User talk:Left guide

ISBN error

Hi, Left guide.

Last month, i created an article for the film Moner Sathe Juddho with a book source and the source also added in to the Bapparaj article, but the ISBN number is triggering an error. Here is the source:

I will select you to invalid prefix of the source's ISBN number! Aqsis Bey (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

References

@Aqsis Bey: According to WP:ISBN, the only valid prefixes for a 13-digit number are "978" or "979" while yours is "984", so that may be the issue. I don't really have experience (or interest) dealing with ISBN errors, so you may want to ask at the Teahouse if further assistance is needed. Left guide (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion and time! Aqsis Bey (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

ITN process

FYI, I pinged you in this discussion about the ITN posting process but got your account name wrong and so the ping failed. Just making sure you're aware of it. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Left guide:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in August!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than a month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 August 2026 through 31 August 2026.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 5000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

RFPP template choice

Hi Left guide,

Following a link from WP:ANI#TA repeatedly adding original poem to article despite warnings, I was confused by this status-note. It has two separate sentences, which, taken together, could be read to be making a public connection between TA and IP. That's not supposed to be revealed, but it also doesn't appear to be what you have done, so it's not an actual info leak. Might want to edit that response with a better wording. The {{RFPP}} template has a separate way to say you're blocking an underlying IP rather than blocking an account. DMacks (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: Hi there, the note I left follows what I picked up from the example of other more established and regular admins at that noticeboard. It's pretty standard there, and as you acknowledge, it's not an actual info leak, and I'm also not seeing anything in the note forbidden by WP:TAIVDISCLOSE. If you think the criteria ought to be tightened, feel free to open a discussion at the relevant policy talk page. Regards, Left guide (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

On its face, "User(s) blocked. Underlying IP address blocked." reasonably means that you blocked the user and you blocked the IP. But given the user wasn't blocked as far as I can tell, it's more correct (regardless of whether there's a potential appearance of leak) to say:

{{RFPP|b|ip}}→ IP address(es) blocked.

rather than

{{RFPP|b|Example}}→ User(s) blocked: Example (talk · contribs).

That's why that template has that documented feature, and I'm not sure why you would want to say something that less correctly describes the action.

Regarding he leak potential, the statement could easily be interpretted that the IP is the one belonging to the user, and based on what would be plainly visible in your block-actions log would make it a disclosure. I have been chastized by arbs for making a substantially less clear statement that could still be intentionally or torturously misread if someone was looking for a reason to do so. TAIVDISCLOSURE advises, "This sometimes means that administrators need to be vague in describing their actions; for instance, if a TAIV requests that the IP underlying several TAs be blocked, the blocking admin should respond with something like "Resolved" rather than "Blocked underlying IP"."

That RFPP "ip" feature was added based on a brief discussion among several admins that raised the issue of disclosure in the RFPP-comments context. DMacks (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@DMacks: Thanks for explaining. I wasn't aware of the separate IP option since it's not available or prompted in the responseHelper script I typically use, but I see how using it can be an improvement in some situations. I'll keep this in mind for future RfPPI responses, and make the extra effort where it seems helpful or necessary. Regards, Left guide (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I pinged the maintainer of responseHelper about this missing option, linking back here. DMacks (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2026).

Administrator changes

• MCE89
• Staraction

• Danaman5

CheckUser changes

• dbeef

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the 30-day requirement for extended-confirmed status now begins after an account's first edit instead of its registration (T431060).

Technical news

• Inactive editors can now be removed as mentors at Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship automatically.
• The Suggested Edits' Revise Tone feature is now enabled. It encourages editors to identify and revise non-neutral language in articles.

Miscellaneous

• The Unreferenced articles August 2026 backlog drive is underway. Help to add references to 47,000 articles.
• The Articles for creation August 2026 backlog drive is under way. Help to review 4,500+ drafts.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)