User talk:NASCARfan0548/Archive 2

January 2020
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Tom Hessert, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ''The reason pages are moved to draftspace is so that an experienced reviewer can take a look at it before moving it to the mainspace. Please do not attempt to subvert the Articles for Creation process as you did with Tom Hessert, as that undermines the quality of Wikipedia.''  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 01:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Max. Please stop asking people to circumvent the Articles for Creation process by moving them to the mainspace without being properly reviewed. If this behavior continues in the future, I may have to take further action, which I do not want to do. And in the matter of doing things for you, there's always a sandbox where you can go to take bigger edits in multiple steps instead of just creating loads of stub pages. Regards,  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 14:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

David Gravel moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, David Gravel, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There should be some due to his dirt racing accomplishments, so I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Ray Courtemanche Jr.
Hello, NASCARfan0548,

Thank you for creating Ray Courtemanche Jr..

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Needs additional references that discuss the subject in detail. Meeting the SNG does not preclude the need for sources that can be used to expand beyond a stub."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

—  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    04:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:A154 autoroute concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:A154 autoroute, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:A154 autoroute


Hello, NASCARfan0548. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "A154 autoroute".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Michelle Theriault
Hello, NASCARfan0548,

Thank you for creating Michelle Theriault.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"/"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page
You reverted this edit I made to the Main Page's talk page. Do you have a better idea of where I should open that discussion? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  15:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  16:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason not to restore it? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"1997 NASCAR Nationwide Series" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1997 NASCAR Nationwide Series. Since you had some involvement with the 1997 NASCAR Nationwide Series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 01:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Relistings at Log/2020_March_16
I noticed a few relists by you at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16 that should have been closed as delete. WP:RGUIDE: "If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete.". That applies to Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Intelligent Technology and Electronics
 * Espanolo
 * Stabbery (Shrek)
 * Portugese india
 * Pronunciation of X


 * Should you reply, please ping me, I've unwatched this page. Paradoctor (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Taylor Gray AfD
Hi Max, please take time to understand sourcing policies before you comment on AfD debates again. I'd reccomend WP:PRSOURCE and why it doesn't count toward WP:GNG as a non-independent sources. I don't know how many times I have to slap you on the wrist before you learn to make comments that are in line with Wikipedia policy, but I'm hoping this one will be the last one.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 17:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, NASCARfan0548! I've seen all your messages over the past few weeks about article requests and possibilities for me to create/work on. I know you've been tracking my edits, but I never had the time to respond to you with a talk page message, so here it is. I will indeed consider working on everybody you mentioned (including adding missing results tables). I wanted to let you know that I recently came across a list on your user page of drivers from the 2010's decade that don't yet have articles about them. Those are all people I'll also consider if I can find enough sources about them/their background. You've probably also have seen that I unluckily have had some of my articles (particularly about ARCA drivers) nominated for deletion. On that note, I will also let you know to stay tuned for a message on my user page coming soon about my future editing plans. What I'll be focusing on editing soon will be different than previously. I won't be creating as many more new ARCA driver articles since some of them were nominated for deletion and look incomplete/don't have enough sources. I've learned what some of the rules are for creating pages, so I know I need to change what and how I'm editing. But don't worry, I still may create pages for the drivers you've listed there. It seems like Truck Series drivers are kind of "safe" from deletion because it's a top three series and ARCA is not. When I create more pages about drivers, it'll mostly be top three series drivers now. Talk again soon! Cavanaughs (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs

Thank you so much!  NASCARfan0548  ↗  17:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No Subject
Who is your favorite of the Hendrick guys? Rocket Man448 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

