Talk:NASCAR/Archive 2

Charlotte Name Change
Just thought I would mention a change. It is no longer Charlotte Motor Speedway, it is Lowes Motor Speedway. Thanks==biggest track ever alabama

Yellow flag criticism
There should be a mention that there is quite a bit of validity/criticism in the yellow flag conditions. This series is known for throwing "phantom cautions" to tighten the field up for ratings/prevent loss of ratings.

Any proof?

Hmm...
How is there nothing in the article about the perception of NASCAR fans? Many fans are rednecks. Also, there is some controversy as to whether driving a car around and around in circles for hours is considered a sport. Perhaps this should make its way into the article. Thoughts? Wikipediarul e s 2221 05:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) That is a false stereotype.
 * 2) This article is about a sanctioning body. If you would like to question the validity of racing as a sport, go  the auto racing article. Mustang6172 06:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny to question whether or not its a sport. That, my friend, is another stereotypical fan of the NFL.


 * How is there nothing in the article about the perception of NASCAR fans? Many fans are rednecks.
 * I wouldn't say "many". Because the roots of NASCAR can be traced back to the south, it is popular in that part of the country. However, we shouldn't single out just one group of fans, or for that matter any groups, to mention in the article. It is somewhat of a stereotype to say that NASCAR fans are "rednecks". That is an opinion, not a fact(that I know of). Also, many people refer to racing as' NASCAR'. NASCAR is a sanctioning body, not a type of sport. To that end, is their a motor sports article on Wikipedia that has the perceptions of fans of other types of racing? Or even another article on a different sport that lists the perception of those fans?

Thanks Caster23 06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, there is some controversy as to whether driving a car around and around in circles for hours is considered a sport.
 * Most people believe that thats all racing is. Its a common misconception. Oxford Dictionary defines sport as "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others". NASCAR drivers endure more stress then any other sport. Racing is very physically demanding and is also mentally demanding. Please read this article here. I'm for putting in a section about the demands of racing in this article (if their isn't one already, I honestly haven't looked).
 * Comment Many people think racing isn't a sport, but think about how much more stressful it is to drive a car at 190MPH than it is to run with a ball. You fuck up in basketball or baseball, you have a chance of getting injured. You fuck up in racing, and you and anyone around you can die. It's a lot harder than people think it is. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 05:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Old Car technology
Why does NASCAR promote old technology? There's not much discussion on the tech parameters that limits what teams can do. Like, why don't they race production cars anymore? Is it difficult to find the old car parts needed to assemble the cars? The cars sort of look like the cars that our local drug dealers drive - is that intentional?
 * NASCAR believes that old technology is cheaper than new technology. I'm not going to say that's correct, but that's their stance.  Personally, I think more people would be interested in person vs. person drama than PCM vs. I wouldn't mind the latter, but I'm only here to write the articles.  Technical information can be found in the NASCAR rules and regulations article.  Also, if you want to talk about racing, find a forum site.  This page is for discussing this article. Mustang6172 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Preamble
''Warning: some humor included. Possible side effect: LOL. Readers’ discretion advised. Please read and laugh responsibly.''

My fellow brothers-in-web.

As many other people out there (such as us) I was deeply touched by so emotionally charged speech made by Ms. South Carolina in regards to the maps issue in our society (see the link to the external content on the YouTube™: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww)

As you can imagine, Maps in general are very important part of the life of the people such as us and interactive Maps are even more important. As per the personal belief of Ms. South Carolina many people out there (such as us) don’t have Maps. Let’s think together – what can we do in order to improve this catastrophic situation with the shortage of Maps? Interactive online Maps provide effective solution to the problem. Just imagine how many people out there (such as us), even in the most distant places of the world, such as Northern Antarctica, could get an instant access to the quality Maps via the Internet, keyboard and mouse. By using interactive online Maps instead of hard-printed ones we are effectively reducing the bookprints and carbon footprints and saving the trees and other greenbacks. And if you agree on this issue, let’s talk about practical aspect of the project :).

