User talk:Left guide/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Left guide. 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.

I'm new to the Wikipedia editing so I don't know how to do a thank you emoji like you did, but appreciate the support 👍 Graves96 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Graves96: I think you have some reasonable arguments, but it's important to keep a cool head and stay focused on the content, or they are unlikely to be listened to by those who disagree. In that light, researching and discussing sources is usually the best way to go. Left guide (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback, I just can't f****** stand when people censor me though, especially on a topic that I'm very interested in - I appreciate the response Graves96 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I also just think that this f****** form of interface and communicating with people online is a terrible, so it comes off lost worse than It actually is Graves96 (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Graves96: Here on Wikipedia, there is a higher level of decorum expected than what might be typically seen in sports discussions on social media, YouTube comments, and other online forums. You do get a little bit of slack as a newcomer to get more accustomed to the community norms, but please heed the advice given on your talk page, thank you. Left guide (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I get it, I just honestly disagree - it doesn't seem like almost dialogue. To me swearing is fine, but there's obviously going overboard Graves96 (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't censor myself when I see stupidity Graves96 (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't get why this guy just comes in, drops a promotional content tag (which seems pretty groundless to me), proposes a merge, and doesn't bother to explain any of it. I pinged them about starting a discussion a day ago and they never responded, which is why I opened the discussion myself. They're not a drive-by newbie or anything, but I'd expect a little more etiquette from someone with 3K edits. Have you ever dealt with them before? Namelessposter (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Namelessposter: Hey, thanks for swinging by. I do run into that user regularly when editing in NBA topics. From what I've seen, they are a good-faith editor who is largely competent. The last few days before the trade deadline earlier this month, they worked very hard to defend many player articles against premature information and successfully requested protections from administrator Bagumba (who seems to be informally the go-to admin for NBA stuff) for said articles. I don't believe any of the specific requests were declined. I also encountered them at Talk:Bronny James#Alleged Nepotism which flagged a key piece of missing info. The Doncic trade merge proposal is one that strikes me as rather odd and seems unlikely to gain consensus, but even the best editors "miss" every now and then. For the most part, they make sound judgments, do good work, and their tags raise plausible concerns, especially for an editor of their tenure. I suspect they may be relatively busy on Wikipedia and real-life, and haven't the time or energy to make detailed explanations in edit summaries and talk pages. I hope this is helpful. Best, Left guide (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm glad I didn't escalate! It can get snippy out here.

I like Bagumba, we've run into each other on baseball articles several times. I don't edit NBA topics very often - I rewrote Woj's article, but I don't really have the energy to do Shams too (and honestly, there's probably less to say). Namelessposter (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Namelessposter: Thanks for taking the initiative to start Talk:Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade § Proposal to split and merge page into Luka Dončić and Anthony Davis. Generally, assume good faith (personally, I find it more stressful to not), and refer to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which you've generally followed. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Namelessposter: FYI the "promotional content" and "copy-edit" tags seem to refer to words like "blockbuster" and "shocking" which are often used in contemporary sports journalism to hype up fan interest, but can be reasonably construed as exceeding the standards of neutral encyclopedic writing. As secondary historical coverage emerges over time, those problems should be able to fix themselves through normal editing, IMO. Left guide (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have no intention of taking this up through formal dispute resolution. Don't worry about it. Namelessposter (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, you could you clue me in, you wacked my random comment over here about a ecr vilation, then added a tag indicating ecr was required..

Long story short i followed the link and ended up here

I did a quick find in page for the obvious (australia, antisemitism, etc) and pulled up blank.

For those of us in the cheap seats, could offer me a crash course? 144.6.103.10 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry i must be blind, I now see the heading at the top indicating the "Arab–Israeli conflict" which I could sware wasn't there when I first commented. But maybe I over looked it.

I am curious how antisemitism in australia falls into the arab israeli conflict, is it exclusively that it was reported by an israeli?