My favorite drivers are all the Hendrick drivers: Chase Elliott, William Byron, Jimmie Johnson, and Alex Bowman.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  23:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This also goes for archive pages, please keep your archive pages under 75 KB (your archive 1 is over).  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 13:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Oversight
Hey! Did you send the two edits to the Oversight team? --MrClog (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I don't know how.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  00:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , ah, okay. I chatted with an Oversighter, who RevDel'ed the edits. (The person has a 3%'s tattoo and has been publicly accused of being a member. While there is no evidence he is, the allegations are public enough to warrant only RevDel instead of oversight). In total 10 edits have been RevDel'ed. MrClog (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Mario Kart 64
Heya, I just saw this edit and was curious what the significance of adding "|64" to Category:Mario Kart is. I don't recall having seen anything like that done with categories before and I couldn't figure out what was changed by doing it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Ack, sorry, it wasn't you who made that change. I forgot that I clicked on "cur" instead of "prev". Nonetheless, if you happen to know the answer to my question...--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't make that change.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  21:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Under construction
Merely because the template exists does not mean that mainspace is now draftspace. The template is meant for pages that already have proved notability to be improved. Please do not create unsourced pages or they may be moved to draftspace or userspace no matter if the template is there or not. Sourcing is the core of Wikipedia and having three-sentence unsourced stubs with no references is unacceptable.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 03:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I know I should create articles with many reliable sources, I'm just saying that when I do create articles, I only create them if they reach the top 3 NASCAR series (Cup, Xfinity, and/or Truck), not just random ARCA drivers, for example, because the top 3 series are considered professional, and ARCA is not.  NASCARfan0548   ↗  03:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Trout
If you know you should be creating pages with multiple independent, reliable sources, then why don't you do it? I'm the one who distinguished ARCA as a non-professional series, I don't need an education on that.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 03:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , hahaha! Got me! I liked the way you gave me a trout on my talk page. I think it is funny.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  03:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While the trout format may be funny, the question below is not. I am legitimately inquiring as to why you claim to understand policy yet somehow, inexplicably, do not implement that supposed understanding in your actual edits. I tried to get the message through before, but I guess I will have to bold it now: creating unsourced pages is in no way, shape, or form okay, even if the pages meet specific notability guidelines. All specific guidelines are merely supplements as to pages that would likely pass WP:GNG. A page with no references by default cannot pass GNG, making the specific standard guidelines invalid. The same goes for pages exclusively sourced to routine directory-style entries. Those do not show notability and could very well be tagged for deletion. It's an editing pattern that has not gone away despite the behest of myself and other editors in the community. A literal Google search would likely provide the sources needed to satisfy GNG, and yet you refuse to do that and consistently stub-farm. After that, you ask others to clean up after yourself. Learn to create quality, in-depth pages that accurately capture the person's career. Numbers without context mean nothing. I implore you to heed my suggestions and implement your supposed understanding of reliable sources into your actual editing. Start your pages in draftspace if you think they're projects too big for one sitting. But please do not create any more unsourced or poorly pages and instead focus on growing as an editor.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 03:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will start creating well-sourced articles from now on.  NASCARfan0548  ↗  03:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff Agnew (May 6)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jeff Agnew and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jeff Agnew, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jeff_Agnew Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jeff_Agnew reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit stalking
Hi Max, just wanted to let you know that I'm aware that you check my contributions multiple times a day. It's frankly kind of creepy, if I'm being honest with you.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I don't mean to do that. Also how do you know that? <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 18:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't mean to do it, then why has it been going on for so long? You have left a brutally evident trail in your wake of editing pages that are way out of your normal editing path. Even if it was only adding short descriptions or something like that, it still became evident fairly quickly. Loikan was merely the most egregious and the straw that broke the camel's back. Unless you took a sudden interest in Burmese geography or you were doing research on Asian drug syndicates this morning, there's zero chance that you would've found a ten-hour-old page that's tucked in a remote corner of the encyclopedia. Unless, of course, you were being a de facto watchdog and constantly hovering over my edits. For what reason, I don't know, and I'm not sure that I want to know. All I know is that there's a defined tendency of you suspiciously editing pages that I have also recently edited in a fashion that is only explainable by you routinely checking my contributions.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 19:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just noticed you created the NASCAR Heat 5 article. I am interested in the video games because I play them sometimes, so I don't have to look up your contributions for the article. Also I know I shouldn't be looking up your contributions EVERY time, but I do that because I'm also importing or adding Wikidata short descriptions. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 20:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Max. I'm not talking about something that occurred in the past hour, I'm talking about the literal months of you running around after my edits, Bcschneider53's edits and ZappaOMatic's edits, among possibly others. I can't say for sure how they feel but it's extremely unnerving on my end. If you know you shouldn't be doing it, why do you keep doing it? You claim to know anything and everything but in practice a lot of your supposed knowledge falls apart. And about the Loikan article - could you please expand it for me?  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 20:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Max! You're doing it again, even though you know you shouldn't be doing it. Also, could you please expand Loikan for me?  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you please stop this subject? You look at my contribs sometimes, and I don't get upset at you. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 18:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Please show me three examples of me engaging in this sort of behavior.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 18:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are a good editor who does plenty of good work for the project. With all due respect (and you deserve plenty), I think it is time to move on. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for responding to me and Willsome429. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 18:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the third opinion, Dolotta. I just find it more than a tad unnerving. And Max - the request to expand Loikan still stands.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 18:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if I could find the sources, I will. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 18:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Max. Could you please explain why you nominated for adminship before consulting with him at all? RfA policy states: "If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page." --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I nominated Willsome429 for RfA because of his hard work on his contributions and reverting vandalism. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 19:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Max, and I appreciate the nomination. At this time, I do not desire to be an administrator on English Wikipedia and would appreciate it if the incorrectly-formatted nomination is formally withdrawn. Next time, please read policy and consult the person you are considering nominating before you nominate them for adminship. Thanks,  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the above, I've gone ahead and deleted the declined RfA nomination. NASCARfan0548, please do not excessively format your talk page like this—it makes it really difficult to read, especially with the centered text and the green color. Mz7 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Max, I didn't simply ask you why you nominated Will, I asked why you nominated him before communicated with him. I agree that he is a great editor, but the admin process requires a lot of time an attention, so if an editor is going to be nominated, they need to be aware that you would like to nominate them and they need to give you their approval. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , then how do I nominate for RfA myself? <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just No. Nick (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , What? <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 19:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I have changed the formatting you used on your talk page at User:NASCARfan0548/talkheader because it was making this talk page illegible. As far as RfA goes, because of the way you improperly nominated another user, I think you clearly need more experience editing Wikipedia and familiarizing yourself with its processes before you are ready to consider nominating yourself to RfA. Please see Advice for RfA candidates for more information. Mz7 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that the two of you are not on the best of terms, I am surprised that it has even crossed your mind to be honest. A nomination is generally done by a person that the nominee regards quite well. -- Dolotta (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Work
I just took a very quick glance through your work, and it looks pretty good. Keep it up! -- Dolotta (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zeppelin LZ 78


