User talk:Left guide

Hello, Left guide,

I was looking over an editor's User talk page and a notification about Virgil Let Me Down that was being discussed at RFD. But when I went to look at the discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 19#Virgil Let Me Down, I saw you had closed the discussion in January but, for some reason, did not remove the tags on the Redirect page. Could you do so? It's important to follow through on deletion discussions and not just close the discussion but take care of any remaining details like removing the RFD tag, putting a notice on the Redirect talk page and anything else. Please do this for any other discussions you closed as a "Keep" or "No consensus" closure.

If you are not aware of a closer's responsibility, please ask another admin who closes RFD discussions regularly. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Doesn't the script do that itself? Wikipedia:XFDcloser#Features. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging Liz, will take a look momentarily and clean up things as needed. WikiOriginal-9 is generally correct, however occasionally the script is buggy and doesn't perform all of the necessary steps (something I've discussed with other XfD closing admins multiple times), which is probably what occurred here. I'll double check other closes of mine around that time since the glitch usually comes in waves. Left guide (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:NBA arena statues has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for closing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_10#Salvatore_Nuara. There were two bundled redirects, Leonic Leonov and Zurab Mikeladze, which also need deleting. Fences&Windows 18:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fences and windows:  Done. Left guide (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi LG. I don't know if I'm more upset that I nominated this .. or you asking me if I ever thought about it being a GA, lol. Again I thank you for all your help. I couldn't do these citation deals etc. with this relic. I know the info is legit, but black and white proof is another thing. Anyway, thanks for tackling this! Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood: Hi, no apology necessary. You've done much work on the article, which you should be proud of. Quite frankly, it's probably not that far from meeting GA since it didn't "quick fail". Even in a worst-case scenario, the nomination page has constructive feedback for future improvement. There's no deadline, and if the issues are more than expected and too much to handle at the moment, it can be gradually worked on over time and re-nominated again later. Left guide (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for saying all that. That was my original thought, if not now, maybe later. Two things that bother me would be, you getting fed up with it and me not being able to contribute with my computer problems. I'm not computer savvy, as many know by now, like some of those references I added in the past were not the best, they were the ones that were supported by my browser. I mentioned earlier that I was lazy, but by no means am I sitting back watching all this and laughing. If you were my neighbor, I'd buy you a drink! Along with WO-9 and Bagumba, I owe a lot, lol. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood: Thanks for the sentiments. I think most of your concerns are rectified when we both realize that Wikipedia is voluntary; every editor has limitations of one flavor or another (usually multiple), and that's totally ok. Difficulty accessing certain sources is quite common. I can assure you I'm not fed up with how the GA nom is going, or how it might go. Left guide (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, when you put it like that ... you now get two drinks! :) - Bringingthewood (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bringingthewood: I haven't read all of the comments at the GA review in question. However, I just wanted to point out that a reviewer leaving a bunch of notes doesn't mean that the article is bad or far off from becoming a GA. You can literally write near-perfect articles and GA reviewers will still find stuff to complain about (sometimes based on personal preference). If reviewers don't leave a lot of comments, other people think they're just rubber stamping it. I try not to be nitpicky though when I review stuff. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, WO-9. Of course you'll get a couple of drinks also! ;) Bringingthewood (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

One thing I can say about the "Overall in 2016, Watt recorded 63 total tackles and 11.5 sacks." I didn't add that citation, but I amended the number to 63, per the graph link to sports-reference.com. Which I can no longer access. Just in case you're wondering where I got that number. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the 'pre-draft measurables', I'm wondering if the edit on December 16, 2025 by RevMSWIE500, ref. #31, made a difference. A reference was added at that time. I thought we could go with the chart coinciding with 'one' reference only. Something had to be correct when this article began way back when .. before the tinkering. I would go with #29, amend the numbers and delete the other two. But of course I can't view the reference. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This was the original addition back in 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._J._Watt&diff=prev&oldid=769018963. It went from 10 to 13 columns over time. The only change with the original 10 was his height going up a half inch. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood: I'll try to look into these last three notes when I have time; the review is admittedly a bit more involved than I expected. Btw, general sentiments about the GA process are fine here, but if you don't mind, I'd recommend that comments relating to specific requests from the GA review page be placed at the GA review page where they are more accessible to (and likely to be seen by) the reviewer and other interested editors. I've been watchlisting and checking into there as much as I can, so it won't lose my attention by being there. Left guide (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I get it, and by no means was I referring to drop everything you're doing, lol. I was staying at your page only because you're doing the most work. I didn't want to run the risk of adding my two cents over there, and Hacked telling me I should do it myself. You know my situation already. I'm not into taking one step forward and two back. P.S. I'm guessing when a 'featured' article is put up, you need to give blood! Thanks for the note, always appreciated. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

As the recent socks that edited Andrew Wiggins are blocked, protection there seems more preemptive than an immediate threat. What's your perspective? —Bagumba (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Hi, the last set of socks isn't the first group to hit the article, as Salah1933 was previously there too, so this doesn't seem like a problem that will go away on its own in the immediate future. My perspective is that protection here reduces the burden on people patrolling this article (and recent changes) and there is very little to no good-faith constructive editing traffic that can be considered collateral damage, since it's basically nothing but socks and reverted edits among newer users. Left guide (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that Salah1933 wasnt showing as blocked, but is globally locked. Carry on. —Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)