User talk:GhostOfDanGurney

Discretionary sanctions alerts

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. ^_^

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)

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

	Seasons greetings!
	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, GhostOfDanGurney! and best wishes for the New Year

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)