User talk:Bagumba/Archive 11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I noticed that the Basketball-Reference.com in {{Infobox basketball biography}} wasn't working for Deborah Carter.

My initial thought is that the editor who created it use the wrong BBR parameter, which they did, but fixing it didn't make it work. Unfortunately, I figured out why. The template wants to create a template that looks like this:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordami01.html

But the correct URL for Debbie Carter looks like this:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/wnba/players/c/cartede01w.html

Note the extra "wnba/" just before "players". This is a bit annoying, as it seems entirely unnecessary from the point of view of the source. They already have a way to distinguish between two players who might happen to have the same first and last name. I've done a little bit of template coding but not sure how best to address this. I'll note that it is not used very often on WNBA players. I suspect that's because some have tried it and found it fails. I'm sharing this with you in case you think it is not worth recoding something to deal with a small number of instances. I'm in the process of adding all existing WNBA players to my watchlist and would intend to use this parameter for those who have entries if it works.

Any chance this is something you could address?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand you may be on vacation. This obviously isn't an urgent request.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Sphilbrick - the same issue exists for players from the original

NBA Development League, both of which are also on bbr.com. Part of the issue with those two is that players overlap(ped) between those leagues and the NBA so it's a bit tougher to separate them. Obviously that doesn't exist with the NBA/WNBA except for coaches. Rikster2 (talk

) 13:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

After looking further I withdraw my "unnecessary" comment. Not worth explaining but I have a deeper appreciation of the site. On the other hand my interest in addressing it has increased. I encountered an editor who is creating a number of articles on WNBA players and tends to use the parameter. I haven't yet figured out whether they are missing that it doesn't work, or simply hoping that it will be fixed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: bbr was introduced when the site only supported NBA. I've update the documentation to clarify it the param is currently for NBA only. I can get the wnba support in if you need help; would probably just add a new bbr-wnba param.—Bagumba (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. As I mentioned above my template skills are limited so I would be very happy if you would be willing to take this on. You are in a better position to decide how best to address it but I would be happy if there was a new parameter that might default to NBA and optionally include WNBA, the use of which would trigger the alternative URL scheme. In largely a coincidence, I just noticed a few moments ago that the draft parameter presumes the NBA draft unless the league parameter is set to WNBA. An editor wishing to use the WNBA bbr information should set draft_league=WNBA, which could trigger both the correct selection of the draft as well as the choice of bbr format.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There could conceivably be WNBA where players draft info was not filled in (e.g. undrafted players) where it's best to decouple the two. Plus, it doesnt assume anything about the future of transgender players.—Bagumba (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I've added support for |bbr-wnba=. Let if know if you find any issues.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It worked on Deborah Carter. I was originally thinking that using the parameter "league" or "league_draft" and setting that parameter equal to WNBA would be the way to do it, but I see how you've accomplished it. I will now try some of the players to make sure it works fine. Thanks, that was quick.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Working for:

