User talk:Bagumba/Archive 12

USC TROJANS FOOTBALL - SEASON 2015
hello, I am a French which manages the page '2015 USC Trojans football team', I could find why you protected this page , I would have access again, can you help me? thank you is very important to me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RCFrance (talk • contribs)
 * Unfortunately, there was an edit war related to the discussion seen at its talk page. You can comment at the general discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football if your edit is related to them being co-champions. For other edit requests, you can click "View source" -> "Submit an edit request" to request a change to the article. Sorry for the inconvenience while the issue is being resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I modify page with the news for the team, the depth chart, scores during matches, stats , simple stuff. I can not just have access ? we can not allow myself ? RCFrance (talk)
 * Unfortunately, full protection doesnt provide the option to provide access to selective users. Protection will expire on December 4. In the interim, you can use edit fully-protected on the talk page (or follow the instructions above) to request edits. Also, if you can help reach consensus at the co-champion's discussion, protection might be lifted earlier. Thanks for your understanding.—Bagumba (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the December 4, I could again access to the page ?--RCFrance (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dec 4, 21:14 GMT to be precise.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you for your explanations :) I will wait December 4 with impatiently . Fight On!--RCFrance (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated the rankings for you. BTW, Go Bruins :-)—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you :)--RCFrance (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mercedes-Benz Stadium
Our vandal-sock is back on Talk:Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Protected again.—Bagumba (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hopefully they'll grow bored soon. - BilCat (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Three years and counting ...—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I meant of the stadium page, not WP as a whole, though one can always hope! - BilCat (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Pending RfC re "delete and redirect"
Thank you for this:. I was already working on an additional option remarkably similar to yours when you posted it. Without quibbling over word choice, I would suggest that I would have omitted the "only" in the section header, as it will become a point of contention if your option achieves consensus. By definition, both "delete" and "delete and redirect" !votes carry the recognized meaning of "no article history retained." I attempted to clarify this in my support rationale of your proposal. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC was already a semi-wreck to begin with, having to go link chasing to find out WTF was being proposed. And I'd expect the exact verbage to be presented if any actual text was going to be changed. I'd change "only" if I was doing it all over again, but IAR is my band-aid for everything.—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "IAR is my band-aid for everything." Yes, I know, and I hate you for it.  Teasing aside, yes, this RfC is one giant, smoking, Bridge-on-the-River-Kwai train wreck, and I expect any policy changes that result from it will be similarly disastrous.  I could say a lot more, but I am in a horribly snarky mood and it cannot lead to anything good.  I hope you've seen the movie.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible SPI
Bags, can you take a look at these two editors?


 * X!tools contributions: and ;
 * X!tools pages created: and ;
 * AfD participation: and ; and
 * Editor Interaction tool:

Please note:
 * how monthly edit counts for editor no. 1 have waxed and waned inversely with edit counts for editor no. 2, since the creation of editor no. 2's account in April 2015;
 * the similarly high rate of page creation, with an especially high rate of redirect creation as a result of page moves -- also note that editor no. 1 is presently topic-banned from article creation and pages moves, neither of which is typical newbie activity;
 * how both have a strong "inclusionist" streak in their AfD !voting patterns, and both have relatively low rates of !voting with the AfD consensus majorities;
 * editor no. 2 began participating heavily in AfDs within days of creating his account -- not newbie activity;
 * editor no. 2 began participating heavily in ANI within days of creating his account, including familiarity with linked policies and Eric Corbett -- not newbie activity;
 * both only use edit summaries about 64 to 74% of the time;
 * both are heavily interested in British, Commonwealth and international political topics; and
 * both can be extremely aggressive (and arguably uncivil) in their interactions with other editors.

Can you do a little snooping and let me know what you think? Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Almost positively not the same person, see Dirtlawyer's user talk for my rationale. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm following Carrite's suggested line of inquiry now. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Portal vs. portal bar
Is it a good idea to have a portal bar for a single portal: ?