Proposed solution
Well, NASCAR and Wiki have one thing in common: they both heavily rely on the people and technology. So, here come the Interactive Maps, which are the close technological siblings of the Wiki. Interactive Maps, IMHO, would benefit the existing NASCAR page, providing better User online experience.

Therefore, I propose to extend the NASCAR page with special section dedicated to Interactive Maps (called “Interactive Maps”)

Upon the majority approval I would like to make a first contribution to this section - Interactive NASCAR Maps, which provide convenient race Track mapping, weather forecast and local area search engine.

Your comments are highly invited. Thanks for your kind attention.

Regards, DrABELL Alexander Bell 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, no. NASCAR is about racing, not maps saying where each race track is. There are plenty of websites that do that and aren't linked from the article. I doubt anyone would come to Wikipedia looking for information on maps. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. There is no reason to have a section of the article promoting your website. If you created a separate article (Don't do that, I'm being hypothetical) the article would most likely be deleted in some way, shape, or form. (WP:CSD or WP:AFD) BTW, does your website pass the WP:WEB guideline. --Michael Greiner 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: To Michael Greiner
''Hello, Michael. You keep me busy, Sir :) Please read the following.''

Web sites are new media

Well, Michael, looks like the biggest issue here, which bothers you most, is that I have a website :). Isn’t it kind of strange? Think about Internet / Web site as a new media, and btw, THE MOST IMPORTANT MEDIA of our days. To create a Web site is like write a book, make movie, create a music, picture, etc. You have seen multiple links to other form of media on NASCAR page: TV, songs, movies. Just following your logic, it also could be considered a promotion of the products and associated folks: movie stars/directors, writers, singers, etc. Probably, there is no reason to discriminate Web sites just because they are still not considered to be a part of “media establishment”.

Online Communities: more tolerance, please

As I said repeatedly, all websites are technological siblings, so I would encourage more synergetic approach dealing with Wiki content and more tolerant attitude among online communities. I would like to point to an excellent statement from Wiki guidelines WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Let’s follow this one.

NASCAR is a societal phenomenon

Many people have intuitive feeling that NASCAR is much more than just a racing show. NASCAR is our unique societal and cultural phenomenon, the unifying ground for American people. When the country is so deeply politically divided, the importance of such unifying phenomenon as NASCAR is extremely high.

Another important thing about NASCAR: this is a sport where people and technology gracefully converge. It gives our young generation the role models with accent made on spiritual and physical strength, determination, decency. It also promotes the value of technical knowledge; this aspect of NASCAR inspires me a lot, because our great country and its future heavily rely on technology.

Back to Maps

Interactive race Track Maps and associated technology probably are not a centerpiece of the NASCAR page, but such info resources placed in one section could help people to better organize their entertaining events. Plus - it’s pretty exciting technology, the part of our great hi-tech universe. Young folks looking at these online Maps will probably ask themselves: “Wow! How they did it? Can I try to do the same or even better?” And this could probably lead to the birth of new Microsoft™, Google™ or YouTube™.

Summary

I do not see any reason why Interactive Maps on race Tracks should not be placed on NASCAR page; IMHO, they pretty much comply with Wiki policy/guidelines. Many other folks could contribute to this section, probably enhancing its original concept with new ideas and technology.

Regards, DrABELL

PS. Btw, folks: why Books are not included in the Media section on the page? I think, it's an omission. Alexander Bell 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree on Maps on NASCAR page?
MAPS ARE IMPORTANT!

