User talk:Bagumba/Archive 23: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:Bagumba) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:Bagumba) (bot |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:Indefinite applied.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 08:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
:Indefinite applied.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 08:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
:Thank you! [[User:SportsGuy789|SportsGuy789]] ([[User talk:SportsGuy789|talk]]) 20:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
:Thank you! [[User:SportsGuy789|SportsGuy789]] ([[User talk:SportsGuy789|talk]]) 20:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
== Conduct accusations == |
|||
Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Frozen&diff=946757200&oldid=946756566 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Frozen&diff=946758992&oldid=946757200 this], I repeat that I know how to handle sock issues. Also, per [[Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 15#Guidance about whether to simply ask them]], querying if an editor is a sock is allowed. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:LeBron_James&oldid=946759335 this] case you took issue with, I didn't query if the editor is a sock. I did note that I hope that the editor is not [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8003:7CE4:4F00:A8BC:35A5:C2AF:2CE9 this] IP, but that's because I do hope that. That IP was trolling, pure and simple. And this new account is arguing in a similar way. When an editor is using Wikipedia in a way that goes against [[WP:Not a forum]] and the other editor is arguing based on Wikipedia's policies and/or guidelines, that is not truly a content dispute. And per [[WP:Talk]], WP:Not a forum posts can be removed or archived at any time. That stated, I will try to be more mindful of not biting supposed newbies. [[User:Flyer22 Frozen|Flyer22 Frozen]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Frozen|talk]]) 06:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:{{re|Flyer22 Frozen}} Thanks. Be well! Cheers.—[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 07:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:17, 13 April 2020
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bagumba. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
LiAngelo Ball
Why did you remove my line, cited to NBA.com, that Ball was offered a contract? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Editorofthewiki: Thanks for bringing this here. I though I had mentioned it in the edit summary, but did not. My bad. Though it's on NBA.com, it's breaking news from AP based on an anonymous source, so I don't consider it reliable. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- So you want to wait until he signs the contract? I can get several sources for it, not just NBA.com. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Editorofthewiki: But aren't they all based on unnamed sources?—Bagumba (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose you are right. But anonymous sources are unacceptable? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Editorofthewiki: For breaking news, we need to be careful with anonymous sources. Do read WP:RSBREAKING, if you haven't already. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose you are right. But anonymous sources are unacceptable? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Editorofthewiki: But aren't they all based on unnamed sources?—Bagumba (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- So you want to wait until he signs the contract? I can get several sources for it, not just NBA.com. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
IP pest is back
Hey. The same IP from User talk:Bagumba/Archive 22#IP needs a timeout is back doing the same exact thing [1]. Is this grounds for a further block? Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Blocked 3 mos.—Bagumba (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Michigan-Michigan State -- IPs at it again
On March 1, the semiprotect that you applied at Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry expired. Three days later, the IP users were at it again. Consistent with the prior patter, the new IP user (registered in Lansing, Michigan, the home of Michigan State) reverted to an outdated version that existed several months ago. This is part of a pattern of similar vandalism by IP users in the Lansing / East Lasing area. The IP users have been eradicating substantial improvements that have been made to the article. This includes (i) addition of citations to previously unsourced material, (ii) addition of working urls to citations having dead urls, (iii) adding descriptions of several games from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s (decades previously overlooked), (iv) trimming some of the game summaries that were overly wordy, (v) trying to inject a more neutral tone (some of which previously had a pro-Wolverine or pro-Spartan tilt), (vi) applying standard practice for rivalry articles in which the teams are listed in alphabetical order (the Lansing IP users seek to have Michigan State listed first in all charts, etc., despite standard practice), and (vii) general cleanup and copy editing. I have left notes on the talk pages of each of the involved IP users -- not surprisingly, the never respond. The IPs continue to revert all of this work and restore the poorly sourced and non-neutral version that existed several months ago. Would you please be willing to reapply the semi-protect to address this ongoing problem? Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: I was going to say give it some more time, except it's the exact same revert as the one on Jan 21. Protected 3 mos.—Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Help
Hey I see it looks like you might be online currently. I made a request at WP:RPP hours ago but no response. Can you protect Kansas Jayhawks men’s basketball? IPs keep adding a 2020 National Championship. As much as I’d like my team to be named the champs it hasn’t happened.--Rockchalk717 00:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Done, 1 wk.—Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- Perfect thank you!--Rockchalk717 01:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
IPs keep inserting the Florida State legislature naming Florida State national champ. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
- The senate did declare them champs per the cited source. It's more of a content dispute of what, if any, mention is WP:DUE. Maybe start a discussion at WP:CBBALL if this persists.—Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Florida State Senate has no authority to name a college basketball national champion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- But it did happened. Whether it's for show, meaningless, and should be excluded from the article is a content dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- I think we could mention it briefly under the Postseason section. It can be discounted as there is no actual champion unless it goes to the No. 1 team, Kansas. It doesn't belong in the lead. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- But it did happened. Whether it's for show, meaningless, and should be excluded from the article is a content dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Florida State Senate has no authority to name a college basketball national champion. Rikster2 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Indefinite protection for 1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game
Hi Bagumba - you've protected this article numerous times before. Every single time the protection expires it gets blasted with vandalism of people thinking the official score is 253–141 when, according to the NCAA, it's 258–141. Considering the edit requests in the talk page, and the persistent edit wars of the article itself, can you please put permanent edit protection on this? SportsGuy789 (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Indefinite applied.—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you! SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Conduct accusations
Regarding this and this, I repeat that I know how to handle sock issues. Also, per Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 15#Guidance about whether to simply ask them, querying if an editor is a sock is allowed. In this case you took issue with, I didn't query if the editor is a sock. I did note that I hope that the editor is not this IP, but that's because I do hope that. That IP was trolling, pure and simple. And this new account is arguing in a similar way. When an editor is using Wikipedia in a way that goes against WP:Not a forum and the other editor is arguing based on Wikipedia's policies and/or guidelines, that is not truly a content dispute. And per WP:Talk, WP:Not a forum posts can be removed or archived at any time. That stated, I will try to be more mindful of not biting supposed newbies. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Frozen: Thanks. Be well! Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)