User talk:Bagumba

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Finally someone else who thinks former records are noteworthy enough to keep in the record sections of articles. That's always annoyed me a little when people remove former records. It makes all the old HOFers look like crap when they don't have any records anymore. Having former records puts their careers in better perspective instead of having to read through the entire prose to figure out what records they had. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9 I get why Marshall didn't already have, because he was pre-Internet. But for guys that already have a record section, it'd be so easy to just retain and move to a "former" section than having to research and re-create all the ones that get deleted. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, we supposedly don't do record sections anymore [1] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: I saw that the other day. I was looking into a guideline-based reason, one way or another, then got sidetracked. I mean, it's inclusion is not mandatory, but I'll consider making a statement there, to at least counter it becoming an accepted practice to automatically delete. —Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not asking you to do anything though. Just having some fun conversation. Don't want anyone to say you were canvassed (even though you said you already noticed it) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9 Don't want anyone to say you were canvassed ...: Signs you might be spending too much time on noticeboards LOL. —Bagumba (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9 This is a green light for a list of Fouts' former records. —Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBA capitalization questions

[edit]

So for phrases like "Game 1", "Round 1", and "All-NBA First Team" in the middle of running prose, how should they be capitalized? Should it be "game 1", "round 1", and "All-NBA first team"? I wonder because I see these at 2025 NBA Finals but can't tell if any are overcapitalized. Left guide (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: For "game" and "round", there was a related discussion for NFL at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22 § Capitalization of "Week" in "Week #" in Articles. "All-NBA First Team" is how it's been done in infoboxes for years. I've never done a MOS:CAPS analysis of it. —Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

[edit]

Hi! Please delete User:Polygnotus/Data/FeaturedArticleCounts. Because the content model is plain text I can't get it speedied the conventional way with db-g7. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Done. Interesting, haven't see that before. —Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think the "plain text" WP:CONTENTMODEL is pretty rare. Polygnotus (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon

[edit]

Thanks for coming to the situation neutrally instead of having a preconceived opinion about it. Even the ANI filer Chicdat said they are sorry for not supplying any diffs but they will be better next time. It's a little late for "next" time, Dicklyon is all but certain to be topic-banned. The original report wasn't even specifically about Dicklyon (half of it was about Cinderella157). No one actually filed a formal proposal to ban Dicklyon, hey man im josh just left their personal opinion on Dicklyon and then Robert McClenon split it out into a ban proposal against Josh's wishes. Where is Cinderella157's ban proposal? However, people ended up opposing banning Dicklyon from the whole site so then the topic-ban proposal was started as a "compromise" to Josh's ban proposal, and people love compromises. Still no diffs have been supplied by anyone, just emotion. "Dicklyon again!? He must be up to no good!" And then when Dicklyon tries to defend himself from the mob of unsubstantiated support !votes and the walls of text, he gets people !voting to ban him for "bludgeoning". Then he's getting flak for adding comments to the end of one of Josh's replies, which is a common practice on Wikipedia. He wasn't trying to be deceptive. He even said he annotated it. Dicklyon has obviously upset too many people around here. People are looking for any way to get rid of him. The same thing happened at Koavf's ban proposal. People were just tired of him, even though there was like one diff there (it wasn't necessarily ban worthy though). I guess we're gearing up for an NFL Draft RM in a few months in addition to moving back everything else that Dick got decapped? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9: I'll be disappointed but not surprised if there no diffs and a pure vote count. —Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I was in Dicklyon's shoes (and I cared enough about caps to argue about it), I would just start an RM for everything, even if it was 100% obvious. The "line" moves are what seem to have started this ANI report, even though they appear to have been correct because no one has moved them back or disputed them. There's no requirement to start an RM for everything, I still don't see any recent disruption. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: He's getting a raw deal, but sometimes makes it easier for them too. —Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know that the Dicklyon discussion is now 75,203 words, which is about equal to a 300 page book? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Eddie Garcia (American football)

[edit]

On 14 June 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Eddie Garcia (American football), which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 09:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WT:MLB

[edit]

You probably got the ping, but just a heads' up that I mentioned you at this discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Username concern

[edit]

So I encountered the account name Shaigilgeousalexander which appears to impersonate Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and accordingly left a {{uw-usernamewarn}} warning. Is a {{Uw-ublock-wellknown}} soft block to compel a rename merited here? Left guide (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given their vandalism activity, I issued a hard block. —Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help request

[edit]

Hi Bagumba, can you please add the Sam Bennett image to the fully-protected page WP:Main Page/Commons media protection? Looks like the Stanley Cup Finals will be posted to ITN soon. Left guide (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pass. I don't feel like digging more and vouching for the license claim (it's got no metadata). —Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help request

[edit]

Hi Bagumba.. I'm hoping this is the right place to do this. I, and a few other editors, are dealing with a very hostile editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Contino. They continue to bludgeon everyone that they disagree with in the deletion discussion, including people who are not voting but simply adding comments to the discussion. We've tried to talk to them, that is me and the other editors in the discussion, but to no avail. They are acting very uncivilly and commenting extremely long paragraphs that regurgitate the same point over and over again, making it hard to navigate the deletion discussion clearly. I don't believe it's a conflict that requires the Administrator's Noticeboard, but I think we need an administrators help to defuse the situation, at the very least. Thank you for any and all help in the matter. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Willthacheerleader18: Sorry to hear about your difficulties there. Generically, if it's a behavior concern and not content, you can refer to WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which recommends talking to other party directly on their talk page. As for discussions like AfD, I think there's a tendency sometimes to follow WP:AGF to a fault when explaining positions. At a certain point, it might be ok to accept that not everyone will agree. Remember, consensus does not require unanimity. If it becomes a repetitive WP:WABBITSEASON, consider disengaging, and leave it the the closer to weigh the already stated arguments. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It's a behavior concern. They've resulted to personal attacks and refused requests to act civilly. I may have to go to an administrator's noticeboard then after all. Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Willthacheerleader18: The account age is relatively new, so a warning (escalate as needed) like you gave offers them an opportunity to adjust, in the event they were not aware before. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Willthacheerleader18: When someone's conduct is this far out of line, WP:ANI is the way to go (I've reported there on your behalf in response to reading this, resulting in the user being blocked from the AfD page, with broader sanctions under discussion); plenty of community members and admins there are willing to fight for fairness, and put misbehaving users in their place. Sorry you had to deal with this. (p.s. using AI or LLM to generate comments like that user did is basically a cardinal sin on Wikipedia these days) Left guide (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter citations at 2025 NBA Finals

[edit]

What do you make of the many Twitter citations? Are these authors reputable WP:EXPERTSPS journalists in the NBA topic area? Left guide (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide: After cursory look, many of the ones that have a name displayed are reputable. I'm happy enough when editors provide any citation haha. Hopefully at worst, they're still true but it's just replacing it with a better source. —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy enough when editors provide any citation haha Same haha. BTW, which players do you think have a reasonable chance of taking home the NBA Finals MVP? I'd like to know if there are any images that might need cropping for ITN. It's a fun little task I enjoy doing sometimes on Commons like for the NHL ones yesterday. SGA has a couple of badass-looking action shots in a Thunder uni if he wins it LOL. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the usual suspects. Don't see an Iguodala lurking. —Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Fouts question

[edit]

So the beginning of the lead's fourth paragraph says:

Fouts led the Chargers to three consecutive AFC West division titles – 1979, 1980 and 1981 – and a playoff appearance in 1982.

It includes a vague link to NFL playoffs, but I'd like to improve it to the specific annual playoff tournament. My question is, does this refer to the 1981–82 NFL playoffs or the 1982–83 NFL playoffs? They both include the year 1982 in the title, and according to the respective articles they both involved the Chargers. Left guide (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide I think it's fine as is, introducing the subject at a high level (MOS:INTRO). More detailed links can be in the body. Getting to your question, I always thought WP's NFL playoff naming convention was weird, but never followed up by surveying actual sources. I think of the playoffs as relating to the regular season year, so I'd expect 1982 NFL playoffs. However, WP uses the time span of the actual games, so 1982–83 NFL playoffs. —Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide More bizarreness: 1982 AFC championship game, played in Jan 1983, but redirects to 1982–83 NFL playoffs, because of course "1982" here refers to the regular season and not the calendar year. —Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Durant EC protection?

[edit]

All three of the accounts attempting to prematurely change his team have less than 500 edits, is EC protection warranted? Left guide (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And then a 4th. Done. —Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, saw that too, thanks for helping. Left guide (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you semi 2025 NBA Finals for a short while too please? (maybe a few hours to start) I see almost nothing good coming from IPs there. Left guide (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And a new account causing similar disruption on its 2nd edit. Left guide (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide Generally best to leave those editors escalating warnings. —Bagumba (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not when there's five in a span of five minutes or whatever absurd rate it is LOL. Left guide (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: Sorry, I meant independent of any page protection. —Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

[edit]

We edit conflicted attempting the same exact edit at the same time LOL, I guess you won this time. ;) Left guide (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCONTEST haha. —Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Do you mind assisting this? WP:LEGAL says "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator." I don't feel like making an entire ANI just for this though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9 Blocked for a week. It's an IP, so I didn't block longer; you can let me know if it recurs afterwards. Incidentally, the text on the 2015 and 2018 cases, if you choose to restore it, need better sourcing to meet WP:BLP. —Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty cool an AP All-Pro threatened to sue me (lol...). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kelpongames

[edit]

He’s potentially going to be a problem. Ignored your message and I just left him a second one Rikster2 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rikster2: Yeah, WP:CIVIL says editors should be responsive to good-faith questions. I asked them if they at least see our messages. If it continues, we can go to WP:ANI and at least get a block until they're aware of the talk page (AGF that they're new) and willing to discuss. —Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]