User talk:Bagumba/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bagumba. 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 10 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bruise Brothers (San Diego Chargers), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bruise Brothers helped the San Diego Chargers lead the National Football League (NFL) in sacks in 1980? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bruise Brothers (San Diego Chargers). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

On 10 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bob Myers, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that former UCLA Bruins basketball player Bob Myers was a walk-on, but appeared on the cover of Sports Illustrated, met President Bill Clinton, and was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Myers. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You can adjust the sentence, but delete this interesting fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dousheng (talk • contribs) 11:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, B. Could you slap some temporary page protection on Patrick Willis and Ed Reed? Also, we've got a herd of SPA vandalism-only IPs inserting all sorts of crap into these articles, too, and several may merit a block after warning if they keep at it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bagumba,

After further consultation, a large number of your edits regarding the "Jeff Moorad" article were found to be neutral and verifiable, as well as accurate, which were mutually stated goals regarding the article's outcome.

While some of your edits have been slightly revised, most all of them were found to be a fair and accurate presentation of the facts (especially those concerning the state of ownership control-thank you for your clarifications on that issue; the article reads much clearer on that issue after your help than what it had before). Most of your edits, were therefore re-added (sometimes in slightly revised word from to adhere closer to the facts), or kept as is.

Thank you for all of your help along this process. Wikipedia users now have a reliable source concerning Mr. Moorad due to your work.

Your volunteer work for Wikipedia is both honorable and well executed.

I look forward to working with you on other articles in the future.

Warmest Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Very Poor Experience with Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Hall of Honor inductees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

According to this article, there was only one year in which Abdul-Jabbar swept the available player of the year awards. I don't think you can really call him a three-time "consensus" player of the year. Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Helms award was pretty prominent before. In any event, consensus wrt POY is a grey area. What if we rmv consensus in infobox, and leave details for body?—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and split up the awards. I didn't really pay attention to that talk page discussion when it was taking place, but I do think we're on shaky grounds if we try to combine different awards from different organizations. It's useful to avoid infobox clutter, but not to the point where we're oversimplifying things. Zagalejo^^^ 03:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it is the standard for college hoops bios when listing All-Americans. POY appears to be similar. It also avoids the alphabet soup enumeration that results otherwise. Listing "Consensus" for Kareem was an error. Did you want to reopen the infobox discussion, since there was a consensus to consolidate before POYs before.—Bagumba (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reopening the discussion. (Jay Starz seemed to have the same concerns I did.) It might be better to discuss things at the college project. That said, I don't really see too many other articles where those proposals were put into place. The Bill Walton page used as an example still lists all of the individual college POY awards. Zagalejo^^^ 05:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I didnt make a concerted effort to change them all. Dont know which ones have changes (others might have done edits too). Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_20#High_school_POY is a similar discussion for HS POY. Feel free to initiate a new discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my addition to the Pau Gasol page. I posted new, credible information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchhigh (talk • contribs) 06:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a warning on your talk page, but I did not revert your changes. See the article's history. All edits needs to be verifiable. In lieu of re-adding the same material again, please discuss your concerns with the other editors at Talk:Pau Gasol. As your contributions to date all have added athletestalk.com links, please also be aware of the guideline on spamming. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

True. I just like to put both the article's date and the accessdate in the citation. But yes, I guess your argument makes sense. Are we going to leave it? DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in spending time deleting it. It was more of a suggestion to free you up for other edits.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind but I probably wont add it now. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		Thanks for your thorough review on List of highest-scoring NBA games. It really improves the article.—Chris!c/t 19:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was an accident. Might have been a first for me in that regard. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 03:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you about the missing information, the story behind his first game always comes up in documentaries, so it was strange not to see it in his wikipedia article. I intend to continue working on this article, with the plan to add more details to some of the things you mentioned.[[D-free]] (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I forgot what comment I made, so had to go back and look. I'm not sure if you added the info on the touring All-Stars, by my comment was more that the article was already (too)sparse for an FA, not that the touring AS caused a problem. Thanks for helping to improve it.—Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bagumba! Long time no hear. I saw that you gave the List of highest scoring NBA games FLC conditional support dependent upon a review of the prose for grammar and flow. I've finished reviewing that and from what I can see, all the minor syntax and grammar issues have been fixed by Chris. On a separate note, could I also ask a favour of you in reviewing my current FLC, please? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave few comments, not up for a full blown review (right now at least.)—Bagumba (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bagumba. You have new messages at TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly looking at my edits and finding fault with them as if it's going to hurt me. Who cares... At least I'm productive on here. Not part of the problem. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I can only hope that everyone has reset and can we can WP:AGF from here on out. Follow WP:DR when needed. Whatever the motive, a WP:COPYVIO was identified. Be wary Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and all will be good. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

[1] I take this to mean that lists like these are allowed from now on. Is that correct? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That list is not in any way contributing to the performance of Wikipedia. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

All pages are subject to consensus. I gave a reprieve to all to be civil, avoid edit warring, follow dispute resolution, and stop trying to bait each other. I make no endorsement about specific content. I am going waaay out of my way here to see if that can happen without blocks.—Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really an answer to the question. Would you recommend an RfC on current policy then? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Which policy are you proposing to change?—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

None. Apparently, you are proposing a change to the current interpretation of WP:UP. I am looking for the venue to get consensus on your interpretation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You might have missed my earlier comments at ANI: "WP:UP#NOT: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is mentioned, and "community-building activities that are not strictly 'on topic' may be allowed." I'm seeing this list of user as a soapbox to single out their behavior, and it is not building community as people are warring over this when they could be working on building WP." I'm being quite liberal with WP:BLOCK#PREVENTATIVE. The action stopped, and I assumed for good. If it comes back, re-open at ANI, reference the past cases, and I'm sure the appropriate action will be taken.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The list is still there, which means it is endorsed/allowed to have. In the past WP:UP#POLEMIC has been interpreted to disallow these lists. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, there is a lot of smoke here, and a fire maybe imminent. POLEMIC does have subjective " ... permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." I dont want to lawyer around with this. The user has already been warned about edit-warring, which is the root of all problems here IMO.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am on the list and I see it as polemic. Please remove my name. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As an editor, you are encouraged to be bold and to use consensus. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You told me if I do that You'll block me for edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at anyone's history per se, yours included. All I can tell you is to follow WP:DR. I dont think anyone is going to be blocked if they really are not edit warring.—Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I admire your patience. I've missed a lot of what's gone on, but it's pretty evident to me that the IP is demonstrating a battleground mindset. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You block an IP, maybe they change, maybe they go away. Or maybe they get so frustrated they IP hop and sock. I'm trying to educate, partially swayed by seeing some good content from this IP before. A previous admin unblocked him, and I'm sorta giving him another pass, but the user will only last so long if this continues.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok I didn't totally understand what you were saying on the otherpage, what am I missing and the temp/static IPs? I need someone to connect the dots. Is it worth the time on the template for a discussion? I am a person who takes things literally most times so when I see a policy page that says not allowed I say ok, fairly black and white thing. So if it's a rule that's not a rule I believe in starting discussions to change said guideline. Also I'm not interesting in rehashing it here on your page just from the technical side for future reference or possibly the other discussion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Template_talk:Shared_IP#Static_IPs.—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ty appreciate it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bagumba. I noticed your block of 99.129.112.89. I am concerned that you may have erred in placing that block. The above notice suggests that you may be involved and I hold a similar opinion. Please consider reversing your action or at minimum ask at wp:an if there is consensus support for the action you took. Thank you for considering this request. Cheers. My76Strat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concern here. I haven't been negatively involved with the user in a way where I believe a COI would exist. Feel free to inquire at the appropriate forum if you still believe the block was inappropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. My inquiry culminates here with the comments in this thread. If you are satisfied, I am content. Thank you again. My76Strat (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

NP.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

On 6 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Homosexuality in American football, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that no active American football player has publicly come out as gay in either the National Football League (NFL) or in the Division I level of college football? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Homosexuality in American football. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Good as gold!

Hi Bagumba. I see that you are not around very much right now, so this can be a nice surprise for you when you pop in. I am here to present you with the Golden Editor Award. Last year, you became the first person I had ever nominated for adminship. Your RfA went exceedingly well and demonstrated that you clearly have gained the community's trust. Since then, we haven't been able to interact much, but I hope you have enjoyed your adminship. Of course, you were a golden editor even before you gained the administrator tools, but I hope that they have enabled you to help the community even further. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

thx. Good to see you around still.—Bagumba (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#Proposal to migrate men's college basketball players and coaches to Template:Infobox basketball biography. Please weigh in and help achieve consensus on this matter. Thanks! Rikster2 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't know the exact protocol for changing text however I wish you would not have restored it as what was written was an updated version of Sean Pamphilon's bio. Some of the info that is/was there is incorrect and or undesirable. Please advise because I will change it again. Sean is my business partner and life partner and I manage his career.

