Jump to content

User talk:Bagumba/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Protect Tyler Herro?

Lots of IP vandalism lately. Rikster2 (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Done, 1wk.—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Wataru Misaka

On 22 November 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Wataru Misaka, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2019 Uruguayan general election

On 1 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Uruguayan general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 UCLA Bruins football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rose Bowl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Terry Maston

Hey would you mind restoring Terry Maston to draftspace? I still think a verifiable article can be written about him. I wasn't as active in the AfD as I should have been. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: I'd suggest asking the closer of thr AfD, Czar, the closer of the deletion review, RoySmith, or post to WP:REFUND. I only did a procedural delete after the DR had endorsed the AfD delete close; it had been temporarily restored for the DR. Do do you have new sources beyond those listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 16? As I !voted to delete, it's best if you seek someone independent. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
It's already been discussed to death so would be interested in seeing this new source material first. My take is that WP:REFUND would not be appropriate given the deletion review discussion. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: Well for one, he earned all-league honors. There is also USBasket news, a Tulsa World article, a SB Nation article, another SB Nation article, among others. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
NBL Canada is not an independent source as a league he played in. The USBasket source is a non-independent press release (e.g. The Skyline play at the 7500 seat Loos Fieldhouse in the North Dallas suburb of Dallas and seasons tickets are now available www.dallasskylinebc.com/tickets), the Tulsa World piece is light-hearted coverage with little encyclopedic content (e.g. Prior to the matchup, Owens reminisced about Maston’s shenanigans.), SB Nation is predominantly a fan blog site, and generally not reliable. WP:BLOGS allows exceptions for subject matter experts, but those two authors are not it based on their sparse posting history.—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for George Atkinson III

On 5 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article George Atkinson III, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

IP editor persistently adding incorrect info

There is this IP editor who has been adding incorrect statistical information on the 2019–20 Toronto Maple Leafs season article. The IP started editing on Dec. 3 and has edited the article 3 times. All 3 of their edits have been inaccurate, and has led me to having to correct all of their edits. I left a message on their talk page, but I highly doubt they will take it into account. You can see the contributions that they have made by visiting the link that I have provided you in the opening sentence (there are only 3 edits, so there is not much digging that you'll have to do). These are my edits where I had to correct the IP [1], [2], [3]. I'm usually lenient if someone messes up once or twice, but this is a third time now in just one week, so I'm a little concerned. Yowashi (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yowashi: You did the right thing by issuing an initial warning. If this persists, it helps to establish the case at WP:ANI that WP:AGF has been exhausted and the user should know better. At this point, there has not been any new activity to date by this IP. Also be aware that this is a dynamic IP, so the same user, if they continue editing, is likely to move to a different IP over time. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Tom Brady

OK, I just had an insight on this topic. On Michael Jordan's page, it calls him the greatest basketball player of all time, but on LeBron James's page, it calls him the greatest basketball player of all time. Maybe we could do something similar with Brady and Montana? P.S I still cringe when I see the beginning of Brady's page, not because I have anything against him, but because it feels like what we're really saying is: "Shut up, Tom Brady's the GOAT, the debate is over and there's nothing you can do about it, GOODBYE!" It just doesn't feel right. Mk8mlyb (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Sorry, I didn't follow your example of Jordan vs. James and its relation to Brady. Perhaps reword it?—Bagumba (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, look at Jordan's page and it says he's the GOAT. Look at James's page and it says he's the GOAT. So in essence, two players are being called the GOAT on their page. What I'm saying is, could we do that with Brady and Montana? Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: To be specific, James's article says "Often compared to Michael Jordan for the title of the greatest ..." in the lead and "James is widely considered to be one of the greatest ..." in the body. It doesnt say that he is widely or generally consider the greatest.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so why can't we do some comparison between Brady and Montana? If there's multiple candidates for the title of GOAT and people have different opinions and the debate is still alive, then what's the problem? Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Mk8mlyb: We apply WP:DUE weight to what sources say. So make your case at the respective talk page(s), and see where consensus lies. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I know, but Montana being the GOAT has just as much weight as Brady being the GOAT. You don't think the debate is over, do you? Because that's what I'm really frustrated about. This isn't some "flat Earth" or conspiracy theory thing, it's a legitimate and intense debate. You'll still find just as many people defending Montana as people defending Brady. Heck, there's still no shortage of people who think Dan Marino, Johnny Unitas, Peyton Manning, Otto Graham, John Elway, and/or Brett Favre is the greatest QB of all time. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

SPI case you may be interested in

Hi, Bagumba. A couple of years ago, you blocked IPs at this SPI after I uncovered related evidence that they were socks of SNIyer12. Well, I believe that I may have found a new account of theirs and have posted evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SNIyer12. If nobody else gets to it first, would you mind giving me a sanity check and seeing whether I was on the right track? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Blocked. Good work. For future reference, mentioning results from interaction overlap tool might expedite things also. That's a unique set of interests that's not a coincidence. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. The John F. Kennedy stuff alone is a glaring red flag that I didn't know about before. Anyway, thanks for the block. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Danny Aiello

On 17 December 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Danny Aiello, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

It is obvious that we disagree in our opinions on this ITNC nom. I appreciate your response but I just wanted to let you know that I have already shared all I had to say regarding my opinion on this and I have nothing more to add. Cheers. DBigXrayᗙ 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well B. MarnetteD|Talk 17:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible vandalism by User talk:67.71.159.98

I noticed this IP user [67.71.159.98] continues to vandalize multiple pages despite being warned many times. We may need to have this person being blocked. If you can please look into this, we would greatly appreciate. NicholasHui (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: I only quickly looked, but it's not blantant vandalism, and perhaps just not complying with our MOS. They are edit warring, so I left them a warning on that and MOS. Let me know if it persists, or take it to the appropriate notceboard. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not check enough evidence about what happened but thanks for the clarification. NicholasHui (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@NicholasHui: Another thing to note, WP:BLANKING generally allows users to blank their talk page. Restoring it for them can only aggravate an already frustrated user. On a positive note, it means we can presume they saw it, whereas some users might honestly not have checked their talk page, and new editors might not even be aware messages are waiting for them. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
At any rate, someone else has blocked them. Thanks for being vigilant.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know, the IP is a sock of 74.12.120.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and looks to be a LTA [4]. Their edits generally revert pages to old versions, sometimes a version going back years, which can be a hard to spot type of vandalism. Since they seem to be checking their talk page on their other IP pretty regularly, I think there is a good likelihood they will be back after the 31 hour block on the new IP expires. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wallyfromdilbert: Thanks for the background. I went and extended the block on 67.71.159.98 to a month.—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

See also

WP:PRJDEL.--Moxy 🍁 04:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: Are you implying something (portals?)—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry yes I was..noticed you posting protocols "However, if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on "requests for comments" for further input.".--Moxy 🍁
@Moxy: I agree with the spirit, but is Portal namespace technically included in the project namespace?—Bagumba (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
It does not cover the portal space by name...but as you say in the "spirit" of.....and in lieu of any portal space guidelines I think it would be common sense to most that we follow the guidelines that seems to apply to every-other namespace that is represented in thoses guidelines....as we would with copyright laws or attacks...as seen at WP:PRJC "These pages, as with all pages, do, however, need to comply with Wikipedia's conduct (see what this covers) and legal policies".--Moxy 🍁 18:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul Mickelson

