User talk:Left guide/Archive 8

Your good article nomination of the article Statue of Dirk Nowitzki has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Dammam No. 7 is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Velayinosu -- Velayinosu (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Left guide,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 06:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Dammam No. 7 has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Velayinosu -- Velayinosu (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Left guide, Noting that you closed the AFD as redirect, that there were only 4 participants and one of those has received a global block as a compromised account. You may want to consider reopening/relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 11:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Thanks for letting me know, I'll go ahead and do that, seems fair given the situation. Left guide (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I just got the notification that you've become an Admin. Congrats on that. I hadn't been paying attention to the election stuff, or I would have voted for you too. Anyways, if you ever have questions or want to run any situations by me, feel free. Just let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Sergecross73, will do. Left guide (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see you're new on the job. Congrats and that's definitely sockpuppetry.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Thanks for the heads-up. As usual, feel free to re-request protection if disruption continues after expiration. Left guide (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing. UAK is one of our more active LTAs; several of their favorite targets are on my watchlist.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you recently responded to @Amigao's protection request on the page Anti-Chinese sentiment, where this user without evidence claimed that my edits constituted WP:VANDALism. I would like to respond to these:

• There were no such evidences of WP:VANDALism, and per WP:NOTVANDAL none of my edits fall under this. Furthermore, this accusation violates WP:AGF.
• This user has consistently refused to engage in WP:BRD and provide reasons as to why their edits should be accepted.

~2026-28706-2 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

My administrative action to protect the page was merely to maintain article stability. If you believe there are serious or intractable behavioral issues, please raise it at the appropriate venue such as WP:ANI. Left guide (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Dafootballguy. We have spoken before, so you may remember me. I am here to raise an issue about @Yankees10. They have engaged in Wp:Bite, and have been reverting for no reason. See Easton Stick, Jaxson Dart, and Budda Baker for examples. The edits I made were marked minor, and changed a very small bit, helpfully of course. The edits were reverted with no real explanation. Thank you for your time. Dafootballguy (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh give me a break dude. I gave you a reasoning for the Budda Baker revert. You removed info and did not provide sources at first. The edit to Stick and Dart were completely unnecessary changes. You're edits have been reverted by numerous other users so i'm not sure why you are choosing to whine about me.-- Yankees10 23:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Because most aren't as impolite. The budda baker edit was reverted by rollback, an abuse of the tool, since it was not obvious vandalism. The changes to Dart and Stick were small intentionaly, that is the definition of a minor change. I have left comments on your talk page first, and you ignored them. I don't see a reason for you to undo a minor edit unless it is vandalism, with the changes were not. I don't see a reason for reverting a minor change that helped. Thank you for your time. Dafootballguy (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Numerous inaccurate statements here. Budda Baker was not a rollback. Check my talk page again, did not at all ignore your messages other than the Stick one which I had not a clue what your post was saying.-- Yankees10 00:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I left one about Joe burrow. Dafootballguy (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the burrow request on January 5, after it was ignored completely. Dafootballguy (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy: Follow the steps for resolving content disputes at WP:RCD. If the dispute is an identical systemic issue affecting multiple NFL articles, the project talk page at WT:NFL may be a more appropriate venue. Good luck. Left guide (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I figured that the dispute would not do much. Therefore I approached an unbiased admin who could serve to solve the issue. The issue can cleary be seen as yankees10 potentially violating Wikipedia:Bite, and definitely violating common courtesy. Have a good day, thank you for the help. Dafootballguy (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

While you are here, my mentee disclosed to me his relation to Darryl Henley, how do I proceed now? I have given him a link to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Dafootballguy (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy: Informing them to disclose the connection (which you did) is the right thing to do. You can add {{Connected contributor}} atop the article talk page linking to their disclosure comment. Perhaps let them know about the edit request template {{Edit COI}} to use on the talk page. If they haven't directly edited the article, there is nothing else that needs to be done that I'm aware of. If problematic COI editing occurs on the article, you could report it to WP:COIN to get more eyes on the situation. Left guide (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks a ton for the help. Happy editing. Dafootballguy (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding your ITN grammar tweak, that might be one of those English variant MOS:PLURAL deals. Though your version sounds "right" to me LOL. —Bagumba (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Ah, I see what you mean. I think this is why any British or Irish rock band article I've seen starts with "(band name) are…" since that's the local convention. At the time, my ITN edit seemed correct and uncontroversial, but if another admin disagrees strongly enough to revert, it should stay at the original version, unless you want to fight the cause on my behalf via discussion because I'm not interested in grammar debates right now LOL. Left guide (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It was purely FYI. Some sports blurbs avoid the verb issue with wording like "the tournament concludes with England winning ..." —Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I appreciate that, because it hadn't crossed my mind until you noted it here, and ok. Left guide (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Left guide. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I meant to link to the previous edit in the email, but I think you get the idea. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

(Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Temp account continual disruptive editing against consensus for the full context re: what I am asking)

About half a dozen temporary accounts have been going on a spree of U.S. election pages, removing "re-" from the word "re-election", which is the popular (and correct) phrasing used in thousands of election pages. They've broken 3RR on half a dozen pages, have refused to answer messages on their talk page(s), on the election talk pages & at ANI (linked above). They've also vandalized multiple political BLPs with biased commentary, and switched to another temporary account after the ANI report

2-3 of the pages are already protected due to their disruptive editing – if I were to request page protection on the rest of the pages they have edited, is it likely that these requests would be accepted or declined? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias: Replied there at the ANI. Bottom line is I think an admin who investigates is more likely to issue a range block if they agree it's disruptive since they're mostly coming from the same range. In patently obvious cases, WP:AIV may be a smoother route. If you do counter-vandalism frequently, consider applying for the temp account IP viewer permission at WP:PERM/TAIV, which may help you be more clued into things like this and make reporting easier. Left guide (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. One of the involved editors suggested AIV but I know how they feel about "non-obvious vandalism" (which many of this person's edits are), given their constant backlog :) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Keeping this here, then you can delete it all at once. Thanks for your understanding regarding this specific instance, LG. When someone like that comes along, they usually don't stop. I hope so for SuperJames888. A different IP each day would probably show up and start this Jewish nonsense ... I'm not getting that one. Honestly, if I saw what they typed that night .. I may have gotten into trouble. I talk to myself a lot before I come here every day, lol. Thanks for covering all the bases, it's always appreciated. Regards, John. Bringingthewood (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood: This kind of thing apparently comes with the territory (unfortunately) when doing counter-vandalism work like you do, so I'm not too surprised, and you seem thick-skinned enough to handle it calmly. Somewhat relatedly, nice work fighting that persistent YouTube link spammer; you've done a big chunk there, and I'm impressed because it's not something I've ever had the bandwidth or patience to do. The rollback tool seems to be a great asset for you. Left guide (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It does at that. Thick-skinned works for a little while, but 'not feeding the troll' is an extremely difficult rule to follow. Sometimes actually looking for an encounter helps my demeanor .. if that makes any sense. ROFL, glad you noticed that spammer. I really enjoy that type of thing, I'm literally looking for it! Your ears must have been ringing. One night I think I used rollback 170 times for Toshi 1041. Every tenth rollback I said .. thank you, LG .. thank you, LG, lol. It really really helped. So ... thank you, LG! John. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Bless your soul. Now I can go to sleep, lol! Catch you later. John. Bringingthewood (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Can you plz add his name in the Main page's Recent deaths list. Thanks. ~2026-17850-55 (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-17850-55 There are still many uncited statements, so the article doesn't seem to qualify for the main page. And even if it did, I'll defer to other more experienced admins to judge, partly since it appears rather contentious. When you think it's ready, feel free to use {{@ITNA}} on the nomination section to notify those admins who signed up to be notified of such things. Good luck. Left guide (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Should a new article be created for Bill Thomas, a minor league player who had a 35 win season in the 50s? He is mentioned in Bill James's book the historical baseball abstract. Thomas had 20 wins many times and played for a while in the minors. Dafootballguy (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy: That would depend on the quality and depth of available sources covering him. Our WP:NBIO summary says:

A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

Are these two sources about the same Bill Thomas? If so, the second one may be especially helpful for further researching, as it cites other references at the bottom in the "notes" section. The folks at WT:BASEBALL may also have access to relevant sources, or at least the knowledge of where to find them. Left guide (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, Thomas won 383 minor league games, but never pitched in the majors. These sources are indeed about him. I'm going to draft an article soon, would you mind reviewing it please? Thank you. Dafootballguy (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy: Sorry, I don't review drafts upon request, and seldom in general for that matter, so can't guarantee anything. When you think the draft is complete, feel free to use {{AfC submission}} and then wait for one of our AfC reviewers to take a look when they have a chance. Alternatively, you have the technical capacity to move or create articles directly, so that option is also available. Good luck. Left guide (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Dafootballguy (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)