User talk:Bagumba/Archive 14

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.

On 28 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Pac-12 Conference award for men's basketball coach of the year was renamed in honor of John Wooden? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering, could you protect or semi-protect Joe Johnson's page, please? There are a lot of anonymous posters trying to change him to a member of the Miami Heat (which hasn't happened yet) and one is vandalising the infobox. Atleast until he officially signs with someone. Intruder007 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:RPP.—Bagumba (talk

) 02:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks :) Intruder007 (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ParkH.Davis (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please lock this page for anonymous users. Since he signed with Panathinaikos, anonymous are adding his position as a center, and on every source he is listed as a forward.--Bozalegenda (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

?--Bozalegenda (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:RPP. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 16:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Figured it was simpler to just ask you here as it would've likely been you responding on

) 03:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I went and deleted it. In the event you didn't see the talk page notice, I am currently on vacation and editing sporadically. Also, CSDs are screened by admins, so it's OK if you're not perfect on them. Be bold and just tag it and adjust as needed. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Bagumba. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkH.Davis (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi - I know you are on vacation but when you are back I was wondering if you could look into how the Visual Editor function interacts with the basketball infobox. I started noticing that users were making edits to articles and it was rearranging the order of the infobox fields (for example, moving height to the bottom, etc - see this example). The re-ordering of the fields doesn't do anything positive or negative to the reader, but when editing the infobox it gets confusing (especially when you make a lot of quick edits as I do). Is this a glitch or does it serve some purpose? Thanks for any insight. Rikster2 (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rikster2: I'm guessing it's because those parameters have multiple parameters defined in a single entry at Template:Infobox_basketball_biography#Template_Data. Try separating it into one parameter per row.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I made a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposed replacement for WP:NCOLLATH and based on the earlier discussion we were all having I wanted to put it on your radar.RonSigPi (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you know why other colleges have a Dance Marathon page, but the UCLA one was deleted? Can you do anything? Socalphoto (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Socalphoto: I'm not familiar with the page. I'd suggest discussing with the admin who deleted the page. Wikipedia:Deletion review is an option if you are still not satisfied. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I changed "Most Valuable Player" to "MVP" to save space in the column width. I believe that the

that you directed me towards supports this. Key parts in bold.

Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym (i.e., its article here is at the acronym title), in which case the expansion can come in the parenthetical or be omitted, except in the lead of its own article: according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency).

To save space in small spaces (defined above), acronyms do not need to be written out in full. When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked. An unambiguous acronym can be linked as-is, but an ambiguous acronym should be linked to its expansion. Upon later re-use in a long article, the template can be used to provide a mouse-over tooltip giving the meaning of the acronym again without having to redundantly link it or spell it out again in the main text: CIA, giving: CIA

If it is necessary to abbreviate in "small spaces" (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), use widely recognized abbreviations. As an example, for New Zealand gross national product, use NZ and GNP, with a link if the term has not already been written out: NZ GNP; do not use the made-up initialism NZGNP).