• Seimone Augustus
• Janeth Arcain
• Svetlana Abrosimova

Thanks again. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

league is not used if a player is not under contract, so that wouldnt work. See my earlier 20:25, 15 October comment re: draft_league.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that comment, thanks for drawing my attention to it; good point. I just made an announcement Wikipedia:WikiProject_Basketball/Women's_basketball#Announcements included your name but because I didn't sign it you didn't get the ping; just wanted to let you know your work is appreciated and will be used by others.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Crap. I really should use underscore instead of dash e.g. bbr_wnba to be consistent with other params. Can you hold off any more changes while I change this. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Updates complete, including articles you mentioned.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I just tried a new one, and wondered why it failed, but now I see. I agree, underscore makes more sense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, can you please lock Module:College color/data so that only administrators and template editors may edit the module? There have have been a series of edit wars over the past week, and none of these colors should be unilaterally changed without confirmation/verification of the current Pantone and/or Hex colors of the universities and/or their sports teams. That should require a link and verification by at least one other editor. The color module affects thousands of templates, and each individual entry may affect dozens of templates for a particular university and its teams. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Been away for a while, so will need to catch up on the recent conflicts. Do you have examples or discussions you can point me to? Thinking aloud, I'm wondering if the Lua code should have annotated comments with URLs to source for verification. What did you/others have in mind.—Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If you take a look at the module edit history, you can see that we've had an outbreak of edit-warring, with an established editor telling a newbie that color changes need to be sourced (quite correctly, I think). Given the disruptive multi-year history of sock-puppetry, edit-warring and other mischief involving navbox team colors, etc., any color change (1) should be requested on the module talk page, (2) the requesting party should provide a linked source for the new Hex or Pantone color code, (3) the source should be confirmed by a trustworthy second editor, and (4) the confirmed change should be implemented by a template editor or administrator. I can't say I'm familiar with the Lua options for annotations, but if there is an established system within Lua for including linked references for module entries, that sounds like a pretty damn fine idea to me. Bottom line: we have, in effect, put all our eggs in one basket regarding college/team colors, and the potential for mischief is higher than it's ever been as a result. One entry change may affect multiple rivalry articles, dozens of team articles, dozens of navboxes, dozens of player infoboxes, etc. That's just too much of a temptation for newbies and sock-puppeteers like our old friend DragoLink (a naaasty rash be upon him). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears you didn't agree with the notice I left at the top of the article. It appeared the page was protected because this fellow has been front page news over the past week, so I added the notice accordingly. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. In the future, the

consensus

has been reached. There are a few problems I have with your proposed changes:

1. "Due to a highly unusual amount of media coverage, editing is currently restricted to registered users.": The wording is incorrect and misleading. The article has been protected since 2011, not due to the recent news spike. It also implies that any topic that gets "unusual" media coverage is protected, which misrepresents the actual
   protection policy
   .
2. "The point is to alert readers to create an account if they wish to contribute to the article": Your edit summary rationale is already addressed by guidance given when an unregistered editor clicks "View source" on the page. Your message box doesn't direct potential editors to register; moreover, they anyways would not be able to immediately edit a semi-protected page until they were
   autoconfirmed
   .
3. Your edit inexplicably removed {{
   pp-semi-protected
   }}, which is standardly placed on protected pages, and the source of the padlock that you may have noticed on top of protected pages. If you wanted more bold instructions for readers, |small= could be removed to add more standardized text. Frankly, I rarely see small removed to do so, as most prefer banners to be kept to a minimum.
4. There is no general consensus to mark articles merely because they are in the media. Note that even {{current}} advises: "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic."
5. As you are using a customized message box, I don't believe there is an established consensus for your changes.

Due to the visibility of the article, and the issues I have raised, I will again remove the changes. If you still disagree, I invite you to gain consensus for your proposal, perhaps at

Village Pump, before re-adding. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 13:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it was normal to restrict editing bio articles that get a sudden boost of media coverage (albeit for the wrong reason in this case). Thanks for explaining why the banner was not suitable. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 17:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please look at the back and forth on this and see if I am being out of line? I'm just trying to preserve the page while the Brooklyn discussion occurs. It annoys me that users feel like both this and The Nets page should read "NYC" while that discussion occurs instead of 2 different things as was the case when the discussion started. That seems to be presuming a given outcome. If I am out of line I will stop, and I trust you to be objective and knowledgeable about WP policy. Thanks, Rikster2 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

: "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." A new editor might come in and change it, and they'd pretty much have carte blanche as a bold edit. Its arguable it's only adding to the edit war by not engaging in discussion, but I doubt anyone is ever blocked over it.

