User talk:GhostOfDanGurney/Archive 2

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is GhostOfDanGurney. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

AN / AN/I

Thanks for the support but my suggestion is to just let them text wall without any response at that thread going forward. It's not the right venue - they shouldn't have tried this at all in the circumstances but, notwithstanding that, they should have gone to AN/I rather than AN for this sort of issue. Avoiding adding fuel to that fire is likely wise. Administrators don't like drama board spillover there. Lol. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Yeah, you're right lol. I see they already replied too. Got a great chuckle out of Now he's claiming that I badgered Simonm23 on their user talk page, which again is a straight up lie, the only post I made on Simonm's t/p is the notification for this AN post. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

They aren't reading carefully. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello, I'm राजकुमार. I noticed that you recently removed content from Canada–India relations without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. राजकुमार^(talk) 18:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I responded to this retaliatory template on the user's talk page. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. Your edit is clearly WP:POINTy and comes from a primary source (an interview transcript) and caricaturizes his quote as a thinly vieled attempt to discredit it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC) Unintentional level 4. Was intended to be a level 1 or 2 warning.

No, it wasn't "intended" as a "level 1 or 2 warning" lol. This user meant to post a level-4, defended it as [a justified] harsh warning, and only changed it after being told at AE. Such gaslighting. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Graham87_2

Dang, finally get a "per Drmies", and it's struck through! I think you reconsidered after reading some of the opposes, and that's fine--I hope you know I appreciate you as an editor on our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: Your statement was definitely what got me to take a step off of the fence, and you're right. Thanks for the message, and likewise! Glad I could at least have a "per Drmies" out there for a few hours. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no bad blood between us

Thank you.

My sole concern was any example it might set, so I felt I had to make a light challenge.

I hope that did not upset you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Not at all! Thanks for the message. I've been trying to be more aware of my tone in general so any critiques are welcome. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

NASCAR Race Network Table

What was the point of removing the network table on the NASCAR on television and radio page? It’s useful to many. If it isn’t returning then its info should be speared out to other articles like the NASCAR on NBC, and ESPN articles. Nostalgia Zone (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

On deleting vs. moving a page

Hi @GhostOfDanGurney: I am the author who put up the page Sanjay Kumar Verma, which you have earmarked for deletion. At this point, you have also stated I started a "move-war", which wasn't my intention. Two questions:

1. Given that we are waiting on a verdict on the deletion, should I wait on that, or move it to draftspace. 2. Why did you delete a source that stated he was recalled? If you had added a source saying he was expelled, it would be neutral. Removing an official government source and replacing with a news source seems to introduce bias, not remove it.

Despite my tone, I am asking in good faith, because you definitely seem to know what you're doing. Researchmoreorless (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Researchmoreorless: The article was nominated for deletion because you had challenged the move of the article back to draft. If I had moved it again to draftspace, I would have been continuing the move war. I also discovered that the article had previously been deleted by a discussion consensus last January so it's fair to notify the editors who participated in that discussion as well and give them a chance to see if their opinions have changed since then.

1) You should not move the article any further. Editors may decide that an "alternative to deletion" (or WP:ATD) is to return the article to the draft, which I also suggested in my nomination. In that case it will be moved there after the discussion has been closed by an admin.

2) I removed that because it was based on a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The official Indian government narrative is going to be different from the media reports, and including only one government's take but not the other's does not adhere to the neutrality policy. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert your close

Please revert your close of the Luigi Mangione AfD, it wasn't snowing nor should non-admins close controversial AfDs. E_F⁵ 13:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Replied at DRV, since one here wasn't waited on. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

DRV discussion

Deletion review for Luigi Mangione

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Luigi Mangione. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. E_F⁵ 13:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello GhostOfDanGurney, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Abishe: Thank you! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 23:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

for your edit on Montoya's page. The way that the Mb2347 guy abbreviates team names drives me nuts. Electricmemory (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:NAMB

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent reverts at Bubba Wallace.

Note that, per WP:NAMB, It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous.

In the case of Bubba Wallace, there is no ambiguity, since there are no other Bubba Wallaces on Wikipedia. The redirect Darrell Wallace Jr., as you pointed out, is also unambiguous, since Darrell Wallace is not a Jr.

Therefore, there is no realistic way that somebody seeking Darrell Wallace would end up at Bubba Wallace; the hatnote is unnecessary. 162 etc. (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc.: Someone searching for "Darrell Wallace" on any major search engine is going to get results for the racing driver and not the CFL player. One must add "CFL" or "football" to a search in order to find the CFL player. It is odd that Wikipedia does not reflect this.

Darrell Wallace should likely be moved to Darrell Wallace (football) (or whatever the exact naming convention is for American CFL players) because by no means is "Darrell Wallace" an unambiguous term. It should either also redirect to Bubba Wallace or serve as a DAB page for the two articles. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No objection to starting an RM at Darrell Wallace, although I don't believe the NASCAR driver is very well known by this name.

Currently, however, the hatnote at Bubba Wallace is unjustified. 162 etc. (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc. Bubba was somewhat well known as "Darrell Wallace" with and without the "Jr" suffix for some time following his debut. I'm inclined to agree with the Ghost. Electricmemory (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Right, and the hatnote at Darrell Wallace addresses that potential ambiguity. What I'm objecting to here is the hatnote at Bubba Wallace - in what scenario does somebody seeking the football player arrive at this article? 162 etc. (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

A scenario in which someone has clicked on the first result, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubba_Wallace, after having done a search on Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, etc., for "Darrell Wallace" ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 09:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:NAMB asks us to consider "a reader who is following links within Wikipedia". 162 etc. (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Then this is a case where common sense > P&Gs and therefore WP:IAR is valid. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Darrell Wallace

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darrell Wallace. 162 etc. (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

merging xfinity and truck races

hi ghost! i see that we're starting to go to a normal "(series) at (track)" instead of going by the title sponsors, i also merged the 2 nashville races together, as one hasnt been edited on in nearly 3 years, but im starting to go do a process of merging/defaulting the names of the races. 45BearsFan (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Administrator noticeboard alert

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.-Hiya2025 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Stating for the record for anyone seeing this in the future that this "issue" here was that I called Rebel News (a far-right outlet) "clowns" and a "donation grift farce". ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 03:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Rookie Box Color

Hi,

Do you mind responding to my thought about just implementing the light blue rookie color box for just the USF Pro Championships at the 2025 IndyCar Series talk page or the 2025 USF Pro 2000 Championship talk page (latter is probably better)? Thanks, SteeledDock541 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Monday was my day off and it was spent hanging out with friends, sorry. I'll get to this. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

It's all good. This isn't really an urgent issue, so don't stress. SteeledDock541 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

SteeledDock541 (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I have filed a dispute resolution here regarding the dispute over the inclusion of flagicons on the 2025 IndyCar Series page. SteeledDock541 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have seen this message yet, but if you have, are you going to respond to the dispute resolution? SteeledDock541 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing

There is a discussion on the above named talk page regarding implementation of a new infobox for Indycar drivers. Going off of your participation in the current discussion surrounding team nationality flags, I think you may be interested. Best regards, RegalZ8790 (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTPROMO

I've been mulling over this for a bit, but what to do about the egregious amounts of NOTPROMO violations across motorsports articles? I agree with you that naming rights qualify as a violation of this but I've got no real idea on what to do about it. Electricmemory (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Electricmemory: Give people viable (as per WP:AT) alternative article titles to use and argue for them as civilly and concisely as you can. One of the things I'm most proud of on Wiki is starting the trend of moving articles on race histories from their ever-changing sponsored titles to "[Series] at [track]".

Also, accepting that there will be some things where there is no viable alternative, such as individual race articles and likely with "O'Reilly Auto Parts Series" as well, as unfortunate as it is.

And as you can see above, there are people who take an opposite view, who argue for naming rights in article titles. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Honda Indy Toronto

Hello, you may have heard that the Toronto Indy is moving to Markham and will be known as "Ontario Honda Dealers Indy at Markham".^[1]^[2]

At a previous RM discussion, you had argued in favour of the name "Grand Prix of Toronto" despite that name being neither the current name nor the common name. Now that the event is no longer held in Toronto, would you still have such objections during a page move discussion? I bring this to your talkpage in order for us to perhaps find some common ground before actually opening an RM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, @162 etc.:, here are some of my thoughts regarding this:

I think IndyCar Series at Markham Centre is a viable title which best fits the WP:CRITERIA for the 2026-2030 races at Markham Centre, but I still think "Grand Prix of Toronto" is the best name per the CRITERIA for 1986-2025 races at Exhibition Place.

The new official name retains the corporate sponsorship that led me to oppose its use as an article title on Wikipedia per WP:PROMO when a viable alternative that fit the CRITERIA existed and I believe this is still the case.

The sources make clear that this is a continuation of the race, but has moved to a new venue, so ultimately an RM is the way to go here (I had initially mulled over making a new article in this reply to avoid the RM). While Markham is a part of the Greater Toronto Area metro, it has its own municipal government which made its own deal with the race promoters and I believe will certainly feature in any commonly used name. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

My gripe with "Grand Prix of Toronto" is that it does not meet WP:CRITERIA, namely "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." The event was known as Molson Indy Toronto (1986–2005), Molson Grand Prix of Toronto (2006), Steelback Grand Prix of Toronto (2007), Honda Indy Toronto (2009–2023), and Ontario Honda Dealers Indy Toronto (2024–2025.) If we consider the event's entire existence, the COMMONNAME is "Indy", not "Grand Prix".

Per WP:NAMECHANGES, the current title will have to go, since the event is no longer in Toronto. (Assuming that RS use some sort of variation of "Markham Indy", which seems to be the case so far.)

I'll also point out that WP:PROMO (or specifically WP:NOTPROMO) does not actually address naming rights. It does however tell us that articles "must be written in an objective and unbiased style"; I'd argue that misrepresenting the COMMONNAME to exclude a naming rights sponsor actually violates that. 162 etc. (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:PROMO (not NOTPROMO) very clearly says Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing and I will use this to argue against corporate naming rights as article titles at every feasible opportunity when viable alternatives exist. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Naming rights are propaganda? Now that is just hyperbolic, bordering on nonsensical.

Anywho, we're a bit early to start an RM, since this was announced this morning and we'll have to wait and see what name RS end up using. If that name does end up including some kind of sponsorship, I for one will argue in its favour. Note also that so-called "viable alternatives" are not viable unless they follow Wikipedia policy, namely WP:COMMONNAME. 162 etc. (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It's obviously under "advertising" not "propaganda", and trying to twist my words any other way is very telling.

Also, I'll remind that WP:COMMONNAME falls under the greater WP:AT policy page, and itself makes direct reference to WP:CRITERIA when it says Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Point being that it's not a crutch to rely on in order to argue for a title which doesn't meet other aspects. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc. This topic is still under discussion. Please wait until consensus has been reached before moving the page. As such, I have reverted your move. Assadzadeh (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh: This discussion should happen at the article talkpage, but since we're here: Please name one reliable source that uses the name "Grand Prix of Markham". 162 etc. (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Out of the two reliable sources provided below, only one of them refers to the race by its supposed official name, which at the moment is "Ontario Honda Dealers Indy", without any reference to Markham. However, as you know, IndyCar races change title sponsors all the time and as you mention, the Toronto race was known by five different names. So, if that article had used the official name when it was first created, then it would have had to be renamed five times.

Per WP:CRITERIA "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." and Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." As such, we already have several "Grand Prix of (insert city here)" articles that are recognizable and consistent with each other. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with assigning the generic "Grand Prix" name for the title. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The very first thing that WP:CRITERIA says is "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." Per your comment above, you are agreeing with my assessment that no reliable sources use "Grand Prix of Markham"; that title therefore fails to meet our policy.

Let's discuss this further at the article talkpage, which is a more suitable place. 162 etc. (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we need to discuss further at the article talkpage, Grand Prix of Markham. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Very good points. Thank you. RegalZ8790 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@162 etc. Naming rights exist exclusively for advertising purposes, which is included in WP:NOTPROMO. Electricmemory (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

NOTE: Discussion continuing on what is currently Talk:Grand Prix of Markham ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 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) 00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)