Thoughts? CUA 27 (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@CUA 27: Thanks for discussing this. I self reverted. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba, thanks for bringing the article to GA standard. I've nominated the article for DYK, please see nomination page. Thanks for your contributions! -Zanhe (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well can you upload a new picture the quality on that one is garbage Bigdaddy2737 (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bigdaddy2737: As there is nothing historically significant about Seth Curry, your best option would be to find a free picture, take one yourself, or ask the owner of that picture to change their licensing on it. For NBA players, Flickr is usually the best source for finding free images. See c:Commons:Flickr_files#Searching_Flickr for how to search for free images. If you find one you like, you can follow the instructions on how to upload it to Commons, where free files are uploaded (Wikipedia only has non-free photos that have a valid non-free use rationale; the rest of the images it gets from Commons). Hope that helps.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Bagumba, would you be able to update the Template:Editnotices/Page/Module:College color/data? We aren't using ref= anymore, but instead cite= with a full citation. Thanks, 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 00:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Can you update Module:College color/data/doc first?—Bagumba (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That would help! It's been updated. 🎓 Corkythehornetfan 🎓 17:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This needs revisiting. Banan14kab (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did you block me for Vandalism when I am editing according to the current talks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Generic_guards_and_forwards ? Iverson plays both guard positions like Kirk Hinrich so I wrote that to reflect it just as you replied when you undid my edit on Hinrich's article. And LeBron plays both forwards. Also Paul George is a small forward and a SF only. So because I'm following the talk and CORRECTING articles to help you say I'm committing vandalism and defacing articles? You don't make any sense. Banan14kab (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Banan14kab: I don't see any any recent blocks in your block log, by me or anyone else. Perhaps you can clarify your concern.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I really meant to ask why you've been protecting every single player article I've been editing. Although I've been editing them according to the talk that has been going on for the specific vs generic positions. I know if I continue to edit players under this account (although I've been following your model) you will protect the page for "vandalism". That is what I meant. Banan14kab (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@

semi-protection due to vandalism. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 20:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

We discussed this at Module talk:Baseball color back in September 2015. "the Pirates colors with black and gold have a contrast over 12 and are compliant with WCAG 2 AA Compliant, WCAG 2 AA Compliant (18pt+), WCAG 2 AAA Compliant, and WCAG 2 AAA Compliant (18pt+)" is what I said back then. Joeykai (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@

WT:BASEBALL of the discussion.—Bagumba (talk

) 04:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@

WT:BASEBALL. That's what I'm about to do. Charlesaaronthompson (talk

) 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I've now notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball about the discussion over at Module talk:Baseball color. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he was born in Australia is RELEVANT enough, and should be included in the lead. Kalope (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kalope: Thanks for discussing this. Actually, I noticed afterwards that the second sentence already mentioned that he was from Melbourne. I personally don't think it's relevant to his notability, especially since he left at two and is on the US national team, not the Australian team. At any rate, I'm not going to pursue removing that particular sentence for now. As for your edit to the first sentence, it's redundant to this second sentence. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't matter that he left Australia at two and doesn't play on the national team. He was still born in Australia. How many articles states the birthplace of the subject and their corresponding nationalities. Some people were born in another country with foreign parents and it states their nationality from their parents, and from the country they were born in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 03:26, 19 May 2016‎ (UTC)

@

consensus. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 03:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Naming conventions for single-game stats

I've been thinking of a List of NFL quarterbacks with seven touchdowns in one game for a while... until I saw this. Naturally that's not enough to deter me; I'll still create it and name it according to the logic and consensus reached there, but I have to agree with Taffe316. It kinda takes away from the significance of the amount itself. I'd imagine the fact that four home runs in one game being the record is common knowledge to even casual baseball fans. I mean, the achievement is named as such in infoboxes (Josh Hamilton, etc). But I also recognize the significance will be moot when Bryce Ha someone comes around and hits five. Just wanted to express my disappointment I guess. Carry on. Lizard (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Valid points. I think the benefits of a common naming convention was the overriding consensus at WP:BASEBALL. I think I'm an above average baseball fan, but frankly never got into single-game records. At any rate, there's nothing wrong with adding a redirect if you think people might find it useful. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

(P.S. I noticed your vacation template after typing this) On that note, I think the NFL season rushing champions page should be moved to List of National Football League rushing yards leaders. It was moved nearly three years ago under the rationale that it was "shorter and better" but it goes against the standard naming convention of every other list like it.

• List of National Football League season rushing yards leaders
• List of National Football League season passing yards leaders
• List of National Football League season passing touchdowns leaders
• List of National Football League season receiving yards leaders
• List of National Football League season receiving touchdowns leaders
• List of National Football League season passer rating leaders
• List of National Football League season interceptions leaders
• List of National Football League season sacks leaders
• List of National Football League season punt return yards leaders

And on a third note, I notice there's a 500 home run club and a 50 home run club, but there's also a List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders. Along with many more examples (3,000 hit club and career hit leaders list). Has the redundancy of these lists ever been discussed? Or do people turn a blind eye since they're FL. Lizard (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:RM request.—Bagumba (talk

) 16:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Keenan Reynolds

Can you put temporary protection on

) 22:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:BOTTOMPOST? In this case, the protection request isn't related to the naming convention discussion. Thanks!—Bagumba (talk

) 22:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, alright. It's a habit I've developed for some reason to have my own little section on other peoples' talk pages. If I didn't do it that way for Jweiss's he would have to archive every 3 days, lol. Lizard (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

If you get a moment, this article could use some protection after last night's game 7. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I probably would have if I got to this sooner. At this point, I indef blocked the major offender. Hopefully everyone else has moved on, but can revisit if it hasn't.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

there has been recent nuisance vandalism by ip's at

) 20:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:VANDNOT, I'm not sure if this is vandalism per se, as I am not familiar with the subject matter. At any rate, the editor has not edited since, so there is nothing to be done as of now. If there is a similar disagreement with this user in the future, you might consider following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 01:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

18abruce (talk

) 23:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mail

) 02:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi protect request

Can I suggest another year of semi for

) 05:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Two bad editors in first day. Ominous, but I'll give it another day at least. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

When you get back from vacay, would you mind monitoring the 2016 NBA draft article? There are always vandalism and premature entries leading up to the draft and draft night itself is a complete mess. Leading up to the draft, or early on, it may make sense to protect the draft article for autoconfirmed users only to ensure sanity. Not saying to do so before there is a problem, but the same free for all has happened every year since I have been here. I will be on vacation during the draft so I will look at draftee articles when I get back to help with formatting. Thanks and enjoy. Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Will try to keep an eye out, but I'm unlikely to be doing live updates for the draft. Problem with these popular pages are that most edits are always unsourced, but I don't typically revert unless I do a quick search and find out it is really not true or it's just obvious. Enjoy your vacation.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Last year you indefinitely semi-protected Kyrie Irving. However, you never removed pending changes from the article. Can you remove pending changes because the indefinite semi-protection makes pending changes useless as all edits will be automatically accepted? —MRD2014 T C 02:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@MRD2014: I removed it as you suggested. At the same time, I don't believe it was placing any additional burden on users, was it? Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Yesterday I tried uploading new pictures to Wiki but I was doing it incorrectly. Can you please check the picture I have put up on Kevin Garnetts page to see if I did this one correctly. --RichieConant34 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the picture in the page info section and it seemed to have some conflict concerning "All rights reserved" on Flickr. I removed it from Garnett's page. Does this mean the photo below can not be used?

File:Kevin Garnett Wolves.jpg

@RichieConant34: The file you uploaded says "All rights reserved" on its Flickr page, meaning it is not available for free use. I suggest you refer to Commons:Flickr_files#Searching_Flickr to search for suitable images on Flickr. You can also ask image-related questions at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. 20:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

When you say that Relativity Digest is "not a reliable source for statistical analysis", what exactly is your motivation behind this? What qualifies as a "reliable source" in this regard? Indeed, according to WikiPedia, "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".

This is clearly available to the public, the website receives 1000s of hits a day, and contains many peer-reviewed and published articles linking to high-level journals. Further, the author is an expert in the field.

@

WT:NBA. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 03:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

IP block

Could this IP please be blocked on the same grounds as this range block. It's clearly the same person, and it's the same person I and User:The-Pope the have been dealing with for a year or so now. They are a serial pest – making absurd, bullshit roster changes to Australian sporting teams, specifically Perth, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane. I'd like to request a long-time block on the first IP. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 3 mos.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello

) 00:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building suggests reading Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Listening to the involved parties is also beneficial. For example, you still pinged me on my own talk page despite this advice. Let me know if you have further questions. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I get you to reinstate blocks you imposed against User:JoshDonaldson20 and User:The Almightey Drill. Both editors immediately resumed their edit war at Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) after their blocks expired. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You mean he began adding it back in despite me opening dialogue BEFORE you blocked me? There is one person here who is adding material without consensus and did not engage in dialogue, I'm just tidying the place up. If you do block me, it just shows what kind of bureaucratic shitshow this is, that I have to put up with obsessed editors inserting rubbish onto the page and not engaging in discussion. '''tAD''' (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@

tag the disputed text in lieu of reverting. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 05:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

So after two users are blocked, the page returns to Status quo ante bellum. One user makes the exact same edit as the one that got him blocked. It shouldn't matter whether it's me or anyone else who reverts that misbehaviour. What, we just let it sit there, just like the bone-idle talk page? '''tAD''' (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: The problem you are facing by not getting more people's input is that you are assuming the other person's edit is the "misbehavior", and not your's. If it turns out that nobody else really cares either way, the question would be why you and the other editor would make such a big deal out of it by constantly reverting.—Bagumba (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You got me interested per watchlist ;) - The material looks to me too detailed, and anyway inserted at a wrong position, interrupting the overview. How about making the dubious links external links, for a compromise? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The main issue first should have been

) 00:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked IP 209.174.60.153 for persistent sockpuppetry

I've noticed that you've protected a number of pages for "persistent sockpuppetry" and blocked the IP 209.174.60.153. The many of the same edits by this IP (switching out "situated" for "located" on a large number of Chicago 'L' stations) are also being done by

) 17:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@

duck.—Bagumba (talk

) 18:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Might want to check out 64.107.162.2 as well. Sounds like a quack to me. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lost on Belmont: Ditto.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure who wrote them and how long ago, but it appears that the instructions on the

page say that if the final year of multiple highlights are the same, then the first highlight to occur goes first. e.g.:

• First-team All-American (2001, 2002)
• First-team All-ACC (2000, 2001, 2002)

Now this could easily mean All-American takes precedence over All-ACC, but how I explained it is the way I've always interpreted it. We may never know.

Second thing on Fouts: having 4 career achievements in the infobox for one team is kinda overkill. I usually encounter this issue for Chargers and Steelers players. See this version of Terry Bradshaw. I'm thinking we should limit it somehow. Retired jerseys should definitely stay, but I'm not sure how we'd determine anything else to be worthy. Lizard (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: All things being equal, I'd go with your interpretation on handling the same final year. However, All-American seems more significant that All-ACC, and Fouts' yards are more critical to his notability than his touchdowns. At least for the Chargers, I created most of those stand-alone lists a few years, and added the links as a matter of convenience to the free-for-all infobox. No problem if it needs to be pared, but ideally those links would be put into prose or at worst a "see also" instead.—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Could I ask you to comment on the discussion on this topic at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography. Lizard (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done.—Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

So I know that the article Kevin Durant is currently edit-protected so that only admins can edit it. I have a request: since the National Basketball Association (NBA) free agency moratorium period has ended, could you or another admin please edit the Kevin Durant article to state that he now plays for the Golden State Warriors? The admin in charge of editing the article should also add Template:Golden State Warriors current roster and all other relevant templates to signify that Durant now plays for the Warriors, IMO. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:FULL for more details on editing during full protection. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 19:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Durant signing is official and up on the Warriors' website. Rikster2 (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I've downgraded from full- to semi-protect.—Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello Bagumba. If you have a moment would you take a look at this. A small edit war has broken out over one of the the team colors in the infobox. Hopefully it will die down but if it doesn't your expertise in basketball would be appreciated in straightening things out. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:COLOR. I reverted it.—Bagumba (talk

) 04:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I understand what you mean about things like this so I do appreciate your looking at this. Have a delightful weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 13:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I think semi is required at

) 19:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Probably going to end up needing long-term protection.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

) 04:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Protect Allen Crabbe?