Thanks, Tenny Priebe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennypriebe (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this here. I left some standard links on your personal talk page that may be helpful given your relationship with the subject. In general, we strive to be neutral and base edits on reliable sources that have been published. Incorrect information can be corrected if a better source is cited. "Undesirable" text, such as conflicting opinions, are sometimes suitable for neutrality. However, care is taken in such cases to be clear to differentiate an opinion versus a fact. Let me know if you have further questions, or feel free to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page.—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, could you please consider blocking IP user 207.165.127.2 as he has been vandalising Danny Granger repeatedly. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, he's seemed to have stopped now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Be better to give a final warning before resorting to blocks. At any rate, hopefully it's over. BTW, I'm sporadically on these days, so considerer trying WP:AIV for likely faster turnaround.—Bagumba (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. Just thought I'd let you know. With Zagalejo inactive now, you're the only other basketball-related admin I know of. But thanks for that, I'll use that in the future. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi - wanted to see if you'd be willing to add him to the 1 or 2 "featured" recent deaths on the front page (as I write Anthony Caro is listed). Only admins can edit the page. Seems like a HOF player and coach would qualify, though sometimes I think there is a bias against athletes in this space. Hope your trip is going well. Rikster2 (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't around for this.—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on Jeremy Tyler's birth date. I have found three conflicting dates: June 2, 1991 [2]; June 12, 1991 [3] [4]; and June 21, 1991 [5]. I'm not sure which one is correct, and it's sort of a similar situation to Francisco García – which was discussed at NBA wikiproject but never resolved. What do you think? DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

NBA.com[6] and basketball-reference.com[7] also list June 21. WP:Inaccuracy provides some guidance on these situations. MOS:DOB shows that birthdates are OK to be approximate (better then being wrong). Consider adding explanatory notes like in Steve Novak to make it crystal clear when there is ambiguity.—Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for that Bagumba. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metta World Peace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He isn't listed on the "players who've played for both the Clippers and Lakers" in the Lakers-Clippers rivalry article. Technically he only played for the Braves, but this isn't like the Baltimore Ravens where the history "vanished" or was a "new franchise"; the Braves are the Clippers still, aren't they? Should we add him there? hbdragon88 (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. Sources dont indicate that a rivalry existed between the Braves and Lakers. While technically the Clippers and Braves are the same franchise, it seems trivial to bring up Buffalo players when there was no rivalry before they became the Clippers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bagumba- The discussion about date ranges at MOS appears to be going nowhere again. I think it would be best if we could reach some sort of closure on this. I respect your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and process and am interested in your advice on how to "get there." Would an RfC be the way to go? My concern is that without changes in MOS wording one way or the other this issue will crop up every few months and I worry that the MOS Talk page discussions will usually deadlock because the claim is that we sports guys dig in too hard on the way we do things, and my counter to that would be that the MOS guys have a pretty vested interest in NOT making significant changes to MOS. I think some sort of impartial facilitator or wider discussion would be in order but I am not sure how to proceed. I think it is odd that MOS would outright forbid a date format that exists all over the "real world." As you know, it is also used on 1000s of sports articles, as well as political articles, etc. But honestly, I'd settle for clarity so that I can just focus on writing and editing articles. Any advice? Rikster2 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While there isn't closure yet on the issue, I do think there has been progress in understanding the arguments on all sides. RfC is an option, but care must be taken to reach a solution that best addressed all concerns. Otherwise, no consensus could be the continued outcome; the current discussion is not lacking in participants, which is the motivating factor for many RfCs. Some random points:

1. Even with no changes, the current sports infobox standard can be justified by WP:OTHERDATE. This is not ideal, but it at least balances arguments alleging that the MOS is not being followed.
2. It should be stressed that WP:PROPOSAL says guidelines should reflect existing practices used in articles. Clearly the 4 digit format is consistently used in a wide set of articles. Mandating 2 digits is ignoring existing acceptance of 4-digit format. You would think they can coexist. Afterall, nobody is forcing conformity let's say of American English over British English. Guidelines need to reflect practices, not dictate them.
3. For non-sports editors, any proposal should provide extensive examples from reliable sources showing the 2 digit format. Also, links to bio categories like Category:National_Basketball_Association_players_by_club and similar cats in other sports would help editors see for themselves how widespread the practice is.
4. Linking to FAs like Thierry Henry, Wayne Gretzky, Tim Duncan, Mariano Rivera, and Jim Thorpe might also be persuasive. Even non-sports articles like Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama in their TOC headings use a 4-digit format for year ranges.
5. Emphasize my earlier point about Princeton Style Guide advising that ranges used as adjectives should be 2 digits, e.g 2013–14 season, while year ranges should use "to" and 4 digits. For infobox, a dash would be shorthand for "to"
6. In addition to RFCs, if an individual editor continually makes changes without gaining consensus, it is essentially a WP:REHASH, and repeated attempts to edit war over multiple articles could warrant a WP:TBAN if all else fails.

If you do pursue an RFC, it might be helpful to first get some level of agreement with others on the current problem, and proposed options and rationales. Too much discussion on even the basic problem statement could lead to newcomers to say WP:TLDR. I could give feedback if you draft a proposal, but be aware that my turnaround time can be erratic these days as I am in and out.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that NYT one doesn't actually quote what you quoted in your revision. So I copied that quote into Google and the same article came up, but for SMH. The Sydney one actually quoted it. Now, I might just be stupid when it comes to the NYT one, but I word searched it as well (command-F on Mac) and "enjoys living in Los Angeles.. " did not come up. Anyway, a happy new year to you as well, Bagumba. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Bagumba: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Feels like from the discussion you started a basketball league list would be worthwhile. I really don't see why basketball should have a significantly higher bar for notability than hockey, cricket, etc. Rikster2 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem with a list, my issue is the criteria used to form the list. I'm admittedly not that knowledgeable about overseas leagues, hence I'm asking for objective criteria. The list of sources that Im asking for would also help other editors expand/create articles. If there was consensus that I'm asking to prove the sky is blue, and the leagues are obvious, my opinion wouldn't matter.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

So, what's the criteria? I've mostly asked for a notability standard south of what hockey/football have (adding just a couple of leagues to "one game notability" then another longer set that assumes notability for award winners - with a defined list of league awards) I'd rather get your suggestions for objective criteria up front rather than play hide and seek with it like last time. Rikster2 (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I had thrown a suggestion before at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#Basketball_notability_guidelines. I can clarify if you had specific questions.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This deal is now announced at least on the Cavs site http://www.nba.com/cavaliers/news/deng-trade-140107 Rikster2 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How should I handle a situation where a set of very similar IPs are reverting very similar edits (against WP:OVERLINK, WP:USPLACE, WP:MOSLEAD, etc.)? I don't want to get into an edit war, but I am pretty sure it's the same person on different devices and I suspect it is a user banned for sock puppetry. Relevant articles are Julius Hodge and Larry Abney (plus others from the banned user). Thanks for the help. Rikster2 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I semi protected Hodge for a week because it had past confirmed sock editor. You can start a sock investigation, but its gonna be hard if they keep hopping IPs. Otherwise, you are left with talk page discussions and reporting edit warring where applicable. You can also notify projects of specific pages to get others help.—Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error on the K A-J article. I missed the fact that this was in the lede and not further down in the article. As ever your vigilance is much appreciated. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No prob.—Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Accusations and investigation

The introduction to the article says, "Anthony Bosch...Dr. Pedro Bosch...Ashley Bosch". Thus listing three people named Bosch involved with Biogenesis.

In the section Accusations and investigation, the third paragraph has "In April, Bosch received a complaint from the Florida Department of Health for practicing medicine without a license." I found this sentence completely ambiguous. From other investigations I know the investigators put pressure on everyone hoping to crack one and get them talking. So I did not know if the third paragraph meant Anthony or Ashley.

Am I supposed to assume this Bosch is Anthony simply because he was named in the previous paragraph? Your comment says "yes". But that requires the reader to know the standard Wikipedia style and to believe that it is correctly being followed here.

Is that really the standard Wikipedia style? If it is, I am sorry to hear that. I cannot believe I am the only reader to whom this would cause confusion. It sounds presumptuous of Wikipedia. Why not just allow the specific naming of the person in cases such as this where there is plenty of room for ambiguity and confusion.

Respectfully yours, Nick Beeson (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. See my response at your duplicate thread at Talk:Biogenesis_baseball_scandal#Accusations_and_investigation.—Bagumba (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! I see you moved American football positions to American football position today. I do not agree with this move, in that the article describes different positions rather than just a general description of a position. Thus, it qualifies under the exception for articles on groups of specific things.

Rather than undo your move directly, I wanted to contact you first. Please let me know if you know of similar circumstances where a singular is used for an article about multiple instances, if you want to undo the move and start requested-move discussion, or how you'd like to proceed. —C.Fred (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I was editing All-Pro, and needed a link to "position" when I considered WP:PLURAL and made the move. I didn't read the whole American football positions article, but the fact that "position" was bolded in the lead already made me think this was non-controversial. Not something that I want to spend that much time on, the difference is IMO minuscule, so feel free to do what you see fit, and let consensus reign.—Bagumba (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So I will continue to remove these as I see them. They aren't necessary. Rikster2 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

USPLACE seems to be an article naming convention, not necessarily how cities are referenced. That being said, whereas most article bodies would follow USPLACE and refer to Los Angeles, I'm pretty sure no infoboxes list just Los Angeles, as oppose to Los Angeles, California. Again, I'll save it for a non-American who might care more, but I'd assume they wouldnt recognize most US states to know that USPLACE implies it is a US city e.g. Akron, Ohio is the same as Akron, Ohio, US—Bagumba (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what links are for. There are many small countries one might not be familiar with too. He's listed as American and his place of birth is Akron, Ohio. I don't see it as necessary nor required. Rikster2 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Originally, I was thinking of just moving "Nationality" before "Born" in the infobox display, then it'd be obvious if the country wasn't listed, it is consistent with their nationality. However, if you look at {{Infobox person}}, it says for birthplace to include "city, administrative region, sovereign state", and nationality "Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace." Another basketball inconsistency: AFAIK, none of the other athlete info boxes for major sports even lists a nationality field.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do basketball infoboxes need to be consistent with other sports? Those sports didn't see a need to collaborate. Hockey has a "national team" field with a flag, btw. And what was the collaborative process used to come up with the parameter definitions for infobox person? Rikster2 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's easy enough, I'd rather be consistent. In this case, I'd prefer Infobox person format, as it would appear to have wider consensus across multiple subject areas. Not sure what the process was, but if people follow it, that's the strongest type of consensus. Anyways, if you prefer to revert the occasional "US" addition, I'll let it be.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

ok, why don't you just switch 'em all to infobox person then? I'll step out of the way and let it happen. I've been looking for hobbies to give up anyway, so this is as good a time as any. The politics and ridiculous rules and policies around here are easily the worst part about Wikipedia - yet many seem to engage only in this part of the project. I'm about over it so whatever you want to do, be my guest and I'll just take it as a sign. Rikster2 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I must not have been clear on my intention. I was thinking to save you work from reverts by offering a different perspective to let the "US" additions be, but I wasn't aware of the USPLACE perspective. I have no interest in me personally spending time doing massive conversions on infoboxes, nor was I suggesting that you take it on either. We generally agree on things here, and I respect your work, which is why I even brought this up. Anyways, like I said from the start, didn't want to get into a big discussion on this, so sorry this dragged on.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bagumba,

The only Ray McCallum, Jr. that there is (at least in basketball) is the head coach of the Detroit Titans, whose full name is actually Howard Raymond McCallum, Jr. ... His son who played for him at Detroit and is now a player for the Sacramento Kings (played eight minutes last night) is named Raymond Michael McCallum ... Both go by the same name Ray McCallum (no Sr. or Jr.) ... If Wikipedia ever wants to have the correct information then it needs to make these corrections ... Wikipedia should pay more attention to REAL bio information on School and Professional team sites like ^[1] and ^[2] both use Ray McCallum ... instead of stories written by journalist who just added Jr. and Sr. to separate the two ... everyone who has used Ray McCallum, Jr. for the younger of the two over the last four plus years has been completely wrong ... again both father and son go by the same name Ray McCallum. —Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SIDNation (talk • contribs) 14:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, reliable sources that support your proposed changes are generally expected. Are you are affiliated with the McCallums in any way?—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It feels a little like you might have just blocked this editor for a content dispute you're involved in. He thinks no ^{[citation needed]} is needed, you think it's needed; there might be an incipient edit war there between the two of you, but it's hard to see how it warrants a block, and it's hard to see how if it does warrant one, you should have been the one to do it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. It seemed at the time to me to be the "straightforward" example of WP:INVOLVED: constant removal of templates after numerous warnings without resolving the verifiability concern. While plenty of things are written in WP without sources, I believe there is an expectation that they are cited when contested per WP:CHALLENGE, and WP:BLUE did not seem to apply here. I certainly wouldn't have blocked if I had removed the unsourced text instead of merely tagging it, in which case it would have been a clear content dispute. Do what you think best for WP.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that perhaps semi-protection would be better for Stephen Curry (basketball)? There have been no useful/good faith edits to the article in the past while. Just a suggestion. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Try 2 wks for now.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In speaking with User:Frietjes, it sounds like there might be an issue with adding college colors to infobox:basketball biography. I think our best bet might be to create "infobox:college basketball biography" and have it mirror 90% of the functions of basketball biography, but with allowances for academic class and school colors. This way, consistency would be there and conversions would be very easy (remove "college" from the infobox name and adjust fields). We could also accommodate college coach and administration info so that the same box can be used throughout a person's career. Take a look at the Talk page for WP:college basketball if you want to refresh your memory on the discussion. My question is - do you know of someone with the skills to build this infobox? I'd been trying to get Frietjes to help, but I get the sense she has a lot going on. Rikster2 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've hacked my way through some edits, but it's usually cut/paste or some crude implementation. That being said, its not something I can sign up for timewise now, and the color code always looked complicated to me. Freitjes was my usual go to also, but nothing happened with my last query to fix {{basketballstats}} for those nba.com stat links changes. So not surprised if she's swamped. Try looking at edit history of other templates for possible candidates, or there's also Wikipedia:Requested templates.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I used that text because I've seen it on a bunch of basketball player pages. Example: Karl Malone. You can't retire from being an American, so I don't think anyone would read it that way. Retired means from his career. Enigma^msg 17:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

FA's like Michael Jordan and Juwan Howard put "former/retired" after American. At any rate, there isn't much consensus either way. Do as you will.—Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Also, you accidentally used rollback on me, reverting previous edits I had made. Enigma^msg 20:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for understanding.—Bagumba (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, no hard feelings about developments there. As I see it, you still misunderstand just how measurement-system conventions work. I was trying to clear it up for you. Perhaps you thought you got it, and just saw my attempts as a repetition. I still see the way they actually work as being the only way out - the only way that has actual reasons rather than opinions - hence "irrational" for lack of reasons. And maybe you're seeing something I don't. If so, I hope it works, and wish you well. Evensteven (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You've been inadvertently hit by the crossfire. The proof by assertion reference was for the editor who has repeated their argument verbatim for the Nth time, where N is probably like > 5 if not > 10. You listen and rephrase your points, and the sincerity in your arguments is felt, whether or not we agree on everything. Happy editing.—Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I probably did misread. And agreeing isn't really that important, especially initially. That's the whole reason we need discussions. More important is remaining on good terms whether agreement is ever found or not. Evensteven (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

		The WikiProject NFL Award
		I, ZappaOMati, hereby award Bagumba the WikiProject NFL Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject NFL. Awarded 03:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Bagumba. What about The Sporting News awards? Those are voted on by the players themselves. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hasn't been brought up before. I think we'd be better to limit it to NBA official awards, not just because its the NBA, but they get the most press too. Body is fine for the rest. Just my opinion. You can start a thread at WT:NBA if you want to get others' input.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm content with your explanation, sounds good to me.Hoops gza (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, this may well need to go back to ANI for a topic ban. I think it is worth raising there but please let me know what you decide either way. GiantSnowman 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I think its best to just get the RFC closed. Things will be clearer when that is out of the way.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, good suggestion. GiantSnowman 12:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that semi-protection until after the edit might be a good idea. You? pbp 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"semi-protection until after the edit": Which edit are you referring to?—Bagumba (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. I meant after the Game. Since most vandalism is likely to occur around the announcement of players (later this week), or the game (in 19 days), I'd protect it until Feb 17. Do you think it's a good idea. pbp 20:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:NO-PREEMPT generally advises to protect only after persistent problems. While you are probably right in what is likely to happen, others who just drive-by and know nothing about this event are liable to cause drama on blind principle. I'll keep an eye on it, or feel free to go to WP:RPP.—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There have been several vandalism or inaccurate edits in the last few days. I'm going to request a 10-day silverlock. pbp 15:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey I don't know how to invite people to the talk page but I put up a new topic about this years dunk contest that I would appreciate your input on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T23tran (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor issue and an edit I am not going to revert, but why did you move "san Francisco Warriors" and "Anaheim Amigos" to redirects as opposed to the articles those RDs link to? Those links were formatted that way when I created the article. My understanding of WP:NOTBROKEN is that people shouldn't obsess about "fixing" RDs to primary articles - not the other way around (moving links to RDs from the primary article). Again, not something I care that much about but I keep the pages I create on my Watchlist so I saw the edit and thought it was weird. Rikster2 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is what you meant, but I didn't remove a redirect—I changed a pipe to a redirect, which is considered more beneficial for all the reasons stated at NOTBROKEN. I didn't look at the article history, and it's not even on my watchlist. I just ended up there after working on Slaughter and reading about Lacy. Rules aside, I just find it easier because in some other cases, the pipe is outdated and could have been avoided with a redirect. This saves editors from having to check all the time too :-) There's one prominent editor that I know that will always pipe instead of redirect, we work on some common articles so I know they've seen my changes, but they still continue with piping for new material. We never said anything, and I don't recall any of us reverting the other. If you prefer, I can do the same for you (I actually don't recall seeing it from you before), but I wouldnt have known in this case anyways without looking back in history.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

honestly, it isn't that big a deal. I obviously didn't read the guideline closely enough. Rikster2 (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the article Blake Griffin should be unprotected?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the rationale?—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No BLP violations within the last three months. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not following your comment. Before this current protect started on on January 16, 2014 (< 1 month ago), there was a number violations since the previous 1-yr protection expired on Dec 10, 2013. No BLP violations in the last month is presumably because of the protection, which would support it remaining. If you see things differently, feel free to elaborate further.—Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Larry Hollyfield at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

On 13 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Larry Hollyfield, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that UCLA Bruins basketball coach John Wooden described Larry Hollyfield as "probably the greatest physical talent on the team" during their 1971–72 championship season? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Larry Hollyfield. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you are aware, there is simply never ever any constructive, good faith edits on either Kyrie Irving or Paul George (basketball). Much the same was for Stephen Curry (basketball), but since the semi-protection was added and now expired, there seems (so far) to be a drop off in vandalism for him. Maybe a dose of semi-protection would be useful for both if not just Kyrie (as Paul George has recently been a popular article due to his growing all-star status). What do you think? DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

John Wall (basketball) is in a similar boat to Irving, George and Curry as well. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't have those watch listed. I had to draw the line somewhere :-) I've put semi on Irving and George. We'll need to start with smaller durations, and increase if it isn't working. Wall has a bit of useful edits too, so I'm not quite ready to put semi there. Feel free to keep me updated as needed, or go to WP:RPP. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bagumba. Will do! DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Just some information Riley read in the Harvard Business Review which reinforced his thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danphilollw (talk • contribs) 05:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Danphilollw: Thanks for discussing this. Without more details on how it impacted his life, it just seems like a trivial name drop.—Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. Thanks.Danphilollw (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

On 16 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jack Hirsch, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that college basketball coach Jack Hirsch's family business went into the pornography industry, which he called "infinitely cleaner" than college recruiting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Hirsch. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I am not interested in editing NBA articles and someone else was using my account. They made their own account. --Bluejay14 (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On 18 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred Slaughter, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that former college basketball player Fred Slaughter was called "the dean of black sports attorneys" by The New York Times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Slaughter. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say, good job on the Joshua Smith (basketball) article! It looks good. DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Bagumba. You have new messages at Vjmlhds's talk page.
Message added 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm a doofus...Drexler was the 12th man on the team...not Thomas. My mistake. Good eye. Vjmlhds 04:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

On 24 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jordan Adams, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Jordan Adams was the first freshman in UCLA Bruins men's basketball history to score 20 or more points in his first four games? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Adams. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it may be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marquette Golden Eagles men's basketball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)