Not only Ms. South Carolina, but Ms. West Carolina as well expressed her concern about Maps in the following Video clip (link to YouTube(TM): [Maps - Miss West Carolina speaks out] Alexander Bell 23:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering you and me are the only two people talking here, I don't think so. (I'm sure you know my opinion by now, and that I'm not going to change it) Maps in general are important. Your website, not so much, based my not seeing how it meets the WP:WEB notability guideline. BTW, I really do not care what any beauty pageant queen says about maps. (None of them could find Yugoslavia or Somalia on one I'd bet. (Not really betting) --Michael Greiner 23:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

To Michael
You made an excellent point, Michael: we are only two people talking probably because some people out there (in Northern Antarctica, etc.) don't have Maps. And, therefore, they don't know how to find us and share with us their valuable opinions on how important Maps and especially my Interactive Maps are. And, btw, you are asking tough question: how to find Yugoslavia on Map. I even not sure if this state still exists as a federal geo-political entity. Probably, like a former Soviet Union, it was dissolved, splitted into several independent states. I tried Google Map on "Yugoslavia" search query. Interestingly, it returns Embassy of Yugoslavia in US, Canada, etc. but no clear traces of the State of Yugoslavia. Comments invited.

Alexander Bell 00:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently last year (June 2006) Serbia and Montenegro declared their independence, abolishing the name of Yugoslavia. I didn't know that until today, but I was still technically correct while learning something myself. Your maps would not have told me that. Somalia and the former Yugoslavia were the site of relatively minor US military operations in the 1990's, which is why I brought them up. --Michael Greiner 01:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maps can tell a lot
Actually, my sophisticated beautiful Interactive Map can tell you that. It's relevant to mention that NASCAR-dedicated Map, which we are discussing for pretty long time, is based on the universal Interactive Map solution (underlying technology), which allows a lot of customization. In particular, it enables a virtual trip to the place discussed above to be just a mouse click away (see the link) Take a Virtual Trip to the European beautiful places: Serbia, Montenegro, etc.. It's like a magic carpet fly, but even better. Many people out there can virtually get there, look around and find out if Yugoslavia is still there or something else is there... Don't underestimate the power and importance of the Maps (especially such sophisticated one as my Interactive Map:-).

Alexander Bell 03:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Or I could just use Google Earth. (Love that built-in flight simulator) BTW, making headings for every comment just clutters up the Table of Contents. --Michael Greiner 03:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Michael, I am also learning; in particular, how to make nice indenting on this wiki stuff:). Couple words about current online map technology: Microsoft Virtual Earth and Google maps are probably the two most sophisticated interactive mapping solutions existing today. I am using Virtual Earth SDK because I am pretty much familiar with Microsoft technology set (as a matter of fact NASCAROMM.COM is a pure .NET solution, constantly updated to follow the latest-greatest technological trends from Microsoft). In addition to this I found Virtual Earth just a bit more aesthetically appealing (IMHO). But Google map is a great product as well. Both products could be placed among Top10 "big SW things" of current decade. Alexander Bell 04:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, I have just found that there is a page dedicated to Google Earth, but no such page as Microsoft Virtual Earth! It's an obvious omission and I am going to start and moderate that page. So, this Map discussion probably will be continued in a different thread. Regards, Alexander Bell 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR Tracks: Maps and Images, etc.
Please DON'T Remove external links. Thanks. Alexander Bell 03:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since consensus hasn't been reached, I removed the links per Suggestions for COI compliance. --Michael Greiner 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Michael, but I strongly disagree
Sorry, Sir, but this time I feel really sad and would like to file a complaint to the community about your abusive practice, very judgmental attitude and obvious bias in this particular case.

Please explain to the community and myself: '''WHY ARE YOU CONTINUOSLY DELETING MY LINKS TO THE NASCAR INTERACTIVE MAPS WHILE KEEPING THE LINK TO THE OTHER PAGE ADDED BY DIFFERENT PERSON (See the external link at NASCAR page titled: Aerial and Satellite Photos of NASCAR Tracks - from SightseeBySpace.com)? THAT PAGE USES ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CONCEPT, EXCEPT FOR IT IS TITLED DIFFERENTLY, AND IS BASED ON GOOGLE MAP TECHNOLOGY INSTEAD OF A MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY THAT I AM USING.'''

TAKE A LOOK AT THE OTHER PAGE AND PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR YOUR DECISION TO DELETE MY LINKS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR YOUR ACTION, THEN PLEASE RESTORE THE LINK IMMEDIATELY!

