User talk:Bagumba/Archive 13

Range block
Are you able to range block 2601:246:1:87ef...? The same person has been mass vandalising Adelaide, Perth and Sydney basketball articles for a while now, most recently with this number. I recall you figured out the process a few months back yeah? DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the one you previously blocked (discussion with MusikAnimal), but unfortunately that range block was done to stop the same person as above. I still think it's worth it though, but perhaps for a longer period of time. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background, I wouldn't have otherwise remembered. Range blocked 2 weeks. Also protected some of the common pages like Perth Wildcats, Template:Sydney Kings roster, Sydney Kings, etc.  Most protections were WP:PC if the editing on the pages was light (a few edits/month) in the spirit of keeping WP as open as possible.  PC changes aren't possible on templates, so it's semi-protect, but I start at a short duration if there was no prior protection history.  We can increase protection duration or type as needed, but it's good to start the process rolling with something light to justify more serious ones laters.—Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that! I wasn't sure whether to request straight up mass page protections or a range block. A bit of both sounds reasonable to me. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Range blocks only last as long as they don't move out of that range. Protection is more reliable, but is limited if they move to other pages.  Both protection and blocks needs to be balanced with whether other unregistered users are editing constructively, even if this one isn't.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hence why I didn't particularly want to request page protection on all those in question. But sometimes it is necessary – this person will likely be back at it again soon. A block may not be enough, seeing as they are avoidable. Overall, I'm happy with whatever you deemed necessary. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've pretty much accepted that some people don't get bored with that stuff and might never go away. Like killing flies.—Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Doug Pederson edit war
Hey. A series of IP users and newly-registered accounts are edit-warring to insert untimely information into the Doug Pederson article. Pederson will accept the Philadelphia Eagles' head coach position at the conclusion of the 2015-16 season, but he remains the Kansas City Chiefs' offensive coordinator until then. There have been almost three dozen edits over this in the last 24 hours, and the established editors are all going to violate the 3RR rule if we aren't careful. The article needs to be restored to its last stable version, reflecting Pederson as KC offensive coordinator, and semi-protected against IPs and all newly registered editors warned about the insertion of inaccurate information. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I protected it.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's one of your pending sports transaction templates at the top of the page, there are hidden text messages embedded in the affected infobox parameters, and the last sentence of the lead already reflects the pending job change.  I've left two warnings, but some folks won't take the hint.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And the edit warring goes on
After Skyring began participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, he continued his mass campaign of removing "winningest" from articles. He only stopped when he was "officially" notified of the discussion he was obviously already aware of with this highly disingenuous comment. Then he claimed he would call a truce and stop edit warring. Now today, for reasons unexplained, he has resumed reverting without any consideration for the community process. He claims he's too busy to locate the reliable sources he thinks will some day materialize, yet has enough time to revert User:Montanabw and other editors. He has the nerve to warn others about their edit warring, but doesn't hesitate to keep reverting himself.In my opinion the reason he has treated User:Cbl62, Montanabw, myself and others this way is to provoke them into violating 3RR so he can then report them and have them sanctioned. He was warned by admin Drmies to cease Wikihounding, and he made noises implying he would stop the provocation. He's stated he's aware of how unhelpful this ongoing reverting is when a discussion is in progress, yet he keeps at it.As an admin who has watched his behavior and is involved in the process of bringing this dispute to a civil conclusion, I think it's time for you to step in. A good first step would be for Skyring to return the dozens of articles he removed "winningest" from to the status quo, and to commit to respecting the community consensus when this is finally decided. No need for me to ping Skyring; I know he tracks everything I do. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since I am WP:INVOLVED by having stated some opinion on the subject on the MOS talk page already, I'm excusing myself from any direct admin action. As with any dispute resolution, you should discuss your concerns on their talk page, and tell them what policy/guideline they are violating and kindly ask them to stop or to provide an explanation. That goes a long way towards determining whether good faith has been exhausted or not, and makes it easier to demonstrate on a noticeboard later if preventative action is needed.  