A tag has been placed on Zeppelin LZ 78 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 22:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did I get this alert? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently, if you look at the logs for this page, it says that it is a copyright violation. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 22:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are the logs? There is not that much text. What could be copyright?-- Thats Just Great (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , go to the history of the page, then click on "Logs for this page" at the top. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 22:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All it says is "marked revision 957448106 on Zeppelin LZ 78 as a potential copyright violation " -- what did I copy? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I honestly don't know. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 22:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you attack my repuation with baseless allegations and your answer is I don't know? -- Thats Just Great (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Nascarfan - in future, if you put a CSD tag on an article - please put where the copyvio is supposed to come from. Hasty tagging does much more harm than good! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Mike Shiplett moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Mike Shiplett, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 22:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm beginning to get exasperated due to your myriad inconsistencies between your actions and your words. In User talk:NASCARfan0548/Archive 1, you said " I will start creating well-sourced articles from now on." That was on May 1. Today is May 13. You created a wholly unsourced, minimal prose biography of Mike Shiplett. A Google search for "Mike Shiplett" yields 69,500 results. Of course, only a very small percentage of hits are usable, but even on the first three pages of search results,, , and  appear. These are all great sources to use and could be incorporated into the page very easily, considering the current draft sits at a minuscule two sentences. I'm trying to help you grow as an editor, but as the old proverb goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." I have led you to the water, it's up to you to learn from this and grow as an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willsome429 (talk • contribs) 23:35, May 13, 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hey there! I'm not going to create articles every month now, so it's not going to be too much of an issue now. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 23:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Max was granted the autopatrolled right two weeks ago by WereSpielChequers, who may want to be given a heads up. That being said, may I recommend focusing on the many other tasks Wikipedia has to offer other than Max's edits? The two have you have been going back and forth for over a year now. -- Dolotta (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do on the heads-up. I disagree on some of your wording used, however. I would not, in any way, shape or form, call this a "focus" of my editing work. Do I swing by? Yes. But do I also swing by a lot of other areas? Yes. I put about a month's worth of effort into close to 100 player pages in this year's NFL Draft. I'm currently working my way slowly through a 300+ item personal to-do list related to the encyclopedia (Samkon Gado, Dalton Kellett, Ernie Derr are examples if you want proof) and I am still a regular user of wonderful features of this site like Twinkle and New Pages Patrol as well as scanning my watchlist. I would also like to refute the term "going at it". Even though I have a blunt way of going about things, I write these messages with the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind. As much as possible, I try to provide a chance to learn, a chance to grow as an editor. My messages, in my opinion, are not all that different from other messages on the talk archive, including ones from Barkeep49, Royalbroil, and others. It's just that they've gotten longer and more frustrated as my attempts (and the attempts of others) have been rebuffed. On this particular editing tendency, myself and Royalbroil first addressed it almost a year ago. Him and myself have both taken multiple other attempts at it to try and get Max to understand that sources are both critical and easily attainable. Naturally, Max's path and my path cross a lot on this encyclopedia; his username shares a word with the project I'm most involved in and with him continuously checking on what I've been up to, that's bound to create even more crossover as well. It's not about me looking for conflict, it's about me wanting the quality of Wikipedia and its editors to improve and doing my best to do that. And if my best isn't cutting it, I might as well step away from the project that I have come to value so dearly over my tenure as a user. If you have any suggestions as to how to get my intended message across better, I'd be all ears to them.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 02:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , you can still edit NASCAR articles, now I feel bad for you. It's just, I have autism, so I don't know everything. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 02:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Willsome, I look forward to following up with you on your talk page. It is sadly getting dangerously close to my bed time so my brain is no longer at full power. I will follow up with you in the morning. I also echo Max's comments above. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Max, my apologies for making it seem like you had to know everything. That was never my intent, nor was it my intent to make you feel bad.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 02:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , It's just hard for me to find the sources, when I try to find sources, all Google comes up is random websites that aren't reliable, so that's why I want someone to help me on my article creations. Also, you were talking to just now, I want to keep my autopatrolled rights still. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548   ↗ </b> 02:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally think that it would be inappropriate to keep your autopatrolled rights at this time if you need help with your article creations. Max, I would go so far to say that all of your article creations should start in draft or user space rather than in live article space. Can you start with that step? -- Dolotta (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Max, I have to agree with and  above. I've messaged  about my concerns but your recent articles and your lack of judgment re: RfA really does not bode well. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Max, Dolotta and Hickory. Looking at the Mike Shiplett article, www.racing-reference.info seems to be an external link rather than a reference. Would you be willing to commit to citing references again rather than just putting your source in an external links? I'm not a NASCAR fan, or to be honest a sportsperson, but is there a dispute as to whether racing-reference is reliable? If we can agree that it is, the key tests are whether being on it denotes notability, or whether you are using judgment to only create articles on notable NASCAR people? Max, would you agree not to create an article, or move one out of your userspace drafts before you have two different references? I know that's a stricter standard than applies at new page patrol, but I'd have thought you'd been around long enough to be able to do that. On a broader note, everything we do here needs to be verifiable, and many work to the higher standard of everything being verified. Looking at you recent articles I spotted one thing, you had someone as being born in a particular place, whilst racing reference has them as being from that place. Perhaps this is an Americanism, but where I'm from, where you were born and where you are from may not be the same thing. Dolotta, Willsome and Hickory, have I missed something in your assessment of NASCAR's contributions, did you have examples of material he'd written that went beyond or contradicted the source?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  18:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was looking through their archives and many of their articles are problematic in regards to notability and sourcing. For example, here and here. In fact, looking through the archives, they have always had problems with sourcing since the beginning of their time here. I'm just concerned that someone with Autopatrolled has stated I will start creating well-sourced articles from now on when they should've always been doing so. As well, Jeff Agnew (I believe) fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, which someone with autopatrolled rights should already know, and lacks any secondary sourcing. In summation, I believe someone with autopatrolled right should not only not be asked to go through the AFC process but should also not have articles rejected as well. Their articles should be well sourced and follow all of our guidelines. This is of course combined with the RfA thread above, which shows a lack of good judgment. However, I trust your evaluations of editors, which is why I did not remove the right and instead messaged you. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you so much! <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 19:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you thanking me? If it was meant to be sarcastic this is a serious conversation. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I know this is serious, I'm just thanking you for not removing my rights. <b style="background:#006A4D; padding:2px"> NASCARfan0548  ↗ </b> 19:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don't follow much of anything other than the WIAC and the Big 10, so I am not myself particularly familiar with NASCAR sourcing. Royalbroil is my go to person when it comes to this sport. I am mostly going on the basis of Willsome and others. I am deferring to you, Hickory. I thought it serious enough that you should be aware of it and nothing more. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * When I set an account as an autopatrloer I'm looking at the current standard of that editor's work against the mainspace deletion criteria. AFC is a whole different kettle of fish, and I am well aware that articles can be rejected there that would not be deleted per BLPprod. A7 or AFD. However as long as Nascarfan submits articles in mainspace, the standards of AFC don't apply. That doesn't mean one can't give constructive criticism, as I did above with my comment about born v from, and indeed  Sulfurboy did by requesting secondary sources at AFC. Even I know that NASCAR is a big deal, and I'd assume that secondary sources exist for the notable figures within NASCAR. Mainspace is the place where one expects the sort of collaborative editing that sadly hasn't really taken off in draftspace. Looking at WikiProject NASCAR, I don't see the sort of resources section that you get on a page such as WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan. have i missed it, or do some of you who are into that sport have suggestions as to what sources should be on such a page?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  20:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I just felt the quality of articles the user was creating was substandard and could do with a once-over. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at Matt Lofton as it was when Nascarfan first created it, what improvement would you expect to get by running it through NewPage patrol? I could understand if you were assessing it for Good Article or even DYK. But Newpage patrol is our filter where we tag articles that can be rejected per criteria such as A7, BLPprod, uncategorised and so forth. Judged against that standard the most it might get would be a single source tag. What would you expect a newpage patroller to do with such an article other than mark it as patrolled? Taking Ronnie Hopkins as an example - I think the last article NASCARfan created before i set the autopatrolled flag; The only edit I see that didn't come from NASCARfan was a tweak to a category, and given the relative dates I don't expect that was from newpage patrol.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct that those articles are fine, although I personally would've added more secondary sources, but after Autopatrolled was given they created Draft:Mike Shiplett and other substandard articles. Personally, I think Max is a wonderful addition to the project and a net positive to the Motosports WikiProject, so I don't want this to come off as "attacking." I have come to understand your argument and I hope Max can simply take this as advice for future articles. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hickory. Yes of course as an admin you would be expected to set a higher standard. When I train newbies I recommend they have two different reliable sources before they save the first edit of an article or move it from their userspace. NASCARfan are you willing to commit that any articles you start in future will be to at least the standard of your articles on Matt Lofton and Ronnie Hopkins? If you want a goal to aim for, have a look at Did_you_know, the 1500 bytes of prose would be a big change for you, but if you were to get one of your articles into the Did you know section of the mainpage it would get thousands of extra views in one day.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Update from me
Hi Max (yes, I found out your first name!), Yes, I can create those articles! I did come across your list(s) a month or so ago. I've slowed down on creating new articles after a few of them (all ARCA drivers) were nominated for deletion due to lack of sources or sources that weren't press releases. At around the same time, I realized that we had so many results tables to add to drivers and more kept being added to the list, so that become my main focus and you've seen that I've been doing that for about a month and a half/two months now. But yes, some of the articles you have on your list can be next for me to tackle, and they are Truck drivers, so they aren't as easy to nominate for deletion since it's a top 3 series. (Now that doesn't mean I'll make those articles lackluster. I will put the work/research into them.) I'll probably get around to them over the course of the summer. What I'll do is probably throw in an article from your list every so often while continuing to add results tables. That list is so darn long that I think it's become a priority to make it shorter, AKA to get those results tables done! :) I have seen all your requests for the past few months on my talk page, which are mostly drivers that are on your list.