One more time I would like to reiterate: WIKI IS NOT A BATTLEGROUND WP:NOT (see my previous post). Please learn how to be more tolerant to you colleagues and stop this absolutely baseless personal attack on me! Alexander Bell 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I guess it will help if community at least could get a chance to see the links to the Maps in a context of this discussion. I mean my links, which you are deleting almost instantly as they appear... here they are for the community to see and review:


 * Interactive Map of NASCAR race tracks: USA, Canada and Mexico


 * Interactive Map of NASCAR race tracks with local area search and Weather forecast


 * Please don't remove it from here! Also, I would appreciate if you promptly restore these links on the main page, just next to the other person's contribution. The best way is probably keep them together UNLESS statistically significant number of people complain.Alexander Bell 04:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am removing it because you are the the creator of that website, and its inclusion of this page would give a benefit to you, creating a Conflict of Interest. I'm just following wiki policy at WP:COI. I'm not the one who is yelling about it. I'd like to see what you consider to be a personal attack. The other link wasn't added by the person who created it. (or at least not to my knowledge) --Michael Greiner 13:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * TO Michael: Michael, your explanation is NOT Accepted. Instead of repeteadly deleting links to my NASCAR Interactive Maps you can JUST ADD THEM BY YOURSELF and the whole COI isuue will be over! You have by now a clear indication that other people think this Map is usewful. And please read this: (Suggestions for COI compliance) 1. Assume good faith, the user is likely trying to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia, even if they have a conflict of interest.2. Treat the user's suggestion on its merits, rather than trying to assess the conflict of interest itself. 
 * I would also recommend you instead of over-concentrating on my Map links to take a look at the other site, which I have mentioned before ("sightseebyspace dot com") and find out who put the link there. So it will demonstrate a universal fair approach to the COI issue, which you are pushing so hard in my case.


 * Also I would like to bring to your attention a bunch of commercial stuff placed on their site, namely: Adds by Yahoo. Just look what they put there! As an example: Countrywide® Home Loans No Closing Cost Refinance Loan.Call America's #1 Home Loan Lender. . Or, if you click, for example, on Atlanta Motor Speedway item, it will open the page showing the Google Map image plus the bunch of Adds, one of them saying  Korean Girls For Dating Korean girls seek foreign men for dating and marriage. 18+.KoreanCupid.com . Tell me please, Michael: WHAT IT HAS TO DO WITH NASCAR AND WHY SUCH LINK IS ON THE PAGE? This looks pretty much like a spam. Moreover, I don't like this type of Adds (as the latter one) at all on a NASCAR dedicated page. I would better ask the site owner to remove such commercial stuff from their page ASAP; otherwise it might be appropriate to remove the link to their page (Again, I am really surprise by how quckly you made the decision in my case, deleting the link to my NASCAR-dedicated commercial-free highly-interactive and feature-rich Maps of NASCAR race Tracks, while totally overlooking this rather compelling issue).So, what is your opinion? Your comments are invited.