Idk in my mind this would be an austalian israeli conflict, so im just hoping you could kick me in the right direction in understanding how to know when im out of line ahead of time. 144.6.103.10 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@144.6.103.10: Hello. It has to do with the fact that the topic of the article is broadly construed to be related to the Arab-Israel conflict, so you must be extended-confirmed (have an account with at least 500 edits and 30 days tenure) to engage in the topic area other than to make specific edit requests on article talk pages. I will add the official advisory templates on your talk page, which explain this more clearly and completely than I can. Please read and understand them, thank you. Left guide (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. AFAICS, Talk:Wilt_Chamberlain#Discussion_about_sources is concentrated on the GOAT statement, and the specific sentences were already tagged. For the wider tags you recently placed, perhaps you need a new talk section to elaborate. —Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Hey, honestly the issues seem to be big and complex enough to warrant the wider tags. From my observation of the talk page, there are a total of six or seven editors who have pushed back against the article's material, with the issues first flagged by IPs over two months ago. There appears to be a combination of OR, unreliable sources, and neutrality/POV disputes which seems like too much to capture with individual inline tags. My cleanup efforts were reverted, so rather than edit-warring, tagging the article seems like a reasonable means of attracting wider community attention to issues to hopefully bring about resolution, and I also don't think the inline tags alone do that as effectively. Thanks for helping on that page by the way. Left guide (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The diffs mainly point to the specific tagged statements. The participation on this topic is at the higher level of what I usually see on sports bios, so the inline tags seem to be serving its purpose. The more general tags are misleading to readers regarding scope of the issue and the reliability of the page. I'm not passtionate about Wilt, but be careful, as more polarizing topics might draw more passionate responses. Happy editing. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Left guide. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Uprights, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

On 11 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Dallas Mavericks fans held a mock funeral with a coffin for Luka Dončić in response to him being traded? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Left guide, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Left guide, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I was going to do the same at LeBron's talk, but then I read the fine points at WP:TPO under "Removing harmful posts" re: personal attacks vs incivility. I did warn them on their talk page though. Perhaps the guideline seeks to avoid escalation. Anyways, I have no issue on your part. —Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The comment actually left a substantial opinion that was meaningfully related to the merits of what was being discussed, so I figured {{rpa}} was the best move. On a related note, the history of LeBron's talk seems rife with revdel-worthy edits (that specific comment excluded). Of course, any admin actions on your end are voluntary, but if I was an admin, that's something I'd want to take on. Not sure if semi-ing the talk page is also a justified and helpful measure. Diverting the stream of libelous/defamatory material to WP:RFED might be easier for the community to deal with since there seems to be more admin eyes over there. Left guide (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I see an WP:RFA in your future ;-) I dont believe in a stringent police state, this is the Internet and its a game of Whac-A-Mole. Editors as a whole should hold others accountable more, but I do often revdel edits that cross a personal threshold. —Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Is quoting policies and guidelines on discussion pages using {{tq2}} a pre-requisite for adminship? ;-) It's a habit I picked up from you lol. Left guide (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Do so at your own peril. —Bagumba (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Bagumba: can you please revdel the edit summary from the last reverted edit on LeBron's talk? Left guide (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  Done. —Bagumba (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Re: your WP:NBARS edit, I subconsciously assumed it was the same as WP:RSP's format (and I'm getting more and more nearsighted). —Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I was simply maintaining consistency with the established format of the WP:NBASOURCES page which has commas between multiple discussion link entries, though aside from that I'd argue that without the comma it could look like the number "12". Left guide (talk) 07:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Does "BAA Finals" really meet MOS:CAPS? The NBA Finals weren't even called "NBA Finals" until the early 80s. —Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm just going off of whatever the capitalization of the existing articles are, by combing through the infobox link/transclusion list. There are other leagues with capitalized titles I plan to add to the template so the infoboxes match the existing titles. Feel free to RM any you believe should be lowercased, and if the move is successful, it can be removed from the parameter. Left guide (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Obvious place (e.g. 1947 BAA Finals) to look. LOL. —Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: If you care to research, 2024 BSN Finals is a weird one. The title is uppercase and the prose is lowercase. Looks like a one-off, with no articles for other years. Left guide (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll pass. I think I commented on my needing to get back to content a bit more. Formatting and philosophical due weight content discussions are becoming a stressful time suck. —Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