Glad to see you're "unblocked". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I use portal bar to avoid the perception of vertical sprawl. If you have a preference for Gators, feel free to change or point me to a standard convention if one exists.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks a little empty to me for a single link. Whatever is the WP:Hoops standard is fine by me, assuming the project has one.  When I started adding portal links to all of the Gators athlete bios six years ago, virtually no one else was including portal links in the "see also" section.  I used to be trendy.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I am probably the hoops standard. I think I was motivated a while back by a similar portal slapping effort at WP:BASEBALL. It probably raised the daily visits from 10 to ... 50.  I suppose one could add the Biography portal too, maybe even college hoops if the wide bar seems too bare.—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For football player articles, I usually include portal links to the CFB, American FB and Biography in alphabetical order. Having been through a Feature Article review recently (still ongoing), the first comments I received were to strip all portal and "see also" links to only those most relevant.  Somewhat different, more relaxed standards apply at the Good Article level regarding portal and "see also" links.  Whatever the basketball projects do regarding portals works for me on Bradley Beal and other NBA Gators (assuming the projects even have a consistent standard).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Roy Face
This is a heads up.

I undid this edit of yours even though it was referenced. Baseball historian Jerome Holzman was incorrect about Face getting 10 wins (He went 18-1 that year) in 1959 after blowing leads. Baseball author Bill James had this researched for his 'The Bill James Guide' to Baseball Managers from 1870 to Today and found that in only 3 instances (Games on April 24, May 14, and August 9) did Face enter the game with Pittsburgh ahead and allow the other team to score. The information is in James 1950s chapter under a section titled Face Off. I have the book in Kindle edition, otherwise I'd quote an exact page.

Baseballreference.com would backup who's right but that may come under WP:OR. So I removed the item as it is disputed. James says he had someone research it, so I believe James....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I seem to have dug into it more at Save (baseball), and even baseball-reference.com slightly differs, but not by as much you're saying that James wrote.  Take a look there.  I'd think there's more leeway at the save article as Holtzman invented the save, and his attributed opinion is relevant, even if it is disputed.  WP:NPOV allows for adding contrary opinions to balance it.  It's not OR per se to determine if a stated fact is credible;  on the other hand, I would consider it OR to grab stats that nobody else writes about (though lots of WP writers do it).—Bagumba (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Bagumba, I'll look at the save article plus further investigate Face's 18 wins via BR. I did start peeking at it, and of his first 4 wins in 1959 three were tied games when he came in and the other the April 24 James acknowledged Face blew the lead. Face had 6 wins by Mid-May. When I am through (Either later today or tomorrow) I will write you back and maybe even crosspost it at WikiProject Baseball's talk page too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

WP:NFC#UUI #6
Hi. How is it different than the image's use on Janet Jackson? I had always interpreted WP:NFC #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, 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)
 * 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)
 * FYI, I listed this at Files for discussion/2015 December 7 to get others' input on it's use w/ Janet Jackson.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Klay Thompson reversion
Hello, Bagumba. I am curious to know why you reverted information about Klay Thompson's legacy as a shooter. I sourced it properly, so I am confused. Cheers fds  Talk 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing your concerns. Expanding on the points from my edit summary, the reference you provided  had Simmons saying Thompson was "probably the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th best 3-pt shooter that I have ever seen", but the text you wrote said "He is considered by some to be among the greatest shooters in NBA history."  Simmons statement was his opinion, so "consider by some" is a WP:WEASEL phrase.  It would be OK to say "According to Bill Simmons ..." per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as it's a fact that he said it.  It's not reliably source who these "some" people are. I know Curry's bio has something similar, but it's probably less controversial and less likely to be WP:CHALLENGED in his case, even though it ideally would be supported in the body about who it is that holds the opinion. Per MOS:INTRO: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article ..." Finally, even Simmons' opinion only mentioned Thompson's 3-pt shooting, not his overall shooting which  "greatest shooters in NBA history" implies.  Typically, the lead should not be controversial, so what "some people" believe might not be the best place for this.  Opinions that someone is generally or widely consider to be blab blah blah would be more suitable for the lead e.g. Curry.  Otherwise, use WP:NPOV and just discuss it in the body first before determining if it belongs in the lead. If you are interested, I think there might be enough info in reliable sources to create a decent "Player profile" section in the article for Thompson.  Let me know if you have further questions.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, Bagumba. You have more than convinced me that it did not belong. Cheers. fds  Talk 17:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ADMINACCT
You wrote on WP:ANI "What I would like to see is more WP:ADMINACCT on [the accused admin's] part [...]". But that's just my point: The evidence was to over 90% not at all about the admin's actions, but about statements, which, if anything, show that, just as  WP:ADMINACCT demands, there was plenty of explaining done by the admin. If there had been, as you write, a "go desysop me" attitude, it got got completely lost in the deluge of off-topic "evidence". &mdash; Sebastian 00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this here. TLDR is always a concern, but some arguments can naturally refactor themselves over time. Two hours open seemed too short IMO, and I didn't think it had degraded to WP:WABBITSEASON yet. By ADMINACCT, I ultimately would have like to hear the accused explain themselves in light of everyone's input. Their response on their talk page was basically a blow off. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, that's a different question: I agree that two hours would be too short normally. However, the reason why I closed it was because, frankly, I was appalled by the way it had been brought forward. Heaping up an inordinate amount of non-pertinent evidence is either a sign of vindictiveness or of gratuitous disrespect for other administrators' time. (The latter impression is amplified when the OP reacts to the request to improve the evidence by excusing themselves.)
 * From a quick glance at the link you provide, I can see that the admin was engaged in discussion for several pages. That doesn't exactly meet the definition of "blow off". last statements contain something conciliatory or acknowledging of the other side, such as "I can fully appreciate it was not nice to be on the receiving end of SagPhil's comments - not at all.". When, after a long discussion the reply is "Of course, [you're wrong]. Your proffered attempt at excuse is wrong [...]", then it is only human to close the discussion with "let's agree to disagree".
 * That said, I'm not saying that the case is necessarily without merit; I do believe that there can be attitude problems among admins; it's just that I don't feel I should have to read through reams and reams of discussion to find such evidence. &mdash; Sebastian 01:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you had good intentions. In hindsight, your close could have given some guidance on how to constructively continue. And based on another discussion at User_talk:Dennis_Brown, the entire discussion had the (presumably unintended) appearance of being threatening from the start.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, What Dennis calls "threatening" is what I meant by "vindictive" above. (moving rest of discussion to Dennis' page, since it's about the same topic.) &mdash; Sebastian 03:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nash
I just reverted a user's addition of Nash to the List of National Basketball Association seasons played leaders. Would you agree with that? Seeing as he played in 18 seasons, but retired after "19 seasons". I assume that is why you did not add Nash, yeah? DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The easy answer is that Nash is not in the general source listed in the article. I think I added Duncan in w/o a source, as he hit 19 after that article, but is easily sourced. Precedent would be Willis, who was out a whole year w/ injury and is not credited with that year in sources.  The article title is years played, not years under contract :-)—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Lovely, all good on my end. I might refer that user here if Nash is re-inserted. DaHuzyBru (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As it's likely to come up again with other editors doing OR, I just put a note at Talk:List of National Basketball Association seasons played leaders for reference.—Bagumba (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Army–Navy Game
The US Army–Navy Game is coming up this weekend, and it seems to have brought out IP vandals (mostly from Westpoint or Annapolis) determined to show their team spirit. In addition to a few vandalism edits on the game article itself, the academy articles have been hit pretty heavy today. It might be a good idea to semi-protect United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy for a week or so till enthusiasm for the game has passed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone went and protected the academy articles. The game has light activity so far, but protection is not preemptive, so will cross our fingers on that one. Let me know or use WP:RPP if it picks up.  Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and will do.

Troubled editor
Are blocks ever issued purely for disruptive editing even if in good faith? Perhaps as a way to just to calm them down and/or for them to take a break? This user has been active now for a while and primarily edits Israeli basketball related articles and creates Israeli basketball players/teams. However, this person goes mental with the edits, never uses the preview button, does not communicate via edit summary or talk page, and has recently been changing football articles to basketball articles for some strange reason despite warnings. They edit so obscurely and the articles being created are very low in quality, rarely sourced and always requires others to come through and clean them up. I think short-term blocks for "disruptive editing and not communicating" are sometimes issued, yeah? I just wanted to bring this user to your attention if you weren't aware already – I find this user very disruptive and I've grown tired of cleaning up after them. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty much stick with NBA and college for hoops, so I don't think I've seen this one. In the few times I've taken some administrative action outside those hoops areas, there seemed to be a bit of a cultural difference as far as communication.  Not sure if it is generally the case or they were isolated instances. To be honest, I try to stick out of doing admin stuff in domains I'm not that familiar.  Dealing with behavior issues on content that I also don't have much insight is more than I typically want to deal with.  I can help out here with a block if needed, but I'm going to need you to do most of the front-end work.  Otherwise, I'll suggest going to WP:ANI.  Basically, I can see this being an issue with Etiquette: "Do not ignore reasonable questions."  I don't expect people to respond if they address the issue, but if they don't, failing to at least acknowledge the talk notice is disruptive. I'm not even expecting them to change anything else yet. In some cases, I worry they might not even know to look at their talk page, but that's not an issue because they have used talk pages. This is also dealt with at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "Rejects or ignores community input".  I usually go out on a limb with AGF.  If you point out a specific problem on their talk page and it keeps repeating without any acknowledgement, that would be grounds for a block.  If it was hypothetically a bunch of MOS issues, but each time a different area, I would grant more leeway—but only if they were at least communicating and giving visible indication of making an effort.  If this editor was making valuable edits in other places, another option is to propose a WP:TBAN. Perhaps no page creations or page moves for a while, etc.  but they are allowed to do things that they are not disruptive in  (are there any?).  At any rate, if you can show me that they keep repeating a very specific issue after warning and they continue not to use their talk page, I could give a block for a week maybe and hopefully encourage them to discuss and get unblocked ASAP, or address the issue after the block expires.  However, you should give escalated warnings and a final one before we get there, or some equivalent like this one.  Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers Bagumba. I understand, I'll take these points into consideration. If something solid turns up, I might come back and inform you. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there anything I can still help out with here to make up for the watchlist :-)—Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * They came back after a three-day hiatus it seems. They are still at it, but nothing blockable – just terrible stub articles. But, what can ya do ay. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked at some of the recent ones. I have no idea about the league, nor would be able to be a accurately assess the reliability of non-English (hell even non-American) sources. Anyways, when you say "terrible stub", are you talking about the content, or the fact that you know they are not notable. The latter has more hope of being dealt with by going through AfD and demonstrating over time whether they are a decent judge of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Both. The articles have little to no content and when PRODS are added, the user removes them without addressing the issues. The teams being added are third division Israeli teams, so I wouldn't class them as notable. I'm not sure what to do, but tbh, I don't really have an interest in Israeli basketball, so I'm not overly concerned about the articles being created. I'm just concerned about the number of edits this user makes. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's always the dilemma. There is so much to do on WP, its generally less stressful to just move on to something else, unless you had a personal interest, or felt like playing enforcer (which is not a bad thing if you're in the mood for it).  I get enough rogue behavior sticking with areas I know, which is why I initially balked at doing anything more than just pure administrator stuff with this.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hi Bagumba,

Thank you for thanking my edit. I have a question: I've noticed that editors many times forget to change the Statistics accurate as of December ..... phrase. Do you think that there should be a notice that tells editors to remember to change the date? There are many of these career statistical leader articles, such as List of National Basketball Association career rebounding leaders. Robert4565 (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking like something at List of Major League Baseball career stolen bases leaders, or did you have something else in mind?—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Please see Requests for permissions/Template editor. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


MarnetteD&#124;Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.


 * Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Bagumba as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Bags
Best wishes, Bagumba, for a wonderful holiday for you and yours. Stay warm -- because, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwfR0ozSbYQ, baby, it's cold outside. . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Power Ranger vandal
I think I've undone the damage he did to your user/talk pages. If not sorry. Presumably he's a sock but I don't know the master. Nthep (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Our friend who reformats NFL infoboxes is back
FYI:. Same problem, same MO, different IP address. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reblocked. Happy Holidays.—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Italian94 sock is back
Just a heads up - 24.238.63.30 is active again. You blocked that IP as a sock of "Italian94" for a month, and it looks like they picked up right after the block expired. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Reblocked. Happy Holidays.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Matt Thomas (basketball)
Bagumba, Matt Thomas (basketball) was deleted in June 2015 per failing GNG (AFD). The same Iowa State-centric editor who created that originally then re-created it again despite consensus, but I just now noticed. Can you delete the new version and then salt both Matt Thomas (basketball) and Matt Thomas (basketball player)? Jrcla2 (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked at the previous version, and the new version is generally different, so CSD G4 isn't really met. Plus, there seems to be more independent sources in the new version.  It's debatable if this meets GNG,  but an AfD seems more appropriate.  Does this editor have a history of recreating AfDed articles that get deleted again?—Bagumba (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not that I am aware of, but he re-created an article he knows for a fact to have been deleted by consensus, so I am not giving the benefit of the doubt. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about basketball colours module
Hey. I thought I would ask you this because you seem like the type who would know what I'm talking about. Can anybody just change this? What are the 'rules' for this particular page? Why do people change them? Recently, the Miami Heat colours were "updated" (whatever that means) to have the borders orange instead of black. I think that's whack. Black borders were way more suitable. I have noticed changes to other teams' colours but most changes are small and pointless. Sorry if I have wasted your time. —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors are asked to make bold edits that improve Wikipedia. This file would be no different.  Colors here are generally expected to closely reflect a team's official colors, but they are sometimes tweaked when WP:CONTRAST is an issue.  If you believe an edit is not an improvement, you can revert it or follow dispute resolution with the editor.—Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ka'imi Fairbairn
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Aaron Holiday
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of National Basketball Association seasons played leaders
Hello! Your submission of List of National Basketball Association seasons played leaders at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this user
Hello Bagumba, first of all a Happy New Year! Hope you had a good one. See, I'm writing this to you as you unblocked user JesseRafe on the terms that he wouldn't violate WP:WAR/WP:BATTLEGROUND anymore. Well, he's still at it.

Here he started to blanket remove this sentence (he never edited the article before), out of nothing, though it is fully sourced throughout the article and crucial to the article, stating that it's likely "agenda loaded".

When I reverted him back, explaining clearly what's wrong, he reverted it back again, labelling material literally cited by highly accredited professors in history as "because blablablabla said something".

When I reverted him back for the last time, explicitly explaining what he should do with his concerns (it's him contesting sourced content, not me), he simply ignored this. Instead, he completely started further warring about sourced content.

I eventually created a section on the articles talk page for him (to which he never responded), but I quickly found out that this user has severe warring issues dating from even earlier. So that's why I got to you, as i as well understood there's not much of a dialogue possible, nor whether I might or might not add completely sourced content and because you're aware of his priorly issue-loaded conduct.

I always assume WP:GF, but when a user afterwards continues to make such edits (and no, even factually wrong as well), and continues to war even more afterwards, removing/changing important sourced content without discussion,--, there's nothing left that I can possibly do. He's changing the article structures and said context completely. A content dispute is one thing and easily addressable, warring for the sake of warring and disruptively editing, is another thing. This is a deeper issue unfortunately I believe to lay with the users overall editorial conduct. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy New Year to you also, and thanks for the background on the situation. If I understand correctly, the specific content concerns raised at Talk:Qajar_dynasty have since stabilized without further reverts in that area, but now there are new concerns with subsequent edits in other areas in the article. My recommendation would be to follow dispute resolution for the latest edits. Alternatively, you can revert their bold edits and/or get consensus with others on the article talk page for your preferred version. Best of luck, and let me know if I can be of further assistance. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , hey! Thanks for your wishes back. ;-) Yeah, well, I'm afraid it only stabilised as he was one revert away from WP:3RR. Thanks much for your opinions, but the thing is, if I can give mine; its really not a content dispute. Its about the mere sake of edit warring and making unsuitable changes, and trying to put personal opinions into a place thats meant to be an encyclopaedia. He's changing and removing material written by highly accredited historians and changing it to his own interpretation. That's not worthy of dispute resolution, and I believe it would be only a waste of time of the volunteers there, as well as mines. I sincerely believe the user is clearly edit warring here again, a fashion of the user in question that I believe, unfortunately, is known to numerous others here. When a user writes in his edit summary "blablabla"-material referring to statements of well known historians, we know what we're dealing with. The rest of his conduct is just a confirmation of what I'm stating, as well as the fact that he never even replied to the talk page section I made regarding his "concerns".


 * Btw, he made the exact same disruptive edits on these pages, where he removed the exact same sourced content as he did on aforementioned pages, and here he removed more sourced content. I can link even more if needed. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * PS: actually, I just noticed, de facto, he even did somewhat violate 3RR on the Qajar dynasty page, as here right after his three reverts, he removed the exact same content, but now from the articles' body. (line 105). Here are again the three previous removals of the same content, but from the lede, to prove the point.--. LouisAragon (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe DR would be a waste of time. For example, if you initiate a discussion and there is silence, you can assume there is consensus for your viewpoint and make the related changes.  I think a block at this point borders on being punitive, which is not usually recommended, unless there is a more evidence through diffs that this behavior has been persistent since the prior block. You are more than welcome to seek another opinion at WP:AN/3. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

To have the article boldly state that certain territories were "part of the concept of Iran for centuries" does seem unjustified with just a single source, and so it does seem a very loaded statement. LouisAragon did not create a section on the article's talk page to discuss the issue - he created a section aggressively titled "Edit warring editor". I don't find it surprising that the editor being attacked did not wish to join such a "discussion". I think LouisAragon should delete that section and create a proper section for the discussion of what seems to be a legitimate issue. It would have been better if JesseRafe had done the same - raised the issue on the talk page before making the edit that started the warring. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Arizona Wildcats football series records and three others for deletion
Bagumba, because of the interest you expressed in a closely related topic during the discussion @ Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records, I am notifying you that a new discussion is taking place as to whether the following articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted:


 * 1) Arizona Wildcats football series records;
 * 2) Charlotte 49ers football series records;
 * 3) Texas A&M Aggies football series records; and
 * 4) UMass Minutemen football series records.

These articles will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Arizona Wildcats football series records until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the articles during the discussion, including to improve the articles to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for List of National Basketball Association seasons played leaders
The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sock
Regarding this user's socking, while you declined to block this IP cause it's no longer active, this one is and has been editing same sort of things such as Guiping. A block for the latter perhaps? Just bringing it to your attention per past discussions we have had. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Blocked.—Bagumba (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Portland Trail Blazers
Hi,

Your help would be appreciated in Portland Trail Blazers article. One user keeps edit warring and going his way, even when I told him that updating statistics during season is not allowed. I left him a message on his talk page, but he keeps ignoring it. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a content dispute, which is best handled through dispute resolution. You might try posting this issue at WT:NBA, and also leave a note about the centralized discussion to the other user, to see if there is consensus on how the project wants to handle stats updates.  I typically do this to avoid getting into edit wars.  If I am "right", others will back me, and the other party usually is convinced. If there is no consensus for my proposal, then I let it be. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'll have to take it there. Cheers! – Sabbatino (talk) 09:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Rams Fix
For fixing my screw up on St. Louis Rams/Los Angeles Rams! Elisfkc (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You may or may not have been able to move over a redirect anyways, so don't worry about it. Thanks for posting it at Requested moves/Technical requests.  Believe me, some would just have ignored it like a clogged toilet :-)—Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed your reply by moving my comment
I removed your reply to me in the MOS poll because I wanted to minimize confusion and distractions so that we could have a clear poll result. It looks like I didn't understand the question, but I think it's all good now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the working, which should address the confusion. Apologies.—Bagumba (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's time to pause . . ..
Bagumba, of course, I have the relevant talk pages watch-listed:. I have been very clear from the git-go, now covering nearly two months of template talk discussions, that simply stitching the code together for two different parameter sets and two different data entry formats was a horrible idea that ran in direct conflict with eight and a half years of design choices, more than a half dozen prior merges, and 100s of hours of work to have a common standard for all NFL infoboxes. Introducing a second set of conflicting parameters and a second conflicting data entry format -- in order to accommodate 300 existing odd-ball templates in a sea of 16,000 that are coded and formatted otherwise -- is just about the dumbest idea I've ever seen put forward. What has now become increasingly apparent over the last several days is that (1) one editor wants to introduce the conflicting parameters and data format because he believes that's the way all 16,000 should ultimately be coded and formatted, and (2) another simply wants the "merge" to be "completed" by any means necessary, even if it's a slap-dash mess that will only create more arguments, conflict and wasted time and efforts of volunteer editors. To say, as you did the other day, that I "have always opposed this merge" is complete horseshit. And, yes, your statement and this situation anger me beyond words, because what I have always wanted was an aesthetically pleasing and semantically coherent final product: a single template that could accommodate NFL players, coaches and executives. Instead, one editor seems determined to put us on the path to radically changing the architecture and appearance of the template, and the other, well, just wants to be able to say the "merge" is completed. Well, I've manually converted 40+ of the existing uses of Infobox NFL player in the last day, properly formatting the data as I go, and having started that task I will now continue until it is completed, probably some time before the end of January. I recruited five or six experienced NFL and CFB editors to help with the manual editing in early December, but I'm more than willing to do the necessary work to complete the immediate process by myself. I have never said anything other than we should proceed on the basis of (1) one set of parameters based on plainlist coding, and (2) one format for all input data, and the logic of that position should be inescapable to anyone who does not have a separate agenda. I could easily spill forth more angry words on this talk page, but I think that's more than enough for now. I urge you to let the dust settle, and we can revisit the outstanding design issues in 10 days or two weeks when I'm done manually converting the remaining instances of Infobox NFL coach. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We can agree to disagree, right?—Bagumba (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

DeeJayK has spent considerable time selecting the most semantically intuitive parameter names and then systematically adding them to Infobox NFL coach and Infobox NFL player/biography, and then removing the previous parameter names from the coding. These improved parameter names include the following:


 * | regular_record = .200
 * | playoff_record =
 * | overall_record = .200

These are the direct counterparts of the following parameters of the currently operative version of Infobox NFL biography:


 * | coachregrecord    =  >>>>   | regular_record = .200
 * | coachplayoffrecord = >>>>   | playoff_record =
 * | coachrecord       =  >>>>   | overall_record = .200

These particular new and improved parameter names have apparently not been added to Template:Infobox NFL biography yet because the template does not render them when they are added to copies of the template in actual use. I would be grateful if you would add these three names as alternate/alias parameter names in Infobox NFL biography so that DeeJay's improvements are not wasted as I replace all instances of Infobox NFL coach with Infobox NFL biography. The old pre-existing parameter names will, of course, be replaced as part of the clean-up of all other pre-existing instances of the Infobox NFL player. Thank you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox NFL biography currently redirects to Template:Infobox NFL player. AFAIK, the bio changes are all in the sandbox, and Deejayk was trying to get the go-ahead from you to go live.  Did you want the sandbox moved to go live?  It's not protected, and you are a TE anyways.  Am I missing something?—Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill Walton
Vandalism is not happening this month, but there were reverts in past three months. Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Extended for 1 yr PC.—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving St. Louis Rams
Perhaps we can move St. Louis Rams now that the team is known as the Los Angeles Rams again (Source). TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please? It's official now, though I understand if admins will be reluctant to move it immediately. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. Was "please" a plea towards me to volunteer to close it? You could post to Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to try to expedite a close.  At any rate, LA Rams is a redirect and the opening paragraph is changed, so it's not an urgent deadline. I might be more inclined to get involved if it was the Chargers. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a plea for someone to break the bureaucratic deadlock per IAR, close the discussion, and make the main move. There are so many other proposals tacked on to the main issue that this will go on for weeks. In the meantime, the team has officially changed it's name, so the there's no substantive reason to hold that up while the other issues are sorted out. - BilCat (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just FYI, you really shouldn't direct others to IAR. We're responsible for the actions attached to the use of our permissions as admins. I think Bagumba made the right call here - but as an editor, you must learn to be patient sometimes. 3 days really isn't a lot of time to decide on-wiki, especially with all the changes that will need made associated with this event. I'm not into football at all - I've just been around to keep the peace. SQL Query me!  07:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind; I reserve the right to decline. Truth is, I generally don't look to close many discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I was impertinent. I only commented because someone else had also. I trusted you to use your best judgment, and you did look into it, so thank your for that. - BilCat (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing move discussion at Talk:St._Louis_Rams where you can comment if you wish to influence the outcome. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wouldn't consider that an acceptable response. Users are now supporting removing page protection for it to be moved, and prolonging it is only going to make it worse. I already made a request to reduce the protection level here. Cheers, TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Admin shopping is not a way to get around discussion / consensus. SQL Query me!  02:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkpage
Should the talkpage for the main article be merged as well, or left in-place? I'm tempted to full-protect the main article for 24h, as we're going to see a lot of the same senseless edit-warring, but in reverse. SQL Query me! 07:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  already got to it.  I was pretty sure the talk page box was checked, so not sure what happened in the move.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if you check it, it apparently does not move the talk page automatically if there is already a talk page existing there. I first moveed Talk:Los Angeles Rams to Talk:Los Angeles Rams/Archive 2 first (I want to keep that old discussions) before moving Talk:St. Louis Rams to Talk:Los Angeles Rams. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good catch! SQL Query me!  07:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping you. I've got no opinion on full protection as I haven't had the article on my watchlist.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dunno, I considered it given the level of edit warring. I didn't have it watched either until I responded to a RFPP request for SPP. I'll think on it a bit I guess. SQL Query me!  07:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Los Angeles Rams templates
Hello Bagumba, I was requesting if you could find an admin who would delete the template Cleveland/St. Louis/Los Angeles Rams seasons? I accidentally created it and am requesting that it be deleted, because the information in the template is already covered by Template:Los Angeles Rams seasons. Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ SQL Query me!  08:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jerry West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Gruber. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

NBASKETBALL
OK, it is probably time to just take out the "other comparable leagues" line from NBASKETBALL. While I feel that this would put basketball at an unnecessarily strict guideline when compared to other sports, and would either prefer adding more leagues or a line about winning key awards for a "top level national league" (like MVP, all-league and/or all-star), it's probably just time to shut the loophole. The claim that the Mexican League is on the level of the top Italian, Spanish, etc. leagues at Articles for deletion/Jordan Baker (basketball) is really not close and has finally convinced me to stop opposing this. When you get back let's make a proposal on this. Rikster2 (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It'd make for a stronger case if we can find other AfDs where the "other comparable leagues" was either overrided (preferable) or resulted in a no consensus. Otherwise, it's a bit more of a crapshoot how people will react. I'll continue to do limited editing probably through New Year's.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please ping me when you propose that change, gentlemen. Many of the NSPORTS SNGs are clearly over-inclusive -- and most are more so than NBASKETBALL.  The idea that the Mexican league is comparable to the NBA, or the top European leagues, and every Mexican one-game player receives significant coverage per GNG, is an obvious non-starter.  The presumption of notability for one-game wonders really only works for true major leagues in major sports markets where modern media have nearly comprehensive coverage.  The one-game rule may accurately approximate GNG for 95%+ of NBA players, but it's certainly not true for most "national" sports leagues in most sports outside the United States, Canada and Europe.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the one-game rule actually is accurate for the NBA, but a big reason why is that the league didn't exist until 1948. It is possible that some of the NBA "ancestor leagues" (NBL, BAA) have some guys who are in that gray area of meeting GNG, though I haven't run across these cases yet. This is why I think some standard between not listing a league and including all players who appear once would be good to determine - for example, I have yet to find an American player expatriating in the top 10 or so European leagues who did not easily meet GNG. Not saying you make that the standard, but something like winning specific awards could work. Rikster2 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rik, I agree that the "one game rule" works better for the NBA than most other leagues because the NBA is a modern league in a major sports media market, and even one-game players do not arrive on the scene from nowhere. The overwhelming majority of the NBA players who only played in a handful of NBA games have significant coverage of their post-war college careers.  Obviously I don't work with basketball bios as much you do, but I doubt the same could be said of one-game wonders in the NBA's pre-war predecessor leagues, which included many small-market teams in an era when newspaper coverage of basketball (and most other sports) was not nearly as comprehensive as it is now.  The one-game rule does not work particularly well for the early years of the NFL (1920s and 1930s), nor major league baseball (late 1800s), and the sources for many of the lesser players from those eras are rarely more than sports almanacs and stats websites.  The one-game rule for soccer is particularly bad, because it includes players who have played in one "fully professional match" at any level.  Cricket's one-game rule is also problematic because it includes all players and umpires who have ever appeared in a so-called "major match" -- which often included match-ups of county-level teams -- dating back to 1697; in many cases, they don't even have first names for the players, and the only sources for them are team rosters from the games.  In retrospect, it was a mistake to allow many of the sports WikiProjects to effectively write their own notability guidelines, but everything was looser 8 or 9 years ago and the NSPORTS SNGs often represented a tightening -- or at least a clear definition -- of notability standards at the time.  Now, it's virtually impossible to tighten any of the existing standards in a meaningful way now because too many folks have a vested interest in maintaining articles they have created and/or maintain.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

How did you want to proceed on this?—Bagumba (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussion over the articles listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball, whose notability is being questioned. I've opened a window there to segue into this NBASKETBALL issue. The question is do we want to engage WP:BASKETBALL first or just go to WT:NSPORT?—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)