GhostOfDanGurney

Hi GhostOfDanGurney! I was wondering if we should merge the defunct Dover 400 into the Würth 400, as you usually do that with defunct races, like Michigan, Pocono, and Loudon. 45BearsFan (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @45BearsFan:

It's probably a good idea. Can you do it yourself, or were you wanting help? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to do it myself but I don't know how. Can you possibly show me? 45BearsFan (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GhostOfDanGurney Do you just blank the page and add the redirect to the würth 400?? 45BearsFan (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@45BearsFan: I have Sunday off of work so I can do it then, after which I can debrief the process with you; the instructions are at WP:MERGE (I recommend reading the whole page, but the specifics of the actual merge process are at WP:MERGETEXT).

What you described just now isn't a merge per se, but what's known as a "BLAR" (BLank-And-Redirect). That would be what you do if we didn't want to keep the content of Dover 400, but in this case we do, so basically, we'd have to cut-and-paste what we want from there into Würth 400 (with attribution).

It's nothing too urgent right now, so hold on until Sunday and I'll go through it with you. :) ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!! (for both teaching me, in case a race were to lose a date, and for merging both Drydene 400 and Würth 400. I appriciate it!) 45BearsFan (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@45BearsFan: I've done the merge.

• Step 1 was to copy and paste what I wanted to keep from Dover 400 into Würth 400. In this case, I copied some of the prose (the written text in the article) relevant to how the race was formerly in the playoffs from their beginning, then I copied the results tables. When I pasted those, I renamed the section titles or else they would have been identical to the ones already in the target article, and that would have caused problems with linking to those sections I just pasted. I then also copied the list of former race names from the infobox and put them in a collapsible list when pasting.
• I then did a page move of Würth 400 to NASCAR Cup Series race at Dover Motor Speedway. This isn't part of the merge itself, just something I prefer to do, as I find this way of naming race article is much more consistent, since we often have yearly sponsor changes in race articles which clutters up edit histories, and sources back up this naming convention as well.
• The real Step 2 is to replace the content of Dover 400 with a redirect to the target article. As you can see in the diff, I simply added #REDIRECT [[NASCAR Cup Series race at Dover Motor Speedway]] then some other lines indicating redirect categories.

That's basically it, from what I remember. Hopefully I explained myself well enough for you! Some other users will go further and merge the results tables together, which is cool, but I can let them do that if they wish. Happy editing. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I almost forgot to add the merged-from and merged-to templates on the talk pages! [1][2] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thank you so much!! 45BearsFan (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ghost! (again)

I decided to make a new one to make this a new section as our last one is a bit confusing, but with everything you told me do you think I could give it a shot with O'Reilly Auto Parts 500 to Autotrader EchoPark Automotive 400? Thanks! 45BearsFan (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

My advice would be to do it in your sandbox (User:45BearsFan/sandbox) first to make sure that there are no errors. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GhostOfDanGurney (i probably dont need to ask for permission) but is it cool if I merge the 2 auto club races and (i'll give it time for richmond, I plan on merging the races once the heat kinda dies down) merging the 2 Richmond races together? 45BearsFan (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, I should probably post this in the wikiproject, but should we consider (or at least attempt with an article or 2) making merged articles look more like an Xfinity merged article? like NASCAR Xfinity Series at Bristol. 45BearsFan (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could I try to move it to a Draft? The old article that was deleted admittedly had a whole lot of issues that warranted its deletion that I tried to fix, but I see it can't be recreated just like that. Do you have any other suggestion? EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@EdgarCabreraFariña: I believe that you should still raise that point at WP:DRV. I'll ping @OwenX: as the discussion closer at AfD and see if he can add anything (to OwenX, I initially messaged EdgarCabreraFariña at their talk about this). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood then. Thanks. (Edit: If you allow me, I'll ping @Thief-River-Faller:, who appears to be interested.) EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed after sending the last message that Thief-River-Faller contested it. In that case, forget about DRV; it can be renominated at AfD and you guys can make your keep !votes there. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping! The AfD I closed was minimally attended - just enough to avoid a soft deletion. I see no harm in having this second AfD. Owen× ☎ 22:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, on my Canada–India relations & Hardeep Singh Nijjar edits, I had tried to record things as the sequence of events unfolded which is why news from Canada & USA appeared after what became public in India earlier. You were right re WP:NOTNEWS - I have re-written the paragraphs (Edit) to present a more coherent version in the former page, with citations from Washington Post, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star and CBC. Do take a look, and if it reads better, I'll also add it to the 2nd page given its relevance. Thanks for the help on the edits! JTF2020 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JTF2020: I think that's much better. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GhostOfDanGurney: Thanks again! Have added some relevant info on the alleged links to India to Hardeep Singh Nijjar; the diplomatic aspects were already present in the article. - JTF2020 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know there is no need apologize but after reading you're revert on my move (also after reading WP:RMUM) I agree with it, I just thought after the NHMS shortened title I thought we could do something similar to articles about the same length in title. 45BearsFan (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@45BearsFan: All good! Just keep in mind that every article stands on its own merit, which on Wikipedia means that doing something just because "X is like that" is usually not the best reason. Standardizing things can be good, but we can also leave some room for nuance. I recommend reading WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is specifically about deletion discussions, but can apply to other aspects such as article titles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@GhostOfDanGurney sorry for coming back to this but would it be cool to remove the speedway from homestead's race? as both trucks and xfinity don't have the "speedway" part. 45BearsFan (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@45BearsFan: Yeah go for it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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)Reply

For the record, I responded to this retaliatory template[3] on the user's talk page. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  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.Reply

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)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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

 

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply