User talk:GhostOfDanGurney/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ericsson

Didn't notice the dash correction, my bad. --TylerBurden (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: All good. I just left you a message at the same time pointing out some other targets of the LTA. :] -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Wishing you happy holidays and a sweet new year!

Beccaynr (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: Thank you! Same to you as well. ^_^

Nomination of Joshua Dufek for deletion

I am notifying users who participated in the previous deletion discussion that a second deletion discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Dufek (2nd nomination). You are welcome to participate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For disambiguating links on race car driver articles. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 12:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A sudden swathe of motor racing articles and drafts

Thank you for your opinion, expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Thompson (racing). An unbiased opinion on the swathe of contribution, perhaps with advice to the creating editor of that article, would be appreciated. I have no intention of seeking to influence that opinion, and have hopes that some of their contributions are valid and useful. You have the skill (and the user name) to judge that far better than I. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Timtrent: I do find it strange in particular that Ayrton Ori is written to only includes stock car racing information when the only GNG-compliant source I found this morning (which was also found by the editor who !voted earlier) is about him driving a prototype in an endurance race. My guess is the editor is a hardcore fan of NASCAR and is simply unaware of Wikipedia policies. Honestly, these types of editors are not an uncommon occurrence across Motorsport articles in general, many of whom are non-communicative. Not a UPE problem but a CIR problem in my opinion. The recent edit here adding information to a driver table without a source is a classic symptom of these editors. The fact that this edit is also to a Formula 3 article also rules out UPE to me. That said, to be blunt, their contribution history looks like garbage. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

They do seem to be driving an entire garbage truck, don't they. Why do some facets of perfectly exciting and good motorsports attract many garbageers? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

AfD nomination

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob Kauf is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Kauf until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 19:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

2023 Formula 2 Championship

Based on your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2023 Formula 2 Championship for the previous article creation attempt, and the user, what would you recommend for this new creation. I see some new news for Formula 2 racing in 2023, so maybe stub it if current information is hoaxlike again, or just redirect for now? I was going to post on users page about creating unreferenced article when I saw that previous discussion and several other attempts to create. WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, it's probably best to report the user to an admin. As for the article, it's basically the exact same as what the draft brought up at MfD was; I don't have much to add here that I didn't already say at AfD just now. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your user page

This is just a note to ask you to consider changing your statements on your user page: User:GhostOfDanGurney. As has been noted elsewhere this seems to give the impression of potential editing bias in some subject areas. You may want to have a read through WP:UPNOT for some general information, too. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ahunt honestly, I would take the concerns of bias from these editors more seriously if they didn't all have single-page edit histories with incredibly similar editing patterns which in my view, consist of either WP:WHITEWASHING for Poilievre and/or introducing irrelevant content about Charest/Brown. They are being very disingenuous, and are not very subtle at it. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh I agree that there is an obvious bias issue there, these are basically single purpose accounts. But that really wasn't the point of my note to you. I was suggesting that your user page could portray more unimpeachable neutrality, at least here on Wikipedia. You do really good work here on Canadian political articles and your edits show a good neutral and factual dealing with the subjects. You are a valued contributor. I just wanted to suggest that your user page should reflect that objectivity and at the same time leave you less open to criticism. Wikipedia user pages are not really the place for political activism. I would save that for the article comments sections on CBC.ca.... - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

+1 on this. I do agree we have some biased editors on the page, and that (both of) your contributions are valuable. It might help mitigate and raise of concerns of bias and such when editing, making your life easier and bringing less question towards your valuable contributions to the page. RoyalObserver (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

RoyalObserver, Ahunt, thanks for the comments, guys. They do mean a lot. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad that you thought that was helpful. It was intended as such. - Ahunt (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

+1. Also, keep up the great work. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, can you please improve the contrast of the colors used in your signature? Currently it fails the AA accessibility criteria, making it hard to read. Websites like https://accessible-colors.com/ can be helpful in picking other colors that provide enough contrast. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Legoktm, thanks for the link. Was time to update the colours anyway. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"DRR" as Team Entry Name

Hi, I realize that the Racer article refers to the team entry as "No. 24 DRR/Cusick Motorsports" but they are the only source to do it that way and neither team press release's refers to the team that way. I do not think there is sufficient evidence to change it as Racer.com may have just wrote it that way for convenience. I do no think we can make a change like this when only one source that refers to the team this way. Here are more sources that do not refer to the team that way.. Simimarly, Racer.com with the same author refers to the team as "No. 24 DRR/Cusick Chevy" in another article. I believe the author is simply shortening the names of the teams for convenience. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Grahaml35: This would be something to bring up on the talk page of the article in question. I was not the person to originally add the entry as "DRR / Cusick", nor was I the one to edit it to "DRR/Cusick". Your points are fair and I don't disagree, but would just be better placed in the article talk page to acheive consensus among other editors. :] - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 16:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just added it to the talk page. Grahaml35 (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 IndyCar Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Harvey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Your sig

I note that your signature lacks a link to your talk page; it has only a link to your contributions. Please see WP:CUSTOMSIG/P, which says: "A customised signature should provide an easily identified link to your talk page. You are encouraged to also provide a link to your user page." Could you please make the "t" part of "c/t" a link to your talk page, or provide that link in any other way you wish? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken; it is a link to my talk page. I will change it to make it larger so as to make it more convenient, since clearly, I have failed in this regard. Thanks for bringing this up. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 01:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks for the quick response. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This should be better. :] - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 01:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Fairies dangling on and frolicking around flowers	Seasons greetings!
	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, GhostOfDanGurney! and best wishes for the New Year	Illustration of dancing fairies, 1914, taken from the poem “A Spell for a Fairy,” by Alfred Noyes

Beccaynr (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: Thank you again for the kind words. They mean a lot and I wish the same to you and yours :] - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Blaze Wolf has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Warning a user for adding unsourced info when they had been warned already is not biting them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf First of all, responding to a template with a template is purely disruptive. It was not a misuse of a template; you failed to assume good faith and used a level-3 and level-4 warning when it was not needed. Like my template said, you could have explained the issue to them. It's quite clear they are claiming to be a relative of Dale Earnhardt. As unlikely as this is, we must assume good faith. Your behavior is being far too overly harsh is indeed how we lose editors. Take my concerns seriously instead of reverting and using a disruptive retaliatory template. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"used a level-3 and level-4 warning when it was not needed" excuse you? They had already received a level 2 warning. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not they're a relative, unsourced info is still unsourced info. They were warned about it and continued adding the info so they either didn't see the warning or ignored it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf You're not understanding my point. Your overall use of templates in this situation (both towards him and towards me) has been nothing but inappropriate. I provided a more appropriate, less biting template to the user. You're also not addressing the retaliatory template towards me, which is pure disruption. There was also no level-1 template used at all. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for the template. I see why you are thinking they might be a relative. It appears they are editing from a mobile device so the horrible mobile web interface is to blame (WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU), however that still does not excuse them from needing to reliably source things. There being no level-1 template is not my fault whatsoever and was the choice of the user who initially warned them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I accept. Thank you. I'll tag LuK3 here as well. I feel the situation probably could have been dealt with via the COI template to start instead of starting with a level 2 reliable source warning. I felt it's fairly clear by their name and edits what their angle is, regardless of how true. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Conservative wave

Hello, thanks for the support. Unfortunately I was on vacation when that discussion was closed, so I haven't noticed until now. However, I don't think a deletion review would be acceptable: I already voiced my concerns about the sources in the AFD, and the deletion review can not be used to simply repeat the arguments already said in the discussion.

So things will be a bit more complicated. I'll have to check the sources in the article one by one, to make sure each one actually references what the article says, and remove the coatracks and synth one by one as I find them. Cambalachero (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cambalachero: All good! I brought it up to the closer and after initially closing as "keep" (which made no sense) he changed the result of the AfD to "no consensus". It doesn't change that the article still exists, but is a better reflection of the discussion, which is indeed the only thing that DRV would have accomplished.