 * In the meantime I am still waiting for your response regarding the links to my commercial-free pure NASCAR dedicated Interactive Maps/site. This will be a clear indication of your real good intention and unbiased approach. Thanks for consideration. Regards, Alexander Bell 16:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: For those who might be interested in underlying interactive map technology: Microsoft Virtual Earth™ as well as Google Earth™ allow to see the aerial photos of many locations in the US and worldwide by adjusting zoom and setting relevant view mode. Feel free to ask more questions about technology use.Alexander Bell 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Man's Opinion
I was about to say, (In fact I jumped the gun and wasted my time typing it..) "....There, the tie is broken.. It's two against one and Alexander Bell just won!" (And a bunch of other stuff I typed did not post..) Because I almost fell in. But That was before I did some of my own research and discovered Alexander Bell owns/edits the website in question. Alexander, please do not take this personal because it's not. As I mentioned I was all ready to stand up and start firing shots in your defense. Personally I find your maps very useful and as a NASCAR fan I appreciate your efforts. However; Wikipedia is not a free advertising or self promotion service, and since you own the domain NASCAROMM.COM as well as edit the site; sorry, I have to agree with Michael Greiner and say that it is indeed a conflict of interest and it is indeed against the Wikipedia rules. But, had anyone else recommended your website and argued for it I would have had a few things to say in defense of it. Now however; there will forever be suspicion in allot of peoples minds. Hopefully you don't take it personal because it's not. You can't blame Wikipedia either for their rules because if they didn't have those rules this place would be a spammers haven! Unfortunately in order to prevent that from happening a few honest intentions must be sacrificed. Flame on Gentlemen...I'm wearing 3 ply NOMEX! See you at the races! --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 06:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: To Dp67: Thank you, Randy!
Thank you very much, Sir for your warm response, time and efforts. I really enjoy reading your submission and, honestly, feel better now. Indeed, as it was stated pretty clear in the discussion thread, I have developed this non-commercial dedicated site: NASCAROMM.COM (it stands for “Nascar On My Mind”) and my son Joe (8th Grader now) is writing a content. As a professional Web developer I pretty much understand your concern regarding spam issue, but, IMHO, this site is not a spam at all! The site’s primary intention is to popularize the NASCAR among kids by using novel Internet technology. Interactive Map is only a single part, there are much more in that project. Just for fun I invite you to take a NASCAR quiz: http://www.nascaromm.com/Quiz.aspx

In regards to the COI debate brought by Michael G. : when reading the related rules/guidelines (Suggestions for COI compliance) I was touched by wisdom of Wiki creator, which wrote:

…Editors responding to such a COI-compliant suggestion should bear in mind the following points:

1.	Assume good faith, the user is likely trying to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia, even if they have a conflict of interest.

2.	Treat the user's suggestion on its merits, rather than trying to assess the conflict of interest itself. …

So, may I ask you a question: '''what if you take the lead and add these links to the Map or whatever you may found useful on my site to NASCAR page? It looks like a perfect resolution of the COI and the whole issue will be over'''. The same goes to other NASCAR fans (including Michael Greiner): my dear “brothers-in-web” - if you see something useful on my site NASCAROMM.COM, then please don’t hesitate to add the links to these resources. Seriously - why it’s OK to promote, e.g., "Weird Al" Yankovic (as did Michael Greiner – see the discussion on my talk page User talk:Alexander Bell) or other “established” celebrities, but restrict this right for your fellow NASCAR fan? Looks like there is one set of rules for “rich-famous” and other one for the average Alexander Bell :). Just think about it. Your comments highly invited.

Well, it’s a beautiful day! Have Fun, Sir and enjoy the view! http://www.nascaromm.com/NascarMapWeather.aspx?id=12&z=15 (and also you could check the weather) :)

Very Important Note: This Web site is '''MADE IN USA. NO LEAD PAINT! JUST GREAT'''! :)))

Alexander Bell 14:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of Maps
I've started this new section because I'm not exactly sure where to post (since this section about maps is long and spread out). I'd like to say to Alex that just because Dp67 says that the links may be okay (if they were added by someone different) doesn't mean that they are okay, or even necessary for this article, and does not give you a reason to 'attack' Micheal and accuse him of something (whatever that maybe, I haven't completely read all of your lengthy posts on this page). He has a point about the whole conflict of interest problem, but there is more too it:

Even is someone added links to images of maps, be it Alex's or any other, I would be tempted to remove them, no matter what site it is. This article is about NASCAR, the sanctioning body. This is not about tracks. A link to any site that shows images seems unneeded as i can just do a simple search and find what Im looking for. Links to map pages like Alex's, or sightseebyspace, or really, any other site would seem to unfair to other sites that do the same thing and use the same aerial images from sources such as google, or microsoft, etc.

So, in conclusion:
 * Alex posting links to his site, no matter how to looks or his intentions, is a COI.
 * Even if another party posted links to his site, or any other site, It wouldn't be appropriate to this article as this has nothing to do with tracks.
 * I could see, perhaps, a link to google or microsft maps, on a tracks respective article page (which there probably is already).

Caster23 talk  contribs 16:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The End of Map discussion
To Caster23

Dear Sir,

Just to avoid the further aggravation I would wrap up this discussion now. Please do not manipulate with words: in a context of Wiki, ‘attack’ clearly means unfair and/or biased editing or even unjustified censorship. And it is YOU, Sir, teaming with Michael G. (it is so noticeable, Sir – just read the “two against one” observation posted by Dp67) doing this to me, and not VICE VERSA! (I did not delete your stuff).

Now the most interesting part! AFTER MY CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICIZM (see my post above: Alexander Bell, 16:03, 29 September 2007 UTC) someone promptly removed the link to the site (“sightseebyspace dot com”), which I was criticized. Btw, do you know by chance who put that link on the page and also who deleted it recently? Anyway, it’s very interesting to see how well orchestrated were your efforts of kicking off my links, while keeping “blind eye” on that stuff. Well, it looks like my criticism was PROPERLY TARGETED and the removal of that link is a good indicator that I AM RIGHT in this case.

Back to the “conflict of interest” issue. Btw, you know, in general the unfair/biased editing practice or censorship (e.g.., using “double standards” applied to different contributors) could be itself considered a possible “conflict of interest”. Yeah, indeed - how should I or other folks know for sure what could be the real motives of your such well-orchestrated deletion of my content (map links, etc.) and criticizing me so intensively, while keeping the other link (removed by now) to the page full of commercial stuff? Someone could think (just hypothetically), that by doing this you could possibly be serving (intentionally/unintentionally) some special interest? IMHO, the whole “conflict of interest” issue was overblown out of proportion: please, READ THIS AGAIN: Suggestions for COI compliance: ' …Editors responding to such a COI-compliant suggestion should bear in mind the following points: 1. Assume good faith, the user is likely trying to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia, even if they have a conflict of interest.2. Treat the user's suggestion on its merits, rather than trying to assess the conflict of interest itself. … .' Excellent recommendation to follow.

And probably the biggest disappointment came from YOUR statement:  … I'd like to say to Alex that just because Dp67 says that the links may be okay (if they were added by someone different) doesn't mean that they are okay, or even necessary for this article, … . So, here is a situation: Dp67 and I think Interactive Map is useful on this page, you and Michael G. think they are not, but for some reason your opinion is the one that matters. '''Tell me please - what gives you the status of “absolute truth” holder? Are you kind of “decider” here, the absolute authority?''' What about several tens of millions of NASCAR fans (btw – what is the estimate number if anybody knows?), who are reading this page, but simply don’t write here? Are you speaking on behalf of them? Why are you so confident in your exclusive rights to decide on what is good or bad for NASCAR fans?

Well, I made my point. As I said before - this whole Interactive NASCAROMM Map issue is overblown out of proportion and should be ended now. Just for sake of keeping our community peaceful and friendly I AM ENDING this lengthy discussion (though I still feel very upset).

One more thing to say: special thanks to you, Dp67. Enjoy the race, Sir! Regards, Alexander Bell 18:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Caster23 talk  contribs 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Notes for clairification purposes:
 * 1) efforts of kicking off my links, while keeping “blind eye” on that stuff - The link in question was added here on September 26. Remember, editors are not on the computer all the time and may not see such links untill sometime after they were added.
 * 2) YOU, Sir, teaming with Michael G. (it is so noticeable, Sir – just read the “two against one” observation posted by Dp67) doing this to me, and not VICE VERSA! (I did not delete your stuff). - Me and Micheal did not "team" up on you as you suggest. Until you can prove that we did, I suggest you stop accusations such as this. Also, I have not added anything for you to possibly delete. As for the 'attack', I was referring to this edit you made after Dp67 posted his opinion. Perhaps 'attack' was the worng word but I posted that in a hurry as I had other matters to attend too.
 * 3) So, here is a situation: Dp67 and I think Interactive Map is useful on this page, you and Michael G. think they are not, but for some reason your opinion is the one that matters. Tell me please - what gives you the status of “absolute truth” holder? Are you kind of “decider” here, the absolute authority? What about several tens of millions of NASCAR fans (btw – what is the estimate number if anybody knows?), who are reading this page, but simply don’t write here? Are you speaking on behalf of them? Why are you so confident in your exclusive rights to decide on what is good or bad for NASCAR fans? - When did I say my opinion was the "decider"? I added my opinion. Stop thinking that everyone is against you. And I'll restate: just because Dp67 says that the link may be appropriate, doesn't mean it is or that its even necessary. Stop jumping to conclusions.
 * 4) Someone could think (just hypothetically), that by doing this you could possibly be serving (intentionally/unintentionally) some special interest? - And me and Michael would be doing this for whom..? hmmm? I don't care that you have a site that uses images from other sources; I have my own site as well but you will not find a link on wikipedia that goes too it. As far as I'm concerned, any and all links to sites that use the content of a different source do not belong; whether that be here or any other article. It is best to link directly to the source (google, microsoft) IF it is even needed. And one more note: I have taken a look at your site for the first time just now, I like what I see but it isn't right for Wikipedia. It seems more like a NASCAR fan site, IMHO.

Comments, also for clarification purpose, related to the last paragraph 4.
 * To Caster23

4a. You are right in terms of the site (www.nascaromm.com) is created by two NASCAR enthusiasts (me and my son Joe) for other NASCAR fans and it is for edutainment purpose. If you have your own site and it's related to NASCAR, then feel free to give us the link. If you want I could review it and personally add the link to the NASCAR page if found relevant. I guess it will be in pefrect compliance with policies/rules: no COI issue foreseen in this case.

4b. In regards to your suggestion of referencing just Google or Microsoft Map services. Well, as you probably could imagine there is some development attached, so the Maps (I mean my NASCAROMM.COM two Interactive Maps: one shown all-in-one Tracks, second - detailed one) are highly customized for this particular Geosets (NASCAR Tracks). And this customization requires the whole bunch of programming: creating persistent data sets (DB or XML), building middle-tier components (in my case - .NET/ASP) and GUI (AJAX, CSS, etc.). Also the second NASCAR map contains Weather client providing 7-days forecast(using NOAA weather service) and a music player. So, there is some value added comparing with just plain Maps. Regards, Alexander Bell 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to nowhere on NASCAR page
Just funny thing: Link to nowhere found! See the link #20 in Reference section on NASCAR page, supposedly pointing to some yahoo article. When clicked it opens the page, which states: “Yahoo! Sports - News Article Expired/Not Available”. So, what is the reason to keep it here? Just nonsense. Let’s do a little clean up on the page. We have some folks here, who are pretty good in deletion… '''move on, folks, do your favorite job! You have been too busy deleting my NASCAROMM Interactive Maps…''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Bell (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then do something about it: find a new article, remove the reference, etc. Quit complaining. News articles will eventually by removed at their host site. Also, stop believing that everyone is against you. So you didn't get a link on Wikipedia to your site, is that any reason to be hostile towards other users? Please make helpful contributions and stop accusing other editors of being against you. Caster23  talk  contribs 20:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To Caster23
 * As a matter of fact I did: see the Books section.... Ok, now tell me - can I just delete the reference? The other guy(s) could get angry. Btw, he made some strong statement about "... Toyota's deep pocket ...", so without this reference presented it's probably better to edit the whole paragraph, or even remove it. Alexander Bell 21:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NASCAR.svg
Image:NASCAR.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Michael Greiner 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Books section is added to NASCAR page
I invite everybody to contribute and write reviews. In particular, folks - add more books for kids; they would love to read these books. Alexander Bell 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NASCAR and Emissions
Boy do I wish I could document and dispute that one with a scientific degree and 10 pounds of paper! For an example, I've been involved in racing allot most of my life. I've seen racecars put onto emissions control analyzers just for fun and guess what? They pass the regulated emissions levels! Hows that possible? Well, partly because a properly maintained racecar gets a tune-up and oil change every week.. If you're into the big bucks like the NASCAR Series mentioned in this article the entire engine is rebuilt every week! How long has it been since you had a full tune-up and oil change on your car? If you're anything like the typical driver it's been over 6 months since you had a tune up, 3 or more since you had an oil change. Emissions regulations are built to fit in the 'typical' car, which are not maintained anywhere near as meticulous as a racecar. This environmental issue has gotten way out of hand with unfounded theory's, scare tactics and politics.
 * --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 23:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Who needs a tune up? A modern car's ignition system is built to last 150,000 miles with out adjustment.  Now this isn't a forum, so if you can't explain what makes this directly related to the article, it'll have to be deleted. Mustang6172 00:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment below notes no connection to article. --Michael Greiner 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Livestock is bigger threat to the environment than autos
True, true... the whole “globoworming” issue in its current state exists mostly as a system of fanatical beliefs/disbeliefs depends on the eyes of beholder spectral sensitivity: either to the left or to the right of political spectra. Unfortunately, the mainstream debates on alternative clean Energy were transferred from engineering/scientific to political domain. I have a lot to say (and said) on this topic: btw, my “GEL Initiative” (GEL stands for Green Electricity) is topping Google™ and MSN™ search lists for pretty long time (you can find it there if interested... I am not including direct link to avoid another COI debate :-).

One funny thing to say about all this greenhouse gases stuff, which is not widely known: livestock has bigger impact on the environment that automotive industry, because of what is called “methane emission” (refer, for example, to: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html). Those folks who so actively criticize USA for our energy consumption and greenhouse gases often forget (deliberately or not) one simple fact: people, human beings also have, to say politely, some “methane emission” and as such the countries with bigger population (e.g. China with biggest population) emit more, or even – much more of this stuff than USA. I have tried to find any estimates on “human made methane emission”, but not successfully.

Second consideration: if the calculation of greenhouse gases is presented not per capita, but per GDP, then the whole statistic will be much more favorable to USA. Regards, Alexander Bell 21:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, is this purpose of this section to propose the removal of the Environmental impact subsection or is this some other comment? --Michael Greiner 22:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Michael, I am not a fan of removal something unless it’s totally useless or plain controversial :). IMHO, certain fact and considerations from my latest post should be carefully re-worded in a more formal way (environmentalist zealots are known to be the folks, who easily get angry) and added to the section. Plus, there should be at least some mention about revolutionary new 100%-electric cars soon-be-in-production, which can successfully compete with combustion engine vehicle, having fantastic performance and energy efficiency specs. E.g., Tesla Roadster (http://www.teslamotors.com) has 0…60 mph in 4 sec, equivalent 135 mpg, 245 miles per charge and about 2c per mile. NASCAR probably should consider EV as potential participants as well. Regards, Alexander Bell 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to make this a political issue. I was just expressing an ironic personal observance; nothing more, nothing less.
 * With that, I'll end my input on this issue --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 01:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

TV ratings
Hello. I'd like to know how many NASCAR races have better TV ratings than Indy 500. Where can i find this information? Thanks. Woodcote 09:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A starting point for the NASCAR races could be http://www.jayski.com/pages/tvratings2007.htm from "Jayski's Silly Season Site". This list has the 2005, 2006 and 2007 ratings, per race in an easily-readable format, and some past years as well.  Next, I'd work from, say, "Google", with tv ratings indianapolis 500 as the search keywords.  You'll find several relevant articles off the first page of returned search results.  However, the Indy 500 ratings are on that Jayski page. - Thaimoss 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Drivers from other series
I have a problem with the entire 4th paragraph in that section. First, (as of now) Montoya is leading all rookies and his teammates in points, and Chip Ganassi's winning percent as an owner is 0.92%. Second, Brian Vickers hasn't made every race either, so not all of Team Red Bull's problems are on Allmendinger. Third, how are Ron Fellows and Boris Said failures? Jeff Gordon didn't win his first NNC race until his 42nd start. Who is so demanding that they would consider these drivers unsuccessful?Mustang6172 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)