Hope that helps.04:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)  Reping, not sure if too many tildes before aborts WP:NOTIFICATIONS—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Skyring has banned me from his talk page. It's one of his ploys to get dirt on people. If you try to speak to him about his behavior, he banishes you and threatens sanctions if you ever post there again. The only way to deal with him is through intermediaries. Even attempting to address his behavior at ANI leads to a wildly off-topic filibuster that draws half of Wikipedia into the battle. You know that's where the whole "winningest" battle was last fought, before it moved to the MOS?He just started an entirely separate discussion, Talk:Emma-Jayne_Wilson, even though he knows it's moot because there's a higher-level decision in progress. He's done the same thing on several other pages. I have no idea what to do about this guy. Maybe you know someone who can help. I'm going to stand back and if some other editor gets caught up edit warring with him, I guess he gets to chalk up another win for himself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've commented at Talk:Emma-Jayne Wilson. Feel free to join.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'll pop by... sheesh!  Montanabw (talk)  04:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I opened an AN3 thread at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Feel free to invite an uninvolved admin if you know of one who has any insight on your past concerns. Otherwise, I'd just assume let the noticeboard organically run it's course.—Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi
I'm sure I've been knocked back multiple times for this request, but with Paul George, I really feel the page needs upgrading from pending revision to semi protection. While there hasn't been an edit for a few days, there is nothing but unproductive edits for months and months. IPs and new users are not productive editing – between my last edit and now, there is 33 intermediate revisions and no difference. The edit history is 90% reverts. I know I've been knocked back before on the grounds of not disallowing unregistered users the chance to edit, and it should be a last resort etc, but I really think long-term semi should be considered. Would it be frowned upon to semi the page after three of so days of no edits? Or should we just wait for "one more"? Or just let this shizz continue I guess... DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAICS, I had semi-prot for 1yr until it expired July 2015. Pending changes is sufficient for articles that have but a few edits in months, but this would have been suitable for another semi a while ago.  If I pushed back on George before, my apologies (but I'd be surprised). Add 1 yr semi.—Bagumba (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How's that though, a vandal comes through at the same I message you here. Now that's a coinkydink. It definitely needs it, so cheers! DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly Vague
Hi... no prob on the revert at the policy page. Question though... are you ok with leaving the redir page? Nearly all my 10000 edits have been in the climate change pages, where "repeatedly vague" was a major problem, and I never felt that "I did not hear" fit all that well. So hopefully, the answer is yes, the redir page can stay as far as you're concerned.... what do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't originally planning on nominating WP:REPEATEDLYVAGUE at WP:RFD. Since you bring it up, is the scenario that you are trying to address an editor who is believed to be intentionally vague, or unintentionally does not provide more pertinent details?—Bagumba (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of times people cook these up after a specific case and I probably did have one in mind at that time of making the redir but I have forgotten. The inspirational case is moot really because I've often run into the problem and from my experience there seems to be two varieties, intentionally disruptive and accidentally (because they fail WP:CIR); the natural trajectory of both is that they either get tired of polite but direct questions and go away, or they persist and end up at ANI/AE.  The redir is not intended as a club, but as a tool to help prevent disruption without resorting to formal complaint. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's harder to show that someone is intentionally vague than it is to show that someone is repeating the same argument. I'd throw out that REPEATEDLYVAGUE accusation with caution.  It might be more effective sometimes to gain supporters on your side of a dispute than to go down the path of subjective accusations. I'll leave it to your judgement.  If you find you don't have a need for the redir, I can delete it for you.—Bagumba (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree completely; I'd only use that shortcut after a user had been asked by me and/or others 4 or 5 times and still never answered. The climate regulars ask pretty specific questions when these things come up, and if the underlying problem is intentional or CIR vaguery, there are always plenty of other AGF/NPA type problems to go along with it.   But your point is well taken, and many others might latch onto it as a first reply rather than a 12th. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact, thank you for deleting the shortcut. I was reviewing my recent contribs for self-improvement (read="stupidity-checking") today, and our interaction informed me I had set the redir to the section after the one I intended. Under Examples of Disruptive editing we have a line item regarding not answering questions. I was trying to point at that with the "repeatedly vague" shortcut. I appreciate the tone of our conversation...always nice to run into civility and AGF that works well NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there's an existing guideline yet that covers this somewhat complex case. CIR is for incompetence, but I think you are getting at intentional deceit. It's easier to show to an uninvolved layperson that someone left no response to a question than it is to demonstrate that the response is vague. If AGF is waning, take a poll on the specific point that they are being vague about.  If consensus is already reached, then the discussion can move on without letting the filibuster continue. This avoids the endless back and forth on proving intent.—Bagumba (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Good thoughts, too bad there isn't a real magic bullet. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina colors