A lot of IPs updating with Nets (among other issues). Can we protect this for a few days? The Blazers can match up til tomorrow then it will take a day or 2 for him to sign and have it announced. Rikster2 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Done.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If you get a moment you can release it now. The Blazers matched and reported the re-signing. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Done (though it was expiring in a few hours anyways).—Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

So I was wondering how to add all of these userpages/templates (found here) to this category, found here. Please help? Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: See my response to your earlier inquiry at User_talk:Bagumba/Archive_13#Category_help.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: So I looked at that response there. It's an archived discussion, which means I can't reply to it there. What I found confusing when I posted that is this: how do I manually place all the pages which contain the User:UBX/NBA-Jazz template (which are found here) into the Wikipedian Utah Jazz fans category? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It would seem to be less overhead to place the desired category into User:UBX/NBA-Jazz, instead of manually tagging each user page with that category.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

So how do I go about doing that? What are the steps? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Charlesaaronthompson: Just like an article, you can add Category:Wikipedian Utah Jazz fans to userbox pages. See User:Corkythehornetfan/Userboxes/SupportTrump or Template:User Emporia State University as an example. Corkythehornetfan 17:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a new one on me. User:NBA8925 is surely the same user. Would you like to do the honours? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Will do.—Bagumba (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Protect? Rikster2 (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Done.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, how about Joe Harris? Rikster2 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Y—Bagumba (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Lamar Patterson? Rikster2 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

K—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you say the following is original research/synthesis:

That game—a 45–0 shutout win—was the first in an eight-game winning streak for the Eagles in which they scored 275 points total and allowed 49.^[1]

It's my own doing on Steve Van Buren, but I'm not sure how synthy it is. The specific part I'm unsure about is the calculation, since those numbers aren't specifically calculated in the source. Lizard (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard:I typically try not to rely too much on stats sites, as I avoid the possibility that I am biased and cherry-picking stats that push my own personal viewpoint as opposed to ones that secondary sources deem important. On the other hand, it might be overkill to find a secondary source if nobody would ever challenge that it was notable. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5, where I was the only one that objected to double-doubles being mentioned based only on stats sites. My own personal style is to generally write so that there should be no reasonable objections, and rely mostly on secondary sources for stats. I'm likely in the minority in that respect. Assuming it is at least verifiable, I think it comes down to your own personal standard about how much "synthesis" you do on stats sites. Obviously, if someone objects and says you are applying undue weight, you would be expected to provide secondary sources that support your text.—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeh, I'd imagine it'd get some examining if I ever wanted to put it up for GA but I don't plan on that at the moment. I'm just trying to flesh out the article. When I first started editing (which I'm sure sounds odd to someone like yourself, since I've only been editing about 8 months) I did a lot more original researching and synthesizing before I got to understanding what Wikipedia was about. Now I usually try to stick to the sources as closely as possible and avoid outstanding claims. It definitely takes practice. I honestly never even thought about the lack of weight that stats sites give to statistics. That rushing for 1,000+ yards, 15+ touchdowns, etc in a season isn't inherently notable is something I tend to forget. Although I do try to use newspapers for the majority of my sourcing, and the stats sites as more of an outline. Lizard (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Per sound reasoning by User:Boleyn here, do you think you could merge Jon Gibson and Jonathan Gibson so as "Jonathan Gibson" can be used instead of Jonathan Gibson (basketball)? There are no other Jonathan Gibsons in use, so I don't think "Jonathan Gibson (basketball)" is necessary at this point. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe don't bother. There are a lot of articles linked to "(basketball)" [1]. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion. There are several subjects where a consensus is not emerging yet. If you get some time please take a look at some more (especially the ones that are split). A full or fuller set of responses would be appreciated. Keep in mind that our readers could be looking at these as the main image for a few years. The top 3 selections in the