Willsome429 leaving Wikipedia
Something else I wanted to bring up was that after you messaged me a few weeks ago that Willsome suddenly left Wikipedia as an editor, I did click on the link you attached in it to your talk page and found the argument between you guys. I didn't even know that was going on for some time, and the end result of him leaving was unfortunate. With all do respect to you, I do think both sides are to blame in the argument. My advice to you (and this seems to be what got him upset with you) is don't create so many articles just so that they get published; make sure it looks good first and put the work into it before publishing it. (This especially includes putting in a career section with sources instead of just the intro and results tables for a driver!) I've learned that from him, and now I know not to create as many articles without sources (particularly ARCA drivers) and such. Whenever I got an article nomination for deletion, an edit revert, or a talk page message from him, I did feel bummed for myself, but it made me a better editor and I'm glad we had someone like that who was a check for us NASCAR editors. Now that we don't have an "overseer" anymore, I will be more careful what edits I make and pages I create in the future. In terms of what he said about you following his edits, I do agree with him that you should stop doing that if he says to, but I do agree with you that it isn't necessarily a bad thing to look at people's edit history/contributions. I can tell you do that with me, and I don't get agitated by it like he did, so you can still look at mine, just so you know going forward. Thanks again, Sean (that's my first name!) Cavanaughs (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs