Hi @Left guide. Just wanted to get your opinion on whether you think I bludgeoned in this AfD. I apologised to the editor who called me out for it and I'm not going to respond anymore in that AfD. I decided to educate myself on bludgeoning over at AN/I and I think I've learnt what to look out for regarding it. I definitely didn't need to repeat my points over and over. I know you've closed some of the AfD discussions I've participated, is this something I need to work on not doing? Thank you and just wanted to add I appreciate the work you do at AfD! 11WB (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb: Hi, thanks for the kind words. I should start by saying this is the first time I recall anyone directly asking me for advice about their own conduct (but it indicates a high level of self-awareness and reflection on your part which is admirable) and it's not something I feel particularly comfortable or competent advising on. Regarding the AfD, even if you're not intending to, it plausibly looks like you're trying to get the last word in threaded replies to most of the comments, and that can ultimately weaken your position. In most of your replies I see a thesis statement at the end along the lines of "merge is the best ATD/outcome", and I think that repetition could come off as bothersome to others since that stance is already clearly indicated in the nomination statement. I see decent support from other experienced editors for the merge, so I think it's generally best to let them take up your cause for you, and try not to get too attached to the result. A good closer will judge on the strength (not the volume or quantity) of arguments, and if you think the closer errs in that regard, WP:DRV is available as a safety valve. Some watchers of this talk page might be able to give better advice (@Bagumba: in particular comes to mind), or @OwenX: who is a godsend for all things AfD which you may already know. Left guide (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. If it was inappropriate to ask, I'll try to be more confident in my own self-reflection in the future. It wasn't my intention to put you on the spot at all. I agree with the observations you have made. I have exhibited the behaviours of a participant which I've tried hard to avoid. This is disappointing. I have made some large blunders in some recent AfDs this month, this one being what seems to now be a trend. I have put this down to over-enthusiasm and not taking a moment to think before posting, which has, as you rightly put, become bothersome to others. I appreciate both yourself and the editor yesterday for identifying this, thank you. I feel confident now on the areas I need to improve on and the behaviours that aren't acceptable on Wikipedia. For the time being, I think I will stick to the quieter parts of the project, and make finishing NPP/S a priority! 11WB (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb: You're welcome. It's not necessarily inappropriate, just new for me, which I don't mind too much, but means there may be limitations; it's good to be outside of one's comfort zone sometimes. Perhaps a more objective way to assess whether one is bludgeoning is to go to the page's history tab and click the "page statistics" button, to check things like who has the most edits and text volume. In this particular discussion page, you have 18 edits, and the second-most is 5. You are responsible for 42.7% of the page's text volume and the second-most is 12.8%. To be clear, this isn't meant to ridicule or shame, but to hopefully allow further reflection for future growth and improvement. You do a lot of good work around here, keep your head up. Best, Left guide (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. 11wallisb apologized and disengaged as soon as the accusation was made, which is the best way to deal with this situation. It's easy to get drawn into such debates unintentionally; I wouldn't dwell on this one. Checking the page statistics is a great tip. Another one is this: if your reply starts with *::::, there's a fair chance the closer won't even read it, and even greater chance whoever you're arguing with won't change their mind. I find it more effective to address new concerns raised in a discussion with a new bulleted comment, e.g.:
Comment: Please note that we routinely include incidents on approach to an airport in its respective "List of accidents and incidents at <X>" page. See for example Avianca Flight 052 and several others on the JFK list. Our standard practice doesn't require the accident to necessarily happen on the actual tarmac or within the airport's grounds to be included in that airport's list page.
This way, your comment gets the attention of everyone, without coming across as argumentative, as long as you don't repeat your proposed course of action. Of course, if you do too many of those in one discussion, you'd also be accused of bludgeoning, so it's best to save your ammo and address multiple issues in one such comment. Owen×☎07:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually tried using Xtools to find out that information before, this is very helpful to know! This month has been a bit shaky with some of the situations I've been involved in. I realise now that trying to avoid discussions where people disagree with you is quite challenging on Wikipedia. I don't take things personally, especially not when I'm in the wrong like I was yesterday. This gives me the opportunity to not make the same mistakes in the future and if I am about to do something that probably isn't the best decision, I can recall a previous time and then withdraw before proceeding.
As a quick aside to Owen's point on incident inclusion. I assumed this was the case as it wasn't explicitly written anywhere. That incident in question, would then be appropriate for that list. Definitely didn't mean to come across as argumentative towards SF, they are very experienced in aviation on Wikipedia (more so than me).
Thank you for the advice you've both given me! I will try my hardest to adapt and improve the way I communicate with others! 11WB (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop
You have closed a series of place name deletions with redirects when what the township articles say is apparently not true. Why are you doing this? WP:AtD is not an obligation, nor is it a "get out of deletion free" trump card. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: Hi there, it seemed like a sensible outcome to me, but since you disagree, I can vacate the recent set of closes and let another decide. For the record, I will note that the rationale what the township articles say is apparently not true did not appear in any of the last three Indiana AfDs, but if I saw it, I wouldn't have closed them. Those rationales are better placed in the AfD discussions themselves. All the best, Left guide (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also for future reference, if you oppose a redirect, I'd suggest directly saying so in the nomination statement to avoid confusing other closers. Regards, Left guide (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe, I just happened to notice this, and I agree with Left guide on if you oppose a redirect, I'd suggest directly saying so in the nomination statement - please do do this, it's very helpful! I usually take "redirect" to be "equivalent" to deletion, such that if there are four delete votes and then a redirect one, I'll still typically close as redirect unless there's some obvious reason why that is a bad idea. Sometimes I'm left trying to read between the lines of what participants are saying, attempting to figure out if they oppose redirection or simply don't care. An explicit "deletion is preferred to redirection for [reasons]" is a great help. -- asilvering (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All-America team moves
Thank you so much for moving the All-America teams. The old naming system had been a "bee in my bonnet" for several years, but the prospect of doing a massive 100-plus page move request and then manually changing everything was daunting. I am happy we have young folk like you who know the shortcuts to get this done more efficiently. It made my morning to see that everything has been moved. Cbl62 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: You're welcome. And thank you for grabbing the infobox titles. Those are ones I wanted to pick up with the JWB tool, but couldn't figure out an easy way, so I passed on them. Left guide (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Thank you! I find you to be a great teammate for this task. And yes, I can move the category and change all of the category listings at the bottom of the articles. The category needs to be moved, so I appreciate the reminder. Left guide (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I'd suggest starting a proposal/discussion at WT:CFB for that set. I know the community can sometimes be disapproving of mass undiscussed moves, and I personally am hesitant to implement them. If it's just one or two pages, it's usually easily reversible if challenged. Left guide (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. For now, I'm going to focus on cleaning up the All-America article. All-Southern teams are several notches less important. Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As reported by Meridian Sport, the coaching staff of the Serbian national basketball team, along with Svetislav Kari Pešić, will also include Mihajlo Mitić, another Pirot native, who has been on the coaching staff of Bayern Munich in recent years and who originated from KK Pirot, where he was the coach.
Mihajlo Mitić, the young coach of the first team KK Pirot, after a successful season in the Second League, received great confidence, by choosing the Struic Staff of the cadet selection of Serbia. Young basketball players will take part in the European Championships in Lithuania.
Sportklub (around 182 words about him in independent POV)
[...] Coach Mihajlo Mitić has been building his career for many years at Bayern Munich (basketball) and is serves one of the assistants of chief coach Gordon Herbert now.
Mihajlo Mitić has been in Munich since 2018 when he received an invitation from Marko Pešić to come to Bayern Munich (basketball). He previously managed at all levels in Serbian basketball. He serves as head coach and assistant in the first and second leagues of Serbia. He has been in Munich for six years. "I was hiding out to the public and behind the bench", says Mihajlo.
[...] Mitić is 37 years old and has a future ahead of him. He says that he is not thinking about being the first-team coach.
Mitić is a rookie of a coach school in Serbia. He is a young expert and his time is yet to come, and he says that Serbian coach should not forget where he came from.
Blurb: Mihajlo Mitić was also with the national team of Serbia last summer. He spent several weeks with a team preparing for the Olympic tournament. [...]
Notes:
The first source I found, Plus Online, only has one paragraph with an interview video.
For Sportklub, I only translated the coverage of Mihajlo Mitić to avoid copyright text.
@Clariniie: Thank you again. Sportklub certainly looks like SIGCOV for this, but it's still only one source. I'm searching on Google and unfortunately having a hard time finding other coverage of similar depth. Left guide (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Red0ctober22: Oh thank you! I remember that WP:JWB edit run, in May I think. If there are any other mass-editing tasks with consensus like that from sports WikiProjects, let me know, and I'll consider helping. Left guide (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
