User talk:Bagumba/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

On 2 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonah Bolden, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jonah Bolden played for the Australia national under-19 basketball team before moving to the United States and joining the UCLA Bruins? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonah Bolden. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think there needs to be long-term or indefinite semi protection for DeAndre Jordan. There are never any productive edits from IPs or new users, the edit history lately is all reverts. What do you reckon? DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Y 1 mo.—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably best to separate the discussion for 8-digit date format for compact date ranges from the discussion of format for single split-year sport seasons. The 8-digit discussion is pretty clear, the other not so much. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully, it stays this time :-)—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please protect this two pages from IP editing, people dont want to wait for official announcements by the clubs.--79.101.95.158 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK. Price was already done.—Bagumba (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The info box had a photo of Brittany Boyd in her Cal uniform. Now that she is on the Liberty I thought it would be better to use a photo of her in a Liberty uniform. If you think the prior photo was better or if we are to use both, let's discuss.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: No problem. The most recent photo, barring quality issues, is typically preferred. The other photo can be added back to article once the prose grows and there is space. I'll add a general link to Commons as an EL.—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you blocked me, you misspelled my name, and your reasoning was sloppy, delusive and incorrect. Then you did write in my talkpage but you did not engage in the points I raised. Ever. On top of that, you wrote to the editor you befriended what he could read by themselves as a FYI. I consider that canvassing. You won the day, because no friend-fellow-admin would criticise a friend-fellow-admin. So far for winning the day -- that's yesterday by now. I despise this admin behaviour. Getting a free pass because of being an admin. -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've had about enough of this individual. Alakzi (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: You can try Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility.—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think bullying is covered in that section. Alakzi (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to cause even more drama at the RM discussion but I felt I should point out that, regarding Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", the reversion was due to a bad non-admin closure.[1] It was EvergreenFir who initially moved the page back, then "re"-moved it, attempted to get Alakzi to reconsider his close, failed, opened a move review then retracted that. It was only then that AlexTheWhovian moved it. There's no doubt that Alakzi's close was bad. The close should have been no consensus, as Ritchie333 pointed out, but Alakzi is a stubborn editor. His persistent reversions on the talk page and the drama that eventuated as a result of Alex saying the same thing to him as Alakzi said to me, and his recent activities around the {{Infobox television season}} colour discussion demonstrates that, as does his uncivil response to EvergreenFir's request to reconsider the close.[2] Even after his friend, Pigsonthewing (coincidentally the nominator) warned him about reverting he persisted and breached 3RR on the template's talk page as a result. I'm more than a little concerned that AlexTheWhovian keeps taking the heat for all this. Alakzi is at least as, and IMHO even more, culpable, and he is being aided by Pigsonthewing. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I realize that I got the wrong revert; I should have been looking at the page logs, not the page history. Thanks. I've struck my comments regarding that particular revert. If this continues, an WP:IBAN could be in order if they can't interact constructively together. They would get to continue editing, but the community is not bogged down by their interactions at each other.—Bagumba (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I've mentioned elsewhere that they were heading towards an IBAN, although an IBAN wouldn't solve Alakzi's issues. He needs an IBAN with another editor who I am sure is leading him down the wrong path. It's a shame because they both do some good work. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you be any more patronising? I have "issues" now? Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Bad" closures are discussed at WP:MR. A bad closure is not an excuse to bypass process. As I have said previously, I would never commit to an interaction ban, and I will not put up with being made into a problem editor. And I will continue to revert trolling whenever I see it. Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No comment on trolling in this specific case, but m:What is a troll?#Not feeding the trolls is a possible deterrent when it exists. Regarding IBAN, AFAIR, another admin asked you about a voluntary IBAN, but community consensus can enact non-voluntary ones too. Be careful with reverts, as your mileage may wary as far as to how WP:EW and WP:TPO get interpreted, as well as some having an appetite to apply WP:BOOMERANG.—Bagumba (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for a very thorough review of my DYK nomination for Steven Clarke!

~ Rob^Talk 04:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The word "Navy is a noun". It should be proceeded by some kind of qualifier. in this case, the word 'the' would be appropriate. I am going to change it again. Please leave it alone. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timiwiki7 (talk • contribs)

@Timiwiki7: My edit was to avoid the repeating of United States to preface Navy, when it was already established which navy is being referred to. As far as the, it's correct if it's referring to the military unit, but is probably fine without the if it's referring to the Navy Midshipmen men's basketball program. I have no opinion on the specific case you are referring to. Also, you might not be aware, but some editors might take offense to statements like "Please leave it alone". Per the policy Wikipedia:Ownership of content: "No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page." Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, and we operate on consensus, so be careful about appearing to order other editors. Regards, and welcome again to Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the discussion on the talk page for Fred Hoiberg, if you feel that the info should be deleted, I have no objection. My concern was with the pattern of edits by (and complaints elsewhere about) the editor who made the change. My only concern with the particular edit we've been talking about was that it appeared to be a random deletion of well-sourced material. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have rights to roll back changes to a specific version? Because a couple of Is have been vandalizing the article today. I can't easily undo the changes. May be worth evaluating if this article needs protection - I undo a lot of crap on it. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I use Twinkle, which you have access to also. Otherwise, you can just edit that specific version, and save it. I reverted it back and protected for 2 weeks (though it may eventually need longer).—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I just want to let you know that while I still disagree with you on the subject that your voice has been calm and reasonable. I know you aren't my biggest fan (seen some of your comments about me elsewhere) but that I appreciated the way you brought your points up and that they are persuasive. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: I appreciate the kind words. I do try to focus on content. That being said, and I don't mean to come off as glib, what did I say that gave you the impression that I was disappointed in you personally?—Bagumba (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I may have mistaken you for another editor on WPO, it doesn't bother me because my behaviors are open to criticism too no one is perfect ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: Probably not me if it's WP:WPO you are referring to. In any event, feel free to come back here if you perceive any disrespect on my part. I would hope it's a simple misunderstanding, but Wikipedia:Civility#Dispute_resolution beats bottled hostility. Thanks again, and happy editing.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy ;) I didn't take it as such at all, just disagreement. 8) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

While I have no problem with the new names put on multiple baseball list pages, considering I am responsible for the expansion and constant upkeep of a very fair amount of those pages, I would have at least liked to have been involved in the discussion.Taffe316 (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Taffe316: Admittedly, this did not go through a formal WP:RM with notifications on all pages. On the other hand, it's more than a bold move with a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Poll_for_naming_convention_for_list_of_leaders.2Fchampions. I'm presuming you don't have WT:BASEBALL on your watchlist? At any rate, consensus can change, so feel free to discuss at WT:BASEBALL if you have concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Well first let me say I have no problem with the new page names, but again I just would have liked to have been asked to give my I input, considering all the work I have done to improve and constantly update those pages. So now here's where my question lies. I have created a few other MLB pages, that reflect the (top 100) in the title that has clearly just been voted to have removed. So with that being said, would you prefer I change the names of those lists to reflect the new naming format just implemented? Taffe316 (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Taffe316: Apologies on my part. I don't actively monitor most of these lists, so I've overlooked your contributions there, and incorrectly presumed that interested parties were also regulars at WT:BASEBALL. As far as specific cutoffs in the list like "top 100", WP:LISTNAME discourages including them in the title: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself ... Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list." It'd be good if all baseball lists follow the new general naming convention going forward. It would be great if you can make the changes, or I can help if you need. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: No problem, the remaining list names have been changed to reflect the new format. Taffe316 (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Bagumba. I was at this page trying to figure out how to request Administrative assistance with an obviously looming showdown with Lootbrewed (who has gone on reverting other edits I have made at the page at question even after being notified, knowing they are in the clear since they are reverting first and will out revert me before I am the bad guy) when I received your warning notice on my Talk page.

You can see in my comments on Lootbrewed's Talk page I was very much trying to avert where this has ended up. I am sure you read them before posting your notice there; if not, the above link will take you there.

What is the mechanism for requesting an impartial Administrator to assist? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 23:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest following dispute resolution? I did see that you took the first step and initiated a discussion with the other party when it was clear that edit summaries weren't sufficient between you two. However, the reverts continued between the two of you even while the discussion was ongoing. As there was no WP:BLP violations, there really was no urgency for either of you to keep reverting. From a purely administrative point of view, I'd choose to do nothing now. Discuss with each other, or get other editors involved and form a clear consensus (i.e. article talk page, WikiProjects, other ideas at WP:DR). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I gave Precious to Alakzi yesterday, ashamed that I had not done it sooner (as I that was sure I had). I even went to ANI - a place I try avoid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

... and even closed as successful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi B, I'm sure you've already seen these, but [3] and [4]. This claim is really irking me for being patently false: "Further, I have never been blocked for edit warring (I don't hide my blocks, they're right here on my page) and have never been blocked without a warning." Please note that I'm not criticizing your unblock decision—the incorrectness of the user's statement was bothering me. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I'm experimenting with Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap and Wikipedia:Editors have pride these days (I'm no longer citing that more oft-cited essay). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said explicitly that I agreed with your unblock. I just got a bee of truth up my ass. :) Those alternative essays are reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: And I could have acknowledged that I had seen your original note about it not being a criticism. Thanks for proactively avoiding potential misunderstandings (a novel idea!) WP:GAB is all nice and well intended, but I'm not sure anymore if it's a reliable indicator. I'm going to play around with just stating what the editor did wrong, and allowing more unconditional trust that it won't repeat.—Bagumba (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

At the Chembox Talk page. Keep an eye briefly, in case that Dutch editor, not understanding that you are an Admin (i.e., not understanding quite how things work), returns and reverts? He already took swipes at me and Doc James tonight… Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: I've interacted with them in the past, which is how I stumbled on this issue. Let me know if any further assistance is needed. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Bravo, and good to meet you. There was a queue of admins looking in, Doc James arriving first. If you have a history with this editor, you should have a look at this before retiring, [5]. See his responses at middle and end of Talk section (to Doc, and me, respectively). Good to meet you—coming across you us a highpoint of a month of effort. Note I also edit from IPs when I travel, and so will stop in later with one of those too. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: For whatever reason, they were reverting to the version that restores what was autoarchived. I used a lot of AGF and assumed that they just didn't factor in that they also removed all of your comments in the process, and still didn't realize it (or had too much pride) when you pointed it out. Unless there is more history between the two of you that would imply malicious intent, I'd just assume move on, and say "all's well that ends well".—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Could live with that (no formal blocking action), but him shoving off Doc, and swearing, here [6], deserves someone to comment I think. Or to say, if you swear or tell an admin to shove off, again, or revert a Talk again, the consequence will be… I leave it to you, trust your judgment. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to allow people to blow off steam as long as they aren't destroying things or doing outright personal attacks. I could recommend Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility, but we'd probably run into WP:EHP again. Feel free to consult others, as admittedly everyone has their own style on handling this.—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the name change on what is now List of Major League Baseball career wins leaders, just because it is not a top 100. It is players with 200 career wins or more, so shouldn't it fall under the same category as 500 home run club and 300 save club? Taffe316 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Taffe316: When there exists WP:COMMONNAME, i.e. a common term prevalently used in sources to describe a grouping, the preference is to use that natural name for the title, e.g. 300 save club. Otherwise, Wikipedia invents a descriptive name for the list, following WP:LISTNAME. Cutoffs should generally be avoided in the title. For example, in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Baseball_lists_moved, there was agreement that List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs batted in would become List of Major League Baseball career runs-batted-in leaders. Similarly, I thought it was consistent to move List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins to List of Major League Baseball career wins leaders. Hope that explains the rationale behind the move.—Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can protect List of Major League Baseball career home run leaders so only auto confirmed users can edit it? There's always a good amount of vandalism on it and I'm tired of it. Taffe316 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Taffe316: I see the two vandal edits today, but the article looks otherwise stable for the last month. Usually, more vandal activity is needed before page protection is applied, since it potentially affects a lot of users. However, I notice that 24.229.120.178 inserted similar vandalism back in April. Editors are usually dealt with individually without needing to resort to protecting pages. Assuming good faith, I warned the user, as nobody has done that yet. You can also follow WP:R Van the next time you see vandalism, and report individual users at WP:AIV if they do not stop after sufficient warnings. Hope that helps. (BTW: You are following WT:BASEBALL now, and are aware of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Names_for_lists_based_on_single-game_stats, right?)—Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have gotten the page protecting for one week. I'll seek further protection if the vandalism returns. Thanks for your input, I respect you and it's always appreciated. Oh and also, I have invited multiple members of WikiProject Baseball to join in on the new discussion you've started regarding the single game lists. Taffe316 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to work with you on an infobox honors proposal. However, I think it spans beyond WP:NBA and WP:CBBALL. I think we may want to get WP:BBALL involved, even if after the fact as many international league awards fall into the same general categories. For college awards, I do feel strongly that making a major AA team (first, second or third team) should be listed. I do think there are general categories of awards that should NEVER be listed (regardless of league):

• Preseason or Summer League honors (eg - Preseason All-American, Summer League MVP)
• Player/rookie/freshman/coach of the week/month
• Conference championships of any stripe (possible exception of college coaches and college conference championships)
• All-Tournament designation
• MVP of in-season tournament (eg - Maui Classic, Great Alaska Shootout)
• Team-specific awards (eg - team MVP, team captain)
• Any designation already in the Infobox (eg - Naismith/FIBA/CBB/Women's HOF, FIBA tournament championships in the medal table).

Also, we need to consider: awards, retired numbers, championships, records, and statistical leadership. What is included/not included? Rikster2 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You initial list of what not to include seems straight forward. Currently at WP:NBASTYLE#College_and_high_school_highlights, it basically says we don't get too picky about what college stuff is in there until we hit 5 pro items listed, then we want to get more selective to minimize the clutter. Shall we continue with what happens after 5 is reached, or do you think we should just come up with a list for college that applies even if a player does little notable in the NBA?—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1: You're more than welcome to join also.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NBASTYLE mentions that anything in Template:Men's college basketball award navbox was fine, but I think that was a quick and dirty way to cover everything. In practice, fancruft can creep there, so we should just make our own list and consciously make changes within WP:NBA as needed.

Here's my quick pass:

• All the NPOYs seem OK I guess.
• For the individual awards, I'm not a hard-core college fan, so I'd say AA (not academic), NABC Defensive Player of the Year, Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award, NCAA Tournament Most Outstanding Player, USBWA National Freshman of the Year. I guess all the new positional ones, like Kareem for top center, Malone for top PF, etc. should belong.
• For conference awards, all D-1 Conference POYs should be OK. Should we also include all D-1 all-conference teams? What about conference tourney MVPs, conference freshman of the year, all-freshman, conf defensive POY?—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

My take:

• Always list: Major NPOY (the ones tracked here plus the two defunct awards - UPI, Helms - listed. These are what the NCAA record book lists so I think that's a good place to draw a hard line), Consensus All-American, first- second- or third-team All-American by one of the granting bodies of the consensus teams (if not a consensus pick - this should trump), Conference POY, first-team All-conference, college retired number. Also - NABC DPOY, USBWA Freshman of the Year, Senior CLASS award, HOF awards (Bob Cousy, Jerry West Award, etc), NCAA championships and Final Four MOP, Academic AA of the Year
• List if infobox not overcrowded (need a cutoff): second- or third-team all-conference, HM All-American, conference specialty awards (Freshman of the year,DPOY, etc), college insider awards (Lefty Driesell, etc), lower postseason championships and MVP (NIT, CBI), conference tourney MVP, NCAA stat leadership for big stat categories (scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, steals - maybe define as anything that can contribute to a triple double), Academic All-American, Haggerty Award, Geasey Award, conference all-freshman or all-defense.
• Never list (in addition to those I already laid out): all-district, honorable mention all-conference, conference stat leadership, school or conference HOF, Big Five HOF (or similar), school or conference records.

Also, we need to figure out what High school awards to list and not. Now players come to college with a list of 15 items in their infobox. This doesn't seem appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This is still on my to-do list, but will take a back seat for a while.—Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Worth noting that an editor has started to try and create a MOS at WP:BASKETBALL. In my opinion there is too much overlap between leagues globally for NBA to have a completely different set of standards. Should be a joint effort. Rikster2 (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably. As we barely have a rough documented standard on what is current practice w/ NBA at WP:NBASTYLE, I'm not sure if I have the energy to try to actually get people to agree to change things, especially across projects. I have my eye on it, but I'm not currently thinking of being a very active participant.—Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This has me concerned. Why would we have something different than WP:NBASKETBALL? Rikster2 (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I do see this disclaimer: "The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with." Maybe you can work with them to replace the "similar major professional sports league" in NBASKETBALL. I'm not sure how familiar you are with overseas leagues, but I know it's more than me (almost zilch). The first step would be to get consensus at WP:BASKETBALL, it's debatable whether it needs to actually get into NSPORTS itself—some projects just do the power play that they are the subject matter experts so there is no burden to show that 90% would pass GNG. Personally, I'm skeptical that the highest level in country XYZ automatically gets enough coverage to write about more then signings, and stats lines for a lot of those players.—Bagumba (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking further, maybe you are concerned with the club and league criteria?—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that novice editors would look at this page and think it's the notability criteria for basketball players. it basically says all "fully professional" basketball players meet the notability criteria (like footy). That's not even close to true and there'd need to be a lot of discussion about where these should go. Footy is too loose as it is in my opinion. Also, my experience with this editor tells me he's not the guy who should be driving policy. Rikster2 (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be made less prominent, instead of relying on the disclaimer I mentioned. You could make a bold edit, or talk to the other editor.—Bagumba (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to talk to the editor. As near as I can tell he/she has never communicated with another editor on English Wikipedia (even via edit summary) Rikster2 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You can take your concerns to WP:BASKETBALL if you didn't want to outright edit it.—Bagumba (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, I just redirected the link off the infobox on WP:BB to WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The page might fall into the abyss now. For good measure, I put the disclaimer in scary red text.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I think I'm going to stay out of this one as my opinion may be considered biased due to the fact that I created one of the articles. Taffe316 (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Taffe316: Everyone is biased in some way, so you don't have to excuse yourself for being the page creator. All the biases, in theory, will balance out. It'd be a different story if you were in charge of closing the discussion, but you are not. Still, it's your prerogative if you want to kick back and see what others say.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Without your work expanding the page and providing better rationale than I did in the deletion discussion, David Denson might've been deleted. Thank you for your help. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

please lock gal mekel for ip users, people dont want to wait to be official.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.120.129 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

On 22 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Ecker (basketball), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after winning three national championships with the UCLA Bruins, John Ecker played basketball overseas and married German Olympic gold medalist Heide Rosendahl? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Ecker (basketball). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! He is also featured on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to German, please feel free to enter it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! There was also one for Terry Schofield, but I often stay away from WikiProjects I'm not too involved in, as there are varying interpretations on which subject are in and out their scope. Feel free to include if you wish. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I run DYK Germany practically myself, - anything remotely relevant goes, feel free to add (I would like to know if the recipe for doing so is comprehensible), - I have other concerns right now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba,

Now that the cutoff of 300 has diminished and it is just based on leaders, how would I go about proving notability here? If the arbitrary cutoff was making it difficult for me to prove notability and this doesn't, then I'd like to possibly try for FL at some point in the near future. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Though the title has changed, the list still has a cutoff. For FLs, I would expect this cutoff to be demonstrated to be notable.—Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, forget it. It's not worth going through that gauntlet again. If someone else can find something, fine, but I'm not wasting my time on that list again unless I'm making minor factual corrections. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Another editor recently down graded the Dave Winfield article from "B" to "C" class. I was wondering if you could take a look at it. In my opinion, it might need a little work, but I don't think it warranted the downgrading. Thank you Hotcop2 (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hotcop2: I see that you already started a discussion with the other editor, which is key to dispute resolution. I'd recommend continuing to pursue that avenue. You can consider soliciting advice at WT:BASEBALL if you should feel the discussion isn't progressing. WP:DR also lists options if you believe that an impasse has been reached. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Hotcop2 (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On 31 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jerry Norman (basketball), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a reluctant John Wooden was convinced by assistant coach Jerry Norman to use a zone press, which became instrumental in the first two national titles won by the UCLA basketball program? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jerry Norman (basketball). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi for Marcelinho Huertas please. Anons jumping the gun. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Y 3 days.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

On 4 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bill Sweek, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bill Sweek had expected to be kicked off the UCLA basketball team, but Coach John Wooden played him days later when they won their record-setting third straight national championship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Sweek. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eddie Vanderdoes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Kelly. 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) 11:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

On 12 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David Denson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in August 2015, David Denson became the first active baseball player affiliated with a Major League Baseball organization to publicly come out as gay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Denson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias ^talk 15:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I've seen that you've participated in a discussion on Listed height and weight in infoboxes and I want you to read my proposal and comment on whether you support it or oppose it. The reason is I want to get a consensus on this issue once for all. Thanks in advance. Bye.--AirWolf ^talk 20:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, I've given my opinion about both yours and Julian's previous talk, wanting to reply to it and give my final opinion about it about that specific two talks. As you could've seen, I've previously given opinion to underage sub-section. Maybe if I did it contrary, first this one and then in underage section, nothing would be confuse. And then I read your reply, thinking does he really making me a fool, not seeing that I've given my opinion in underage sub-section, with possible clear intention of neglecting it. The comment above was strictly formal, to close a chapter, with no intention of further discussion as new sub-section was opened.--AirWolf ^talk 21:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@AirWolf: Let's write this off as a misunderstanding on both of our parts. I don't care if you choose to leave your earlier comments, but be careful in the future with such accusations of others. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I just can't believe you are still seeing this from view of a completely "innocent" participant in the dialogue. I've made my point. It will stay as it is (just because of last reply).--AirWolf ^talk 22:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Protect? Lots of IP vandalism today. Rikster2 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have calmed down last couple of hours, and I see a couple of the offenders have already been blocked. I'll check back on it later.—Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Didn't last long. Done, 24hr.—Bagumba (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My talk page is not the proper page to discuss the Moses Malone article. It simply will not be posted at the front page under WP:ITN as it is currently nominated if the matters I specifically tagged are not referenced. I do not really care, although I am quite sure Malone deserves posting. You should see the ITN nomination if you care. Don't bring this to my page again, because my sole interest was to guide those who want the item posted. μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: You excessively tagged the article without appearing to have read the paragraph and its cited source, so I'm not sure why your talk page is not the proper venue. Sorry, the ITN outcome is unrelated to your being accountable for your own actions.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Bagumba. Alan Wiggins, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 14:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am letting you know that I am sending an abuse report against ArmstrongJulian. I know full well that you are cooperating with him in bullying me and also in helping to get my articles deleted. I suggest to you to stop it, or I will include you in my complaint. I only consider it fair to give you at least a direct warning first. I have given Julian numerous warnings.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

At the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Unlike Julian, I intend to do everything correct and by Wikipedia policy, so I am notifying you that I included you in the complaint. I did not make a complaint against you, but I included you in the complaint against him. Since it says you are an admin, I feel that when I brought up all of this at the wiki basketball project, that you should have talked to Julian about this then. None of this should have happened. I never wanted to have to report anyone. So I am very much hoping that now as an admin, you will do something about it please. I don't want Julian or anyone else to get in trouble, but this is ridiculous behavior, especially having my articles deleted out of personal grudges and spite. I also included Rikster and Airwolf in the complaint discussion, and I will notify them also, because they are two very respectful editors and they always are very helpful in discussions.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, there was an CfD on this last year (discussion here) that ended in "no consensus." The discussion was around the need for this category given the NBA decision that the Charlotte a Hornets history would belong to the current Hornets franchise. It had one article in it (Bob Bass) and a while back I created the more specific category "Charlotte Hornets executives" and moved him into it (along with Michael Jordan and others). That leaves the category empty. Is there a way to get rid of it now? It's inconsistent with how we handle other similar moves (Browns/Ravens) and how the Charlotte Hornets players are handled. There is no other category for the "1988-2002" Hornets, nor should there be in my eyes. Thoughts? Rikster2 (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You could try CSD C1, though your mileage may vary. I don't hang around CSD enough to know how the success rate. Otherwise, one would hope that after a year, people will just accept that the categories have been unused and not useful. If this went back to CfD, it'd be helpful to point out where WP already reflects that the old team is considered part of Charlotte still e.g. List of National Basketball Association franchise career scoring leaders. If all else fails, write it off as the nature of how consensus on WP works. There is already Category:Seattle SuperSonics.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll try CSD C1. Frankly, if people want to be bull-headed and keep a useless category more power to them. Wikipedia be stoopid sometimes (sic). Rikster2 (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that tag says not to use it if the category was emptied outside the CfD process (which I guess it was). Screw it. It's not hurting anyone. Cheeses me off that all the "yes" votes came from editors that pretty much never edit basketball articles and some never edit articles at all (just hang out in the policy space). Rikster2 (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I tell myself to stay with low hanging fruit that improves content without controversy. At the same time my pet peave is with navboxes and infobox highlights, which is definitely not low hanging (and probably of infinitesimal value to the avg reader anyways). Sigh.—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a real issue with editors who don't edit, but spend all of their time on policy. Very often their input is devoid of any common sense, since they never have to do the work to actually implement policy. Rikster2 (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Such is life. Management is knocked for not being hands-on, and those doing the "work" supposedly don't see the big picture.—Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rikster2: Was just going to delete per WP:IAR, nobody is going to find every old player and shove them in there, but then I saw I actually !voted in that CfD. So I did the next best thing.—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone recently moved the article Palasport Giuseppe Taliercio and so when I was looking through articles in Eurocup clubs to see if they all had arenas, I couldn't find one for that arena anymore for its club Reyer Venezia Mestre. So I assumed it was deleted. I looked for it, but it did not come up. So added the article here Palasport "Giuseppe Taliercio". Then I went to click on the categories to make sure I got it right, and I saw it was back in there. Even though it was just appearing deleted on the team's article, it was just because someone changed the name of the arena's article. I admit I have been editing here a long time, and I never had this happen before. So what do I do with this situation?Bluesangrel (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Palasport Giuseppe Taliercio is different than Palasport "Giuseppe Taliercio" because of the quotes. You can request a speedy deletion, perhaps WP:G7.—Bagumba (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That worked perfectly.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tony Gwynn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Doyle. 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) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bagumba, I'm wondering if there's any way I can get a restraining order against a specific editor? Specifically, I am requesting that Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) NOT be allowed to respond on my talk page, or comment/respond directly to anything I post. In short, I want a Wikipedia-sanctioned restraining order against Y2kcrazyjoker4. Please help? Thanks. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: I'm sorry if you feel that way, but it is your prerogative. Per WP:NOBAN, you can ask people not to edit on your talk page. Otherwise, there is no "restraining order" per se on Wikipedia, and please be aware of the policy on WP:LEGAL.—Bagumba (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No offense, Charles, but this seems like a very petulant thing to ask. Particularly since I have not personally attacked you. If you can't handle editing disagreements, then I'm sorry. But I only want what's best for the Wikiproject Baseball. And your approach to changing the team colors for MLB teams does not seem to be in that interest. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

On 26 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Wiggins, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alan Wiggins set a professional baseball stolen base record in 1980, but his team allowed him to be taken by another club in that year's Rule 5 draft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Wiggins. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

BLPDegreaser is back as 75.169.236.66. Any way to block all IPs for awhile that start with 75.169? And can you protect Cosmic string? Thanks. Czoal (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

See this edit and edit summary. Czoal (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Now he's 75.169.8.246. This post from him brags about his plan. Czoal (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Czoal: Blocked 31h. You can monitor activity afterwards here.—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

75.169.242.148 is clearly only here to cause trouble. Their few edits and this edit summary tell the story. I'm pretty certain it's the infamous IP you blocked last week, 97.126.235.119, who was a sock of BLPDegreaser. Remember, they were the one pretending to be a expert on the BLP Noticeboard and their mission was to "degrease" BLPs? Both the IPs are CenturyLink ISPs in Salt Lake City, Utah, and BLPDegreaser already admitted they are IP 97. Czoal (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Update. Change "pretty certain" to "certain" about all three accounts being the same person. And now I see there's a fourth and fith account: 75.169.210.101 and 75.169.31.1. Look at their hundreds of edits at Cosmic string; it started with IP 97 editing that article, who we already established is BLPDegreaser, then they stopped editing. 75.169.210.101 and then 75.169.31.1 took over, and of course those two accounts are also with ISP CenturyLink in Salt Lake City. Czoal (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh brother, I just found this SPI for BLPDegreaser. Sorry, I didn't know about that. Wow, you've had your hands full with this person. Czoal (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

An earlier block expired on 96.36.31.100 and he has resumed editing. I located some background, and the prior block, in your archive here. A few of the edits have been reverted, but really the main offense is continuing to edit under IPs while his main is blocked. Thanks for any thoughts and / or help. JohnInDC (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Took care of it with an SSI. Welcome back, whenever you're back! JohnInDC (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. I sent this on account of you being the latest Admin to leave a message on my talk page. The (new) IP address editor in question stated that the brother of the article subject, Julio Jones had died.[[7]] A google search turned up no confirmation. The editor had a Level 1 Disruptive Editing warning. Given the gravity of the information, I escalated to Level 4, the highest.[[8]] If you think this is overreaction, let me know, and I'll change it. Regards Tapered (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tapered: I'm back from vacation. It looks like the issue was addressed already. Your use of warnings seems like a reasonable rate of escalation given the circumstances. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)