		The NBA WikiProject Barnstar
		For fixing capitalization issues at Template:Infobox basketball final for free, not even a stupid T-shirt.—Bagumba (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Thanks, I assume you're referring to this shirt. :P There's even a blue version which looks similar enough to UCLA's color haha. Left guide (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Left guide, was just curious if Terence Crawford comes up when you write his name in the search bar here on WP. For some reason it’s not even coming up when you write his full name on my browser lol GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, probably just a glitch because Junto Nakatani not coming up either. Thought it was just a one off GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012: Hey, didn't have a chance to fully respond since I was real-life busy, but did briefly test out searching those names a few hours ago after reading this, and I experienced some of those same glitches (but a few other random names seemed fine). No idea what that's about or how to fix it. WP:Teahouse is a friendly community hub of experienced editors who can sometimes help troubleshoot or answer things like this. Or for the real tech-savvy crowd, consider posting to the technical village pump at WP:VPT; they can understand and answer almost any technical issue lol. By the way, thanks for holding down the fort at Tim Duncan to uphold WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS, it's much appreciated. Left guide (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you showing me the reliable source noticeboard. It's made my life a lot easier. If I had known about it earlier, I'd have used it a lot more. Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Mk8mlyb: No problem, though please be advised that you can often get clearer answers if you're able to provide a specific context the source is being used for. Also, be sure to search the noticeboard archives before posting, to see if your question has already been addressed in a past discussion. Left guide (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

What's your take on the recent "one of the greatest" RfC close vs. Wikipedia:Aesthetic opinions? —Bagumba (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Hey, thanks for asking. The close says multiple reliable sources must report that a player is widely considered one of the greatest of all time, or similar phrasing. which appears to align well with the essay. Unfortunately, it seems very difficult to enforce in practice, since many editors are innocuously duped into the WP:OR trick of adding "widely considered/regarded" when seeing (or presented with) an arbitrary stack of sources that simply use the word "greatest", leaving aside the fact that said sources are often questionable and/or unreliable. I also find that sometimes sports editors can be very dogmatic, fanatical, and stubborn about this particular topic, so my mind has largely been off of it. I'm fine discussing it with you though, since you're always a cool level head even in hot topic areas (like MOS:CAPS for example). So how about you? What's your take? Left guide (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Their later clarification was a bit looser. It seems to open up people collecting writers' individual opinions and then stamping it with "widely", the same ol Wild West. —Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Honestly, it's always going to be the same ol' Wild West unless interested editors collectively prioritize policies over their personal beliefs and fandoms, which basically doesn't happen LOL. Sometimes, the least bad (and most time-saving) option is to simply draw the line in the sand, and say "no". Left guide (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

If the community at least agreed that sources should say "widely", I'd be OK. Otherwise, it's always a mess if editors find the sources they like and claim "widely" based on WP:OR and confirmation bias, ignoring the sources that contradict or don't even mention said player. I mean, you can't expect to find sources to explicitly contradict every fringe "greatest" claim, like Wilt no longer being widely considered the greatest. But do dig up those 80s quotes or OGs' current stories. —Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yeah, I agree with (and have previously thought about) most of that. It's probably something ultimately suited for one of the village pump pages. Or maybe find a way to add some clarity to the WP:AESTHETIC policy section. Left guide (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't believe these types of domain-specific issues get much attention or insight outside of the project. And then any WP discussion gets stunted because all some people want to do is vote (and I don't mean !vote). —Bagumba (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Maybe I'm jaded, but I don't believe these types of domain-specific issues get much attention or insight outside of the project. You're totally right, especially with sports stuff, which is a big reason why I notified the NFL project about the disruptive roster position editor ANI, since it seemed like nothing would've happened otherwise. Basically everyone who meaningfully participated in that thread was NFL project folks, and I bet none of the ANI regulars knew (or cared) what the hell anyone was talking about regarding depth charts and such. There's also recent instances of ANI threads about boxing and Greek basketball that just died without action, and I've seen two or three ANIs from the hockey crowd in the last month that had a similar fate. But yeah, as to the last point, a lot of "consensus" in sports discussions is driven by popular vote or personal opinions; you're one of very few who seems to care about policy application. Left guide (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

and I bet none of the ANI regulars knew (or cared): Some might care if someone could explain it to them. But too many reports (not just sports) assume everyone else knows what they're talking about. —Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw your bolding. At a glance, I think most user warnings seem to only bold with later or final warnings, whereas this sportstrans is an entry-level "you might not have known" FYI. Honestly, a lot of editors just do what they want, but the warnings are a necessary AGF to show we're not bitey. —Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I was actually on the fence about asking you beforehand (but felt like doing so might've been bugging you), and went WP:BOLD (no pun intended) and did it anyways, so I was half-expecting you might challenge me on it. As for the edit itself, what would you think about either underlining or italicizing the phrase as a compromise? I still maintain that "confirming its completion" is a really important part that merits some sort of emphasis. Left guide (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I'm institutionalized to think the 1st warning should be a calm introduction instead of "do this buddy", not necessarily that I think it's more effective. I leave it to your judgement. —Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Italicized. Left guide (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Occasionally, these msgs do work.[1] You can ask them if the bolding did it LOL. —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I just did ask them, the boldface is an attention-grabber for sure LOL. Wait and see what they say, if no response maybe we can do a trial run with it and observe if it changes people's behavior, or at least brings greater awareness of the problem. Left guide (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: We have our answer, back to boldface we go LOL. Left guide (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

... that your neutral notification might not be considered neutral? —Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I'm confused? Left guide (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

My joke missed. NVM. —Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Haha ok. No worries, it happens to me sometimes too. Left guide (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Though weirder things have turned out to be true, esp. re: caps. —Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: What do you mean? Left guide (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops. I should have just dropped the WP:STICK. So I joked that your post, which I do think is neutral, might not be considered neutral by others. And given everything around MOS, nothing surprises me on what people will claim. Hope that's clear(er). Otherwise, ignore (or even delete). —Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I tend to think the more the merrier regarding community participation from interested/involved parties, which is why I sometimes notify WikiProjects of ANIs/AfDs/RMs/etc concerning their topic areas. A simple neutral notice without pings on a broad discussion page (as in not user talk pages) won't typically ruffle any feathers. Left guide (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, I do think it is neutral, which means this was a poor joke if it caused you to reflect. I am sorry. —Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Apology accepted. :) Left guide (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I only have the slightest clue to what is going on with capitalisation, so anyways since you seem to be the one of the only maintainers of that list at the top of WT:MOSCAPS — Talk:M5 Motorway (Sydney)#Requested move 2 July 2025 is related to Talk:M4 motorway (Sydney)#Requested move 23 June 2025. M4 appeared to have been missing from the concluded list, so I've added it. Not sure if you want to fix up any of the wording for the summaries. Fork99 (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fork99: Thanks for helping. I don't always know everything going on with capitalization either, and even less so regarding Sydney motorways. Just had a recent urge to check WP:RMC and pitch in by adding any missing capitalization-related RMs I could find to the list; I enjoy doing small clerking-type tasks sometimes, though it's not guaranteed to be comprehensive. Your summary seems fine, thanks again. Left guide (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing that out to me! I have gone this whole time not knowing the same closing restrictions applied to relisting. Better late than never, I supose! :) Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: You're welcome. Thanks for being open-minded about it and willing to adjust, and for self-reverting. Best, Left guide (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Left guide,

I think this was too much of a close call to be a good AFD for a NAC closure. This was almost 50-50 with Keeps at an advantage but was nowhere near unanimous. I think the nominator might have questions about this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Ok thanks for the feedback, I'll take your word for it and self-revert this one. Left guide (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave you a note so I'll just add it here. While I greatly appreciate all of the time and effort you have put into your work in AFDLand, Left guide, I think you might want to decrease your involvement a little. Lately, when I look at the daily logs, it looks like you have done the majority of AFD discussion closures. Being so involved can sometimes result in a backlash and extra scrutiny which, in my experience, isn't an enjoyable feature of editing here. I'm not saying that your closures are incorrect, they generally look okay to me, I just think you have accelerated from 0 (no involvement) in AFDs to 60 (our most active closer) and that can bring on attention, both positive and negative. I just want to encourage you to do fewer closures but be more careful with the ones you choose. Don't feel compelled to close an AFD discussion just because the time has come for it to be closed. There are some regular closers and admins who focus on older discussions that are still open so you don't need to worry that no one will see these "expired" AFDs or that they need to be relisted. We generally just relist older AFDs when there has been little to no participation or there is not an obvious closure decision.

If you have any questions about AFD closures, don't hesitate to come to one of the older, regular AFD closers for feedback and advice. Thanks again for all of the time you are putting into your contributions to the project. It's appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Liz:, thank you for recognizing my AfD work, and for all of your work there too. I enjoy doing this type of thing. To clear up some possible misconceptions, when going through the logs I have been careful as to which ones I take on and which ones I pass, and leave a closure/relist to those more experienced and competent if there's even a sliver of uncertainty on what to do (or less commonly if I'm INVOLVED or otherwise have a personal opinion on the subject); there's a lot I leave on the table. If there are specific concerns about my approach that stray from policies and guidelines, I am willing to listen and try to adjust accordingly. You may or may not remember I used to be a fairly active AfD !voter but largely lost interest in that side of things. I have been recently checking in with @OwenX: on a few matters and they seem to generally endorse my judgments, and to a less frequent extent @Star Mississippi: (who I have known and interacted with for a bit longer). I also invite their feedback here if they so wish. All the best, Left guide (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Just noting belatedly that I've seen this. I have been offline since Thursday and likely not online any time soon but responding to some pings. I'll come back to you ASAP @Liz @Left guide. Star Mississippi 02:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi again @Left guide and @Liz

Liz, I don't see an issue with LG's closes/relists. When there's one they're unsure about, they ask one of us and I admit I haven't always been able to be responsive so glad they also know @OwenX. I don't recall any being questioned aside from the tech issues we all have with AfD closer script. While there are problematic NAC closes, I don't recall seeing any from @Left guide and don't think we should broadly discourage them since we need the help at AfD and I personally thing fresh eyes are helpful too. Watching here, but please ping me if I don't respond timely, happy to try and help navigate this. Star Mississippi 02:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Left guide,

I'm going to ask you in advance to please not close this discussion, let an admin handle it. It looks straight-forward but my closure was contested so I reverted it and relisted it. In these situations, I think it's best if an admin closes disputed AFDs. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, I can see from your talk page and the activity at the AfD that this is clearly a controversial one. I was already planning to avoid that one anyways. Thanks for the heads-up though. Left guide (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Connaughton was the best choice for a NAC. While there's no consensus to delete, there is no clear consensus to keep, and Delete can be seen as a possible outcome in this case. I was just about to close it as a no-consensus myself, allowing for renomination in one month. I'm not going to reopen it, but this is the kind of NAC that could be seen as contentious, and one that some here would prefer to see handled by an admin. No harm done, just an FYI. Owen× ☎ 23:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@OwenX: Thanks for letting me know. I guess it's not as obvious as I believed. I trust your judgment on this, and have vacated the close accordingly. Left guide (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! There was no need to do that, but I certainly appreciate it. Owen× ☎ 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

While a Keep and a N/C close are functionally identical as an outcome (other than renomination delays), a no-consensus can better acknowledge the validity of arguments on the Delete side, especially when accompanied by a closing statement to that effect. It's easy to forget that participants put in a significant amount of time and effort to analyze sources and explain their position. They deserve to understand why the XfD closed "against" them. Your self-reverted closing statement here was good, but I think a N/C better reflects the validity of those on the Delete side who didn't shift to Keep after the article was rewritten. As I said, neither is a mistake, just different hues of the same colour. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see how that's no consensus. I think left guide was right closing it as keep. There were barely any delete !votes left. Bearian's delete !vote didn't even apply anymore because it wasn't an unsourced BLP. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If I had said, Bearian's delete !vote didn't even apply anymore in my closing statement, it would have been overturned at DRV as a supervote, and rightly so. Whether the changes to the article were enough to invalidate or turn Bearian's Delete into a Keep is ultimately his call, not mine. All we can say is that the improvements make it difficult to assign proper weight to the earlier !votes, which is how I phrased it in my closing statement. As a closer, I may discard !votes that aren't based on policy, but I may not second-guess how participants' stated view would change had they seen sources I believe they haven't. Owen× ☎ 09:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with the keep. If someone else rescues a bad article, then it's likely they did the real work. Bearian (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a perfectly valid and sensible position for you to take, but not for me, as a closer, to take on your behalf. As I told Left guide, I was fine with the Keep close. But I disagree with WikiOriginal-9's assertion that I should have discarded your !vote. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

How is there no field hockey project?!?! Bearian (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: Hello, I think it mainly depends on editors' interest and inclination; ice hockey is much more popular I think. From my understanding, WikiProjects exist when there are at least two editors who wish to coordinate together in managing and standardizing content for a specific topic area. Left guide (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey I’m sure you're probably aware of the elections. Problem is, I don’t see your name on the list of candidates🤣. No interest in submitting your name? You’d be a great addition, just sayin… GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012: Yes I was aware, and I'm flattered about the suggestion (thanks); I typically think of myself as just a normal editor and community member. Bagumba actually hinted at this a few months ago, but I might be in WP:NOTNOW or WP:NOTYET territory, and I wouldn't take on something like this on just days' notice; I'd want to mentally prepare for it for much longer. I have some anxiety about being personally questioned and examined by many people all at once, especially from those I've never interacted with before; I can be aversive to being in the spotlight and handling criticism. It seemed to be more intense during the RfA-only era, but from what I've observed, there's still some element of that in the election pages. I'd also want to study up on some of the admin guides and essays beforehand, and identify some specific admin tasks I'd want to take on; the community generally wants to see a genuine need for the tools and not just hand them out willy-nilly. So in short, maybe someday, I'm open to it but not yet. The new election process admittedly makes it a little less intimidating. (p.s. Bagumba feel free to chime in with any advice or insights if you'd like) Left guide (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Totally understand, it’s probably not the most comfortable position to be holding and I really didn’t want to come off like I was pressuring you to nominate yourself, but I also don’t want you to sell yourself short. From what I can tell, you’re level-headed, active, and very knowledgeable when it comes to policy and guidelines. That said, when you do decide to nominate yourself (next election maybe? 😉), I’ll be there to support you (Bagumba too 😁). GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012: Oh no, I certainly don't feel like you’re pressuring me, a little nudge never hurts. Your support is encouraging (and appreciated), and I don't get candid feedback like this very often. I'm not really the type to self-nominate though, not a toot-my-own-horn kind of person. There's a few well-established folks in mind I might ask for a nomination if/when that time comes, and if they all decline then that probably means I'm still not ready. Left guide (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't participated at RfAs for years, so can't comment much on its current landscape. —Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd be there to support you as well, Left Guide. You would make a great administrator. You have a good disposition, experience, and understanding of how things work around here. Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Netherzone. Left guide (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

if and when you decide the time is right, you can count on my support as well Star Mississippi 03:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Star Mississippi, that is very humbling to know. Left guide (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with everything that's been said by others and would support you as well, if you ever chose to run for an adminship. Assadzadeh (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Assadzadeh, and thank you for your ongoing "Finals" to "Final" cleanup following Talk:Stanley Cup Final#RfC/RM on "Final" vs "Finals". It's quite a large task, and your work is noticed. Left guide (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that you're using JWB for the cleanup, which I'm not familiar with, but I saw on its page that it claims to be simpler to use than AWB, which I just started using for another cleanup. Do you see an advantage to JWB over AWB? Assadzadeh (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh: You're welcome. I use JWB and not AWB, so I can't speak for AWB. JWB is compatible with most browsers I think; I couldn't figure out how to use AWB. The AWB talk page at WT:AWB and the technical village pump at WP:VPT are both probably better sources of information and answers than I am for these types of queries since I'm not the most tech-savvy. Left guide (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide, I'm here because while doing the AfD notes for this election, I noticed a few of your more daring NACs. Eyebrow-raising in a good way - not patently obvious closes we could trust to an algorithm, and (imo) you made the right decisions. A good sign. If you think there's any chance you might run in December and would appreciate some feedback, let me know and I'll have a deeper look. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you asilvering! I'll keep that in mind. Left guide (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, you may want to attach an email to your account. :) -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)