Jump to content

User talk:Left guide/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Thank you for your comment and backing up regarding my Wilt Chamberlain claims

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)

Doncic

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)

Ecr violation?

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)

Wilt

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)

Concern regarding Draft:Uprights

Information icon 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)

DYK for Luka Dončić–Anthony Davis trade

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)

Your technical move request

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)

Your technical move request

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)

Redacting

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)

Comma

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)

BAA Finals

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)

Barnstar

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's T-shirt
@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)

Terence Crawford

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)

Reliable source noticeboard

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)

Superlatives

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)

Bolding

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)

Did you know

... 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Left_guide/Archive_5&oldid=1299852478"