Jump to content

User talk:Left guide/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Triple Crown

It seems there's a Triple Crown (women's basketball), so the name Triple Crown (basketball) is ambiguous. Also there's existing links to "Triple Crown (basketball)" at Template:Panathinaikos B.C. and Template:Olympiacos B.C., as there's European Basketball Triple Crown. —Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yeah, I saw the women's and Euro ones. Problem is, those are of dubious notability and seem to be WP:OR. I did some cursory searching for sources on those; might be worthy of PROD or AfD at some point. This NBA/NCAA/Oly one is likely a primary topic in any case. If I'm wrong, Triple Crown (American basketball) is probably an appropriate fallback option. For now, feel free to add hatnotes as desired. Left guide (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I'll check and fix the template links after I finish the category run on the player articles, don't sweat it. Thanks for the heads-up though. Left guide (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Something else to ponder: in the lower half of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 40 § Anthony Davis Grand Slam, there's discussion of Triple Crown, and yet even more definitions. —Bagumba (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Holy mackerel, I just read through that discussion and it seems like it was a very contentious matter, and I really don't have the mood or energy to get involved in contentious matters. I try not to get too attached to any one topic area, it saves my sanity. Left guide (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I somewhat remembered the topic, but then didnt recall that it got slightly drawn out. Haha. —Bagumba (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you know of any examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS for Basketball Network? I only found MSN aggregating it's content.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Don't know, but the achievement seems to have been picked up in a non-English book which I haven't had the time to translate, and it's also discussed in KC Jones obituaries. With everything combined, I believe GNG is satisfied. Left guide (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Jones is likely the WP:CITOGENESIS effect of people lifting info from WP. His bio had it before his death,[1] cited to a bloggy post on a since defunct site. —Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Well actually for Wikipedia's purposes, the reliability of a source isn't automatically negated by where they get their information from. If they have a trustworthy editorial staff that we deem suitable for RS purposes, then they likely verified the info against basketball-reference or similar databases. I sometimes see peer-reviewed academic journals regularly cite blogs and other sources deemed generally unreliable on Wikipedia. Many reliable sources engage in original research, and every piece of information had to start out as a primary source somewhere. Some reliable sources cite their sources, but it's not a requirement for our purposes. Left guide (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
All true. But what I'm saying is that if most of the sources are just Jones obits, its highly likely they just pulled it from WP. So its "significance" is circular. For all the false information I see in press obits that is also in WP, the idea that "reliable sources" actually vet out WP is dubious, esp. w/ obits. AP often pulls. I don't think I've come across it with The NY Times, but they're a dying breed. —Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll assume its notable for now (haven't really looked much more), but I'm thinking it's such a niche term, that it doesn't belong in the bios' leads (MOS:LEADREL). I might get around to moving it to the body.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: When KC Jones died, the feat was mentioned in his obituaries, so clearly it's due in the lead for a "lesser" player like him as part of a summary of his life/biography. So I’d say keep it for them. For the all-time greats like Jordan, Russell, and Magic, if it's not worthy of being mentioned in their obituaries when they die, then it's probably not worthy for the lead. Did any of Russell's obituaries talk about it? Left guide (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw your prod of the women's page. I thought it'd be the same concept as European Basketball Triple Crown, so possibly merge, except that's been tagged for years as unsourced too. Oh well, litterally out of my league haha.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The Euro men's one is more complicated than the women's. It's been here on en.wiki for over a decade and I believe it survived an AfD, it has an article in 10 foreign language Wikipedias, one in which I found a Turkish secondary source that might establish notability, and aside from that the men's feat seems to get reported on in European foreign language media. The women's one I feel more confident is not notable, the article is only seven months old and the creator is autopatrolled, so I was probably the first "outsider" to notice it, nobody else edited it before, and it's only in one foreign language Wikipedia which is unsourced. More importantly, I searched and couldn't find any sources indicating it's even a real thing, which means it seems to be pure WP:OR, borderline hoax. Left guide (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Other languages: Other sites don't necessarily have similar notability standards as en.WP, so that may or may not be signficant (WP:OTHERSTUFFish). I guess you could see if they have reliable sources that can be borrowed (though I always thought most English editors wouldn't know a reliable from a non-reliable non-English site). —Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Yeah, I know. And enforceability of notability standards isn't guaranteed either, but my main point is I'm hesitant to prod/AfD it without in-depth research (which I may not have time for) due to a longer more complicated article history combined with more sourcing plausibly available for the topic. Left guide (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Yeah, you have no obligation to pursue deletion (WP:VOLUNTARY). Best. —Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Tomizawa

