User talk:GhostInTheMachine/2024

Marcel de Baer

Thanks for all the edits to the Marcel de Baer article. On the topic of "This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" - do have any detail on what needs to be done ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Example things to fix:

• Personal life – bare link for Margaret Rudston-Read rather than a reference
• Career Summary – needs formatting as narrative text or a tidy list. Remove ordinals from dates.
• Date ranges use ndashes or "1941 to 1945"
• Curley quotes
• Honours – format as a list – bare link – add refs
• Related websites – External links – format as a list

Probably other things in the text itself — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I believe (hope!) that I have dealt with all those items - except that 'remove ordinals from dates' puzzled me.

Maybe you could review and check that I have done as requested ? Charles.bowyer (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Most things seem OK now. I have taken off the copyedit tag. A few more references would be good – there are some paragraphs and especially the Career Summary with none at all. The ordinal thing would be a date such as 13th June 1933 instead of a plain date 13 June 1933 (now fixed) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. I know that the referencing is an issue - I am leaving that tag on until I can fix it. My problem is - much is from a private archive, but that will go into public storage (National Archives Kew) later this year - and then I can reference properly. Charles.bowyer (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

about chhipi caste article

hey @GhostInTheMachine hope you are fine. i made small contribution on chhipi caste page according to few reliable information in books or article. if you have time you can check this Khush1457 (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Polish companies established in 2015

A tag has been placed on Category:Polish companies established in 2015 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Bel-Air

Hi @GhostInTheMachine, you are engaged in an edit war with me on the Bel-Air (film) page. I have twice explained my reason for wanting to keep the short description brief, and instead of discussing the matter on the talk page, you have insisted on reverting. This is not the appropriate manner of settling a disagreement, and I encourage you to desist. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Carlisle Bulilding

Hello GhostInTheMachine,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Carlisle Bulilding for deletion, because it's a redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.

If you don't want Carlisle Bulilding to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please 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.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on Yongsan (constituency)

Hello GhostInTheMachine, I've noticed your edit on the page Yongsan (constituency) sorts the election results from an oldest (top) to most recent (bottom). I reverted your edit before due to this sorting order being inconsistent with other election result sections that are used in constituency pages.

A quick look at other constituency pages on English Wikipedia show that election results are sorted from most recent on top to oldest on bottom. I would like to kindly ask you to refrain from changing the election results sort order as it is only creating an inconsistency and breaking precedent.

I am willing to engage in dialogue if you believe there's a good reason to adopt an alternative sort order. In the meanwhile, I will reinstate the original sort order of most recent on top to oldest on bottom in order to stay consistent with the countless other constituency articles that use the aforementioned sort order. MogasTheThird (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:SORTLIST. The list of election results is a list, even if the entries are tables, so chronological order is correct. There being other articles that are incorrect is not a reason to also be incorrect — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Hello on this bright March day. You have helped me with many new pages I've created, including the Batumi Tower article. Thank you so much for helping me get a restart on Wikipedia. :P (っ◔◡◔)っHuman Reverting Edits (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Knights Templar in popular culture

Please set to "none" as short description per WP:SDNONE, because just only a list article. 160.20.109.73 (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The current SD looks OK — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. 160.20.109.73 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the rollback

Apologies about this rollback -- it was an accident/misclick. However, I do think you're wrong to revert that edit. To me, that paragraph meets the criteria laid out at WP:PRIMARY. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:USINGSPS#Self-published doesn't mean bad and WP:MEDIUM ("... should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert ...", my emphasis) are also useful here. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Civil parishes

Wyck Rissington (and presumably others) is a civil parish as well as a village. Your short description is only describing part of the subject. I don't think saving three words is worthwhile, if it results in an inaccurate description. Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Remember WP:SD40 and WP:SDNOTDEF. Short descriptions often exclude accurate information — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Right. But not defining information. Wyck Rissington is the parish AND the village. The opening sentence of WP:SDESC says "The short description of a Wikipedia article or of another namespace page is a concise explanation of the scope of the page." Note: "the scope of the page" – not "part of the scope of the page". Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ocean Village, Gibraltar

Dear User, I hope this message finds you well. I've noticed that there seems to be a disagreement regarding the content on the wiki page concerning Gibraltar. It appears that there's been some back-and-forth regarding whether Gibraltar should be listed as a separate country or as a territory of the United Kingdom. While I understand that opinions may differ on this matter, it's important to adhere to factual accuracy when editing wiki pages. Gibraltar is an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, which means it is governed by the UK but has its own government and is not an independent country. Continuously changing the page to list Gibraltar as a country could mislead readers and provide inaccurate information. I kindly urge you to consider the facts and refrain from making changes that deviate from them. Your contributions to maintaining accurate information on the platform are appreciated, and I trust that we can resolve this matter amicably. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. Dre5860 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Disquiet

Hello! I hope you're having a good day! :-) I noticed you recently reversed/undid an edit to the short description for "the book of disquiet" without providing an edit comment to support this change.

Edit comments are required when making a change to the meaning of the article, or the text contained there in. A comment is *always* necessary when undoing the work of a previous editor.

The short description you provided does not accurately reflect the (admittedly, very unusual) publication date/history of the book, and it will be returned to the previous state. If you wish to dispute this, please do so on the articles talk page where we can (I hope) resolve this matter amicably. On the talk page, please clearly state your reasons/evidence in support of your opinion. It can then be considered by our fellow editors.

All the best :) PocketfulOfMumbles (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Leeds Wikipedia meetup on Saturday 4th May

Hello there! Interested in having a chat with fellow Wikipedians? There's a meetup in Leeds on Saturday 4th May 2024, at the Tiled Hall Café at Leeds Central Library.

Full details here.

You're receiving this one-off message as you're either a member of WikiProject Yorkshire, you've expressed an interest in a previous Leeds meetup years ago, or (for about 4 of you), we've met :)

I plan to organise more in future, so if you'd like to be notified next time, please say so over on the meetup page.

Please also invite any Wikimedia people you know (or have had wiki dealings with) – spread the word! Hope to see you there.

Jonathan Deamer (talk)

20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Fraisthorpe

A silly reversion. I could call Twickenham a large town, which it is; it used to be a borough, and I can still find manhole covers and street signs lettered "Borough of Twickenham". I don't believe in edit wars, however. Donnanz (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

. I know that Fraisthorpe is indeed not huge – I have been there. The problem is that there is no clear external RS for concepts such as "small village", "large village" etc. Do we even agree that we are talking about population or might it be based on land area? We have enough trouble with edit wars over "village" vs. "town". We even have fights over "town" vs. "city" when there is an absolutely clear distinction (for UK at least). So it is a lot safer / wiser / more reasonable / Wikipedialy to not use "small" / "large" and the like, but state what the population was at some specific moment and let readers understand that, at moment X, village Y was smaller (or larger) than village Z — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, you have the advantage. I can only base my judgment on what I see on Explorer map 295, the built-up area of Fraisthorpe is considerably smaller than that of Barmston. The surrounding area is much larger, extending to Fraisthorpe Sands. The population would no doubt be included with the whole of Barmston parish. As for cities, I often come across US cities with a population of less than 1,000, more incredibly even less than 100. I prefer to call them "minor" cities rather than "small", as the land area of the city may be large in relation to its population. Donnanz (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Takagi Masayoshi moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Takagi Masayoshi. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)