create an infobox to show how many championships or awards Bryant & O'Neal has won. I think it is a good idea, so readers can compare both players without having to read the prose.—Chris!c/t 21:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary since the "feud" is more about their personal dynamics and not a comparison of who is better. The comparison is also difficult since they play different positions and they have always been at different phases of their career. —Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I am to do this, I am certainly not going compare statistics like total points/rebounds since they play different positions and can't be directly compared this way. I just think that readers may be interested to know who has won more championships or MVPs.—Chris!c/t 23:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from 1 championship and maybe a few AS games since Kobe is younger, it's probably similar. But yeah, might be helpful. The other thing, and maybe we limit it to their time together, is to bring up points brought up in the article like points scored and games played.—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you really don't like the idea, then it is fine. I am indifferent anyway. Their number of championships/awards are indeed very similar. But just to give you a sense of what I had in mind, here it is. :)—Chris!c/t 02:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kobe Bryant – Shaquille O'Neal
statistical comparison
Kobe Bryant Shaquille O'Neal
5 Championships   4
1 Most Valuable Player (MVP)   1
2
Finals MVP
   3
4
All-Star Game MVP
   3
13 All-Star Game selections 15
I'm not crazy about it, but not violently opposed as it is if you want to get consensus from others. I think my biggest fear is it turning into a bigger indiscriminate list like FG%, Ft%, All-D teams, etc to support one side vs another, esp for stat-buffs if it is not based off of sourced comparisons. —Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks pretty complete with adequate sourcing. With some more copyediting, it could be a Wikipedia:Good articles.—Chris!c/t 00:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, reads less like a tabloid with some actual sources. Some quotes can probably be summarized, but its good to have the raw info for now. I'm gonna be mostly offline for the next couple of months, so my contributions will be dwindling. —Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT

Thanks for your note. I saw you have left a link of past discussions which I will look into, and yes I realise a lot of work went into NSPORT. Thanks also for commenting on my wording changes. Eldumpo (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryant

Many days of news coverage does not automatically make something notable in a person's bio. There was no enduring notability for this incident that it has to be added in the Bryant article. Truthsort (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I always find it interesting that minute things like single game stat lines or covers on video games dont get questioned as much as non-sports incidents with arguably more significant coverage such as this. Anyways, it is up to WP:Consensus. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
It would apply if it was notable. However, I don't believe that is the case. As I said, the amount of media coverage for a brief time period does not make it notable and the punishment was did not equate to anything out of the ordinary, as $100k fines have occurred several times in the NBA. After the fine, everything went away and no further actions were taken. Truthsort (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Brandon Crawford

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK issue

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK for Brian Dallimore

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Deron Williams

What I posted is common knowledge and non-disputable fact. This should not be removed.173.216.232.76 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but consider me one of the uninformed.
WP:V states "that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Well I am not getting into an argument over it. But what I posted is basic common knowledge and is non-disputed. It is like saying the NBA is the pro basketball league of USA and having it removed because of no source.173.216.232.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The official Eurocup website's article on Besiktas for the upcoming qualification round -> [1] - as you can see, Besiktas will play in the qualification phase of the
Euroleague -> [2] - just so you know that I am not making this up.173.216.232.76 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
you want to try to re-add the text and citations. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Talkback

Hello, Bagumba. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bagumba. You have new messages at Causa sui's talk page.
Message added 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

causa sui (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice thing to say!

Thanks for the lovely barnstar. It's been a big wikiweek for me. Today I did the first three non-admin closes I actually understood completely (even a marginally contentious one). Then just for trying to keep the discussion on topic at DRV I get this nice bauble? From someone I disagree with on the merits? Too sweet. Havin' fun and getting treats anyway. Just like Halloween when I was toddler. Thanks for making my wikiday. BusterD (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atlanta Aliens

Why do you want to tear the house down while it's still being built? Tom Danson (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at Talk:American Basketball Association (2000–present)#Merge expansion team articles. —Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rawlings Gold Glove Award

There is already a preponderance of information in the lead of

undue weight to them, since there is a limited space due to this being a list and not an article. Additionally, could you please format your references the same as the rest of the list? This is featured content and all of the formats need to be alike. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks. I was conscious of this being a featured list, but I have also
neutral
view of the award regarding criticisms that exist more with this award than any other in MLB. On the one hand, one paragraph out of eight in the total page seems reasonable. But as you noted, the lead is bulky with the overall text of the page—excluding the lists themselves—is in the lead, instead of the lead summarizing the body. One solution, if size becomes unmanageable, might be to have a separate article and a separate list. This would need a broader consensus for a major change of a featured list. I am open to other suggestions as long as information is not lost. Perhaps text can be better summarized while not losing any meaning?
Apologies on the reference format. I was especially cognizant to add references and not use a bare url and to include the publisher in a featured article; however, I overlooked that this article did not add wikilinks for the work and publisher fields which other articles sometimes do. I will remember to note the existing style with regards to wikilinks in citations in my future edits in featured articles. —Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to have a section of prose before the list (for an example, see Major League Baseball Rookie of the Year Award). I'd be happy to discuss the options on the article's talk page. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atlanta Aliens deletion