Your edit is fine, but I thought you might like to know that "at" is very common phrasing when talking about playing theater organs, at least phrasing from the 1920s to 1960s. I think it was meant to convey the size and power of the instrument. Thanks for all your work! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@78.26: Thanks for the feedback. I'm not a music person, so I'll leave it to you and others if a certain level of "technical speak" is suitable. I was blindly going off the source, which also was consistent with basic English. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and basic English is likely preferable. I suppose one never realizes they are using "in-the-know" language until someone doesn't understand you. Many recordings from the era will also say "at the piano". It makes more sense for a theater organ, which indeed was tied to a particular place, being the most non-transportable of instruments, and in most cases each organ had their unique sound based on the pipes, placement thereof, and the acoustics of the location. Maybe "at the piano" also conveyed a lack of portability, because you don't generally see "at the violin, clarinet, trombone, etc.," although you will see "at the drums." I dunno, now we're getting into true linguistics, an area where I am most certainly not an expert. Be well! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Bagumba: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 15:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year Bagumba!

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, Donner60 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Happy New Year!
Hello Bagumba:


Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters.

CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Protect Cassius Winston?

Lots of IP vandalism in the wake of their rivalry game with Michigan this past weekend. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Done—Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Dubious IP changes

Hey. There appears to be dubious height/weight and roster changes being done by IP "2601:18C:CE80:F8E0..." [5] [6]. Perhaps a range block? DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It's the same IPv6 as in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Rosters_on_past_team_season_pages. At least when I looked the other day, it wasn't vandalism. Chime in there.—Bagumba (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Plane shootdown

No doubt you believed your reasons were valid, but IMO your handling of the discussion about the Iran plane shoot-down blurb on Jan. 11 at ITN/C served to muddle the discussion and to obfuscate the news. Just an opinion, of course. Not trying to start an argument. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sca: Thanks for bringing up your concern. Is there a specific post(s) you are referring to (diff or timestamp is fine)?—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
PS: Today, I'm angry about repeatedly being being told by you that "this page is only for errors." If that's the case, then why is this discussion still permitted at ERRORS? – My current post is a direct continuation of that discussion. (There's a long history on this question going back years.)
Please revert your revert. If you decline, I'll tend to suspect a personal motive on your part. Thank you. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sca: There was a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Post-posting_Blurb_Change_Requests to leave a redirect to ITNC when a post is a non-error. We didn't need two redirects to the same ITNC discussion. Moreover, the top of ERRORS says: "Done? Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the error report will be removed from this page. If there is something with those rules that you are unhappy with, please suggest changes at Wikipedia talk:Main Page/Errors. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done – Sca (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, discussions about improving or updating ITN blurbs have gone on at ERRORS for a long time, despite occasional police actions of the "not an error" sort. In my view, once a blurb has passed ITN/C, it's perfectly logical to post these discussions on the page readers/users reach by clicking on the Main Page 'talk' tab. Also, the discussions get greater exposure at ERRORS because ITN/C tends to be somewhat specialized, and it seems many neophyte or casual users don't know about it.
This is all about serving the reader with the best possible, collaboratively produced ITN summary (probably the most-read feature on the Main Page). – Sca (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Chris Boucher (basketball)

Boucher has been getting some IP vandalism lately. Perhaps a semiprotect is in order? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: For now, it's premature with just two bad edits. Let me or WP:RPP know if it changes. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Now protected.—Bagumba (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Protection?

The principals in the Kent Bazemore trade - Trevor Ariza, Caleb Swanigan, Wenyen Gabriel, Anthony Tolliver? Rikster2 (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Done—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Morgan Wootten

On 23 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Morgan Wootten, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry

The Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry continues to be the subject of repeated vandalism by unregistered IP users. This has been going on for years. I spent a good chunk of two days trying to beef it up, add sourcing, and eliminate some of the nonsense. A new IP user came along today and reverted all of this work. Is there a way to semi-protect the article on a permanent or semi-permanent basis to prevent this continuing abuse by IP users? Thanks for any suggestions you may have. Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Examples of previously unused IPs showing up to revert the work: here and here. Here is another one of the IPs creating problems. That's three separate IPs re-inserting bad content just in the past two days. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Cbl62: Those recent ones likely the same editor as they go back to the same version. Probably not persistent enough to semi yet, as there was other IP edits in late Dec that nobody seemed to object too much. A few more unexplained reverts in a day or two would do it (but hopefully don't get there).—Bagumba (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The biased edits by IP editors have actually been going on for the past year, but we'll see what happens in the next couple days. Cbl62 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The IP editors are back, today reverting days of work to the old, crappy version. This article has such a history of disruption from IPs, a semi-protect status would be appreciated. It's terribly frustrating when you spend days improving an article and IPs keep reverting everything back. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is the latest edit reverting days of work on the rivalry article (including eliminating extensive sourcing that I had added). Cbl62 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Cbl62: For the most recent changes, perhaps you can attempt a discussion with 136.181.195.23 (talk). Or discuss at article talk page and get consensus from other for your changes. I'm erring on the side of this being a content dispute. If it's a specific user, we can pursue this an edit warring instead of protecting from all non-autoconfirmed users. Let me know if I'm missing something.—Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The reverting continues, involves multiple IPs, and shows no signs of stopping. In each case, the IPs are simply reverting to a version that existed in December, deleting on a wholesale and indiscriminate basis myriad improvements (including addition of much-needed citations, addition of new sourced content, and general copy editing) that required days of work. I left a detailed message with the primary IP at User talk:136.181.195.23#Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry, but then a new IP showed up (here) to make the same reverts with no explanation. It is likely that the new IP is a sock of the prior one. Is there still no basis in your view for imposing semiprotection to prevent further disruption by the IPs? Cbl62 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Cbl62: I've semi-protected for a month. I still assume it's a content dispute, and would have said to start a discussion on the article talk page, but at least one other editor reverted to your preferred version, while multiple Michigan IPs keep reverting to an old version with little explanation. Still, it couldn't hurt to get project feedback on your changes, if you are inclined. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

NBA MVP page

Why delete 2nd and 3rd placings? It's hardly trivial e.g. Larry Bird came second 4 times. The page is about the award, not just a list of winners. Happy to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busterjp (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Busterjp: Thanks for discussing this. My feeling is that runner-ups, and to a lesser extent third-place finishes, are more relevant for a given season, but I rarely see it mentioned on a cumulative basis for an NBA player's career (it's more common in baseball) On a secondary note, it clutters the table, which already has quite a few columns, on mobile view. On another minor note, the sourcing—correct me if I'm wrong—is not available on a single source. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. When talking about the greats, top 3 MVP finishes is something referred to by many digital commentators in analysing careers and ranking players. This info comes from Basketball Reference which has voting for every season. I think there is sufficient space, and having more rich content facts is always better than less on Wikipedia. I'm happy to let readers ignore it if they wish. Cheers. Busterjp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busterjp (talk • contribs) 08:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

IP needs a timeout

[This guy] could use a timeout. All height vandalism so far Rikster2 (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the same IPv6 as at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Rosters_on_past_team_season_pages. It's too premature to call him a vandal, but they do need to comply with consensus. Hopefully the talk messages to them help, but their IP address keeps changing too (the nature of IPv6, not the editors fault).—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
It may be too early on the roster positions, but not on current heights in my opinion, that’s straightforward. But maybe the warning stopped him Rikster2 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
And now he’s reverting my height changes (Yante Maten). See what I am saying? Rikster2 (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, after this last warning you left and my message there too, it's sufficient notice to proceed further if this continues.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Blocked 31hrs.—Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The pest is back [7]. Please range block long term. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Done, 1 mo.—Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you able to check if 2601:18C:CE80:F8E0... is possibly the same person as 112.200...? There is a new pest going around changing heights [8] [9]. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, the 2601 was a US provider, while the 112 is Philippines.[10] Otherwise, you can't run checkuser on IPs. It probably doesn't matter much in this case if they are the same person, though I doubt it. This height changing is not a novel idea. On the other hand, this Philippine IP range might need a block if it persists.—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Can the 112 Philippines IP please be blocked? There have been many iterations now making height changes ever few days, the latest being [11]. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Another admin took care of it—Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hypocorisms are not nicknames

We do not apply nickname quotes style to hypocorisms. You're misunderstanding a phrase. The instruction to not put a common hypocorism in quotation marks or parentheses injected into a real name (because our readers do not need the obvious browbeaten into them, such as that Will is short for William) is in no way an instruction to put uncommon hypocorism into quotation marks as if they are nicknames. The concepts are just completely unrelated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [12]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Protect Marial Shayok?

IP user continues to vandalize and has been warned several times. Rikster2 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 31h hours, since it's just one user.—Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Linking president articles and caps

Hi, regarding the format of the Moi hook, I lifted it directly from the equivalent one for George Bush Sr. other than the fact that Moi has no dedicated Death of... article. It doesn't bother me that much which way we style these things, but we should really be consistent about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I was modeling after a recent one like with Musharraf, where neither the office nor country was linked. I dont have a problem with striving for consistency. An idea I havent followed through on would be to start a style guide of sorts for ITNR items. It does seem we reinvent the wheel and revisit MOS gotchas on WP:ERRRORS often. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the reply. And that sounds like a good plan. I know we can end up with too many rules sometimes, but it does help to reduce pointless disputes over minor issues! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Tom Brady page

Hey, I've got an idea. How about we do an article on the Montana vs Brady debate? It would make things a little easier. Mk8mlyb (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: Seems along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players considered the greatest of all time, which both resulted in deletions.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Why'd they get deleted? And even if they did, and for good reasons, wouldn't it still be a good idea? Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
You can read them and draw your own conclusions.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
How do I access them? Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Protect Andre Drummond?

And also Brandon Knight and John Henson? Rikster2 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks done now.[13]—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Protect Marvin Williams?

There has already been a lot of IP action on this and it will take until at least Monday for him to be waived, clear waivers, and sign elsewhere (likely the Bucks). Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Done—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Jarmusic2

You were really charitable in only giving that user a level 1 warning for their forum post. I know you're more focused on basketball these days, but we've had long drawn out issues with this user on the baseball side. They could not tolerate the waiting for the Gerrit Cole and Mookie Betts transactions, and got quite difficult during that point, even creating Gerrit Alan Cole and Markus Lynn Betts to try to get around us. Just an FYI, since they seem to have taken interest in Kobe too. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I've indef'd the account for persistent BLP violations and incompetence. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Eagles247, thanks! I was one more edit from doing the same on the same basis. Real bad case of CIR and IDIDNTHEARTHAT. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Yeah, I wasnt aware of the baseball background and missed the cues that there was something bigger brewing.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Montana vs Brady debate

I remember you telling me that people considered Montana the greatest QB of all time before Brady entered the conversation. Well, ya got any sources for that? Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A year ago on your talk page at User_talk:Mk8mlyb#Montana.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any reason for why people are so amped up about the Brady debate? I'm just asking, so don't grab your pitchfork and start swinging. I mean, think about it, we had so many opportunities for issues like this to come up with Joe Montana's article ever since the wiki started, but for some reason, it's now that the debate explodes. It's now that we're constantly arguing about this. Why? Why did it matter to the people who wanted the sentence changed in the first place when the original version was fine? And on another note, didn't you say your reasoning was that the sources consistently proclaimed Brady as the best, and did you try to find any that said it was Montana? I'd like to know. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome to present your sources and establish consensus at the respective articles. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, but did you find any sources for Montana? Or did everything you find say Brady on it? I'm sorry if I sound like I'm making a mountain of a molehill, I really am, but I just can't back down when I see a situation going downhill. Mk8mlyb (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Tom Brady page

OK, I think I've got a great idea on how to solve the issue with Tom Brady's page. Can you take a look at Jerry Rice's page and see if you like it? Mk8mlyb (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bagumba/Archive_22&oldid=1145986011"