User talk:Left guide

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) [reply ]

@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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

@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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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

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) [reply ]

@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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

@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) [reply ]

• @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) [reply ]

  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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

@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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]

@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) [reply ]

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) [reply ]