Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29

Thanks for the attempt...[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for attempting to try and solve my question. I won't try and implement it cause there is someone who keeps reverting whatever I add even if it is not controversial or it is a fact. I look forwards to working with you in the future on UCLA pages. I am through with the baseball stuff cause this person is frustrating and unwilling to at least meet me halfway on this topic. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoWarriors151718:: We're all volunteers here, so you're free to choose your battles (if any). The discussion is on the project page, so others might chime in. It's not necessarily a dead end if you don't agree with one person. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Someone else could chime in. I just don't think that this guy/girl would let me change a thing without throwing a fit because it seems like this person is h***bent on keeping all the MLB pages uniform which I understand but in the same breath I know that it's an impossible feat (I tried). Anyway, I know you have a history with UCLA so what do you think of the guys team this season? GoWarriors151718 (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell if last year's team overachieved or this year's is underachieving. Not much improvement on offense, but Jaquez been hurt too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I tend to agree with you. There have been moments this season like beating Villanova that showed that we were a great team building on the momentum from last year and then there were some that made people think that last year was an anomaly. This weekend’s game is going to tell a lot. And I have another question for you. How much do you know about the ucla mens volleyball program? I started a general page for ucla mens volleyball and I was wondering if you could assist with it. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm pretty much only on their football and men's basketball. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s alright. Thanks anyway. Hopefully we will get a much needed win tomorrow. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great weekend for our basketball team. Hopefully we will make a long run in the postseason now. I appreciate your help throughout this year. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability[edit]

Looks like this was closed with all “one game” elements removed (proposal 3). I pretty strongly disagree a consensus was actually reached, and also think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the “one game threshold” signifies (it’s not the act of stepping in the field/court, it’s that for top leagues a total career is assumed if they make it to that level). I expect there will be a big push at AfD from some of the principals from that discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The writing was on the wall when admins started supervoting closes. Pretty much the backlash from a few f-ed up sports did in the whole guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to help format the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#NHOOPS so that it can facilitate getting to a consensus on criteria? Right now it is a mish mash and I am not good at structuring these discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look in a few days maybe.—Bagumba (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I tried to help narrow it down. I'm not an independent moderator, so feel free to steer it in a different direction at any time.—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing user’s AfD votes/record[edit]

There is a tool where you can look up a person’s voting record at AfD discussions - do you know where that is? Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) You're looking for https://afdstats.toolforge.org/. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandomanny313[edit]

If you look at the edits by User:Mandomanny313, they are primarily deletions. Usually of text that is supported by proper RS refs. Usually without any explanation. Over many pages. I think this is highly disruptive. And too much for me as a non-admin to address, though I have tried politely communicating with the editor. Help? I see that you have run into the same with him (and he has simply reverted you). --2603:7000:2143:8500:1C9A:BB7F:A5F9:95DA (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting on their talk page. I have just undid another edit of theirs that removed sourced analysis without an explanation. I think this can be brought up at WT:NBA if this continues.02:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Fundamental change?[edit]

Re: this edit and this one: why do you interpret my edits, which you reverted, as a "fundamental change"? The requirements of NORG apply to sports organizations - not the GNG - regardless of what the text of NSPORTS says. The same is true of NBASIC for biographies; the differences from the GNG are small (and only marginally restrictive), but it is NBASIC and not the GNG that applies to biographies per WP:CONLEVEL, regardless of the text of NSPORT. So what is "fundamental" about fixing a long-standing error? It reduces confusion, without making it any easier e.g. to defend undersourced articles, and it doesn't change the status of the sport-specific criteria at all. I am perplexed. Newimpartial (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I saw the change from the general guideline, GNG, to an SNG, NBASIC, as big enough to want a talk page discussion to explicitly establish a consensus. Especially with all the recent discussions on SNGs' weight relative to GNG, I'm wary of having NSPORTS itself seemingly dependent on another SNG.—Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a matter of seeming dependence. NBASIC covers biographies. It doesn't matter what NSPORTS says - ANYBIO has to meet NBASIC or one of the other BIO SNGs that are independent of NBASIC, and BIOs that fail can't fall back on the GNG any more than ORGs can. And there isn't really much daylight between NBASIC and the GNG anyway: they both require multiple sources offering significant coverage. So I completely fail to see any "fundamental change" there - it sounds hyperbolic, to be honest. Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Feel free to establish consensus for your proposed change at WT:NSPORTS. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user Mandomanny313[edit]

Hello, I will keep it short as I see you have already run into this problem.

User Mandomanny313 is not stopping with the persistent deletions, despite several warnings (many quite frequent to each other).

I suggest at first a week or a month of being blocked from edits.

Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSplashman77 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSplashman77: It looks like you were referring to Kris Dunn, but it now seems resolved. Both of you were edit warring there, but it also seemed like a case of using WP:RSBREAKING sources prematurely i.e. WP:SPORTSTRANS. Regarding their general edits removing content, it might be better to discuss that at WT:NBA, getting others' opinions, before resorting to WP:AN for a block. I wouldn't block myself for this, per WP:INVOLVED. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free images[edit]

If Getty Images isn't able to be used, where the heck do I find NBA photos I can use? Most of the stuff is from Getty Images anyways though Mandomanny313 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandomanny313: There's some guidance at WP:NBAIMAGE.—Bagumba (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]