Shortcut
@Bagumba: Since you challenged the notability of Triple Crown (American basketball) by adding the tag, it seems reasonable and appropriate to discuss Tomizawa more in-depth with you. Upon further research, I discovered that his blog is cited in this book about American sports by Grand Central Publishing, and his blog is also cited and listed in "further reading" in this book by Bloomsbury Publishing in a section about American involvement in the Olympics. Tomizawa's book about the Olympics is cited in this book by Cornell University Press, as well as this book by Springer Nature. One of his blog posts about U.S. Olympic basketball is cited in this book about Olympic basketball by University of Nebraska Press. He, his book, and his blog seem to be getting good-quality WP:USEBYOTHERS from heavyweight sources in this topic area. Here is a listing of his credentials which include major media, interview, and writing opportunities, and here are reviews of his Olympics book. Based on everything discussed in this and the preceding comment, all signs point towards Tomizawa counting as a reliable subject-matter expert. Thoughts? Left guide (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I'll take your word on him. I added a couple of other mainstream sources too.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
removing unjustified tag ... not sure a proper WP:BEFORE search was done by tagger: Regarding your edit summary, there was only two sources at the time it was tagged, one of which was the above-mentioned Basketball Network. Also, WP:BEFORE C3 reads:

If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag...

BEFORE is more steps about to take prior to an AfD. If signficant sources were already cited, the tag wouldn't have been needed. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Gwynn

You had tagged the "Player profile" section a while back.[2] Without looking at page history, I might have started that section, and definitely added most of the content there. I wouldn't have minded if others improved it, but it still remains tagged. If nothing else, it's got citations. Can you explain the "intricate detail" you think is excessive? As for "wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner", I think it should mostly (all?) be sourced, and perhaps I follow the WP:INTEXT guidance too liberally:

Neutrality issues apart, there are other ways in-text attribution can mislead. The sentence below suggests The New York Times has alone made this important discovery:

☒N According to The New York Times, the sun will set in the west this evening.

checkY The sun sets in the west each evening.

Perhaps you find the text too praising? But is there much negative written about him? He was generally beloved, and out of the harsh media scruitiny, being in "small-market" San Diego (and before analytics). Interested in your thoughts. —Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The two main things I find excessive in the player profile section are the lengthy details about Gwynn's bat size and body shape. In my opinion, that material veers into WP:MTAU territory. Looking deeper, the issues may be caused by the section seeming to heavily rely on sources that are more likely to write for an audience of ardent baseball fans (i.e. MLB, ESPN, Baseball Prospectus), compared to sources like books from mainstream publishers and general-interest newspapers. I think the peacocking seems fine enough for now; you might be surprised at how differently the prose reads after simply removing a few adjectives and adverbs, which is often a very effective remedy for how "small" the edit is. I've been researching a lot about Gwynn lately, and plan to continue doing so; from my research, the article here as a whole seems to be lacking info on the impact of his death on tobacco usage in MLB (i.e. how his death led to the 2016 league-wide tobacco ban for new players). I've found a great deal of sources related to his death and tobacco usage that seems under-covered in the article, but for me writing out encyclopedic prose takes a lot of time. Do you want to help? Left guide (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Inherently, a "player profile" section is more like a scouting report, so it is going to get technical and rely more on domain-specific coverage, as opposed to high-level achievements like awards and rankings, which are more accessible and in general sources. However, the fact that it's isolated to a section means it can be easily skipped, as opposed to scaterring the material throughout.
The body shape I think is one of the few things he was criticized about, and he and a writer or two believe it affected his public image as not being "athletic". It also segues into his being oft-injured. I think you've been the only person who's edited the page much since my overhaul, so aand your fresh perspective is welcome. I'm not really the GA/FA type, so I never went out actively looking for a peer review, but certainly welcome the critique. I don't smoke, but can't say I have any added interest in the tobacco aspect. Either start adding content, or add the sources to the talk page, and I may or may not be inclined to contribute. It's a mood thing.
NOTE Reworded above after re-reading. Reiterating, input is a good thing.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
My personal style on tagging (and I don't think there's any guidelines, ones way or another) is to flag the egregious stuff, but leave the finer points untagged (e.g. C/B-class and above) to someone looking to improve to GA/FA). Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Maybe some subheadings like "Batting style" and "Physical appearance" could be added to ease the length concerns? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@WikiOriginal-9: I think that's a very good edit, thank you! Also don't think I've had a talk page stalker before lol, so this is new for me; welcome. Left guide (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I was mostly just stalking Bagumba though... hah ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I wouldn't have minded if others improved it. Actually, looking through the page history, the {{fancruft}} tag in the "player profile" section appears to have influenced other users to make these two edits. So it wasn't just me involved in that. For some reason, that article seems to attract newcomers pitching in to help out. Left guide (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Essentially, those two edits look like a form of WP:EDITCONSENSUS where other users use their editing behavior to express agreement with the validity of the fancruft tag for that section, so I'd say keep the tag there for another 2–3 months and see what happens (I believe it populates maintenance categories and newcomer task portals which is good for soliciting the attention of more uninvolved neutral editors); if nobody else touches that section in a meaningful manner over that timespan, it's probably fine to remove the tag. Left guide (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Let me clarify. The concerns are fine, but can you provide more details on the specific sentences or type of content that you believe should be addressed to remove the tag. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I really don't know how to be more granular, but the size and level of detail in that section is different from what I typically see. Part of the problem is I'm somewhat hesitant to remove much of it because it's well-researched good-faith work, and I enjoy reading it and find it personally interesting (so hence may have an editorial bias), but I have doubts as to whether that type of material serves the best interest of the general readership. WP:PR at some point might be ideal. Left guide (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Perhaps the WP:SOLVE essay expresses my sentiments more clearly than my own original ideas can. I believe there's a problem with that section, but not 100% sure how to fix it. From the essay's third paragraph:

Identifying problems is only the first step in resolving them, but it's a vital step, and even if an editor only takes that one step, it's a net positive. They are laying the groundwork for other editors—who may be more qualified to tackle the later steps—to come in and finish the job.

Left guide (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
So I'm interested in resolving the concerns you personally have so that the tag can be removed. I'm not expecting you to solve the problem, but I do need to understand what you see as the problem, so that I can help solve it. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, you might not have an actual problem, but are concerned that others might? —Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Ok, my main concern is that average readers who aren't baseball/Gwynn/Padres fans may have trouble finding parts of that section useful, and understanding them. What do you think of the WP:PR offer? I think that section (and to a lesser extent, the whole article) could really benefit from review from experienced Wikipedians who aren't necessarily sports editors. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
If you intend to improve the article and want feedback via PR, that doesn't require my or anyone else's approval. You could flag the concern as a specific point for the PR, but personally I'd remove the tag and leave it to the reviewer (or someone else) to flag, who more definitively finds it is an issue. Regarding MTAU, there are a few balancing points. Per WP:TECH-CONTENT:

Increasing the understandability of technical content is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less knowledgeable readers, but this should be done without reducing the value to readers with more technical background.

Per WP:UPFRONT:

It's perfectly fine for later sections to be more technical, if necessary.

Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Ok, I'll remove that tag for now, and it can be further discussed/resolved at PR if desired. So hey, I was feeling a weird sense of deja vu when examining this ESPN source which is cited over a dozen times, and realized it's because it seems to have identical phrases that I've been reading in the WP article. Here is a comparison with the September version before I made some recent removals. Left guide (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Those seem to be straight-forward statements of fact and not creative expresssions, and short phrases as opposed to sentence(s). —Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
If it's at all relevant or helpful, part of that article says (unattributed in its own voice) During my career I tinkered endlessly. I toyed with huge leg kicks, no stride at all, and various toe taps., which seems to imply the author is a former pro ballplayer. Left guide (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, no ideas on how to get the author. Contact Fox? Usually I would just attribute the work, but I know some editors want the author (but what use is that is that if it's a non-notable writer?)—Bagumba (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Legacy section

  • @Bagumba: Is there any possibility for Tony Gwynn#Legacy to be divided with sub-headings? It seems rather long at eight full-length paragraphs, and I personally find it much easier to edit while researching to know where to insert new content additions when the sections are divided into smaller pieces with more specific titles. I presume you wrote almost all of it (I only recall myself adding one sentence there), and figured you might have better knowledge/memory of how you organized the paragraphs in that section. Also pinging @WikiOriginal-9: who did it for the "player profile" section which was a big help, in case you have any useful input or edits. Left guide (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it started as a repositiory for material that put his career in a historical perspective. If things got long, I started a new paragraph LOL. I don't have any ideas offhand, but I'll mull it over. Feel free to be bold or add some suggestions here. I'm not sure if you have plans to make this WP:GA, but the article is getting quite big. Not saying it's your edits, it's cumulative (mine included). But I always figure its easier to add material as we find it, then pare things as needed later. —Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: Ok, I think I figured out something good. From what I can see, his legacy is discussed in the following contexts: paragraphs #1-3 statistical accomplishments, #4 San Diego, #5 comparison with other greats, #6 playing style, #7 statistical accomplishments again (should be merged with 1-3), and #8 character. I have some thoughts on your other points I'll get around to later. Left guide (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    Short paragraph sections are discouraged (MOS:OVERSECTION), but can leave that for to-do list. —Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: But I always figure its easier to add material as we find it, then pare things as needed later. 100% agreed. I figured it's best to run through a couple of key sources and extract everything encyclopedically meaningful from them into the article, then pause and review the entire article to see what we're working with, and then possibly consider something like splitting to new sub-articles if it's really too big. For me, doing it that way is easier and more fun from a research standpoint. Left guide (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm thinking the new Tony Gwynn#Baseball achievements section is unclear what goes there vs. Professional career and Legacy. Back of my mind Mariano Rivera was a model. Maybe stuff still needs to be reshuffled, or trimmed eventually. I also thought Post-baseball should eventually be merged into Legacy. Re: splitting, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career is an example of too much verifiable detail. —Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: It's a pretty clear distinction in my mind, and I apologize in advance that I may not be the best at explaining it. This is how I see it:
          • "professional career" is for things that fit into the historical chronological narrative of his career, mainly events that happened at a certain time
          • "baseball achievements" is for the factual objective things noteworthy about his entire career like records, awards, and statistics
          • "legacy" is for the intangible things like the ways he's perceived by others, his impact on the community, how his playing style and strategy revolutionized baseball, his character, etc
    Is this reply helpful? Left guide (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    But his baseball achievements placed in a historical context are his primary legacy. —Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: I beg to differ, and perhaps that's why we are disagreeing. On further reflection, I get the sense from your feedback that my recent structural changes to the article are too bold and too fast. I think self-reverting and tagging with {{Very long section}} would be an appropriate interim measure. Left guide (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Bold is fine. We are discussing, so this is all standard WP:BRD. —Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Actually it's just Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (I haven't reverted).—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK and Wolfe book

  • @Bagumba: Not sure if you knew this, but WP:DYKNEW says that freshly-promoted GAs are eligible for DYK. So if we go that route, I think this content would make for a pretty badass hook like so:

    Did you know that air traffic controllers stopped Tony Gwynn from playing baseball in Reno?

    Left guide (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Might be a stretch to blame the controllers and not the strike. I was trying to figure out the publisher of the book and whether it was Joe Blow self-publishing, but I'll assume Rich Wolfe makes it legit. —Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: You may have noticed I've been using that book a lot in recent content additions in the article. That book is essentially a compilation of publications by people who knew Gwynn: reputable newspaper sportswriters from cities he played in, team employees, coaches, teammates, so most of the material cited from it should be generally reliable for the claims made per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS since they're the types of people considered experts on Gwynn. One of his SDSU coaches made a couple of claims that seemed to be at odds with other sources, namely that Gwynn died from a heart attack (he provides his rationale and reasoning) and that tobacco was banned at SDSU so it was therefore impossible for him to have started using it there. Those types of statements wouldn't be appropriate for wikivoice but may merit inclusion with attribution, though I don't personally care either way. Left guide (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    Actually 1st time I checked that source. Generally I've been AGFing your edits, with an occasional peek here and there. —Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: Well the controllers chose to go on strike, thereby stopping Gwynn from getting to Reno. I believe that's a valid interpretation of the source without engaging in OR. I remember you taught me the first time I attempted a DYK for the Nowitzki statue, that for DYK less is more to intrigue readers, and I think mentioning the strike in the hook gives away too much info and makes the connection more obvious. Left guide (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Quotes

Hi there. For this edit with quotes about Gwynn being a great hitter, I'm wary of WP:EXAMPLEFARM / WP:QUOTEFARM, esp. attributed to non-notable writers (i.e. w/o a WP page). And some might not be too convinced by Bonds, given his background LOL. Maybe if we can find a source or two that says like "widely considered the best hitter of his generation", then we can just use WP voice. —Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Well do you at least agree with the lead update? And if so, how many/what type of sources are sufficient to defend its inclusion? Are you willing to assist with additional research for it? I already spent a lot of time researching and drafting the material in my sandbox, and would hate to see it all go to waste. Left guide (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
For subjective/opinion type of things, I always thought the more sources the merrier for making it appropriate for the lead. One or two sources making that claim could be perceived as fringe or undue for the lead. Left guide (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
If WP can reliably make a general statement, e.g. "widely considered", it's better then a bunch of individual opinions. There's also the WP:INTEXT example of sunsets, where attribution can be counter productive. Sorry, I was only commenting on the ennumerated quotes. Re: the lead, because he didn't hit for power, I wonder if they really mean best "pure hitter". The page had said "He is statistically one of the best and most consistent hitters in baseball history" in 2011,[3] before I ever edited it. It wasnt sourced at the time, but it seems reasonable. I can see what I run across. —Bagumba (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I found this re: being a "pure hitter": "Also with baseball’s near-unanimous belief that “T” was the greatest pure hitter of the last half of the 20th Century.” (San Diego Union Tribune) Looking at some articles that provided an overview of his career, as well as some obits, calling him "the best hitter" is a stretch.
  • "Tony Gwynn wasn't the greatest hitter who ever lived. He didn't collect the most hits. He wasn't even the brightest star of his day. All he did was stay great for 20 seasons, and baseball fans should never forget that."(Sporting News)
  • "He simply possessed a brilliant consistency with his left-handed batting stroke” (New Yotk Times)
  • "Gwynn is perceived as strictly a batting average guy, but we live in the advanced age where that stat is not always appreciated ... a no-doubter on the short list of greatest contact hitters of all time” (Sporting News)
  • "In a statement, Commissioner Bud Selig called Gwynn “the greatest Padre ever and one of the most accomplished hitters that our game has ever known, whose all-around excellence on the field was surpassed by his exuberant personality and genial disposition in life.” (LA Times)
  • “Tony is considered one of the greatest hitters in the history of the National League and there is no better place to honor him than in San Diego,” MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred (SABR)
—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Ok, thanks for finding those. You might be interested in what I'm currently drafting up in my sandbox, where some experts in the statistician/mathematician community regard Gwynn as the greatest MLB hitter of all-time. Left guide (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Did you want feedback on the draft? Or I'll just wait for the mainspace. —Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bagumba: since you're offering, I'll accept the feedback. (p.s., if/when those two red-links become articles, [they almost certainly pass GNG] I'd be more amenable to condensing the version in the Gwynn article, and splitting off some of the details into those future articles) Left guide (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Update: I've added it to the article; feedback still welcome. Left guide (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not able to do a full analysis right now, but it's ok in the body in the interim. The page is a work in progress anyways. I did change the lead to "pure hitter", and even Schell acknowledges that others use the term, and I think that's less WP:ASTONISHing for the lead. Otherwise, it seems controversial to call him plain "best hitter" in the lead when TSN and Posnanski rank him from 50–100 overall. —Bagumba (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Left guide: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
@WikiOriginal-9: Thank you! Happy holidays to you as well! Left guide (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Left guide, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

2025

 Have a happy New Year filled with light!

Hi Left guide, Best wishes that the new year brings peace, good health and happiness. Thank you for what you do for the encyclopedia and this community. You've made some great contributions!

Image: New Year's Eve Foxfires at the Changing Tree, Oji, Utagawa Hiroshige, woodcut, 1857

Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone: thank you for thinking of me on this holiday, Happy New Year to you too! Left guide (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Luka Dončić trade

Hello Left guide,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Luka Dončić trade for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Luka Dončić trade to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Left_guide/Archive_4&oldid=1275667768"