) 23:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello - I was editing the new article for Antonio Campbell, a college player for Ohio University. In doing so, I noticed that the colors in the infobox are wrong for the school. The templates associated with Ohio U show a gold border (much like the Centics), but the school colors are really just white and dark green. Any reason the third color would be there? Rikster2 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Colors are defined at

WP:CONTRAST, but not sure the exact case here. Other than that, I'm not too knowledgeable on specific colors.—Bagumba (talk

) 22:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, CONTRAST shouldn't be an issue since its just a border color. Be bold and see what happens.—Bagumba (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you are among the leading editors at

) 03:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

My Spidey Sense tells me this one will need to be protected. Rikster2 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Done.—Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

A year ago ...

fair play
... you were recipient no. 1279 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit of my entry on Tommy Curtis' page. The entry for Tommy Curtis as it now reads makes him sound like a key contributor to UCLA. Bill Walton, the heart and soul of that team, and one of the greatest basketball players ever, recently has said otherwise. In fact, he says that Tommy Curtis cost them an undefeated season and the 1974 championship. His assessment of Tommy Curtis should be included. Without his assessment the entry for Tommy Curtis leaves a false impression. Bh Alston28 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@

consensus at Talk:Tommy Curtis or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball if you still feel a full quote is warranted. Regards.—Bagumba (talk

) 23:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

David Lee

Unless his Spurs deal is announced fast I think this page will need protection. Rikster2 (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

J. P. Tokoto may need protection. Reported Knicks signing and they have taken a really long time to announce or add to the roster (about 2 weeks for Ron Baker). Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Tokoto looks official now.—Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

See revision history of Von Miller. Specifically the last ~10 edits. I think it's safe to say User:Chillychese is a . Lizard (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have been looking up many ball players (football and baseball) from the 80's and 90's. Not necessarily stars, but solid 10 plus year veterans. Sad to say many are barely a paragraph long. How reliable would facts off of sports cards be? After all, if a card is an error - word is usually out that a particular card is an error. And obviously stay away from those cards. But, if a person for a dozen or so cards of a player. A person could add good information to a players article. Trade dates, career highlights, and so forth. So my question is - is this a good idea? 80ssportfan (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:SOURCEACCESS. However, given that it's easier for others to verify the fact if it is, I use them when possible. Personally, I'd use the cards for ideas, and then find a source online, where possible. Here are some options from Google search. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk

) 02:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. 80ssportfan (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Mind chiming in again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#"Current team" listed on Olympic rosters? It seems like there is agreement on listing one team, though the trend has been to list old team. Since this is opposite your stated presence I wanted to check in and see if we can get to consensus while the games are still in session. Rikster2 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be unanimous consensus, and the rough consensus seems to be list old team. I'm not going to change my !vote, but you don't need to worry about me getting into a revert war or taking this to some noticeboard if someone just lists Durant w/ OKC only.—Bagumba (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

However, I would hope the footnote about "club" in the templates would be clearer like football's to avoid confusion over its intention.—Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

After some coffee, maybe you were asking for me to vote that it should be one team. Done.—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not worried about an edit war with you, it's the editor who added the "signed with" team to begin with who seems quite happy to edit war and I doubt will respect the consensus. Rikster2 (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

You already gave him an EW warning, so it's all set up for

WP:AN3 if needed.—Bagumba (talk

) 23:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox highlights: buy one, get one free!

I've noticed an editor for a while now has been doing this. I'm not sure if it's always been the same editor doing it, but it often happens right after I clean up a player's infobox. It includes everything that's already in the infobox, plus everything that we've been taking out of them. As if the intent is to preserve what I removed, when ideally everything in the infobox should already be in the article somewhere else. I remember you saying something about people being too lazy to write actual prose and that's why infoboxes get crammed. This just seems like a continuation of that. Completely unneeded. Lizard (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I'd be OK with the body including a comprehensive list of accomplishments; however, it would be better to name the section different than what is in the infobox, "Career highlights and awards." Michael Jordan calls the section "Awards and honors." Think of the infobox as a quick preview that can act as a condensed version of the lead. A comprehensive list in the body would naturally reiterate items from the infobox. What needs thought is what items are notable for comprehensive list, and whether a list that is substantially the same as the infobox adds value; perhaps it's reserved for only the most accomplished players.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

(I have this page watched) Well for one thing, these sections are never sourced, since it's clear that they just go and copy/paste the infobox from a previous version. Secondly I've definitely seen this on what one would consider "less accomplished" players. Odell Beckham Jr.#Awards and highlights is a good example of what can happen when we let everything be fair game. And it was about a third larger than that before I cut some ridiculously arbitrary stuff. Please, the last thing we need is a two-fold notability standard; one for the infobox and one for this comprehensive list. I'm still waiting for a reply from Bueller on my latest futile attempt at an inclusion discussion. Lizard (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Try not to suffer burnout here. Accept that there will always be crap articles, and some editors that have their own agenda. Improve what you enjoy, and hope that everyone doing the same handles the rest; it works, more or less. Your only recourse to keep other editors in check is to get consensus on your side by involving others (talk pages, WikiProjects, noticeboards—see

WP:DR). If it doesn't work, move on. There's so much less stressful things that can be improved. You may be "right", but trying to win might mean that Wikipedia loses you in the long run. Have fun.—Bagumba (talk

) 01:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Just curious, what would you consider the lowest hanging fruit? Assuming you mean most critical for improvement. Lizard (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I usually just move on to another article, there's a lot of stuff that goes uncontested where it seems counterproductive to have to spend too much time brokering agreements. Now it is satisfying if you manage to facilitate widespread consensus, but it can get tiring too. Just balance it, and resist your pride getting in the way too often. "Critical for improvement" is up to your interpretation. Is it more critical to improve articles that have high readership, that you are most interested in, that are most flawed, that are unknown, etc? Wikipedia is

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so you do what you want.—Bagumba (talk

) 02:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I should have specified I meant you personally, not you. Lizard (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring specifically to NFL, I think I soured on it when there wasn't much organization in the project before, but it seems to be on the uptick now with editors like yourself. Just got tired of dealing with fanboys that seem more prevalent in NFL articles. I haven't done much football work since before the draft, which was more in college updating bios of top UCLA players last season.—Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I just hope I'm not coming off as the new guy in the office trying to be a hot shot. What Rob said on that move review about there being precious few NFL editors compared to other major sports was something I already knew, but it still stung when I read that. Maybe it was seeing someone else say it. Lizard (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

This one may need protection. Lots of IP vandalism and speculation today. Rikster2 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

OK.—Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you help me to obtain a specific information? Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Wishing Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Woodstop45 (talk ) 16:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless the Kings deal is announced soon, this page could use protection. Rikster2 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm only getting to this now. Looks like activity has subsided for the time being, so will leave it as is.—Bagumba (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Their latest IP's seem to be at:

• 172.12.81.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 50.205.145.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 173.165.14.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 50.252.101.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 65.79.32.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Regards—

MeowMoon (talk) 04:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@MeowMoon: One was already blocked, and I blocked a couple of others that had extended activity. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any kind of policy about the same user using different IP's to revert edits? Just curious, I've been going around and around with four different IPs who I am pretty sure are the same person at the Tim Cone article. Just trying to come to a reasonable format for the infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Its usually not interpreted as socking unless there is obvious intent to deceive. In this case, it's conceivable that their ISP is giving them a new IP address every time, not that they are intentionally changing their IP to avoid detection. I'd suggest just posting this on WikiProject Basketball and getting others input, and leave a note on the article talk page as well.—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Done Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#List of championships in infobox. Rikster2 (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that Zack Novak's page had been recreated after it was deleted in 2011. Is it possible you could undelete the original/move to a subpage of mine to see if there is anything worth adding to the article? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: I see that the edit history goes back to 2009, so I presume this was resolved already? Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)