User talk:GhostInTheMachine/2024

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi GhostInTheMachine! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The current SD looks OK — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks. 160.20.109.73 (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Remember WP:SD40 and WP:SDNOTDEF. Short descriptions often exclude accurate information — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/39 on Meta

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)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/40 on Meta

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

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

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)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/41 on Meta

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

Precious

Four years!

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

✂ — Tech News 2024/42 on Meta

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)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/43 on Meta

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) [reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/44 on Meta

✂ — Tech News 2024/45 on Meta

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

✂ — Tech News 2024/46 on Meta

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/47 on Meta

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

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)[reply]

Hello,

Kindly, help in the submission of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Devendra_Kothe

Other authors are creating the duplicate page by modifying the name.

Thank you, Mohit Mohit Gandmal (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just noticed that you changed the short description for Stable Yang–Mills–Higgs pair. Is it a general guideline I should consider in the future that short descriptions should be simpler and therefore easier to understand instead of precise and potentially less understandable? Because then the short description for Stable Yang–Mills connection should also be changed. Thanks for your help! Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Adrian Antz: Short descriptions should be short — WP:SDSHORT. They are also not intended to define the subject — WP:SDNOTDEF, just be a way to chose between the various articles that may be returned by a search. So, yes, the other article needs a much shorter (and simpler) SD — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostInTheMachine Thanks! The other article now has the same short description. Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/48 on Meta

Hi GhostInTheMachine! I think the speedy deletion of Olympiad mathematics was premature, since I was still working on improving the article. While the International Mathematics Olympiad is usually considered the culmination of Olympiad mathematics (although not always), there are plenty of competitions that aren't the IMO that would be categorized under Olympiad mathematics. The history of Olympiad mathematics, for example, is quite different from the history of the IMO, even though they may share a number of things.

Let me know what you think! GregariousMadness (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for helping update and add short descriptions to Wikipedia articles. With your help, we have cleared the WikiProject's top 3000 list for November 2024! Your work has made Wikipedia better. Keep it up! LR.127 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what about me i just want to add short descriptions for articles that dont have short descriptions 95.24.4.60 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me to find any articles with long short descriptions? 95.24.4.60 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/49 on Meta

Describing Ivison Macadam as a British Army officer is incorrect. He only served during WWI as many others did at a young age and went to university afterwards and then began his career. British Army officer was not his career. People should only be described that way if they were career soldiers. Please revert. Many thanks.William Macadam (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i just saw a text called "oac" while i was reading a page about Windows Vista, can you remove this text? 95.24.4.60 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm i think it got removed but this time its not GhostInTheMachine its a diffrent user. 95.24.5.7 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GhostInTheMachine pls help me while i was editing Bing Shopping i click on "Preview" and they are unable to detect "release_date", pls fix this. 95.24.5.7 (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Egyptian companies established in 2021 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 22:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/50 on Meta

Hi @GhostInTheMachine, I see that you are changing all the short descriptions of European political parties, which I had set to draw from wikidata. I would be grateful if you reverted those changes, as this makes it easier to harmonise and translate these descriptions. Thanks! Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that you are removing former European political alliances from this category to add them instead to the category of current European political alliances. Could you please let me know why this is more appropriate? Julius Schwarz (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please stop, now you are changing labels in manner that is not accurate. European political parties are called as such officially, they have not been called "political parties at European level" since 2014. There were discussions on the matter and this was resolved a long time ago. Please hold off on further changes and discuss. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read these messages, stop mass editing, and discuss. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostInTheMachine please note that by reverting edits, you do not merely change the short description but you removed a lot of useful changes. Please discuss before reverting changes. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions must be plain text and may not include any templates. I routinely fix any short descriptions that use templates — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain how the short descriptions you changed were inadequate -- why it is not possible to call to wikidata for descriptions, insofar as the content of the description is valid? Also you reverted A LOT of important changes. If you have a problem with the descriptions, do not revert changes that affect more than the descriptions. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many of these descriptions have been too long – the current guidelines at WP:SDSHORT advise a limit of around 40 characters. The full guidelines are at WP:SDCONTENT — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that these descriptions were too long. Maybe with the exception of European political foundations, but including the name of the affiliated party is highly relevant. You cannot simply take an axe to everything. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Short_description#Why_not_simply_re-use_Wikidata's_item_descriptions? indeed says that descriptions on Wikipedia and Wikidata are "very often" different. But this is not the case here and the capitalisation issue is sorted out. There seems to be no objective reason to remove the calls to Wikidata in this case, let alone reverting changes on a massive scale. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok, point taken about the fact that short descriptions must be in plain text. However, please revert all your reverts and edits, and only proceed to changing the short description itself. Your reverts have way more far-reaching consequences than just the short descriptions. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions must be plain text and may not include any templates. This is a simple technical issue and nothing to do with the chosen text. As such, I routinely fix any short descriptions that use templates. In this case, a simple revert was the "cheapest" method for any articles that had not been edited any further. In those cases, I did not use a simple revert, but manually fixed the short description with a further edit. You are free to edit the text of a Short description just as you are free to edit the text within an article. Other editors also have the same freedom and will seek to reduce the length of any Short descriptions that are too long. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you reverted many, many changes that went far beyond the short description and which impacts categories, phrasing, characterizations and more. Please revert these. Julius Schwarz (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware that I altered any categories. Which articles need to be re-edited? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please just revert all changes and I will personally change the short descriptions by removing the call to Wikidata. Then you can always check what you believe it too long. Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, my error scan reports that there are no articles in this Wikipedia that include a template in the short description, which is as it should be. If you need some help with editing a specific article, please get in touch again — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am sorry but I am going to revert your edits and then manually change the short descriptions. It does not matter what your scan report tells you, it matters that you deleted a lot of important information. Julius Schwarz (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I reverted the changed and kept the plain text descriptions, so let's consider this conversation closed. For the record, you clearly did far more changes than you seem to understand. I believe your intentions are good, but you do not fully master the tools you are using. This has led to a lot of needless confusion and time wasted. Please be more careful in the future. Julius Schwarz (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Japanese companies disestablished in 1973 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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 02:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming what happened at Therapeutic use is that you went to add an SD, but the page had been moved in the meantime, and that race condition caused you to inadvertently recreate it? For future reference, CSD G4 doesn't apply there, but G7 does; or, if you see someone else do it, G6 as an unambiguous error or A3 for no content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is about it. The browser still held the page while it was being moved. I will use G6 if there is a next time — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 19:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

✂ — Tech News 2024/51 on Meta

What just happend? (Just made an spelling mistake lol) 95.24.5.7 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @GhostInTheMachine,

I noticed you’ve contributed to the Viveka Nand Sharan Tripathi article. It’s currently under a deletion discussion, and your input would be highly valuable. Please consider sharing your thoughts on the discussion page.

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected the technical issues and added suitable categories. I do not really have a view about the article itself — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Your recent format change at Daniel Dubois promoted me to start a new discussion at WikiProject Boxing. Your participation and feedback would be very welcome! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i forgot to approch you down so shell we try to recapitulate our negotiation yeah so we are talking over the Chikara, un as far i know can you move this article page to seprate disambiguation prior to WP:disambiguation Paul-mcdevil (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If you believe that the disambiguation page Chikara should be moved and replaced with a more suitable primary topic, please start a discussion on the talk page at talk:Chikara with an explanation of your proposal and details of the primary topic — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostInTheMachineUm its look bit time takable so in true sense it just an quick step-in if you do it for me after Consensual enrichment as per-WP:Consensus i think it wouldn't take you much time if you done by your own to move as an expertise enforcer for relevant deb pages like this one that's way to easier and remotes out the surveillance Paul-mcdevil (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so basically as an new comer how to move this page I really mesmerise this whole situation i thinks you should move this page at this point without any dalliance @GhostInTheMachine Paul-mcdevil (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If you believe that the disambiguation page Chikara should be moved and replaced with a more suitable primary topic, please start a discussion on the talk page at talk:Chikara with an explanation of your proposal and details of the primary topic — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 15:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]