I think that after editing the article and cleaning it up a bit, it will be much harder for the keep !voters to get away with simply asserting notability. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Brandon Miller

Hi there. I saw your revert of the organization of the Brandon Miller dab. I was looking for the basketball player, got the wrong one at top, and figured grouping the basketball players together would be convenient for readers also looking for Brandon Miller (basketball, born 2002). Given there were quite a few entries, I also grouped the page per MOS:DABGROUPING, and sorted within the group by its disambiguator, which seems more user friendly when the birthyears there are all relatively tight together (1979–2003).

Do you have any new thoughts on this dab? Thanks in advance. —Bagumba (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bagumba: New thoughts? Not really, no. I've just personally don't remember ever coming across a dab page of exclusively BLPs that was sorted by anything other than DoB. I didn't think the list was overly long, either, but MOS:DABGROUPING doesn't seem to specify a threshold and with most of them being sportspeople anyway, that one is probably a fair change. Thanks for reaching out. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 01:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Mixmon

I think you are overreacting by making this proposal.

Mixmon (who I have warned so I have his talk page watchlisted) has a history of disruptive editing with talk page full of warnings[1] over usual disruption, promotional creation of several fake news peddlers,[2][3] copyright violations,[4] and so on.

To think that he gamed the system to gain ECP is clearly not surprising. There is a possibility that it happened.

I don't think Extorc (OP) did a mistake by filing a report. Since he is not arguing against the outcome, there is absolutely no need to escalate this further. Hope you withdraw your proposal to sanction the OP and instead find a way to close the matter. Editorkamran (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Editorkamran The issue I see is that Extorc, who was having a content dispute with Mixmon, in my view decided to play "gotcha" and gathered up a bunch of diffs to support a case of WP:GAMING (which had nothing to do with their dispute), but the edits compiled are almost all WP:GNOME edits which is not GAMING at all. If there are issues with Mixmon's editing, Extorc did not at all address any of them. Based on the replies I see, I don't think there will be a consensus for my proposal anyway. ― Ghost of Dan Gurney  12:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

14 April 2023

Hi Ghost of Dan Gurney. Hope you are doing well, I'm commenting here regarding our interactions.

On two occasions you have accused me of disruptive editing for continuing to participate in talk when other editors have encouraged discussion on the topic. You have also accused me of a bad faith "stunt" because of a poor form edit of the talk page to de-clutter the active discussion. I apologize for the poor form and not familiarizing myself with the Refactor policy and appreciate you informing me, but accusing it of being a "stunt" not appropriate. The repeated accusations make me feel like I can't participate in the talk page without another accusation coming from you, regardless of what I comment or effort I make to address concerns from all parties to reach consensus.

I would appreciate if you could stick to WP:Focus on content as the policy states. Maybe we got off on the wrong foot. I hope you can WP: Assume good faith of me, as I do of you. Thank you. LemonberryPie (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@LemonberryPie: Let's look at some facts.

You registered May 9, 2022. Your third edit was to say that "Poilievre plans to promote freedom of speech online by repealing Bill C-11 and the successor to Bill C-36, describing them as censorship in Canada". More than half of your mainspace edits are to the Pierre Poilievre article. Of the ones that aren't, a substantial portion are edits about Poilievre, such as [5] to Bank of Canada, [6] to Right-wing populism, 5253 added bytes to Populism in Canada and [7] and [8] to Men Going Their Own Way.

You have to understand that, despite your relative handful of edits to tennis articles, you have all the optics of a single-purpose account whose purpose is to promote Poilievre. So when you continually beat a dead horse in order to continue to add the same content that was opposed unanimously in a recent RfC, when you are the only one proposing any changes to the lead, and when you misrepresented the opposition against you and refactored the discussion to suit your interests while beating the dead horse, and when you are trying to add to the lead the same content you said Poilievre was opposing in order to "promote freedom of speech", it does not look as if you are "[taking] care to avoid creating the impression that [your] focus on one topic is non-neutral".

I strongly suggest that you find something else to do. I'm not telling you to stop editing about Poilievre. But spending the year focusing on tennis or something else that interests you other than politics and the culture war would go a great way of reducing the SPA optics. There are also many things to do outside of mainspace, such as AfD patrols. Mistakes can be forgiven and forgotten; hell, I've made plenty. You described both the misrepresentation and the refactoring as mistakes. If they had happened in two different discussions in two completely different topic area, not a soul would notice. But since they both happened in a single discussion on the talk page of the article which you've made half of your edits, it's not a good look. The content you are wanting me to focus on has been beaten to death already. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

None of those edits have been WP:Promo as far as I’m aware, they have been descriptions from reliable sources. "plans to promote freedom of speech" is what the reliable sources described. I did not write that he is promoting it, I wrote what sources stated, he planned to promote it by doing XYZ with no comment on how valid that plan is. As WP:Advocacy states "Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves." The same way we would write on a politician plan for housing policy reported by reliable sources "plans to promote affordable housing by doing XYZ". WP:Promo also states "An article can report objectively about [politics], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." That said, going forward I'll take your input and use wording like "proposes" instead of "plans" if that appears more neutral.

You accuse me of beating a dead horse, when there were multiple active editors participating in suggestions and encouraging further discussion, you keep omitting this fact. On talk, Darryl Kerrigan actively participated with me and gave his input as we worked on the lede. You asked me to demonstrate how lede positions meet WP:Due, which I answered. You then informed me of the 6 month old RfC with several users I had missed and accused me of being disruptive, to which I then acknowledged the RfC and noted that it was still 6 months old. You then told me to listen to Masterhatch’s comments citing him as an experienced editor, which I did by bringing him in as a third opinion. Masterhatch agreed that lede policies could potentially be added and that the context had changed since 6 months. Masterhatch suggested an additional lede position and also encouraged me to reform the proposed lede paragraph for more input, which I did. After I presented the reformed paragraph, both you and Darryl Kerrigan actively participated with suggestions (which I considered helpful) on what lede positions to use. When I presented a second version taking into account the suggestions, you accused me of being disruptive again despite Darryl Kerrigan and Masterhatch as active participants encouraging discussion as well.

To say I was the only one suggesting changes to the lede is not true. I ask for that aspersion to be stopped.

We both made mistakes. My mistake was missing the 6 month old RfC when I incorrectly commented there were only two opposes, and an improper talk page formatting. Your mistake was the accusation of disruption citing Masterhatch, when he in fact welcomed discussion. That said, I am currently tired of that talk page and will be leaving the section alone as there's no response/activity. I completely agree with your suggestion participating in more contributions outside of mainspace to help the project. I’ll definitely take a look into AfD patrols, thanks for informing me of it. LemonberryPie (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

FIA Licenses in IndyCar Driver Information Boxes

Hello,

We've had some conversations before on the 2023 IndyCar Season talk page. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so my apologies if I am violating some type of convention by posting on your profile.

It appears to me that you are a/the leader of the pages posted about the IndyCar Series. I figured I would ask you a question. Feel free to call others to the discussion if you are the incorrect person to reach out to.

One of the things I enjoy doing for IndyCar pages is updating the infoboxes of IndyCar Series drivers. At a glance these boxes can tell readers how active and successful the driver is in the IndyCar Series. Recently, an anonymous user has begun adding FIA license "medals" to some of the driver profiles. I am not aware if this was the result some type of policy, but it seems not as they have been adding them in random locations in the infobox. Occasionally they have changed the infoboxes from IndyCar drivers to other types of driver.

I am just wondering if I have permission to remove these medals from the infoboxes as there is nothing from the person citing them. Furthermore, I have never heard that drivers need an FIA license to race in IndyCar (if they do I would love to know). In my view the licenses are not relevant. Frankly, the infoboxes often seem to grow out longer and longer as people are editing all sorts of information to them, that I wonder if some information should not just go in the text of the article.

Anyways, if you would enlighten me on any policies I would greatly appreciate it.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790: I will check out the issue this week when I have time (I am currently on a 10-day stretch at my job), but I did want to make sure I replied promptly to clarify that I absolutely do not have any authority or am the "leader" of any pages (WP:OWN states that no one "owns" any page, even a page that they themselves created). Just a racing fan who edits BOLDly. The best place to bring this up would likely be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing to get more eyeballs on it. Could you link me to same example diffs of what's going on? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney:

No worries; I also do not have time to always check my messages.

Examples of the issue include Ryan Hunter-Reay, Bryan Herta (basically retired), and Santino Ferrucci. The anonymous use has placed the license medals in random places. Since they are FIA licensing medals, perhaps they belong in a box of an FIA sanctioned series, but also I feel as though this is excessive information for an infobox. I did do research and the IndyCar sanctioning body issues its own licenses, which I also do not feel need to be included in an infobox.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790: I see now. I like the idea. But you're right, they are in random places, especially Ferrucci's. I like where it is on Ryan Hunter-Reay, though. But all in all, consensus would likely be best, especially given your point about IndyCar having its own sanctioning and licenses. Another editor started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorsport, and I made a reference to your issue in there. That seems to be a place where an overall discussion about motorsport infoboxes can happen. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney:

Thank you; I found that discussion.

RegalZ8790 (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case open

You recently submitted a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong without you as a party. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label

Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 2001:D08:2940:1935:DE6:7218:DFE9:9B78 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:PROMO

Hey! I've seen you comment on this in a few places, but WP:PROMO has nothing to say about entitlement sponsors of venues. Not sure where you're gathering that, unless it's your opinion on the policy. glman (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Glman: My apologies for my slowness. Essentially, yes, it is my strong opinion that Wikipedia does/should not exist to promote corporate naming rights sponsors, including in article titles. The constant page moves of race articles due to year-to-year sponsor changes is an especially frustrating pet peeve of mine. I could find and point to many discussions where this has been the consensus and interpretation of PROMO, but in the context of California/Auto Club Speedway, this is WP:OTHERSTUFF therefore irrelevant. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

David Malukas Nationality

Hi, please see a note I made to the talk page of Talk:David Malukas. There is a user who continually edits the nationalities of various drivers without citations, or even edit summaries. The note is my attempt to discourage a repeat edit. However, my source, a Bus Bros interview (if you have heard of the show), is a bit unconventional. I wondered if you could visit the page and comment on whether such a source is permissible. Thank you. RegalZ8790 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790: You did all the right things as far as I can see. Only thing you should have done differently is that since the source was an interview with the subject of the article, then it should be attributed as such in wiki-voice, which I went ahead and did. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney: Thank you for that earlier edit. If you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on his page, there has been some vandalism in regards to his middle name by a few people. We have also had some of the biographical information removed, which I replaced. RegalZ8790 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@RegalZ8790: I've just requested page protection for David Malukas as the additions have persisted since you flagged me on this. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

And just a friendly FYI, there is no need to use the ping template when writing to someone on their own talk page; everyone automatically gets a notification for it. :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection. I will quit the pinging! ha RegalZ8790 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please review WP:AOHA and consider striking/self reverting [9]. All of our intersected recent edits are related to the same topic area. Per your (quite rude) combined ping/stay away message at [10] I'll not post here again, aside for the required ANI notice if you fail to remove your attack. VQuakr (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thanks for your work on the movement article we've been editing previously, and particularly for your passionate but always respectful conversations in the AfD process! MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@MicrobiologyMarcus: Thank you for this :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Industrial agriculture: Case opened

Hello GhostOfDanGurney,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Industrial agriculture/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 8, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Curvasingh on ANI

Do you mind reopening your ANI thread on this user? They are still being uncommunicative and I don’t think anything short of a block can get them to talk to us. NM 00:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Northern Moonlight: Hi. I don't have the ability to "reopen" the thread because it was archived without a formal closure by an admin (the purple boxes you see around most discussion in there) due to inactivity rather than an action being performed or a consensus reached. If you have more to add about this user that you feel warrants admin intervention, my suggestion would be to start a new thread at ANI yourself and reference my previous complaint (and don't forget to notify the user again!). Thanks :] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello GhostOfDanGurney, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around.

Sent by NPP Coordination using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)