User talk:GhostOfDanGurney

Please explain how politely disagreeing you, reverting you after several days of discussion, and suggesting you start an RFC is a "conduct issue". I appreciate that you reconsidered and removed the comment but nevertheless, I think the comment was inappropriate. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay: I recognized it as escalatory and made at an improper venue, hence the (acknowledged) quick self-revert.

But let's be real here, you had ignored my initial attempts at discussion for 30 hours and only replied after both:

1) I had gone to RSN because no one had replied at article talk and as the RfC is already showing, I was confident I'm correct on policy, regardless of the headcount that developed) and,

2) Kawnhr had replied at article talk expressing support for my position (which you then ignored in your headcount), and then you reverted after approximately 18 hours of actual discussion from when Kawnhr replied and when you reverted, which is not "several days", unless you're counting the time when no one replied as "discussion". ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 05:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I reverted you, you opened a discussion on Talk, all the participants disagreed with you. Three days after I first reverted you, I reverted you again as there was a consensus - that is after three days of discussion. I didnt say discussion with me, I said discussion, with your first comment being the starting point.

The point is you have to resist the effort to make threats, explicit or implied, because someone disagrees with you.Wellington Bay (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay: As I pointed out, there was 18 hours of discussion from first reply to you claiming a consensus had been reached

As I pointed out, multiple editors agreed with me, both on article talk(though partially and for the wrong reasons) and on RSN.

As has been pointed out, there is a greater consensus on Wikipedia directly related to the subject at hand

I did not make any threats. I am pointing out that you are ignoring certain facts in order to keep your preferred version of an article in place. I should have done so on your talk page and in a more polite manner; that was my mistake. I would like you to stop, but this alone wasn't and still isn't anything to go to ANI over, nor was I considering it then. I was fine to revert and leave it at that. I hope you are fine to accept that you erred in forcing through an improper localconsensus that didn't actually exist. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Telling someone there is a "conduct issue" is an implied threat of a misconduct complaint. My point, again, is you should resist the temptation to make those sorts of comments because someone is disagreeing with you and suggesting you resolve something with an RFC, given that RFCs are one way of testing or determining consensus. I'm glad you finally opened an RFC. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay: I should have done so on your talk page and in a more polite manner; that was my mistake. I would like you to stop, but this alone wasn't and still isn't anything to go to ANI over, nor was I considering it then. I was fine to revert and leave it at that. I hope you are fine to accept that you erred in forcing through an improper localconsensus that didn't actually exist. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I am happy to go by whatever the outcome of the RFC is. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have suggested it. That goes without saying. As for being "in error" - consensus changes and so do policies. I think the policy in this case lacks nuance for the reason I've explained. That's not a matter of being "right" or "wrong", but if the consensus disagrees and there is furthermore no consensus to change the overarching policy, then that's fine. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

My template message wasn't meant to be retaliatory, as I did not know you had posted on my talk page the same template. Rather my messages' point was to convey the last paragraph I had re-written which I'll put here: "In the Wikiproject for Professional wrestling, there is an accepted community consensus for "As of" as opposed to "He/She is signed..." or simply "currently". This is a community approved consensus and can be seen across a whole range of professional wrestlers' articles and has been reverted to such a consensus numerous times." Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Lemonademan22: This is something that could/should have been communicated to me, either here or at Talk:CM Punk, instead of making this edit, upon which, I would have self-reverted and brought the matter up to more wider audience than a wikiproject (since I believe this consensus is not in accordance with the relevant guideline). ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

In hindsight, I suppose. In that edit summary however, I did say "We've had this song and dance many times" because we have, temp accounts, inexperienced editors, and others have removed the same thing unaware of the community consensus, I just thought it was another one of them. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

hello!! I have decided to follow your edits and will be bold and make Teams and Drivers of the 2024 NASCAR Cup Series along with 2025, but i am confused about one thing. Should I just copy all the CC/sponsor changes and add them to the other page and then just redirect everything except the roster to the new page?? 45BearsFan (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)