User talk:Left guide

Archives

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for all the great clean up work you are doing on a very complex case. And an especially big thank you for being such a wonderful collaborator and team player. Hats off! Netherzone (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Thanks, same to you! Couldn't have done it without your ongoing encouragement, advice, and mediation/diplomacy. Left guide (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code clean up

Hi! If you clean up an unreliable source, make sure that you also remove the ref-name code fragments if the source is used more than once in an article. A red "citation error" will be visible in the references which can help to locate the fragments. Otherwise what happens is a Bot comes along and adds back the source as can be seen in the history of [1]. This is one of the things that makes this type of clean up so labor intensive. I don't know if there is a work-around for this process. Netherzone (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also here: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] Netherzone (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: that's actually somewhat intentional on my part, or at least I'm aware of it and don't mind that happening. I haven't bothered to purge material cited to unreliable sources bundled with reliable or unfamiliar sources. For now, I find it much faster and more efficient to edit based on reviewing the sources in the article without actually opening them. You seem to be much better (and more efficient) at examining what's inside of the sources than I am, so feel free to continue cleaning up in that manner so we can both utilize our strengths, so to speak. You can "follow me around", I wouldn't mind. Left guide (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, the AnomieBOT just adds back the TFOI source (or other unreliable source) after you remove it. Netherzone (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: No, the bot doesn't actually "add it back" in the way you seem to think it does. It simply rescues a copy of the full "parent" reference that was removed, and installs it into one of the remaining "child" reference copies to preserve the data. User:AnomieBOT/docs/OrphanReferenceFixer is an explanatory bot subpage about that function. If it's still unclear to you, the folks at WP:Village pump (technical) can probably explain it better than I can. Left guide (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Ironically, the bot function you initially believed to be creating more work actually saves me a lot of extra time and work. It allows me to focus more fully on sources and content, and not waste needless time doing technical fixes. If I had to go back and retrieve the full references from article histories and restore the coding to a child citation manually, I'd be spending twice as much time on any affected article. I hope this is making sense to you, I don't want you to feel confused. Left guide (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further information, Left guide, I appreciate it. I'll read up a bit more on the BOT, and have a look at the subpage. If I have additional questions I'll ask. Thanks also for suggesting the Village Pump which I don't think I had watchlisted so I miss discussions there. Seems like a good place to hang out now and then. Netherzone (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi there. Hope you've been well. I just thought I'd point out, in response to this edit of yours, that I actually started a discussion about that very same concern yesterday at this location. Thought I'd give you a heads up on it since no one's responded there yet, and you seem to share the same concerns. That's all. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: hey thanks, yeah I was aware of your talk page post there but couldn't come up with a useful response. At first, I was thinking of reverting the partial restoration of disputed content, but after looking at the sources I think it's a WP:PRESERVE situation. Writing prose from sources takes more time and energy than I care to give. Feel free to do it yourself if you wish, or I might get to it at some point, but no guarantees. Left guide (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Personally, its the sort of article I'd normally redirect entirely, as there's almost no content about the song present, so we don't really need an article yet. But the song will almost certainly be notable soon if its not already - I expect it to shoot right up the charts - so I didn't feel like wasting time in that approach.

I totally get not wanting to fix yourself - the "fixing" requires pretty much redoing the entire article. I wasn't trying to ask you to do anything like that, I just hoped that you'd add to the consensus building efforts on the talk page, even if its short and brief. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Well the sources available seem sufficient for establishing notability, they just aren't being used optimally, but that's an article-writing problem not a notability problem; remember, we have WP:NEXIST. I'm not sure what I can meaningfully add to the article talk aside from what we're talking about here, but I suppose a link to this discussion would be helpful. Left guide (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, again, I'm not asking you to do anything to the article itself. I'm simply asking you to participate in the discussion because the tag you added was related to an active, ongoing discussion. Simply go to the article talk page and explain why you added the tag to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breyers

Hello! Since you reviewed my initial edit request for the Breyers article at Talk:Breyers (as a reminder, I'm submitting a series of requests on behalf of the company), I was wondering if you might be interested in taking a look at my most recent request to improve part of the History section.

Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Inkian Jason: Hello, that request is a bit more complicated than what I am typically comfortable dealing with, so will leave it for others in the community to review. Best, Left guide (talk) 01:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and thanks for letting me know! Take care, Inkian Jason (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about List of NBA career ejections leaders

Hello Left guide, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, List of NBA career ejections leaders, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NBA career ejections leaders.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Grahaml35}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Grahaml35 (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for helping fix my edit on WP:ANI. I thought I hit "Reply" so it should have worked out correctly, but it didn't. I'll play around in the sandbox to see how replys work with bullet points. Closhund /talk/ 06:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closhund: You're welcome. Not your fault though, because someone else put their own comment in between disrupting the original order. Another editor also did this, so you may want to check if everything still looks good from your vantage point. Left guide (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the intended indentation. Thank you. Closhund /talk/ 06:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Closhund: No problem, glad to be of help. Cheers, Left guide (talk) 06:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]