User talk:Bagumba/Archive 12

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.

hello, I am a French which manages the page '2015 USC Trojans football team' , I could find why you protected this page , I would have access again, can you help me? thank you is very important to me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCFrance (talk • contribs)

@

edit war related to the discussion seen at its talk page. You can comment at the general discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Co-Division_Champions if your edit is related to them being co-champions. For other edit requests, you can click "View source" -> "Submit an edit request" to request a change to the article. Sorry for the inconvenience while the issue is being resolved.—Bagumba (talk

) 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I modify page with the news for the team, the depth chart, scores during matches , stats , simple stuff. I can not just have access ? we can not allow myself ? RCFrance (talk)

@

consensus at the co-champion's discussion, protection might be lifted earlier. Thanks for your understanding.—Bagumba (talk

) 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

the December 4, I could again access to the page ?--RCFrance (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@RCFrance: Dec 4, 21:14 GMT to be precise.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok thank you for your explanations :) I will wait December 4 with impatiently . Fight On!--RCFrance (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I updated the rankings for you. BTW, Go Bruins :-)—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you :)--RCFrance (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Our vandal-sock is back on Talk:Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected again.—Bagumba (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully they'll grow bored soon. - BilCat (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@BilCat: Three years and counting ...—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant of the stadium page, not WP as a whole, though one can always hope! - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this: [2]. I was already working on an additional option remarkably similar to yours when you posted it. Without quibbling over word choice, I would suggest that I would have omitted the "only" in the section header, as it will become a point of contention if your option achieves consensus. By definition, both "delete" and "delete and redirect" !votes carry the recognized meaning of "no article history retained." I attempted to clarify this in my support rationale of your proposal. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was already a semi-wreck to begin with, having to go link chasing to find out WTF was being proposed. And I'd expect the exact verbage to be presented if any actual text was going to be changed. I'd change "only" if I was doing it all over again, but IAR is my band-aid for everything.—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"IAR is my band-aid for everything." Yes, I know, and I hate you for it. Teasing aside, yes, this RfC is one giant, smoking, Bridge-on-the-River-Kwai train wreck, and I expect any policy changes that result from it will be similarly disastrous. I could say a lot more, but I am in a horribly snarky mood and it cannot lead to anything good. I hope you've seen the movie. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bags, can you take a look at these two editors?

• X!tools contributions: [3] and [4];
• X!tools pages created: [5] and [6];
• AfD participation: [7] and [8]; and
• Editor Interaction tool: [9]

Please note:

• how monthly edit counts for editor no. 1 have waxed and waned inversely with edit counts for editor no. 2, since the creation of editor no. 2's account in April 2015;
• the similarly high rate of page creation, with an especially high rate of redirect creation as a result of page moves -- also note that editor no. 1 is presently topic-banned from article creation and pages moves, neither of which is typical newbie activity;
• how both have a strong "inclusionist" streak in their AfD !voting patterns, and both have relatively low rates of !voting with the AfD consensus majorities;
• editor no. 2 began participating heavily in AfDs within days of creating his account -- not newbie activity;
• editor no. 2 began participating heavily in ANI within days of creating his account, including familiarity with linked policies and Eric Corbett -- not newbie activity;
• both only use edit summaries about 64 to 74% of the time;
• both are heavily interested in British, Commonwealth and international political topics; and
• both can be extremely aggressive (and arguably uncivil) in their interactions with other editors.

Can you do a little snooping and let me know what you think? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost positively not the same person, see Dirtlawyer's user talk for my rationale. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm following Carrite's suggested line of inquiry now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to have a portal bar for a single portal: [10]?

Glad to see you're "unblocked". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I use portal bar to avoid the perception of vertical sprawl. If you have a preference for Gators, feel free to change or point me to a standard convention if one exists.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks a little empty to me for a single link. Whatever is the WP:Hoops standard is fine by me, assuming the project has one. When I started adding portal links to all of the Gators athlete bios six years ago, virtually no one else was including portal links in the "see also" section. I used to be trendy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, I am probably the hoops standard. I think I was motivated a while back by a similar portal slapping effort at WP:BASEBALL. It probably raised the daily visits from 10 to ... 50. I suppose one could add the Biography portal too, maybe even college hoops if the wide bar seems too bare.—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

For football player articles, I usually include portal links to the CFB, American FB and Biography in alphabetical order. Having been through a Feature Article review recently (still ongoing), the first comments I received were to strip all portal and "see also" links to only those most relevant. Somewhat different, more relaxed standards apply at the Good Article level regarding portal and "see also" links. Whatever the basketball projects do regarding portals works for me on Bradley Beal and other NBA Gators (assuming the projects even have a consistent standard). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a heads up.