In regards to this edit, would it be worth discussing? Back on December 27, I switched the colors around so that the darker color was the primary. They do use the Navy blue quite a lot on their website, as well as their branding. I don't think anyone would be confused by it (the lighter blue would be used as a border), and I don't see a huge problem with it. I know at least of one editor who disagrees with me on this. IMO, the black font on light blue is hideous. ❄ Corkythe hornetfan  ❄ 01:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually have little interest in colors (favorite teams aside, perhaps) other than making sure there is no warring and they're not obviously a WP:ACCESS eyesore. Maybe work with the other editor directly?  Sometimes it's counterproductive to have too many cooks in the kitchen anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Klay Thompson
BR can do averages when you click on two different games. If you click on his first game (October 27) and his 21st game (December 6), it brings up a box with averages over that time. So in his 22nd game of the season (December 8), he scored his first 30-point game. BR verifies both – I was the one who originally added the info, so my bad for not adding the BR ref. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did not know that. Thanks.  Baseball-reference.com has a running log of averages visible in their daily logs without any clicks needed, so i gave up when i didn't see the same for Klay.  I still think it's light-OR to pick 21 games as the sample size to mention, and the wording gives the impression that it was a shortcoming that it was only his first 30 point game of the season.  Ideally, the article would talk about his injury and it's impact, and maybe give averages up until the point the an RS said he turned things around.  I won't delete it myself unless I take time to write an enhanced version.—Bagumba (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I did a rough summary of the start to his season instead of just starting the 2015–16 section with his season-high. I thought it was noteworthy to mention to give a bit of context to his 39-point game. Whenever you want to get around to changing it, by all means. I always appreciate your input, as your style can be a lot more in-depth than mine :) DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Category help
Hello Bagumba (talk): I created this category. The only problem is, I don't know how to populate the category, and to include my own user page in the category. Help? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Help:Category has instructions on adding pages to categories.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I read that and it was confusing. How do I add other Wikipedians to the category? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's hard to help you unless you identify what exactly you found confusing. Something like "I read ABC, and I think it means XYZ, but I'm confused on this point about FOO."—Bagumba (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Giannis Antetokounmpo
Perhaps your opinion on the matter being discussed at Talk:Giannis Antetokounmpo could help the situation – should Antetokounmpo's descent/origin be mentioned in the lead? I originally argued against based on WP:OPENPARA, but a new user has been very persistent in re-adding it. It's caused a bit of a stir. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 21:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Thomas Duarte
Hello! Your submission of Thomas Duarte 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! C679 14:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

more ANI, winningest related drama
As the admin who reported Skyring for edit warring in regards to the word "winningest" and as someone who has been involved in the discussion and therefore has valuable insight as an editor and as an admin, could you take a look at [] please.

I am fully aware that you share the opinion regarding the word "winningest" with Dennis Bratland, but I'm also sure that you don't get to be an admin, by letting content issues cloud your judgement or lead to bias on ANI. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the thread. However per WP:INVOLVED, I won't take any admin action in this case, for the same reason I did not block Skyring in the earlier case.  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair enough. I have enough trouble making fair comments, and I'm not (and unlikely to ever be) an admin. It must be hard to balance fair edits and fair adminship. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem child
Hey. I've got a non-communicative newbie re-adding Template:Infobox NFL coach to articles about New Orleans Saints coaches: User talk:LilG504. These things take 10 to 20 minutes each to convert, and I've got this character screwing up the work by simply changing the template name. I just reverted the template name changes and left my second message for this guy, but he has no history of responding to talk page messages. Of course, he is also making non-standard edits in terms of capitalization, titles, etc., but that's par for the course. I may need some help getting his attention. There are now fewer than 195 of these damn things left, and I monitor them daily to make sure someone isn't adding more of them. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They're been editing for 2 years. Can you take it to WP:NFL? Seems like a content dispute over which to use.  I see your latest message to them. Ping me again if they continue with same edits without discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Iowa Hawkeyes 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) Iowa Hawkeyes football series records;
 * 2) Alabama Crimson Tide football series records;
 * 3) Michigan Wolverines football series records; and
 * 4) Michigan State Spartans football series records.

These articles will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Iowa Hawkeyes 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) 09:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Merging NBA season templates
In the spirit of collaboration (possibly motivated by UW Dawgs (talk) perhaps), I'm requesting that an admin delete/merge Template:Buffalo Braves seasons and merge the content of that template into Template:Los Angeles Clippers seasons. I'm also requesting that an admin delete/merge Template:Seattle SuperSonics seasons and merge the content of that template into Template:Oklahoma City Thunder seasons. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Collaboration is always good :-) You can look at WP:MERGE if you need pointers.  In there, it states: "Mergers do not need to be approved by an admin". Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Over at Template talk:Oklahoma City Thunder seasons, I left a message for UW Dawgs (talk). I don't know how to merge templates, so I'll read up on that. However. I told UW Dawgs I didn't have a problem if he wanted to merge the templates. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Pac-12
The term that people might search is the entity (Pac-12 Conference). Why the need to link the basketball article? It's the same league granting the honor regardless of the sport and NO other conference does it that way. but whatever. Rikster2 (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The usually aim is WP:SPECIFICLINK. The other conference's don't do it this way because everything is crammed into the general conference article instead of doing it summary style. In the case of Pac-12, there was absolutely nothing on basketball in the general article until I started Pac-12 Conference men's basketball a couple years ago and added a brief summary into the general article. This isn't any different than having North Carolina Tar Heels coexist with North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In the cases of the Pac-12 POY and All-Pac-12 the articles for the specific awards exist. It makes sense those should be directly linked. But if you look at this from the lens of someone who knows nothing about American college basketball (say Alford were playing in Germany after college and a German fan of his team wanted to learn about him), what would a person hope to learn from clicking the link? Generally, I think they'd be asking "what is the Pac-12?" The conference article answers this question (that is its purpose), the basketball article does not. The P12 isn't the only conference with a basketball article (ex. Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball). Rikster2 (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I get your angle, but I don't believe an exception to SPECIFICLINK is the solution in this case. The German scenario is a valid use case, and the Pac-12 basketball article could be enhanced to provide little more background on athletic conferences and the fact that basketball is one of many sports. Aside from maybe another sentence or two, more details can be had by clicking on the Pac-12 Conference wikilink from the basketball article's lead. Aside: Even if they read the general Pac-12 article, I'm sure they still wouldn't realize that it's not the same as an intramural league. I'd have to guess more readers of the article would be Americans with a vague idea of what a conference is, and would be more interested in the basketball side of the Pac-12. For a similar case, consider that most Americans aren't familiar with the concept of pro sports clubs like FC Barcelona that run multiple sports.  However, I would expect Pau Gasol to point the specific hoops article, FC Barcelona Bàsquet, which it does, and the specific article can provide a quick overview with relevant links of how it fits with the sport club.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: Atlantic Coast Conference men's basketball, it's probably the exception (I haven't checked in a while) since the ACC was pretty much known as a basketball conference until recently.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the FC Batcelona example is why the player's college would use the basketball link. A Pac-12 award is granted by a conference, not a team. I really don't see this specific case as a SPECIFICLINK issue at all. The German example is the main reason would click the link. Most Americans know the Pac-12 so the link really wouldn't be used by this audience. Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess my analogy didn't work, as I was trying to convey the general principle of using the most specific article, but you're still convinced it's an apples and oranges argument. Another analogy would be the National Basketball Association article when it mentions ESPN. Sure the broadcast partner is ESPN, but the ESPN links in the NBA article are piped to NBA on ESPN because it has more specifics on the specific relationship of ESPN with the NBA.  Think of the Pac-12 as being analogous to ESPN in that they are the actual organization, and Pac-12 basketball being like NBA on ESPN in that they have more relevant information on the specialized subject.  If I haven't convinced you yet, you could start a discussion at  WP:NBA, but I'm guessing nobody but us cares about this.—Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, SPECIFICLINK would say our Pac-12 link discussion is actually irrelevant, we should be linking the entire "Pac-12 All-Freshman team": "If there is no article about the most specific topic, do one of the following things: ... If an article on the specific topic does not yet exist, create a redirect page to the article about a more general topic, as described in section § Redirects." To that end, I've created the redirect Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball All-Freshman team and started a list of annual conference awards at Pac-12 Conference men's basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Whatever, man. I don't agree but it's not worth getting that worked up over it. That redirect guidance from MOS is one of the stupidest Wikipeida directives I've seen - and that's saying a lot. Why create redirects for every little award? Rikster2 (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And, yes, if the NBA article is piping "NBA on ESPN" instead of just ESPN when referring to the network (vs. specifically talking about their NBA deal), I don't agree with that practice either and won't adhere to it (or this conference thing) in any article I create. Rikster2 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Creating categories
Hello Bagumba (talk), I am writing this message on your talk page because I need help creating something. I am trying to create a category that includes all Wikipedians who are fans of the National Basketball Association (NBA)'s Utah Jazz. The reason why I'm writing this message is because I tried to create it before, but I couldn't figure out how to populate it with other user names, including my own. The category name is Category:Wikipedian Utah Jazz fans (it will show up as a redlink, because I haven't figured out how to create it and populate it simultaenously). Please help? Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You populated my talk page into the category, so I added a colon to remove it. So the syntax to add a page works fine.  As for the red link, it looks like  requested a speedy deletion because the category was empty, but might have inadvertently forgot to notify you. If you click on the red link, you can see: "A page with this title has previously been deleted." So recreate the page like you did before, make sure it doesn't remain empty, then it should be fine.—Bagumba (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to add a colon before the category. My problem is, I know how to create the category, but I don't know how to ensure it doesn't remain empty. By that, I mean, I don't know how to add my user page into the category, or any other Wikipedians' user pages, for that matter. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You add a page to a category the same way that you accidentally added my talk page, which is also how it's described at Help:Category. I'm confused what is your issue. Do you have an example of a diff of a failed attempt?—Bagumba (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I've created the Category:Wikipedian Utah Jazz fans & added my user page to the category. How do I find other userpages which use User:UBX/NBA-Jazz? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Help:What links here, but wouldn't you just add the category to the template itself. You can refer to Questions if you need additional assistance.—Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a prime example . . ..
Of why we need to limit the use of infobox stats to a single league: Mike Hohensee. The sooner we get the free-form stats table out of the infobox, and replace it with a standard format templated table in the main body text, the better. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd template ban educate the editor who added the ability to allow so many leagues' stats in parallel.—Bagumba (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Depth charts
Hey. While I know you have little to no interest in the Australian NBL, would you recommend the removal of depth charts? I remember you referencing this when you removed the depth charts from 2013–14 NBA team season articles. I'm considering removing depth charts from Australian NBL team articles under the same premise. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If the same reasons apply to NBL, then it would seem reasonable. Re: no interest, I was actually looking into Butch Hays, as I ran across him when creating Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Defensive Player of the Year.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers. In terms of Hays, he's still playing as of last year for the Maitland Mustangs in the Waratah League. Here are his stats links if you're interested Waratah NBL. :) DaHuzyBru (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, my friend has returned again making the same spud edits to Adelaide and Sydney templates/articles. Looks like he just waited out the block/page protections. It's difficult to combat this – long term article protection? Or another IP block? DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked the range for another month. Let me know if there are specific articles you want me to look at protection.  A lot of those were already PC protected.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DISAMBIGUATION
There are five people who object to the inclusion of the statement you restored, each explaining their reasoning on the talk page, here. Only one person has indicated support for its inclusion in that discussion about it, the editor who originally introduced it, and contrary to BRD, obscured it with other minor edits immediately afterwards; perhaps so nobody would notice (in any case, that was the effect, apparently). Is that the behavior you wish to reward with your restoring to the last "stable" revision? In your comment, you demand we "please get consensus for any changes on talk page". What constitutes consensus for you? --В²C ☎
 * Wikipedia isn't a game, so I fail to see the reward to which you refer. Restoring to the last stable version, which is impartial to any ongoing discussions, is allowed per the WP:PREFER policy. Anyone can use Edit fully-protected to request an edit on the talk page when a consensus has been reached. Given that three different editors reverted to restore the text in question, and the discussion is not even 12 hrs old, I'd recommend allowing more time for others to comment. Also, obscured is a strong accusation, and I'd advise you to concentrate on discussing the editor's content.  If you believe that an editor is disruptive, follow WP:DDE and be prepared to back up your statements with diffs. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks.  By the way, I meant reward in the sense used in Reward systems, not games. --В²C ☎ 21:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested that an rfc is necessary to establish consensus favoring removal of the statement in question. What do you think? --В²C ☎ 21:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Understand that I haven't been following the merits of the discussion either way. That being said, short of a WP:SNOW consensus, if someone has already suggested an RfC, is there a compelling reason to not have one?—Bagumba (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My first reaction is it's overkill for this, but maybe not. --В²C ☎ 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Pending revisions
Do you think you could enable pending revisions reviewer on my account? With the pending revisions on the couple of NBL articles, I'd like to be able to accept/decline these, as they go unnoticed for ages. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Just quickly, do you personally comment when accepting revisions? In the comment box, should I note something, or is "accepting revision" enough? DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I usually leave it blank for accepts as there's not much else to say.—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, sounds good. Thanks again. DaHuzyBru (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kevin Jordan (American football)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Duarte
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Request
Can you please merge the history of Jeremy Hill with Jeremy Hill (baseball)?--Yankees10 21:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. I had to read the instructions for the merge, as I don't do it often.—Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Troubled new user
Hello. Can you help me with a user who keeps adding a new logo articles it doesn't belong in? I've tried explaining on my talk page that this file should be used on all Kentucky articles from 2005 to 2015 because that is the logo used. However, they think that new logo should be used instead. I'm not going to edit-war with this user, but something needs to be done because it will be a mess. It is clear this user has no idea of guidelines and no matter how hard you try to explain it to them, they probably won't care and do it their way. If there is a different place I should go, please let me know. ❄ Corkythe hornetfan  ❄ 15:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You've both discussed this 1-on-1 as WP:DR recommends, which is a good start. When you haven't reached an understanding to your liking, it's best to get other people involved to see what the consensus is. Personally, I usually present it to the relevant WikiProject at this point.  Hope that helps.—Bagumba (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks... College football and basketball or WikiProject University? 🇺🇸 Corkythe hornetfan  🇺🇸 04:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sports ones for sure. No idea if University is interested.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox NFL coach: going, going . . . gone
As of 2:25 EST today, the last instance of Template:Infobox NFL coach was manually replaced, and the template was redirected to Template:Infobox NFL biography. Infobox NFL coach is gone, and it's not coming back; the "merge" has been completed.

1. There remain a half dozen or so outstanding parameter and related layout and design questions to be resolved -- mostly related to current coach titles and coaches' prior player positions -- which were left unresolved in mid-January. Do you want to be actively involved in that decision-making process?

2. There are at least nine old parameters that were deprecated and made inoperative prior to the merge and latest round of changes to the template. I propose that these old parameters (and their input data) be physically removed by AWB operators or bot action. Do you want to be actively involved in that decision-making and planning process?

3. There are numerous parameter aliases that are unnecessary and redundant, as well as several player position parameters that are so close in function and purpose as to be unnecessary. I propose that all unnecessary parameter aliases be physically replaced within those templates in actual use by AWB operators or bot action and then purged from the master template code.

4. I also propose that all redundant and near-redundant parameters be eliminated from templates in actual use by AWB or bot action, retaining only a single parameter (and no aliases) for player position, and a single parameter (and no aliases) for current coach title, with all redundant parameters to be purged from the master template code. Do you want to be actively involved in that decision-making and planning process?

5. DeeJayK proposed a number of more semantically intuitive parameter names, and implemented several of them. I propose not to waste any of his previous work, most of which was good and useful stuff. I will apologize for the disagreement in January, and I will re-activate him in this process if I can. That disagreement is now moot as a result of the manual replacement of all 340+ instances of Infobox NFL coach, and I hope we can go forward on the basis of a single code format for all parameters, and single data format for all input data, using the existing code architecture. Do you want to be involved in these processes?

6. Finally, as part of my evil plan to move the messy player statistics tables out of the infobox completely, I have had Dissident93 put together a working list of common and standard stats for each major player position, with the idea that these would form the framework of uniform, standardized stats tables using a common template for all of them -- outside the infobox, and placed within the NFL career text of each article. Given your programming background, you might very well be a key member of the template editor/coder team who creates these stats table templates. Do you want to be involved?

When this process is done, I want to see a single, simple, functional master template for all NFL personnel, with all unnecessary coding and aliases stripped from the master template, and all legacy aliases replaced and all deprecated parameters and input data removed from the template in actual use. When complete, users will have no alternative but to use the current version of the template, and no copy-pasting from older articles will result in any confusion or backsliding. Frankly, this is what should have been done at the time of the last merges in 2010–11, but we now have an opportunity to get it right and incorporate all of the improvements made over the last five or six years for all affected articles.

As a broad outline, I think this is the logical way forward. I plan to organize my thoughts in outline form over the next couple of days, and then invite participation from others on the template talk sub-pages. Frankly, I want to complete this "process" and arrive at a finished product for the foreseeable future. We have good and experienced volunteers who are ready to implement the final version across most, if not all of the WP:NFL universe, imposing a new level of uniformity which we have never had before. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually going to have limited access for an extended period starting next week.  I assume the stats discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League? I've already commented there. I'd also be curious about any layout changes, and could comment if anything happens in the next few days. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Bagumba, Just came by to say thanks for blocking the edit warrers, I planned on dragging them to 3RRNO but then you saved the day thank god! , Anyway thanks again, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad I could save you the diffs.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Another request
Can you please move Draft:Yusniel Díaz back to just Yusniel Díaz?--Yankees10 18:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Really wasn't much in the draft history, but moved it anyways. In the future, you can put  Db-move on the target page as well.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Yankees10 20:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Some recent edits on a few Pac-12 men's basketball pages
Hello. I am somewhat of a novice editor and I have recently had a user revert a few pages that I have recently edited, claiming that the information is unsourced. I am messaging you because I have noticed that you also contribute to some pages that I edit, and I was wondering if you could take a look at some of the pages because this user is now threatening to block me from editing and I'm not really sure what "unsourced material" this user is referring to. BTFD (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution advises to discuss this directly with the editor who raised the issue. Have you done that? If so, what is the difference in opinion? All material on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable.  Typically if someone has an issue with something being unsourced, they are contesting your edits and asking for a citation.  See Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1. Hope that helps.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Simply put, the answer is no, you have not discussed anything with me. This is the most talk page text I have ever seen from you. You (and many other editors) seem to think it is ok to change sports scores and team memberships willy-nilly without attributing the sources of the changes or explaining removals. Every such unexplained change regarding living sportspeople is a violation of our Biographies of Living Persons Policy. That behavior is definitely not ok. I have been trying to protect the integrity of this project, while at the same time trying to get you to stop making such changes (either anew or via edit warring). If you wish to continue editing here, I strongly suggest you review WP:REFB, along with every other link I have posted to your user talk page (including the ones you blanked) and above. Also, I cannot block you on this project (nor did I threaten to do so), but Administrators such as Bagumba can. That having been written, I am sorry, I may have been overzealous in reverting this edit and this other edit. This third edit has an encouraging summary, but the ref should be in the wikitext of the article.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   20:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * May I ask if your reverts of BTFD's edits are because they have incorrect information, or because the edits have no citations?—Bagumba (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No citations. I don't generally fact-check edits unless there is a legitimate question of them. Also, I have no involvement with college basketball.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   21:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. The policy Verifiability states that everything must be verifiable. However, it does not require that everything be cited, only "material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged." While it is your prerogative to challenge any edit, this also needs to be balanced with the WP:PRESERVE policy, which encourages adding relevant citation tags or adding the necessary citations yourself.  It gets murkier if an editor removes information in a subject area they might not be familiar with, especially if the information turns out to be true, though uncited.  The majority of Wikipedia could easily be deleted merely on the grounds that it was uncited. It's unfortunate that BTFD did not discuss this directly with you beforehand. However, this also may have been addressed if you had not relied solely on template warnings, and tried to discuss with BTFD or the relevant WikiProjects to see if the information was true (even if it was not immediately cited).  All that being said, for an article like 2015–16 Stanford Cardinal men's basketball team, might a general reference to http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/stanford/2016-schedule.html be sufficient and lightweight enough to satisfy all concerned?—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   03:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One small, but very major, amendment to what I wrote above. It should have read that WP:V "does not require that everything be cited ..." Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ratings
Thanks for your note on the Super Bowl 50 page. However, your involvement beyond that is really needed because I am about to add back the sourced content that was inexplicably removed. There was absolutely no valid reason for its removal. It's extremely well sourced and the content itself (about ratings) is included in almost every Super Bowl article. I will not deal with the other editor's content at all; I simply want to restore the original content that was removed. My content and his are two separate issues. I have provided an endless number of links to support all my points in the discussion; the other editor has provided none. So, your help to resolve this matter would be appreciated. Rowssusan (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I started Talk:Super_Bowl_50.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. But a small correction to your intro. The original version that was removed actually said that Super Bowl 50 was the third most-watched telecast ever, not just the third most-watched Super Bowl ever. It was both. See second paragraph of the Adweek article. All the sources that were removed said it was the third most-watched telecast. Rowssusan (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no broadcast vs. telecast distinction in the diff. At any rate, I doubt that's a main point of contention if one is more technically correct than the other.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a distinction; you must've overlooked it. Second paragraph: "the third most-watched Super Bowl—and third most-watched U.S. program—in history". Sports Illustrated also reported it (see their list), as did numerous others. And it's actually a major point of contention because the other editor is now acknowledging it is the third most-watched Super Bowl, but not the third most-watched telecast. It's both because the top 7 most-watched TV programs ever are all Super Bowls, as the SI article shows. So, it's #3 of all U.S. programs ever, not just #3 of Super Bowls. Rowssusan (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a side note. The most relevant part is how it ranks relative to other SBs. No issue if it's also added that SBs are the top 3 programs—SB or not—ever.  I could be wrong, but I don't think that was a main part of the dispute. —Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then it would be a side note for the other editor also, because his content was saying it's the #1 telecast, not the #1 Super Bowl. And for the other editor, it most definitely is a main part of the dispute because he said he removed all the content because he doesn't believe it's the #3 most-watched telecast (even though all the sources say it is). He finally agreed to include that it was the #3 Super Bowl, but disagreed with saying that it's the #3 telecast. I tend to agree with you that the more relevant part is how it compares to other SBs. However, all the sources make a point of saying that it's the #3 telecast, not just the #3 Super Bowl. By doing that, it puts it into better context. I mean, M*A*S*H is the #1 most-watched series finale of all-time, but it is only the #8 telecast of all- time (or wherever it currently is on the list). By the way, it was really nice of you to start that poll. So thank you. Rowssusan (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I read about your notification to WikiProject Televsion so I thought I should let you know that I listed the poll here and here, so feel free to add that to the poll section. Rowssusan (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I only do it out of habit to avoid any perception of canvassing. It's your prerogative if you care to follow suit (I personally have no issue with your posts).—Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I followed suit. Also, you'll see that I moved my iVote to option 3 since that's where my particular suggestion actually fits; but with a small twist. Rowssusan (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Chris Sailer
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi
Semi for Zach Lavine and Aaron Gordon please. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone else got to it first.—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism
Do you reckon there's been a recent spike in vandalism on basketball pages? I feel there has been – it's so tough to combat. There appears to be a surge in vandalising Boston Celtics player articles, such as that done by this IP. I'd like to request semi protection for David Lee (basketball), Avery Bradley and Jordan Mickey. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's more than usual, but I recognize this one who's been changing positions from like "Power forward (basketball)" -> "Power Forward", basically making ambiguous links and being caps happy. IPs are from Brooklyn.  When I did an IP range scan, I saw edits to Power Rangers articles, which reminded me of this serial sock from New York who edits sports and likes Power Rangers, except this behavior doesnt match past ones, so it's either a coincidence or they've found new ways to waste their time.  I protected about half the current Celtics for a week.  Too much activity on that IP range to do any blocks.—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Basketball and Power Rangers, now there's a great combination... DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/32.213.105.69 from Connecticut is probably the same person too.—Bagumba (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I'd ask that you please either temporarily block, or issue a warning to, the editor for these three personal attacks he posted in the past hour, which include calling me a narcissist, a hypocrite, and childish. As you know, I stopped all the arguing with the editor over 24 hours ago and moved on to working with you productively to resolve the matter civilly. And I have not replied to these three recent personal attacks. So I would ask that you please address the matter with the editor. Thank you. Rowssusan (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having stated an opinion in the discussion, I'll stay out of taking any admin action per WP:INVOLVED. I'd hope that with my having collapsed the interaction between the two of you and with the discussion more or less done that this is no longer an issue. Still, you can follow Civility if you wish to pursue this. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're an administator and you're going to ignore three separate, unprovoked personal attacks? I haven't said one word to the editor in over 24 hours. Again, I'm asking you to simply address it with the editor. Otherwise, you are making it clear that you believe those types of personal attacks are acceptable and don't even merit a warning. Rowssusan (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at WP:CIVILITY, it asks: "Consider the possibility that something you said or did wrongly provoked a defensive, irritated or fed-up response" You're probably correct that you've stayed clear for 24 hours—I have no interest to sift through the exchange—but both of you carried on after I warned about WP:AVOIDYOU and WP:BATTLEGROUND. The article is improved now, and I have no interest in being involved any further in this battleground.  Again, feel free to pursue this per WP:CIVILITY, which suggests that you can "Ask them to strike out an uncivil comment, or re-word it calmly and neutrally, if they have not already done so by this point" before seeking admin action.  Frankly, I advise you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, but it's your prerogative.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should've struck out the uncivil comment or re-worded it, instead of being so concerned about moving it because it wasn't in chrono order. Interesting, you cared more about where it was located than what it said. Nevermind, I'm done. Rowssusan (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you had simply complied with my simple request to talk to the other editor, this wouldn't have been necessary. Interesting that you found his comment acceptable to be on the board yesterday, but once I replied to it today it all of a sudden was no longer acceptable to you. You've proven yourself to be a hypocrite. But my point has been made. Rowssusan (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: has been blocked for edit wars and personal attacks. Their last reply, among many others, have been assessed at an ANI thread.  Mkdw talk 23:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)