C'mon, let's be reasonable here...if merging will save it from getting deleted, then I'm all for it... Tom Danson (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal to merge has been there for a month and you have opposed, and indicated that there was not enough participants (3). Since the AfD has already been created, we may as well see if there is more input and a stronger consensus can be formed. —Bagumba (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If no consensus is reached, then I suggest you just leave it until their season gets underway and a good portion of their schedule is played. However, if nothing happens then, then we can nominate it again. Tom Danson (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NBA Finals Game Summaries

Hi, there. I am in the process of cleaning up the 2010 NBA Finals article in the hope that I could transform it into Featured Article status. Do you have any tips for improving the article. As you can see, I already fixed the introduction to the article, summaries for Games 4 and 7, Broadcasting, and Impact and Aftermath sections.Birdienest81 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to provide balanced and thorough coverage of the games in the series. For the game summaries, I would suggest that more
neutral. This could all be avoided by citing secondary reliable sources that provide the analysis and identification of the important plays. Also, at times the current play-by-play detail obscures some key points. For example, in Game 7, its not obvious (except in a brief early mention in the lead) that Bryant struggled shooting, but led in scoring in 4Q and had a lot of rebound. Also, the Lakers as a whole dominated in rebounding. Strive to summarize the highlights and important points of the games based on cited analysis, leaving readers who want the intricate details to go to the actual sources used. —Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Mike Sholars

Sir.

Your comment regarding Greg Sholars is False... He is an EIGHT TIME NCAA DIV. I ALL-AMERICAN Sprinter for TCU, He is Also a 4 Time NCAA Div. I National Champion and a member of TCU´s Hall of Fame. This is CLEARLY STATED in the No. 10 Reference, as are All other Facts in the Article Supported by Viable References — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews (talk • contribs)

I think there is a misunderstanding. There is no dispute of Greg's accomplishments, but there is no source cited that supports that they are related as brothers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Sir This has never been disputed by Greg Sholars... Feel Free to Contact Greg Sholars to verify, the Brothers are close.

We wish the article to be un-touched — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroNews (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no
verifiable. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

user talk notices

Thanks for the boilerplate. I've been here a while and have a pretty good idea how it works. I don't generally put a talk message after the first reversion, because most detrimental edits are once-offs, or from dynamically assigned IP addresses. de Bivort 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - see you around. Keep up the good fight at Jeremy Lin! de Bivort 18:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Lacy

Bagumba -- I understand we disagree about the notability of the Lacy article. That's fine. We have often disagreed. But your removal of portions of the article sourced to an article written by Larry Burton appears driven by an agenda to support your view at the AfD. Larry Burton is not some amateur blogger. He is a professional, credentialed sports writer and a member of the Football Writers Association of America. His bio can be viewed here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we dont always agree, but in a quick sampling of the last 10 AfDs we both voted on, we did agreed on 6 of them. Sorry, no agenda other than improving WP, which we have different opinions on balancing perceived impact vs number of sources. You are right on Burton, he is an expert even though the article is on a generally unreliable site. I missed that, and thanks for reverting my
assume good faith on both of our parts. —Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the reply. I agree with the sentiment on assuming good faith. As for Bleacher Report being "a generally unreliable site," I'm not sure. I've not used it much in the past, but it appears that there are a number of solid correspondents who write for the site. If they do, in fact, have a mix of contributors (some actual sports writers, some not), I think we will need to evaluate content from that site on a case-by-case basis. Cbl62 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would almost treat it as
self-published, since BR itself does not exercise editorial control. So if the person is an expert, fine. It does, however, say "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer", but I would only apply that to athletes personal lives and not their sporting career. —Bagumba (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Where do you see the indication that Bleacher Report exercises no editorial control? I was looking for some guidance on that. I've noticed that the Los Angeles Times has begun carrying pieces from Bleacher Report, and I'd be surprised if they take content that lacks editorial control. According to this source, "Content created by the Bleacher Report editorial community is regularly syndicated to such leading media outlets as CBS Sports.com, the Los Angeles Times, NHL.com, Hearst Newspapers, USAToday.com, and Telegraph.co.uk." Also, this source indicates that Bleacher Report as of March 2011 "is taking their content policy much more seriously now, and that they've become much more stringent and rigorous when it comes to quality control." With $22 million in recent financing, they've also hired several professional staff writers and a professional editorial team as reflected here and here and here. So whatever may have been true about the site in 2009 may not be true any longer. 05:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I knew it was a big coup for them to get Rob Neyer from ESPN. They do seem to be the new model in journalism of blogging as opposed to traditional newspapers. I posed the question in a review discussion before, but nobody had a response, and I searched on WP and most discussions had shot it down as unreliable as anyone could write on it. Newspapers, it could be argued, screened which article from BR to publish. However, I see these content standards on BR site now, which I never saw the last I looked. So maybe a new consensus can be formed. Good, they do have a lot of good content.—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even with enhanced content standards, I suspect a case-by-case approach may be appropriate. Articles published on the site by professional, credentialed sports writers or others who are recognized as experts should be fine, even more so with the enhanced editorial control. But articles posted by true amateurs remain dubious. Cbl62 (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late night brain fart, Neyer was SBNation.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Battles

Hello. I have started a thread regarding the addition of content related to Adrian Battles at 2010 Green Bay Packers season that you may be interested in. You can find the discussion here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hello Bagumba! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Crosby

DYK nomination of Steve Crosby

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC) StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK for San Diego Super Chargers

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Steve Crosby

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply