User talk:Left guide

List of capitalisation discussions, missing entry

I only have the slightest clue to what is going on with capitalisation, so anyways since you seem to be the one of the only maintainers of that list at the top of WT:MOSCAPS — Talk:M5 Motorway (Sydney)#Requested move 2 July 2025 is related to Talk:M4 motorway (Sydney)#Requested move 23 June 2025. M4 appeared to have been missing from the concluded list, so I've added it. Not sure if you want to fix up any of the wording for the summaries. Fork99 (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fork99: Thanks for helping. I don't always know everything going on with capitalization either, and even less so regarding Sydney motorways. Just had a recent urge to check WP:RMC and pitch in by adding any missing capitalization-related RMs I could find to the list; I enjoy doing small clerking-type tasks sometimes, though it's not guaranteed to be comprehensive. Your summary seems fine, thanks again. Left guide (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey I’m sure you're probably aware of the elections. Problem is, I don’t see your name on the list of candidates🤣. No interest in submitting your name? You’d be a great addition, just sayin… GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012: Yes I was aware, and I'm flattered about the suggestion (thanks); I typically think of myself as just a normal editor and community member. Bagumba actually hinted at this a few months ago, but I might be in WP:NOTNOW or WP:NOTYET territory, and I wouldn't take on something like this on just days' notice; I'd want to mentally prepare for it for much longer. I have some anxiety about being personally questioned and examined by many people all at once, especially from those I've never interacted with before; I can be aversive to being in the spotlight and handling criticism. It seemed to be more intense during the RfA-only era, but from what I've observed, there's still some element of that in the election pages. I'd also want to study up on some of the admin guides and essays beforehand, and identify some specific admin tasks I'd want to take on; the community generally wants to see a genuine need for the tools and not just hand them out willy-nilly. So in short, maybe someday, I'm open to it but not yet. The new election process admittedly makes it a little less intimidating. (p.s. Bagumba feel free to chime in with any advice or insights if you'd like) Left guide (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Totally understand, it’s probably not the most comfortable position to be holding and I really didn’t want to come off like I was pressuring you to nominate yourself, but I also don’t want you to sell yourself short. From what I can tell, you’re level-headed, active, and very knowledgeable when it comes to policy and guidelines. That said, when you do decide to nominate yourself (next election maybe? 😉), I’ll be there to support you (Bagumba too 😁). GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@GOAT Bones231012: Oh no, I certainly don't feel like you’re pressuring me, a little nudge never hurts. Your support is encouraging (and appreciated), and I don't get candid feedback like this very often. I'm not really the type to self-nominate though, not a toot-my-own-horn kind of person. There's a few well-established folks in mind I might ask for a nomination if/when that time comes, and if they all decline then that probably means I'm still not ready. Left guide (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't participated at RfAs for years, so can't comment much on its current landscape. —Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd be there to support you as well, Left Guide. You would make a great administrator. You have a good disposition, experience, and understanding of how things work around here. Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Netherzone. Left guide (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

if and when you decide the time is right, you can count on my support as well Star Mississippi 03:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Star Mississippi, that is very humbling to know. Left guide (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with everything that's been said by others and would support you as well, if you ever chose to run for an adminship. Assadzadeh (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Assadzadeh, and thank you for your ongoing "Finals" to "Final" cleanup following Talk:Stanley Cup Final#RfC/RM on "Final" vs "Finals". It's quite a large task, and your work is noticed. Left guide (talk) 07:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that you're using JWB for the cleanup, which I'm not familiar with, but I saw on its page that it claims to be simpler to use than AWB, which I just started using for another cleanup. Do you see an advantage to JWB over AWB? Assadzadeh (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh: You're welcome. I use JWB and not AWB, so I can't speak for AWB. JWB is compatible with most browsers I think; I couldn't figure out how to use AWB. The AWB talk page at WT:AWB and the technical village pump at WP:VPT are both probably better sources of information and answers than I am for these types of queries since I'm not the most tech-savvy. Left guide (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide, I'm here because while doing the AfD notes for this election, I noticed a few of your more daring NACs. Eyebrow-raising in a good way - not patently obvious closes we could trust to an algorithm, and (imo) you made the right decisions. A good sign. If you think there's any chance you might run in December and would appreciate some feedback, let me know and I'll have a deeper look. -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you asilvering! I'll keep that in mind. Left guide (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing, you may want to attach an email to your account. :) -- asilvering (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisting

Hey, thanks for pointing that out to me! I have gone this whole time not knowing the same closing restrictions applied to relisting. Better late than never, I supose! :) Cheers, — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: You're welcome. Thanks for being open-minded about it and willing to adjust, and for self-reverting. Best, Left guide (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shivering Spines

Hello, Left guide,

I think this was too much of a close call to be a good AFD for a NAC closure. This was almost 50-50 with Keeps at an advantage but was nowhere near unanimous. I think the nominator might have questions about this closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Ok thanks for the feedback, I'll take your word for it and self-revert this one. Left guide (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave you a note so I'll just add it here. While I greatly appreciate all of the time and effort you have put into your work in AFDLand, Left guide, I think you might want to decrease your involvement a little. Lately, when I look at the daily logs, it looks like you have done the majority of AFD discussion closures. Being so involved can sometimes result in a backlash and extra scrutiny which, in my experience, isn't an enjoyable feature of editing here. I'm not saying that your closures are incorrect, they generally look okay to me, I just think you have accelerated from 0 (no involvement) in AFDs to 60 (our most active closer) and that can bring on attention, both positive and negative. I just want to encourage you to do fewer closures but be more careful with the ones you choose. Don't feel compelled to close an AFD discussion just because the time has come for it to be closed. There are some regular closers and admins who focus on older discussions that are still open so you don't need to worry that no one will see these "expired" AFDs or that they need to be relisted. We generally just relist older AFDs when there has been little to no participation or there is not an obvious closure decision.

If you have any questions about AFD closures, don't hesitate to come to one of the older, regular AFD closers for feedback and advice. Thanks again for all of the time you are putting into your contributions to the project. It's appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Liz:, thank you for recognizing my AfD work, and for all of your work there too. I enjoy doing this type of thing. To clear up some possible misconceptions, when going through the logs I have been careful as to which ones I take on and which ones I pass, and leave a closure/relist to those more experienced and competent if there's even a sliver of uncertainty on what to do (or less commonly if I'm INVOLVED or otherwise have a personal opinion on the subject); there's a lot I leave on the table. If there are specific concerns about my approach that stray from policies and guidelines, I am willing to listen and try to adjust accordingly. You may or may not remember I used to be a fairly active AfD !voter but largely lost interest in that side of things. I have been recently checking in with @OwenX: on a few matters and they seem to generally endorse my judgments, and to a less frequent extent @Star Mississippi: (who I have known and interacted with for a bit longer). I also invite their feedback here if they so wish. All the best, Left guide (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Just noting belatedly that I've seen this. I have been offline since Thursday and likely not online any time soon but responding to some pings. I'll come back to you ASAP @Liz @Left guide. Star Mississippi 02:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi again @Left guide and @Liz

Liz, I don't see an issue with LG's closes/relists. When there's one they're unsure about, they ask one of us and I admit I haven't always been able to be responsive so glad they also know @OwenX. I don't recall any being questioned aside from the tech issues we all have with AfD closer script. While there are problematic NAC closes, I don't recall seeing any from @Left guide and don't think we should broadly discourage them since we need the help at AfD and I personally thing fresh eyes are helpful too. Watching here, but please ping me if I don't respond timely, happy to try and help navigate this. Star Mississippi 02:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Connaughton

I'm not sure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Connaughton was the best choice for a NAC. While there's no consensus to delete, there is no clear consensus to keep, and Delete can be seen as a possible outcome in this case. I was just about to close it as a no-consensus myself, allowing for renomination in one month. I'm not going to reopen it, but this is the kind of NAC that could be seen as contentious, and one that some here would prefer to see handled by an admin. No harm done, just an FYI. Owen× ☎ 23:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@OwenX: Thanks for letting me know. I guess it's not as obvious as I believed. I trust your judgment on this, and have vacated the close accordingly. Left guide (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! There was no need to do that, but I certainly appreciate it. Owen× ☎ 23:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

While a Keep and a N/C close are functionally identical as an outcome (other than renomination delays), a no-consensus can better acknowledge the validity of arguments on the Delete side, especially when accompanied by a closing statement to that effect. It's easy to forget that participants put in a significant amount of time and effort to analyze sources and explain their position. They deserve to understand why the XfD closed "against" them. Your self-reverted closing statement here was good, but I think a N/C better reflects the validity of those on the Delete side who didn't shift to Keep after the article was rewritten. As I said, neither is a mistake, just different hues of the same colour. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see how that's no consensus. I think left guide was right closing it as keep. There were barely any delete !votes left. Bearian's delete !vote didn't even apply anymore because it wasn't an unsourced BLP. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If I had said, Bearian's delete !vote didn't even apply anymore in my closing statement, it would have been overturned at DRV as a supervote, and rightly so. Whether the changes to the article were enough to invalidate or turn Bearian's Delete into a Keep is ultimately his call, not mine. All we can say is that the improvements make it difficult to assign proper weight to the earlier !votes, which is how I phrased it in my closing statement. As a closer, I may discard !votes that aren't based on policy, but I may not second-guess how participants' stated view would change had they seen sources I believe they haven't. Owen× ☎ 09:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with the keep. If someone else rescues a bad article, then it's likely they did the real work. Bearian (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a perfectly valid and sensible position for you to take, but not for me, as a closer, to take on your behalf. As I told Left guide, I was fine with the Keep close. But I disagree with WikiOriginal-9's assertion that I should have discarded your !vote. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Hamid Tajik

Hello, Left guide,

I'm going to ask you in advance to please not close this discussion, let an admin handle it. It looks straight-forward but my closure was contested so I reverted it and relisted it. In these situations, I think it's best if an admin closes disputed AFDs. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, I can see from your talk page and the activity at the AfD that this is clearly a controversial one. I was already planning to avoid that one anyways. Thanks for the heads-up though. Left guide (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

RMTR

Hi Left guide, just to let you know, script is useful for removing requests once completed, rather than using done template (as there is no auto-archiving to speak of, only human intervention). I've since removed the requests you completed with this edit. Regards, CNC (talk) CNC (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: Hi, thanks for informing me (and for removing my completed moves). I wasn't sure what the protocol is there, so I've been adding the {{done}} template as a courtesy to the requester so they can see for a short while that it's completed. Also wasn't previously aware that it must be done manually with no bot; I'll simply remove them as I complete them going forward. Thanks again. Left guide (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Hockey

How is there no field hockey project?!?! Bearian (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: Hello, I think it mainly depends on editors' interest and inclination; ice hockey is much more popular I think. From my understanding, WikiProjects exist when there are at least two editors who wish to coordinate together in managing and standardizing content for a specific topic area. Left guide (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

3rd relists

Hi. I'm Barkeep49, an editor and administrator. Per WP:RELIST third relists are to be generally avoided. The guideline further states that when making a 3rd relist, a short statement should be provided explaining the relist is possible, rather than closing, for instance, as no consensus. I think the third relist you did at Articles_for_deletion/Dutch exonyms was likely defensible but not with a statement like "final relist". Let me know if you have any questions or if I can help you out in any way with this concept. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I used to relist cases like that pretty often I think. I recall people getting annoyed at me for not relisting. I've since grown out of it and tend to write "no consensus, and none likely to arise", which seems to ward off the complaints. Either that or people have simply decided to stop messing with me now that I'm not the babiest admin anymore. -- asilvering (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Thanks for chiming in; any general advice on deciding to close as "no consensus" vs. another relist? Those can be tough judgments I want to get better at. Left guide (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I would have closed this one as "no consensus" given how ambivalent everyone is about it. That doesn't suggest to me that we're going to get any more or better arguments, so we might end up with a numerical win for keep/delete that isn't actually really worth anything, which would be rather worse than closing as no consensus. I'm more inclined to do a third relist if there's something weird going on (eg numerical superiority for delete, but none of the delete votes make any sense or they're probable socks), or if there's a really well-argued vote and a bunch of really meh ones that don't really attempt to counter it. Having experienced the frustration of making a perfectly solid delete argument on something that really needs to go, and gotten stuck with a no-consensus close just on the numbers, I try to avoid letting that happen to others where I can. -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, thanks for advising me on this. I'll remember to provide better explanations on future 3rd relists. Best, Left guide (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Also apologies in advance if there are other past 3rd relists from me like that active in the logs right now; it's possible. Left guide (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I left the note in the spirit of future growth and improvement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49! It's definitely appreciated. Best, Left guide (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• As a frequent relister, I should add my 2 cents. Some editors get angry at "No consensus" closures (sometimes from both sides at once) and other editors are annoyed by additional relists. It's important to keep both of those facts in mind when you are considering what to do next. But this is an unfortunate situation where editors on different sides are dissatisfied no matter what you do. And, yes, I realize, it's not important whether or not editors are "happy" with a closure but you do want to make a closure that makes sense to the participants. But, yes, try to avoid 3rd closures and I say that as a reminder to myself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Liz, this is very good advice. Left guide (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

In the spirt of WP:NACD's Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins, consider also just leaving those to admins to decide.—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I already do in the vast majority of such cases, and only work within the range of what I feel comfortable and competent in. Thank you Bagumba. :) Left guide (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)