I undid this edit[11] of yours even though it was referenced. Baseball historian Jerome Holzman was incorrect about Face getting 10 wins (He went 18-1 that year) in 1959 after blowing leads. Baseball author Bill James had this researched for his 'The Bill James Guide' to Baseball Managers from 1870 to Today and found that in only 3 instances (Games on April 24, May 14, and August 9) did Face enter the game with Pittsburgh ahead and allow the other team to score. The information is in James 1950s chapter under a section titled Face Off. I have the book in Kindle edition, otherwise I'd quote an exact page.

Baseballreference.com would backup who's right but that may come under

@

WP:NPOV allows for adding contrary opinions to balance it. It's not OR per se to determine if a stated fact is credible; on the other hand, I would consider it OR to grab stats that nobody else writes about (though lots of WP writers do it).—Bagumba (talk

) 18:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, I'll look at the save article plus further investigate Face's 18 wins via BR. I did start peeking at it, and of his first 4 wins in 1959 three were tied games when he came in and the other the April 24 James acknowledged Face blew the lead. Face had 6 wins by Mid-May. When I am through (Either later today or tomorrow) I will write you back and maybe even crosspost it at WikiProject Baseball's talk page too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

Hi. How is it different than the image's use on

@

WP:FFD for a wider audience. I don't remember where I ran across something similar before, but then again I don't consider myself an expert on non-free files either. Let me know. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk

) 07:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll consider listing it, but in the interim, I'm going to put free images of them for now. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11: FYI, I listed this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 7 to get others' input on it's use w/ Janet Jackson.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bagumba. I am curious to know why you reverted information about Klay Thompson's legacy as a shooter. I sourced it properly, so I am confused. Cheers fds^Talk 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV and just discuss it in the body first before determining if it belongs in the lead. If you are interested, I think there might be enough info in reliable sources to create a decent "Player profile" section in the article for Thompson. Let me know if you have further questions.—Bagumba (talk

) 08:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Bagumba. You have more than convinced me that it did not belong. Cheers. fds^Talk 17:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You wrote on WP:ANI "What I would like to see is more

@

WP:WABBITSEASON yet. By ADMINACCT, I ultimately would have like to hear the accused explain themselves in light of everyone's input. Their response on their talk page was basically a blow off. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk

) 01:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a different question: I agree that two hours would be too short normally. However, the reason why I closed it was because, frankly, I was appalled by the way it had been brought forward. Heaping up an inordinate amount of non-pertinent evidence is either a sign of vindictiveness or of gratuitous disrespect for other administrators' time. (The latter impression is amplified when the OP reacts to the request to improve the evidence by excusing themselves.)

From a quick glance at the link you provide, I can see that the admin was engaged in discussion for several pages. That doesn't exactly meet the definition of "blow off". ThEir last statements contain something conciliatory or acknowledging of the other side, such as "I can fully appreciate it was not nice to be on the receiving end of SagPhil's comments - not at all.". When, after a long discussion the reply is "Of course, [you're wrong]. Your proffered attempt at excuse is wrong [...]", then it is only human to close the discussion with "let's agree to disagree".

That said, I'm not saying that the case is necessarily without merit; I do believe that there can be attitude problems among admins; it's just that I don't feel I should have to read through reams and reams of discussion to find such evidence. — Sebastian 01:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: I don't doubt that you had good intentions. In hindsight, your close could have given some guidance on how to constructively continue. And based on another discussion at User_talk:Dennis_Brown#Discussing_general_admin_behavior, the entire discussion had the (presumably unintended) appearance of being threatening from the start.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, What Dennis calls "threatening" is what I meant by "vindictive" above. (moving rest of discussion to Dennis' page, since it's about the same topic.) — Sebastian 03:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted a user's addition of Nash to the

The easy answer is that Nash is not in the general source listed in the article. I think I added Duncan in w/o a source, as he hit 19 after that article, but is easily sourced. Precedent would be Willis, who was out a whole year w/ injury and is not credited with that year in sources. The article title is years played, not years under contract :-)—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Lovely, all good on my end. I might refer that user here if Nash is re-inserted. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As it's likely to come up again with other editors doing OR, I just put a note at

Talk:List of National Basketball Association seasons played leaders for reference.—Bagumba (talk

) 18:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The US Army–Navy Game is coming up this weekend, and it seems to have brought out IP vandals (mostly from Westpoint or Annapolis) determined to show their team spirit. In addition to a few vandalism edits on the game article itself, the academy articles have been hit pretty heavy today. It might be a good idea to semi-protect United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy for a week or so till enthusiasm for the game has passed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:RPP if it picks up. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk

) 04:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are blocks ever issued purely for disruptive editing even if in good faith? Perhaps as a way to just to calm them down and/or for them to take a break? This user has been active now for a while and primarily edits Israeli basketball related articles and creates Israeli basketball players/teams. However, this person goes mental with the edits, never uses the preview button, does not communicate via edit summary or talk page, and has recently been changing football articles to basketball articles for some strange reason despite warnings. They edit so obscurely and the articles being created are very low in quality, rarely sourced and always requires others to come through and clean them up. I think short-term blocks for "disruptive editing and not communicating" are sometimes issued, yeah? I just wanted to bring this user to your attention if you weren't aware already – I find this user very disruptive and I've grown tired of cleaning up after them. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much stick with NBA and college for hoops, so I don't think I've seen this one. In the few times I've taken some administrative action outside those hoops areas, there seemed to be a bit of a cultural difference as far as communication. Not sure if it is generally the case or they were isolated instances. To be honest, I try to stick out of doing admin stuff in domains I'm not that familiar. Dealing with behavior issues on content that I also don't have much insight is more than I typically want to deal with. I can help out here with a block if needed, but I'm going to need you to do most of the front-end work. Otherwise, I'll suggest going to

give escalated warnings and a final one before we get there, or some equivalent like this one. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk

) 21:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Bagumba. I understand, I'll take these points into consideration. If something solid turns up, I might come back and inform you. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Is there anything I can still help out with here to make up for the watchlist :-)—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

They came back after a three-day hiatus it seems. They are still at it, but nothing blockable – just terrible stub articles. But, what can ya do ay. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at some of the recent ones. I have no idea about the league, nor would be able to be a accurately assess the reliability of non-English (hell even non-American) sources. Anyways, when you say "terrible stub", are you talking about the content, or the fact that you know they are not notable. The latter has more hope of being dealt with by going through AfD and demonstrating over time whether they are a decent judge of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Both. The articles have little to no content and when PRODS are added, the user removes them without addressing the issues. The teams being added are third division Israeli teams, so I wouldn't class them as notable. I'm not sure what to do, but tbh, I don't really have an interest in Israeli basketball, so I'm not overly concerned about the articles being created. I'm just concerned about the number of edits this user makes. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's always the dilemma. There is so much to do on WP, its generally less stressful to just move on to something else, unless you had a personal interest, or felt like playing enforcer (which is not a bad thing if you're in the mood for it). I get enough rogue behavior sticking with areas I know, which is why I initially balked at doing anything more than just pure administrator stuff with this.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba,

Thank you for thanking my edit. I have a question: I've noticed that editors many times forget to change the Statistics accurate as of December ..... phrase. Do you think that there should be a notice that tells editors to remember to change the date? There are many of these career statistical leader articles, such as

@Robert4565: Are you thinking like something at List of Major League Baseball career stolen bases leaders, or did you have something else in mind?—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor#User:Deejayk. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b

}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Bagumba as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 02:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes, Bagumba, for a wonderful holiday for you and yours. Stay warm -- because, baby, it's cold outside . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I've undone the damage he did to your user/talk pages. If not sorry. Presumably he's a sock but I don't know the master. Nthep (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: [12]. Same problem, same MO, different IP address. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: Thanks. Reblocked. Happy Holidays.—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up - 24.238.63.30 is active again. You blocked that IP as a sock of "Italian94" for a month, and it looks like they picked up right after the block expired. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Trut-h-urts man: Thanks. Reblocked. Happy Holidays.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba,

@

CSD G4 isn't really met. Plus, there seems to be more independent sources in the new version. It's debatable if this meets GNG, but an AfD seems more appropriate. Does this editor have a history of recreating AfDed articles that get deleted again?—Bagumba (talk

) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, but he re-created an article he knows for a fact to have been deleted by consensus, so I am not giving the benefit of the doubt. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I thought I would ask you this because you seem like the type who would know what I'm talking about. Can anybody just change this? What are the 'rules' for this particular page? Why do people change them? Recently, the Miami Heat colours were "updated" (whatever that means) to have the borders orange instead of black. I think that's whack. Black borders were way more suitable. I have noticed changes to other teams' colours but most changes are small and pointless. Sorry if I have wasted your time. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@

dispute resolution with the editor.—Bagumba (talk

) 05:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs