User talk:Left guide

Sports source question

Is Sports Illustrated a good source for MLB news about teams acquiring players from waivers ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@ReallyAmazingDude13: On its own, probably not unless the involved teams or league confirm the transaction. The advice you were given at User talk:Bagumba/Archive 36#Sports News source question is equally applicable here. Try to read and internalize WP:SPORTSTRANS for situations like this if you haven't already.

(p.s.) I saw you cross-posted this matter to Bagumba's talk page. In the future, please refrain from doing that since it could be seen as forum-shopping (it's also harder for people to track a fragmented discussion) — instead pick one page and ping other people you want to notify. Left guide (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide Never even heard of Forum Shopping but thanks for reminding me not to do it again as it just feels like there are new "WP:" articles with many rules on how the site is ran. ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@ReallyAmazingDude13: Left guide covers the major points. Also, the FanNation portion of SI is quite bloggy, and I would generally consider that part unreliable. SI as a whole has gone downhill. If you want a centralized baseball discussion in the future, also consider posting at WT:BASEBALL. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba So it's a no on using SI as a source for MLB news about teams acquiring players from waivers? ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The bigger concern, whether it's SI or not, is WP:RSBREAKING:

Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies ... The On the Media Breaking News Consumer's Handbook contains several suggestions to avoid spreading unreliable and false information. These include: distrust anonymous sources, unconfirmed reports, and reports attributed to other news media; seek multiple independent sources which independently verify; seek verified eyewitness reports; and be wary of potential hoaxes.

But generally, I personally look for something other than SI. If it's true, someone else will have published it, especially the team itself. Have you read WP:SPORTSTRANS? —Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba Yes. I was asking as I saw earlier today that Ben Gamel was claimed by the Houston Astros from waivers, and I saw SI as one of the news articles when I went to read up about it, and I wanted to make sure that SI is a good source for MLB news about teams acquiring players from waivers before using it. ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@ReallyAmazingDude13: If you are referring to this, the concern would have been that it's not explictly attributed to a team representative, and it's a post on X, even if from The Athletic. Ultimately, it's also on the Astros' website.—Bagumba (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba I see. How do I source it considering that it's not like the NBA for example where they hyperlink a article on that so when you click on it, it takes you to the team's article on that claim. ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@ReallyAmazingDude13: In this case, I just went to the team's website. If you find it, great. If not, it's dubious if it's happened yet or not.—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba I found it but I was asking how do I source it from the team's website to the Ben Gamel article since the transaction box isn't like how the NBA for example, has it for their transactions where there's a hyperlink to the team's news article from the team's website ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@ReallyAmazingDude13: https://www.mlb.com/astros/roster/transactions/2024/08 says "08/20/24 Houston Astros claimed RF Ben Gamel off waivers from New York Mets". Is that URL not enough for verifiability? Of course, you could wait for a larger article. There's no requirement that you have to use it. —Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba It is enough for verifiability, but for "wait for larger article", do you mean like CBS Sports making a article on it? ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@ReallyAmazingDude13: Maybe I misunderstood your earlier comment about wanting a "hyperlink to the team's news article". —Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Public artwork images

I saw your addition to Nowitzki's page. FYI, public artwork images are not free from copyright per c:COM:FOP US in the US. I may (or may not) get around to tagging them. But that existing one from Germany is OK. Haha. (I've had my uploads flagged before.) —Bagumba (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Damn, I never knew that. I always thought American copyright law allowed for photos of anything in public to be legal. I do wonder why you're now making a fuss about it though, since I merely modified the photo to a cropped version, and wasn't the one who originally uploaded it or added to the article. If all else fails, maybe there's a fair use rationale, idk. Speaking of the Germany one, there's actually photos of Nowitzki sitting next to his own statue like in this report, it gave me a little laugh haha. Left guide (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean for it to be a "fuss". It was more to save your time in the event you were planning to upload more, since you were looking into bios for the sculptors. Fair use could work if its aesthetics are discussed in detail and it's complementary to the prose. Anyone can take a photo of it with no backlash, unless you're trying to make money off it. Commons content is supposed to be free. —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Sorry, maybe "fuss" was too strong of a word. But to be clear that wasn't my upload. I used the crop tool over at Commons on a photo someone else uploaded. I don't have any artwork/statue photos to upload, and I don't plan to. Full disclosure, I also added a copy of the statue image (along with relevant prose and sourcing) to the American Airlines Center article where there previously was none. Certainly no intention to make money off of these photos. Am I doing anything wrong? Left guide (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Not here to shame you. I guess you're collateral damage in way, but maybe the original uploader didn't know either. There's some Wooden quote about what you do after you know being more important. Anyways, happy editing. —Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yeah I know you're not trying to shame me; I might just be overreacting. Maybe we have different understanding of policy too. Honestly though, if this was really a big problem, Commons probably would've nipped it in the bud a long time ago, because the John Stockton statue images have been around for several years, and most of the other articles at {{Statues of NBA figures}} have images also. Thanks, happy editing to you also. Left guide (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I think its like all the unverifiable stuff on Wikipedia. It's up until someone notices. If you want a fair-use example, see File:Michael Jordan Statue.jpg. It not free, so it's not on Commons. Needs a fair-use rationale added. That one says its for a dedicated page, which may be yet another requirement. —Bagumba (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I see. You have a point, I just went through all the NBA statue articles and only Red Auerbach's image is on Commons, all the rest are on Wikipedia filespace. Am I allowed to copy a photo from Commons and re-upload it here on Wikipedia into filespace with a fair use rationale? Left guide (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say use the original URL, but that one was from the Commons user themselves. I'm not sure how that works, if the Commons file is not "free" and ends up being deleted. Find a different one (non-Commons)? Or ask a WP image expert. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Left guide. Thank you for your work on Statue of John Stockton. Another editor, Netherzone, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating this article on a public sculpture. And it's nice seeing you in a different context on WP.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone: hey thanks! Nice to run into you again. I personally don't know much about art and sculptures, but the article subject happens to intersect with another interest of mine. Due to this lack of familiarity, I had some trouble extracting material from this source (cited in the "design" section), since it goes into a lot of art details, but I tried my best. If you're so inclined, please feel free to expand the article from that source, thanks. Left guide (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help out anytime, and in particular on art articles. Netherzone (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone: Thanks again! :) Left guide (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Left guide. Thank you for your work on Statue of Dirk Nowitzki. Another editor, Netherzone, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice work on this article, thanks for your contributions!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Netherzone (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Source Highlighting Tool

Hi! I had a look at the Leverett Ball AfD because it was brought up on ANI. I read that you have some sort of tool that highlights sources. Do you know how I can get that? QwertyForest (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@QwertyForest: Hello, thanks for asking. It's User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter. Good luck. Left guide (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I've put it on my watchlist ready to find and install onto my PC. It looks like it will be really useful! QwertyForest (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Installed! QwertyForest (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Nowitzki DYK

A couple of tweaks you can consider:

1. ... that Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban promised that the statue of Dirk Nowitzki would be "the biggest, most bad-ass statue ever"? This seems tighter.
2. ... that although the the statue of Dirk Nowitzki appears unbalanced, a physics professor said its center of gravity keeps it upright? The prof's name is non-notable, so can be dropped. Seems like we should mention its lopsided appearance to add context to why the center of gravity is relevant. And I remember little from physics, but the source refers to "center of mass", not "center of gravity", if that makes a difference. As nobody has commented at the DYK nom yet, you could just update the hooks directly, if you think it's an improvement. I wanted to avoid the clutter of adding it myself as ALT3 and ALT4. Regards.

—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: hey again, thanks for stopping by with suggestions. #1 is probably a good idea, looks like some copy-editing. And for #2, good catch on the "center of mass" vs. "center of gravity", you must've inspected that source more carefully than I did, I'll switch it to "mass" at a minimum. One thing about your suggestion that's omitted is that the word "base" seems like a key part of the physics professor's concept, and should be specified in the hook. Any way to preserve the word "base" in your suggestion? Left guide (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm more leaning on WP:DYKTRIM: In general, the shorter and punchier the hook, the more impact it has. I try to aim for it to be as short as possible, while still be accurate and interesting. And then if there is still something not clear, it makes it more enticing for a reader to want to click the bold link. Ultimately, it's your nomination, so you need the hook to do what you want it to, and I'm not doing a formal review here. So no offense on my part if you think base should be there. Best of luck. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I have a tendency to be very thorough and complete, but I can see how for DYK it's ideal to lead the reader on and not say every detail in the hook. ;) You've definitely persuaded me, thanks again. Left guide (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad that it was useful. —Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: if you haven't already, feel free to check out the John Stockton statue DYK nom too. Left guide (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not much of a DIYer, so maybe I'm missing the significance of "20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods". I'd just assume its standard. Re: COVID, I'm still suffering from burnout on the subject. But maybe a shorter "the statue of John Stockton was adorned with a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic" makes it less political and slightly more intriguing? —Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Tbh, I had a really hard time coming up with interesting DYK ideas for Stockton. I personally find all three of the Nowitzki prompts to be more interesting than anything I could find with Stockton. That's just how the sources are, nothing I can do about it, so just trying to make the best of what's available. I do actually find the tool thing somewhat interesting as someone who's not much of an artist and has never worked on a statue or seen what's inside of it. I guess it gives readers a peek into the inner workings of a statue. Left guide (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty subjective how reviewers interpret WP:DYKINT's likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest There's some hardliners that say not every new page has something interesting, while some (most?) show more sympathy for content creators who go through the effort to submit a nom. —Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I see. How much percent of your attempts have been declined/rejected? Just wondering, you seem very experienced. (p.s. if the Nowitzki statue makes it onto the main page, I'd like to give you DYK credit by adding it to that page, if you don't mind, since you've been a massive help on that) Left guide (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall being rejected, though looking back there were some quite boring ones. But I generally don't try to force it anyways. As for credit, you can read the fine print, but I thought it's just the nominator and major page contributors. Anyways, glad I was of help. —Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: That's interesting and somewhat surprising, since I occasionally check on ITN, and stuff gets rejected there regularly. And thank you, happy editing. Left guide (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ITN's a whole other monster. —Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

 Implemented (suggestion #1) Left guide (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Statue of Dirk Nowitzki

Hello! Your submission of Statue of Dirk Nowitzki at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! lullabying (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Proxy? Excuse me?

I'm not sure who you think I am, but I don't proxy for anybody. Kindly keep your accusations to yourself. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not an accusation of any wrongdoing on your part, since it seems that it was done inadvertently and in good-faith, as explained more thoroughly on your talk page by @Netherzone:. Apologies if there is any misunderstanding caused by me not being clear enough the first time. Left guide (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been here since 2006, so it's hard not to take accusations of proxying as anything but an insult. Nevertheless, I appreciate your apology. Thanks for being graceful about it. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 02:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)