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)

CS1 error on Eddie Hick

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Eddie Hick, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

When to geocoord and when not?

Hello! If there is guidance for the above question, I would be grateful. I've been beavering away since January hunting down coordinates for abandoned gold mines, hiking trailheads, former African American towns, plane crash sites, roads, bridges, recording studios, electrical power lines, etc.

The other day it came to my attention that I may have been wrong. Pi.1415926535 designated a whole series of articles as not needing coordinates here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pi.1415926535. Since the geocoord tag is placed by anome.bot, I asked The Anome for guidance about what does and doesn't need coordinates and the closest thing to a response is them returning the geocoord tag to the Whittier Fault article. So I've been marking articles not related to geologic formations or other things of national importance as not needing them.

What the $%@* are we supposed to do? I'm very confused. (I want back all the hours I've wasted hunting down unneeded coordinates, lol.) Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Oona Wikiwalker: First off, your efforts have certainly not been wasted! You've done a wonderful job tracking down coordinates for some rather difficult-to-locate sites. There's no official criteria on whether or not an article should have coordinates. I have three criteria that I personally use:

• Does the subject have a single fixed location? Articles like film festivals that move every year, ships that regularly move or have been scrapped, military campaigns across a wide area, and college districts with multiple colleges don't have a single fixed location that's useful to add. West Coast Stock Car/Motorsports Hall of Fame (an online museum) and UCLA Extension (a university program with multiple locations and no primary one) are examples from my recent edits.
• Is it possible to determine the coordinates to a useful precision? Some articles simply aren't possible to locate accurately enough to be useful: long-abandoned settlements only described as "about 10 miles east of XYZ", sensitive archeological sites whose location is withheld, sea battles with wildly differing accounts of their location, etc. If further research may reveal the answer, the "coords needed" template can stay. But if it's never going to be possible to add accurate coordinates, it shouldn't just sit in the maintenance category forever.
• Can it meaningfully be described with a single set of coordinates? Point features (like the mines, towns, crash sites, bridges, and studios you mention) are definite yesses. Longer features like roads, rivers, and mountain ranges often cannot be described with a single set of coordinates - they need a map instead. (I'm happy to give you guidance on creating KML and GeoJSON map data if you ever want.) Sometimes it's possible to add coords for endpoints like the mouth of a river or the trailheads of a trail; sometimes that's not really useful to add to the article. This one in particular is a judgement call, and your decisions so far have been just fine.

Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clearing away my confusion, Pi! I'm going to make sure I understand. (I did think there were rather a lot of road requests in Los Angeles county, but put that down to the car culture there.)

I find it reassuring that the admins keep an eye on things as we newbs wobble about on our new bicycles trying not to run over the flowerbeds. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

What Pi says makes sense to me. Places should have coordinates stated, if the coordinates can be known. Things that were once in a place, but can move, generally would not have coordinates. Is this discussion about a specific article that I have edited? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It was about the trail in Alaska, but now I understand better and I'm not upset. I'm going to reread what Pi said to make sure I understand and don't get confused again. Again, no one has done anything amiss. I thought *I* had and had wasted months of effort. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Dynkin's formula short description

Hi GhostInTheMachine, thank you for restoring the short description of Dynkin's formula, I removed it accidentally while preparing my edit yesterday! GanzKnusper (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Muzzle Awards

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Muzzle Awards, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Henry Robinson (scientist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Henry Robinson (scientist) 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/Henry Robinson (scientist) 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 until the discussion has finished.

-- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions on redirects

See

• Currency carry trade – Uncovered interest arbitrage

v

• Carry (investment) – Return or cost of holding an asset

which is why redirects to sections need SDs. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Poor description changes (many)

This, from "Class of 55 South African 4-6-0 locomotives" to "Design of steam locomotive" for South African Class 6B 4-6-0 is really not an improvement. I presume you're doing this because some of the description is also implicit in the name. Except that we don't always have the names visible in the same context as the description. Also the resultant description is still, and now entirely, implicit in the name. That makes the changed description completely useless (to the point where we might as well delte it altogether). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just blatant edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This user knows that it can be a challenge to keep AGF in mind.

your edit

[1] ummm... "lower emissions": don't you think this could be a little misleading? The main part of the emissions, CO2, remains and doesn't automagically decrease. The only difference will be in the combustion by-products, as I tried to make clear. Unless you have objective reasons to believe that "emissions" will evoke the correct mental associations I find your improvement going a little amiss. -- Kku (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is not a good short description. I was after something that was short enough and that was all I could come up with and a lot of the article text does talk about emissions. Especially "Clean fuel" is defined by emission rate targets .... Any suggestions? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Refill 2

Thanks for fixing bare references here. Can you get me the Refill 2 link? The one I have is not working that's why I left the references bare. Boadu Emma (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Just fixed the link in the Refill article. It is now at https://refill.toolforge.org/ng/ — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe add the following to your common.js:

// add link to the "Page" menu -- Process this page with Refill
mw.util.addPortletLink('p-page', "https://refill.toolforge.org/ng/result.php?page="+mw.config.get('wgPageName')+"&wiki=en&method-wiki=Fix%20page&noaccessdate=on", 'Refill');

Let me know if that works — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Adding the link to the Tools menu mw.util.addPortletLink('p-tb', ... might be better — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you so much for your guidance and directions. I will give you feedback later. Boadu Emma (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  On a different note, is there any automatic way you generate this?

  ^{talk to me} ? Or you input it manually? Boadu Emma (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I created it. Messing with JavaScript was my day job for many years — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

{annotated link}

Hello, was my short description just poor, or are there some general editor guidelines on not using/priming articles for the use of {annotated link}? Created for the disambiguation page. Tule-hog (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Puerto Rico

I would like to change this short description to "U.S. territorial flag" for Puerto Rico, unlike "U.S. state flag" for U.S. state of California. 49.150.13.247 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Conscientious Objection to Military Taxation

hi, @GhostInTheMachine: I recently amended the "short description" of this article to reflect what the article says, as I understand it: that "conscientious objection" to taxation for military purposes is the specific approach to pacifist tax resistance that seeks accommodation within the legal tax structure, akin to non-combatant service offered to a draftee. You changed my version to say "Argument against tax for military spending", which I don't think is accurate or informative. "Conscientious objection" is not an argument; it refers to recognition by the government (in the law) of a right to a modified form of lawful compliance. Do you disagree? If so, please explain by reference to how the concept is presented in the article.PDGPA (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:World War I memorials in the Netherlands

A tag has been placed on Category:World War I memorials in the Netherlands 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. ✗plicit 12:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing short descriptions on articles

As the title says, please refrain from removing short descriptions and/or resetting their short descriptions. Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to have short descriptions. See WP:SDESC § Pages that should have a short description for details on what I mean. Removing them is unhelpful, so please refrain from resetting their state in the future. Thank you. Edit: I should add that I read the SDNONE section on the page; regardless as to whether or not the title is detailed enough, a short description is still useful, especially if people need additional context. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 16:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remember that none is a perfectly valid Short description when the article title is enough. This is almost always the case for a list article. If a List article seems to need a Short description other than "none", then consider renaming the article to make the subject matter clear — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at OpenEMR, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Chauncey Green (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions CFL

Hello! I want your opinion on SDs for 1957 in Canadian football (and related pages). I was going down the List of CFL seasons adding SDs and then I ran into 1957 in Canadian football, which is very different than 1958 CFL season. Adding an SD of "Canadian Football season" doesn't seem to make sense so I used "none". Do you think "none" fits there or is there something better? Looking at 1957 in sports, for example, the SD seems to repeat the article's title, which isn't right either. Masterhatch (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

All articles before 1958 – 9999 in Canadian football – are generic year‡sport articles and so a SD of Overview of the events of 9999 in Canadian football does not add anything. They should be fine with a SD of "none".

After 1958 – a SD of Canadian Football League season is probably OK as the CFL in the artcile title has no specific meaning for most of the planet.

Of course, I must ask if the article really should instead be renamed to 1958 Canadian Football League season ...? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't expand CFL in article titles as it would be inconsistant with the other sports league seasons. Masterhatch (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe all such sports articles should be renamed to include the league name in full ? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't care either way but I betcha somewhere deep in the sports archives that was discussed. Masterhatch (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably true. Being serious – an article title has a duty to be unique rather than logical. The SD exists to some degree as a bridge for that gap. So, if an article uses a TLA that is not widely known, then the SD should generally expand it — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

NPA

Pleae read wp:npa and wp:brd (As well as wp:editwar), not agreeing with you is not wp:vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

see Talk:David Icke

I am aware of it, but not agreeing with it does not make it vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Note as well that an edit made at 11:01 can't be a violation of consensus, based upon a talk page discussion stated at 11:17, thus is a content dispute, not vandalism. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Short descriptions as "navigational aid" discussion

Remsense recently discussed at Wikipedia:Teahouse about short descriptions as "navigational aid" meaning "a tool to aid readers trying to navigate the site", because "head of state" is not a definition and to make it intentionally blank for European monarchy. Is there any proof this? Ferretville (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of WP:SHORTDESC instead of pinging an uninvolved editor over and over. It is not cryptic. Remsense ‥ 论 01:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Literally just created this list

How can there be any sources if nothing has been added yet, just categories? Seems like you jumped the gun a bit.

List_of_American_hip_hop_musicians Ɠɧơʂɬɛɖ (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Probably best moved to Draft while you work on it. Let us know when there is substantial content — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Ɠɧơʂɬɛɖ (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I have quite a bit, still lots to cover (WIP). I am hoping this topic is ok - there is no other list like it on Wikipedia, hoping it will encourage people to check out other acts / styles & learn about hip-hop culture / history.

I always have trouble with the review submission button for some reason, I click it but nothing happens. Had this problem before. It's happening now. Ɠɧơʂɬɛɖ (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

CSD:R3

Just a note, if you're tagging a redirect for speedy deletion, please try to use a redirect-specific tag (such as WP:R3) rather than a generic G6 tag. Cheers. Primefac (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-39

✂ — Tech News 2024/39 on Meta

Page mover granted

Hello, GhostInTheMachine. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Elli (talk | contribs) 16:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-40

✂ — Tech News 2024/40 on Meta

Note

I made format error while clearing, cant find where, Vatika FC Thanks! 93.140.242.18 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

• Vatika FC fixed — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Chatchapol Kulsiriwuthichai

The article Chatchapol Kulsiriwuthichai has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-41

✂ — Tech News 2024/41 on Meta

Fisayo Dele-Bashiru

Please stop, and take to the talk page. GiantSnowman 16:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-42

✂ — Tech News 2024/42 on Meta

Peter principle

Respected sir, Many thanks for your reversion of tag, in the above entry. Yes, it is unsourced, but it makes sense, keeping in mind the entire meaning of "Peter Principle". The example I gave happened around me, and I always used to say at these times, that it was "Peter Principle" in practice. Moreover, I am a beginner, and I thought such real life examples, which make sense, do add valuable content. Kindly educate me on this, if you like. This will help me learn. Thanks. Neotaruntius (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-43

✂ — Tech News 2024/43 on Meta

Invitation to participate in a research

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) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-44

✂ — Tech News 2024/44 on Meta

Tech News: 2024-45

✂ — Tech News 2024/45 on Meta

Cornwall

Hi, remember this? DuncanHill (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really, my brain simply cannot integrate such dissonance. How could we get this fixed? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Short D[sic]escription

I want to do more than a two-click thanks for this. As a user nearly as new as you, I had never noticed the "no-redirect" warning on the Short description doc. Noted. David Brooks (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you please start a discussion on Talk:Liam Payne discography for this edit?

Regarding this edit, I already reverted this edit you made last month. The article was already like this. There is no reason to remove the widths of columns—I maybe understand that adjusting text size isn't ideal, and I know all the accessibility guidelines around this, but the standard approach when an edit has been reverted is to go to the talk page for consensus per BRD. It would be appreciated if you could do this since you feel that strongly about it that you have returned to the article to make the same edit again. Thanks. Ss112 17:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Help from an administrator please

It looks like the dab page PBF was "re-purposed" (on 2024-10-23, diff [2]) and then moved (on 2024-11-01) to create an article for Pakistan Business Forum. I have re-created the dab page and also removed the dab content from the new article, which looks OK on the surface, but leaves the dab page edit history attached to the "wrong" place. Is there a way to unwind the state of the PBF page so that it has a valid history, while leaving Pakistan Business Forum with enough history? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Editors who do this kind of hijack-and-move as a way of creating new articles create more trouble than they probably realise, though this one is nowhere near as bad as some that I have seen. It will require separating the history of the dab page, the history of the repurposed page, and the history of an earlier page which had the same title. I'll get onto it. Thanks for pointing it out. When I've done that I'll look at the new article and see what needs to be done to that. At the least, it will probably need clean up to remove irrelevant history, and maybe more than just that. JBW (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The references added to the article don't come near to establishing notability, so I've moved it to draft space and advised the editor who did it to work on it & then submit it as an AfC draft. JBW (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for untangling everything — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 07:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-46

✂ — Tech News 2024/46 on Meta

Short Descriptions

have you been changing short descriptions i made? 95.24.4.60 (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That is possible, I change a lot of short descriptions — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Alexander Shaouni (police officer)

Messy article, and probably not notable, but it’s deleting without community input is likely to be highly controversial. Please take it to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Be not afraid ... I do not have the power to delete it myself. I have "AfD"ed it instead — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:15, 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) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-47

✂ — Tech News 2024/47 on Meta

Revert of my edit to Stanley Cohen (biochemist)

You were perfectly correct. However, it was a typo, not deliberate vandalism. Athel cb Athel cb (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Such things happen. No worries. The edit summary says: "Reverting edit(s) by Athel cb (talk) to rev. 1244549467 by Smasongarrison: non-constructive (RW 16.1)" — Typos are mostly "non-constructive" rather than deliberate damage — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)