It's probably due for full protection. An admin could optionally choose to revert it back to a stable version, it doesnt always happen though. At any rate, the Oct 11 version is pretty similar to the current one, listing only New York, NY. Personally, I've tried to limit myself to one revert in disputes, and just rely on discussion from there on out. Admittedly, it's frustrating when people still go around reverting even when there is a discussion. BLP and vandalism aside, there's a lot of sketchy stuff already on WP, so a few more days isn't going to be the end of the world. If you don't mind leaving the current version, I can just full protect it myself.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No biggie. It'll be resolved one way or the other. Love how I was called an "arsehole," accused of lying and edit warring (when I'd reverted another editor who I felt misunderstood why I'd put the article back the way it was when the discussion started) and told I was "POV pushing." Some people are real dicks and its exacerbated on the anonymous internet. Rikster2 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW - the NBA article included Brooklyn for about 2 and a half years before a few months ago. Funny how now the NYC version is the "right one." Rikster2 (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I hear you, but there are also cases where

consensus changed, so it can't be religiously applied. Wikipedia couldn't have started without the Internet, but then we have to deal with the other shit the Internet brings.—Bagumba (talk

) 22:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and funny how it was NYC only for five whole months until the discussion began on the Nets page in October, yet somehow that doesn't count either. - BilCat (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

From your user page it looks like you might be going through some tough personal times. So God bless you, Bill. Rikster2 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, thank you. My apologies for being so surly, as tough times aren't an excuse for bad behavior. That said, it still doesn't change the fact that Brooklyn wasn't there for 5 months before it was readded. - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill, I can live with being reverted, I could have done without the insults. Please Assume Good Faith. I thought I was doing the right thing. Rikster2 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize that, but my edits were in good faith too. AGF goes both ways. The discussion had stagnated for a few days. - BilCat (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you've been editing the Lamar Odom article and also are an admin, so I thought you'd be a great person to contact about an issue I raised in this discussion at the help desk. I simply asked whether or not it's appropriate for info about the Odom incident to be included in the Love Ranch article. As you'll see in the help desk thread, my hunch is that it should only be in the Odom article. But I honestly am only concerned about it being handled properly. So if editors like you, who have a lot of experience and knowledge, say it's fine to include it in the other article too, I have no problem with it staying. It just strikes me as very inappropriate. I also posted a note on the BLP noticeboard to invite interested parties to give input at the help desk. It appears that an IP has just removed all the content from the Love Ranch article. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the help desk for any replies. But I'm sure if you think that content is fine, you'll just restore it to the Love Ranch article. Thanks. Czoal (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:INVOLVED, so feel free to contact me if administrative action is needed there in the future, or if you have further questions on DR. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk

) 03:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much for the quick reply. I actually have very little interest in this matter regarding Odom and the place where it happened. My real concern is about whether or not it's proper to add content about a celebrity incident in the article of the place where it happened to occur. The Odom incident just happens to be a perfect example of my concern. I mean if a celebrity has a massive heart attack at a notable Las Vegas restaurant, should that content be included in the restaurant's Wikipedia article? Czoal (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proper

WP:RECENTISM.—Bagumba (talk

) 03:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Haha, yes, great point about recentism. I see that way too often... people going overboard with current hot topics that are receiving wide media coverage. It's like... calm down everyone and be patient. Czoal (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've

fully protected it so editors can discuss without continuing with the reverts. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk

) 04:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm not sure if the one editor who reverted realized that a talk page discussion had been started by the IP. Anyway, thanks for your insight on this. I appreciate it. Czoal (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

They didn't do anything wrong. Full protection hopefully encourages the next would-be editor to join the discussion, and at worst prevents the back-and-forth reverts.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Stubbleboy's inclusion of my original warning on their page

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan State Miracle. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking part in the discussion regarding the

Michigan State Miracle page, Bagumba. I have addressed and responded to your concern on the deletion discussion page itself. In the future, please also take note that the message I left was in no way provocative to sway anyone's opinion's. I was only informing them that there was a discussion taking place regarding the school they attended. Whether or not these individual's are actually alumni cannot possibly ever be determined to be true, as anyone can post a "userbox" on their page regardless. Also, I will go ahead and address University of Michigan alumni as well, because regardless of the school your userbox states you attend, it makes the event no more insignificant then it really was. Thank you! Stubbleboy

17:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stubbleboy: Thanks for discussing this. I don't doubt that it was not your intention, but I think you can see now how it had the perception of canvassing when it was distributed to users with a possible affinity for the winning team. Thanks for addressing the concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, me again. Haha. Please help. 97.126.235.119 has removed practically all content from a non-contentious article, Harry Reid (journalist), simply because of one issue someone wrote about on the BLP noticeboard.[1] This is what the article looked like a few minutes ago, and this is what it looks like now after the IP practically wiped it clean. The IP even removed sources, as well as dead links that possibly could be rescued. This IP has been editing for just a few weeks and it looks like has been spending a lot of time on the BLP noticeboard today acting as if they are are an expert on issues, quickly marking threads as resolved, and thoroughly misstating polices and guidelines. Anyway, I have no idea how to restore all the content in the Reid because it was done with mulitple edits. Someone needs to talk to this IP. If you look at their talk page history, you'll see they even called an experienced editor a troll (twice) for legitimate issues he wrote the IP about. Czoal (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:SEEKHELP on noticeboards. At that point, diffs

that show a pattern of questionable behavior are helpful to clearly identify that there is a problem.

I asked the IP to self-revert and this is the sarcastic reply I received: "Go find some sources for it if you are that concerned. You have a computer and a web browser".[2] Someone has to stop this novice IP and tell them they are not the judge and jury on the BLP noticeboard; they're out of control. Look how many threads they have marked as "Resolved"! Czoal (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking,

Cn}}, allowing some time to identify sources for information that is likely to be true. Hope that helps.—Bagumba (talk

) 07:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What the heck is going on? BLPDegreaser created this AfD and, as you'll see, 97.126.235.119 posted a comment in the Afd, fully supporting BLPDegreaser. Then I see this and this! So the IP is pretending to be two completely different people in the AfD discussion in order to give support to themself? The IP even made the "linux code" reference on the BLP noticeboard. In terms of the Harry Reid article, see the BLP noticeboard thread for the warnings IP 97 has received. Something very fishy is going on here with this IP and BLPDegreaser. Perhaps MONGO's edit summary and comment sums it up. Czoal (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, read this comment by IP 97. And when they refer to a "bio", they are talking about a Wikipedia article. So IP 97 is saying they had an article about themself, in which they feel they were unfairly portrayed. So, therefore, they are going to cleanse other BLPs now to make a statement. The IP even admits "Most of us are happy to see it go completely away" (meaning their articles), which explains why the IP wants to clear as much content from BLPs as possible. Something needs to be done about this. Czoal (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked them for editing while logged out, as I suspect that they are

WP:AGF that they will listen to the feedback given. If not, diffs documenting a continuing disruptive pattern amidst escalating warnings can be reported at the noticeboards.—Bagumba (talk

) 08:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw your notes about the sock issue in the AfD, but can you also strike all of IP 97's comments there? Czoal (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Would this invalidate the entire AfD?... I just discovered that both BLPDegreaser and IP 97 edited the article. And look at the edit where the IP attempted to remove 13,889 bytes of content! This is yet more evidence that the editor is here solely to remove as much content as possible from BLPs because they are upset about how their own now-deleted article was edited. Anyway, since the editor used both accounts to edit the article under discussion at AfD, shouldn't that invalidate all of their edits to the article, including this one and, therefore, the AfD? Czoal (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Per

WP:SNOW. However, one editor has commented: "I'm inclined to feel like this article is more trouble than it's worth"; therefore, it appears be a viable discussion, regardless of the final result or the intentions of the nominator.—Bagumba (talk

) 16:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

But this issue isn't about evasion, it's about an unambiguous violation of

WP:SOCK, which says, "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people." Therefore, the editor wasn't even allowed to participate under their IP identity in the first place. That's why I believe the comments should be struck, regardless of how those comments may affect the outcome. In fact, I think they should be deleted since no one is able to ignore the proverbial pink elephant in the room. Czoal (talk

) 18:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's yet another sock violation by the editor, who participated in the discussion as both 97.126.235.119 and BLPDegreaser. A 31-hour block is insufficient. And, for the record, the user's name "BLP Degreaser" tells you everything you need to know about this editor's motives. Czoal (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and all of your suspicions could turn out to be true. However,

WP:AN any seek another opinion. In the worst case, it also doesn't appear the AfD outcome will be affected by their participation, even with their comments.—Bagumba (talk

