User talk:Bagumba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Consensus on basketball infobox honors[edit]

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

I probably can't get to putting up a formal proposal today. If you want to piece together one on the general proj page, I can chime in when I get a chance. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Not looking for today, do you think you could do it in the next week? Rikster2 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll shoot for it. I may or may not be out for a few weeks by end of next week.—Bagumba (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

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

@Rikster2: Not sure if you have the sandbox above watchlisted, but I made some recent mods to the honors. Take a look and edit or discuss as needed.—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't have it watchlisted, but took a look. I have two comments - 1) The individual AA teams in my opinion are not so much the ones listed (AP, NABC, USBWA and Sporting News), it's the teams used to determine consensus status. Since 1998 those have been the four granting bodies "of record," but from 1949 to 1996 UPI was one of the consensus teams and Sporting News was not (even though for most of that period they named AA teams). The individual bodies making up the consensus teams did vary more frequently in the early years of consensus AA teams (beginning in 1929), but they have been consistent for over 50 years (with only the SN replacing UPI). Each AA year article details the consensus teams and I can add a list of years to NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans if that is useful. 2) does every level of All-Conference ALWAYS go in the infobox? I ask because I have seen an uptick in "honorable mention" All-Conference added to infoboxes and I'm not sure that should apply (for some conferences anyone who earned a vote gets on the HM All-conference list). Personally, I only care about 1st team, but is it 1st and second or 1st/2nd/3rd? It is not uncommon for players to earn three different levels of all-conference in their careers. In our system this would be three lines in an infobox. Should first team ALWAYS be listed and other levels be listed if there aren't too many other honors present? Rikster2 (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead and update the AA verbage in the sandbox. We can either duplicate it from the main article for convenience of readers, or direct them their for details. As for All-Conf, I just thought it's more straight-forward to keep the rules simple for editors and list any team, but didn't intend honorable mention to be included. For that matter, I'd be OK with simplifying and removing HM AA. IMO, it's puffery whenever I see someone billed as an AA and I find out later they were only HM. We can always punt specific points to when we have a wider audience, but I'd imagine it's easier to iron out as much as possible beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I should have a chance to do so this evening. Also, I think it would be a useful add to the core basketball AA article so I will look to do that too. Rikster2 (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I still owe the new verbiage, it's been a week. I'll work it this weekend. Are we also adding the "never listed" section (even if less than 5 honors)? I think that is important too to draw a clear line on some things. Rikster2 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
NP. Sometimes real edits and real life come first. I don't mind "never listed", but thought it would be easier to deal with the what to add first. If you think it's easier to lump it together and open it up for general comment, as opposed to doing it multiple iterations, go ahead and start it. Another area is HS stuff, which you may or may not want to combine for now.—Bagumba (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Problems with standard capitalization and infobox formatting[edit]

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

@Dirtlawyer1: I'm back from vacation. The user has been inactive, albeit after making a few more edits against MOS after you last wrote on their talk page. I've given them a final warning. Either they aren't aware of their talk page, or they are ignoring the requests. Hopefully we don't have to find out which it is.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently this user now needs something to get his attention. Despite multiple talk page messages and multiple edit summaries explaining the problems he is creating, he continues to undo the standard formatting of NFL player infoboxes every time he updates player stats. Enough is enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for a week. Hopefully this will get them to notice their talk page if they weren't aware of the notifications already.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully. I hate to see anyone get blocked, but this has gone on long enough, and reasonable attempts at communication have been exhausted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Hey. Could Perth Wildcats, Sydney Kings and Sydney Uni Flames please be semi protected. They are being vandalised by different IPs. I warned this IP but the person has now come back as a similar yet different IP. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ehh. Like this one, probably not much that can be done here other than WP:RBI. The 'B' part is a Whack-a-Mole, and useless if they are not currently active. We could semi-protect, but they've edited a wide range of articles. I'd be willing to protect if it becomes more persistent on specific files. Sorry, just trying to set proper expectations for this "open encyclopedia".—Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I understand, but it's getting ridiculous. Another Sydney Kings one. Same person, different IP. Surely Sydney Kings warrants semi now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

A Special Treat for You[edit]

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

Many thanks[edit]

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

Oh, I forgot to mention that he is over seven feet tall in all the scenes except for a few pics from when he was very young :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: I missed it. I'll have to go find it on demand.—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi again. As well as OnDemand it is repeating several times each week on one of HBO's channels or another. I know it will be worth your time no matter how you track it down. MarnetteD|Talk 03:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: It was a good watch. Maybe it'll motivate me to spruce up his bio. I've always been looking for explanation of his seemingly coasting in the last decade with the Lakers. I could swear it was strategy, as I vaguely remember an interview where Riley said the plan was to not have him cross half-court on fast breaks to conserve energy. And they never had him line up for defensive rebounds on opponent's free throws (which probably cost him a coupe "easy" rebs/game).—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Hah - there is a coincidence. I was just leaving the following message and we ec'd. Before I get to that I have a memory of that Riley interview as well. The first college game I can remember seeing is the regular season game against Houston. I had that early teen fandom craze when he went to the Bucks. In fact I still have this book in a box somewhere. I admire him as much for his off-court life as for his on so I am glad that you enjoyed the documentary and now to the message that I was leaving. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
New thanks for this B. Bob Lanier and Nate Thurmond (among others) spring to mind. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Thank you[edit]

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

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


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

Twas done! DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably time to just "ignore" (WP:RBI) instead of giving more attention.—Bagumba (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Portis[edit]

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

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


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

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

Colors module: we may have a problem . . . .[edit]

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

WP:DR is the route for content disputes. Moreover, the community has been apathetic with standardizing procedures at Module_talk:College_color/data#Improve_redundancy_and_verifiability. Or are you hinting that something has changed with respect to Module_talk:College_color/data#Request_for_template_protection?—Bagumba (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly, but it is perfectly predictable that certain editors who have a history of making unsourced edits to team colors will continue to do so even when they are respectfully asked to stop doing so. Would you like an RfC where sports editors !vote to apply "template protection" to the module, or should I bother you with this? We used to favor sourced content on Wikipedia per WP:V and WP:RS, and remove content that was not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's never been that draconian on removing content. The key is WP:V and whether content is "challenged or is likely to be challenged". Moreover, WP:UNSOURCED recommends that "you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Within reason, I don't think WP wants to deter improvements that are verifiable merely because it lacks an inline citation. However, user that are is persistent as opposed to a few one-off edits could be considered disruptive if they ignore feedback, moreso if it is from multiple peers. My take is that isolated users who continuously edit war would eventually face blocks as deterrents, and those who consistently exercise poor judgement, even if not malicious, can be topic banned if the community deems them disruptive. It's your prerogative if you feel an RfC would be effective.—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sir, I am well acquainted with the policy and guidelines cited above. The sports projects have a very long history of problems involving team colors across multiple sports and multiple editors, including vandalism, edit-warring and sock-puppetry affecting hundreds of articles. My reading of the discussion linked above is not that the participants were "apathetic" to standardizing module editing procedures; the attitude of most of the participants was "well, yeah, whatever works to minimize problems," as borne out by almost everyone subsequently complying with the interim talk page procedures when politely requested -- except two editors, both of whom have been blocked in the recent past for -- wait for it -- edit-warring over unsourced team colors. At this point, yes, I think an RfC would be best, inviting all active editors of the college sports projects to participate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
"yeah, whatever works to minimize problems": It's the equivalent of "I'm willing to follow consensus" that's often thrown around, as if following a policy is a laudable concession :-)—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI #6[edit]

Hi. How is it different than the image's use on Janet Jackson#2004–05: Super Bowl XXXVIII controversy and Damita Jo? I had always interpreted WP:NFC#UUI #6 to mean that there is a separate stand alone article about a specific fair use image, like Lenna and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. On Super Bowl XXXVIII #Halftime whow, that is not "an article passage about [an] image" per se, but an event described by both a summary style section and its stand alone detailed article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11: If you want, I can self-revert and list at WP:FFD for a wider audience. I don't remember where I ran across something similar before, but then again I don't consider myself an expert on non-free files either. Let me know. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll consider listing it, but in the interim, I'm going to put free images of them for now. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


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

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

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Diego Chargers Hall of Fame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darren Bennett (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) 10:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)