User talk:GhostOfDanGurney

Discretionary sanctions alerts

October 2021

Bad-faith edit warring template

Your recent editing history at Kelli Stavast shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Banana Republic (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

As an involved editor in the content dispute you are referring to (see here), this template is nothing short of a fucking joke. Thanks for the belly laugh, genius. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

And if it wasn't any more clear how inappropriate this template is, here is me DISCUSSING ON THE FUCKING TALK PAGE a full 89 minutes before this template was posted. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Passion

I see that your very personally interested in Racing and Politics. We want individuals with deep understanding of topics to contribute! I've also seen several of your contributions and they are well done! You have also properly reverted several bad faith edits by other editors.

For that reason it is shocking, is that on other times you seem to become irrational and uncivil toward others, especially other established editors (ie, not the troll or SPAs). We are all entitled to our views and opinions, but this cuts both ways -- they are allowed to have different opinions than you. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."

While you are completely free to voice your thoughts on the articles and topics, "litigate" your case, as well as hold your own biases -- however, uncivil behavior, which includes vulgarity, does nothing to help your case - and only further causes people to not listen to you. Let me encourage you to WP:CHILLOUT -- not about the topics but rather your approach. Many of your points are well stated, and some of them introduce things that take more consideration that just a quick reply - those are welcome and necessary to improve Wikipedia. However, one statement like "I do not apologize, and kiss my ass", throws out a lot of good faith.

Best regards, TiggerJay (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tiggerjay: Thank you for the kind words and the reminder that I'm far too much of an angry edgelord too often. You're completely right here. :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For you to enjoy while we wait for this tempest (in a teacup) to pass, with apologies in advance for my pun. Beccaynr (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: Haha, thank you kindly ^_^. Good puns are always appreciated. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Re: Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination)

Hello. I've looked at your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination), and I'm not sure that it's entirely consistent with WP:WITHDRAWN. There was an editor who had expressed a preference to delete the article (though the later changed to "neutral"). Left unstruck was the comment that there still does not appear to be sufficient support for the WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST notability criteria, which seems to be an argument for something other than keep.

Additionally, per WP:WITHDRAWN, Early closure is inappropriate where it appears that the withdrawal is simply an attempt to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. In your withdrawal note, you stated that you would like to [r]evisit after this meme dies down so people quit thinking I'm some biased partisan. While you're allowed to withdraw support for any reason, there seems to be an implicit WP:RECENT concern in there regarding notability that may well deserve discussion. However, given that there was an active discussion going on and not everybody had explicitly supported a keep outcome, I don't believe that the deletion discussion should have been closed as "withdrawn". Rather, I believe that an uninvolved close would have been more appropriate. I'd kindly ask that you re-open the discussion so as to allow for additional community input and to allow for a WP:UNINVOLVED close.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)