) 19:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't care less about the result of the AfD. This is a much bigger issue - an editor who has admitted that their purpose in editing is to "degrease" BLPs because of their own anger over their own now-deleted article. So, my only concern is the editor's deceptive behavior. It's clear that they participated in mulitiple discussions under both accounts and were trying to fool people into believing they were not connected. The proof is when they posted in the AfD as the IP and said "I have no hidden agenda", when in fact they obviously did; that they were the nominator. Czoal (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wives of National Basketball Association players? I don't love it, but I am trying to figure out if I have a good reason, or if it's just me being a curmudgeon. There is a similar category for "footballers." Rikster2 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to ask about categories. I never fully understood

WP:CATDEF, or it just doesnt seem to be applied in practice. I mean, there's all sorts of sportspeople-religion categories when few of them are really know for their spirituality. Whatever freaking wife reality shows there are out there, however, might give at least some credence to this one. Cats are a free-for-all, or I don't understand them, so I spend little time there. My useless 2¢—Bagumba (talk

) 18:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's probably no worse than categories I think are absolutely necessary. The creator is a new editor and I already TfD'ed an Eastern Conference champ navbox he created. I don't want to discourage him, because overall I think he's trying to do the right stuff. Rikster2 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Appears you have run into a long, lost sock. I can delete under

WP:EVASION.—Bagumba (talk

) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, just don't delete "Jimmy Black (basketball)" which is a useful article that I had on my to do list for years. Rikster2 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know you had also populated the wife category. I would have just left it. Oh well.—Bagumba (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a big deal, I just figured if the cat was to exist it should be applied. Rikster2 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It would have save me work to delete it from each page :-) The more I think of it, it's the polarizing theme of women treated as possession, so maybe its better without them.—Bagumba (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Another admin deleted Jimmy Black (basketball). Rikster2 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you look at IP 120.16.88.202 (lots of recent editing on Jerome Randle). Pretty sure he is blocked user User:Energy110 - very distinct edits and way of conducting himself Rikster2 (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm totally convinced this is a sock. Attitude and responses also the same as those blocked users. Rikster2 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Took me a bit to go through, as I wasn't familiar with this editor. If you can give me a few diffs from old and current user next time, it'll go a bit quicker. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Am I allowed to put the Jerome Randle article back the way it was or is that a 3RR vio? Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:EVASION exempts you.—Bagumba (talk

) 02:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So, does this case get added to the others? Is that how it works? Rikster2 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In practice, I see a lot of suspected socks blocked without either opening an SPI or adding to one. I usually open one or add to it for future reference with representative diffs and commentary if it's not obvious. I might be in the minority, as nobody typically likes paperwork. In this case, there's really nothing new in behavior, so I'm not inclined too, unless you think it's useful.—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

just thinking there's a pretty persistent track record of "coming back" over several years. Feels like this should be noted with the others under the master sock entry so the pattern can be documented. But I am no admin, so it's just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You could just open an SPI with the evidence you want archived and say it's for tracking purposes and that the user has already been blocked. The clerk will then close and archive it. You don't need to be an admin for that, and may actually help you if you really think you'll be encountering them again.—Bagumba (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are being addressed on this user's Talk page, revealing another sock IP in the process. Rikster2 (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

New IP (probably same individual)now reverting changes at Jerome Randle. Forget it, if it's fine for users to just avoid blocks on other devices then there's no hope. Rikster2 (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess a new ISP is worth logging.—Bagumba (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that wasn't a total waste of of my time. I found out how to track the edits of an IP range.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think semi for Tristan Thompson is in order. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Tristan Thompson.—Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'm not going to respond @ the talk page for Infobox basketball biography because it's clearly an off-topic digression, and God knows the OP has enough issues already. (I think you should contemplate hatting the digression too.) That said, page protection for articles and templates/modules are clearly subject to two different standards. I appreciate your effort to perform your due diligence regarding template protection, etc., but a comparison between protection for a single article and a template or module that is transcluded into thousands of articles is off-base. There is clearly a different magnitude for potential mischief for widely used templates and modules. But that's a discussion for another day. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm avoiding being the draconian admin that is making WP less open, which is a core principle of the site. As an editor, I know where you are coming from. This is weird case, as it is a template/module, but its arguably isolated as far as its impact. Feel free to get a wider discussion at

WP:AN perhaps.—Bagumba (talk

) 16:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That was a bit complicated, because the page history of the old file needed to be retained for attribution because

Andy Kennedy (basketball coach).—Bagumba (talk

) 16:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have undone this edit because I don't think it's an improvement. The link as written in the template is, IMO, for someone reading this discussion who doesn't know what a DRV is, so it takes them to the head of the page where they can read all about it. After your amendment, it becomes a circular link taking them right back to where they already were. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So as you may have seen, Charlesaaronthompson and I discussed the

@

consensus can change.—Bagumba (talk

) 06:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Please take a look at the recent edits of User:Italian94, as well as the comments you and I have left on his talk page over the past month. I had forgotten I had already left a message for him in early October. He is undoing the correct formatting of a very large number of NFL player infoboxes, and it needs to stop. He has received at least three messages directly on point, has not responded to any of them, and has ignored all of them. He apparently needs a strongly worded warning to cease and desist or face the consequences for disruptive editing. I think we should also consider a mass reversion to restore proper formatting. He's creating a f---ing mess. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: I'm back from vacation. The user has been inactive, albeit after making a few more edits against MOS after you last wrote on their talk page. I've given them a final warning. Either they aren't aware of their talk page, or they are ignoring the requests. Hopefully we don't have to find out which it is.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this user now needs something to get his attention. Despite multiple talk page messages and multiple edit summaries explaining the problems he is creating, he continues to undo the standard formatting of NFL player infoboxes every time he updates player stats. Enough is enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Hopefully this will get them to notice their talk page if they weren't aware of the notifications already.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully. I hate to see anyone get blocked, but this has gone on long enough, and reasonable attempts at communication have been exhausted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Could

Ehh. Like this one, probably not much that can be done here other than

WP:RBI. The 'B' part is a Whack-a-Mole, and useless if they are not currently active. We could semi-protect, but they've edited a wide range of articles. I'd be willing to protect if it becomes more persistent on specific files. Sorry, just trying to set proper expectations for this "open encyclopedia".—Bagumba (talk

) 17:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand, but it's getting ridiculous. Another Sydney Kings one. Same person, different IP. Surely Sydney Kings warrants semi now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Mario Chalmers I think will need semi, an IP even copied and pasted a whole news item into the article. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi for Tyler Johnson (basketball). Random spurt of vandalism. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, 2 days. That one account that was created 8 years ago and just made it's first edit is ... "interesting".—Bagumba (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you ready to start this up again? I've just spent the last 20 minutes removing questionable college honors from infoboxes and would love to run this down. Rikster2 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I probably can't get to putting up a formal proposal today. If you want to piece together one on the general proj page, I can chime in when I get a chance. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not looking for today, do you think you could do it in the next week? Rikster2 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll shoot for it. I may or may not be out for a few weeks by end of next week.—Bagumba (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rikster2: I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Style advice/sandbox, which is more or less the list you gave at User_talk:Bagumba/Archive_10#Template:Men.27s_college_basketball_award_navbox. I'm off for the next week or two, but still need to modify based on my own input. I figure it's easier to set up this way, where we can edit it like any other page, and discuss on talk page as necessary. Go ahead and make changes in the interim if you've changed your mind at all.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Not sure if you have the sandbox above watchlisted, but I made some recent mods to the honors. Take a look and edit or discuss as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have it watchlisted, but took a look. I have two comments - 1) The individual AA teams in my opinion are not so much the ones listed (AP, NABC, USBWA and Sporting News), it's the teams used to determine consensus status. Since 1998 those have been the four granting bodies "of record," but from 1949 to 1996 UPI was one of the consensus teams and Sporting News was not (even though for most of that period they named AA teams). The individual bodies making up the consensus teams did vary more frequently in the early years of consensus AA teams (beginning in 1929), but they have been consistent for over 50 years (with only the SN replacing UPI). Each AA year article details the consensus teams and I can add a list of years to NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans if that is useful. 2) does every level of All-Conference ALWAYS go in the infobox? I ask because I have seen an uptick in "honorable mention" All-Conference added to infoboxes and I'm not sure that should apply (for some conferences anyone who earned a vote gets on the HM All-conference list). Personally, I only care about 1st team, but is it 1st and second or 1st/2nd/3rd? It is not uncommon for players to earn three different levels of all-conference in their careers. In our system this would be three lines in an infobox. Should first team ALWAYS be listed and other levels be listed if there aren't too many other honors present? Rikster2 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and update the AA verbage in the sandbox. We can either duplicate it from the main article for convenience of readers, or direct them their for details. As for All-Conf, I just thought it's more straight-forward to keep the rules simple for editors and list any team, but didn't intend honorable mention to be included. For that matter, I'd be OK with simplifying and removing HM AA. IMO, it's puffery whenever I see someone billed as an AA and I find out later they were only HM. We can always punt specific points to when we have a wider audience, but I'd imagine it's easier to iron out as much as possible beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I should have a chance to do so this evening. Also, I think it would be a useful add to the core basketball AA article so I will look to do that too. Rikster2 (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I still owe the new verbiage, it's been a week. I'll work it this weekend. Are we also adding the "never listed" section (even if less than 5 honors)? I think that is important too to draw a clear line on some things. Rikster2 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

NP. Sometimes real edits and real life come first. I don't mind "never listed", but thought it would be easier to deal with the what to add first. If you think it's easier to lump it together and open it up for general comment, as opposed to doing it multiple iterations, go ahead and start it. Another area is HS stuff, which you may or may not want to combine for now.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Your tireless efforts have earned you a free trip to the Dennis Hof's Love Ranch. Trip includes a Wikimedia Foundation paid massage in Russia, and expensive Champange, along with an exclusive imterview with Rachel Marsden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.164.113 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Look's like theres a block evasion going on--Yankees10 22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Yankees10: Thanks. I've blocked the IP and indefed the registered account.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

For the cleanup on my talk page and elsewhere. I hope that you get a chance to see the HBO documentary about Kareem titled "Kareem, Minority of One." It is well done and brought back a ton of memories for me. Have a nice Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 03:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention that he is over seven feet tall in all the scenes except for a few pics from when he was very young :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I missed it. I'll have to go find it on demand.—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. As well as OnDemand it is repeating several times each week on one of HBO's channels or another. I know it will be worth your time no matter how you track it down. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It was a good watch. Maybe it'll motivate me to spruce up his bio. I've always been looking for explanation of his seemingly coasting in the last decade with the Lakers. I could swear it was strategy, as I vaguely remember an interview where Riley said the plan was to not have him cross half-court on fast breaks to conserve energy. And they never had him line up for defensive rebounds on opponent's free throws (which probably cost him a coupe "easy" rebs/game).—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah - there is a coincidence. I was just leaving the following message and we ec'd. Before I get to that I have a memory of that Riley interview as well. The first college game I can remember seeing is the regular season game against Houston. I had that early teen fandom craze when he went to the Bucks. In fact I still have this book in a box somewhere. I admire him as much for his off-court life as for his on so I am glad that you enjoyed the documentary and now to the message that I was leaving. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

New thanks for this B.

Bob Lanier and Nate Thurmond (among others) spring to mind. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk

01:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I am 90% sure this new account is the same person as the sock you recently blocked. The new account was created minutes after posting on the blocked accounts talk page, and immediately edited Dell Curry – a popular playground for this person. Also, similar user name style and with two numbers at the end. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Twas done! DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Probably time to just "ignore" (

WP:RBI) instead of giving more attention.—Bagumba (talk

) 23:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello thank you for the advice I didn't know the page I did was wrong but I really appericate the advice (Hcckk23 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)).

Ditto from Me. Thanks for your guidanceDeXXus (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we protect? He made some Twitter comments criticizing an Arkansas HS kid picking Kentucky and he's getting vandalized as a result. Rikster2 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Done—Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind chiming in on this discussion, but to be honest I barely understand the issues being raised. I obviously need to read the guidelines and questions being posed more closely because they don't feel intuitive. I'll see when I can give it more than half my attention. Rikster2 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, BIDIRECTIONAL says if a page transcludes a navbox, it should also be a link in the navbox. I suspect in practice a lot of editors also take it to mean (which is not directly implied) that any link on a navbox needs to tranclude the navbox e.g. why MJ has a crap load of navs. Personally, I'd rather find ways to discourage non-notable navs like {{NBA minutes leaders}} from being created before resorting to getting rid of BIDIRECTIONAL. For basketball specific navs, I really wonder if things like annual NBA Drafts on All-Americans need a navbox, or is it too much to expect a reader to click on links to get to lists? At the end of the day, navboxes probably do more to give sports editors hard-ons than they probably help readers.—Bagumba (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Joeykai#Color module for college sports. This is going to be an on-going issue with certain editors who have a problem playing by the rules. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Module_talk:College_color/data#Request_for_template_protection?—Bagumba (talk

) 02:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly, but it is perfectly predictable that certain editors who have a history of making unsourced edits to team colors will continue to do so even when they are respectfully asked to stop doing so. Would you like an RfC where sports editors !vote to apply "template protection" to the module, or should I bother you with this? We used to favor sourced content on Wikipedia per

WP:RS, and remove content that was not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk

) 03:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It's never been that draconian on removing content. The key is WP:V and whether content is "challenged or is likely to be challenged". Moreover,

WP:UNSOURCED recommends that "you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Within reason, I don't think WP wants to deter improvements that are verifiable merely because it lacks an inline citation. However, user that are is persistent as opposed to a few one-off edits could be considered disruptive if they ignore feedback, moreso if it is from multiple peers. My take is that isolated users who continuously edit war would eventually face blocks as deterrents, and those who consistently exercise poor judgement, even if not malicious, can be topic banned if the community deems them disruptive. It's your prerogative if you feel an RfC would be effective.—Bagumba (talk

) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sir, I am well acquainted with the policy and guidelines cited above. The sports projects have a very long history of problems involving team colors across multiple sports and multiple editors, including vandalism, edit-warring and sock-puppetry affecting hundreds of articles. My reading of the discussion linked above is not that the participants were "apathetic" to standardizing module editing procedures; the attitude of most of the participants was "well, yeah, whatever works to minimize problems," as borne out by almost everyone subsequently complying with the interim talk page procedures when politely requested -- except two editors, both of whom have been blocked in the recent past for -- wait for it -- edit-warring over unsourced team colors. At this point, yes, I think an RfC would be best, inviting all active editors of the college sports projects to participate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"yeah, whatever works to minimize problems": It's the equivalent of "I'm willing to follow consensus" that's often thrown around, as if following a policy is a laudable concession :-)—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you get rid of this user? Non-stop vandalizing for the last few days now.--Yankees10 02:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done—Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, what would you do with a username like this new user? They edited the Shawnee Heights High School article, which has been known for some vandalism in the past, with serval new users. (See here) This time they didn't vandalize the whole edit, but they've added some vandalism. Thanks. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:BADNAME enumerate some options you can pursue. Let me know if you have further questions.—Bagumba (talk

) 00:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I was mainly concerned about the name, as it is way too close to mine. I probably should have said that. I've seen this before where vandals will choose a current user's name and tweak it. 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 01:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:DENY is one option, but I can also see why you might want to address this. If you want, I can ask them the origin of the name if you wish to pursue this.—Bagumba (talk

) 01:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, do you have reason to suspect a specific editor of

WP:SOCKing in this case?—Bagumba (talk

) 01:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I cannot think of anyone who would be socking me, especially for that page, but I am guessing that it is the same person (several of the blocked editors) in the page's history. I think I'll leave them for now and just watch them carefully, and let you know if they do become a problem. Thanks for your help. I appreciate it! 🎄 Corkythehornetfan 🎄 01:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Notification: You are not allowed to write in my userspace. -DePiep (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)