User talk:Nascarking/Archive 2

Respond
 Nascar 1996   17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kentucky 400
A tag has been placed on Kentucky 400 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

PPV Articles
Please stop creating WWE PPV Articles way too early. Its standard to wait two months before the event is to take place ie. Royal Rumble(2011) takes place on Jan 30th it wont be created till Oct 30th.-- Steam Iron  04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the above message and your re-creation of TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2010) earlier today, you appear to be ignoring messages/disregarding on your talk page. This is not a wise idea. Please pay attention to what other editors are telling you. Also, please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You have no excuse to continue creating ppv articles too soon - it's been pointed out in edit summaries and on your talk page, and you are really just being disruptive now. I've reverted to the redirect. Please adhere/stick to the standards, and do not recreate the article until two months at least before the event. Editors are expected to follow certain standards on wikipedia, and you do not seem willing to do so at this point. Please stick to the two month guideline in all your future edits to wrestling ppv articles. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 17:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Your Survivor Series edit
Regarding this edit: a) The ip's edits were perfectly valid - they corrected WP:OVERLINKing. You re-introduced it. Please be more careful in future. b) You appear to have used rollback to revert the ip. This is unacceptable. Per WP:RBK, rollback should only be used when "reverting obvious vandalism or undoing one's own edits". This was neither. Be more careful in future please and stick to the accepted usage of rollback, or it'll be removed. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 04:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Unified tag titles
Your message to me regarding the "promotional" issues with my edit were unneccesary. My edit simply rephrased "it should be noted that WWE.com" to "WWE's official website" (which is the exact same thing). If you have issue with the use of a WWE.com link in the article, than I would suggest removing the phrase (regardless of wording) from the article entirely. -- TRTX T / C 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your harassment
Reverting my edits for absolutely no good reason qualifies as such. Isn't there an article about that "sport" that involves forty rednecks turning left for 500 miles that you could "improve"? The Cleanup Kid (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR on SummerSlam (2010)‎
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on SummerSlam (2010). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Continued harassment will be reported. HAND; FYM. The Cleanup Kid (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at SummerSlam (2010). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, exactly what part of TCK's edit did you consider vandalism? The changes look fine to me.  --Chris (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but they where fine before and he doesn't seem to know when to stop reverting. I noticed he reverted back to his version after I think it was Nicki or Micky I'm not sure reverted his 1st edit. I reverted it back to whoevers version he reverted. then he reverted mine I reverted his. It could have stopped there but he reverted it again so that's when it became vandalism.-- Nascar king  23:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What part of the definition of vandalism are you using when concluding that TCK's reverts were vandalism? --Chris (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Would continuing to revert after someone has told you to stop be vandalism?-- Nascar king  23:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait it would be under stubborn editing which isn't vandalism.-- Nascar king  00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it that way this is sort of my fault then.-- Nascar king  00:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you agree to not edit-war from now on and to not edit SummerSlam (2010) for 24 hours?--Chaser (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As the edits were not vandalism, what was the rationale for reverting them? Do you genuinely disagree with the content of his edit, or do you just have a bone to pick with him and are expressing it by reverting him?  --Chris (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is never good to edit-war for any reason. Next time take the issue to a talk page and discuss your concerns over the edits with the other party and take it from there. No worries Nascarking. See you in 24.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I went to Oakster for help ending this but TCK turned my asking Oakster for help into an edit war on his talk page.-- Nascar king  01:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010 WP:NASCAR News
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Big Show page move
Not here to dispute the move but just here to inform you that we do not redirect pages in order to move them to a desired name. If a page cannot be moved by normal means, request a page move HERE instead.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hell in a Cell. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Pyrrhus 16 ''' 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No confirmed match
Sources speculated, would not confirm the match. You know, the title of the source is a question and not a confirmation: WWE Championship Match Announced For WWE Capitol Punishment? 177.27.76.84 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Article renaming
In case you have failed to notice, the discussion on Talk:24 Hours of Daytona regarding article titles is still ongoing. It is highly inappropriate to start changing the titles of 2009 24 Hours of Daytona, 2010 24 Hours of Daytona, and 2011 24 Hours of Daytona without discussing these moves, or even waiting for the discussion of the main article to reach its conclusion. Further, your changing throughout several articles to change links from 24 Hours of Daytona to Rolex 24 at Daytona is not necessary, given they both discuss the exact same event and link to the exact same article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a driver article or any other article linking to 24 Hours of Daytona. Please curb your behaviour and discuss the points raised by myself and other editors on Talk:24 Hours of Daytona. The359 (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour at AfD
Hello. Your comments regarding User:Chzz at Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment (2nd nomination) are inappropriate and unhelpful. Please focus your comments on the actual issues instead of assuming bad faith by the nominator. Thanks. --KFP (contact | edits) 03:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A reminder that this warning is still relevant. Saying "forgive my langauge" does not forgive your behaviour.  You have consistently used the AFD as a platform to name call and belittle anyone with a differing opinion from yours.  Handle discussions in a mature manner.  <font color="#004400">The359  (<font color="#004400">Talk ) 07:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Capitol Punnishment
Hello Nascarking, do you know if this match can be verified on WWE.com, I currently can not open the site due to internet restrictions at work.--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I managed to get to it (turns out the man isn't so uptight abotu professional wrestling, I have since added the source.  Cheers. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
May I ask why you un-centered the table here? If you as me it looks aesthetically bad left justified. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;font-variant:small-caps;"><font color="#000">chris <font color="#000">† <font color="#000">ian <font color="#0000cd">rocker 90 </b> 00:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

hey Nascar
Quit talking to yourself, will ya? <font color="#039">Feed  <font color="#008000">back   ☎ 23:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you're saying.--<font face="century gothic" color="#000000">Voices in my Head  <font face="century gothic" color="#556B2F"> WWE  01:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made&#32;to WrestleMania XXVIII: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on WrestleMania XXVIII. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 18:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  18:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (June 2011)
-- Nascar <font color=" #1234aa">1996  (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What exact is your issue with me and Money_in_the_Bank_(2011)?
I don't get it at all. You reverted the page when I asked for it to be discussed first. Then you added it to be fully protected claiming there's an edit war/content disupte without trying to talk about it on the talk page (again I asked for that to be done) and then you added the fan link to the page. I have no problems using a different refence so the stipulation can be changed. I explained my point fully in the talk page but you still seem to want to bypass the discussion and put your own spin on the only source we have thus far in the article. Gorlack36 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, according to my talk page there was a reply here but I didn't see one or one in the edit history so if you replied, can you do it again, please? Gorlack36 (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know I have commented on you request for Page Protection. It is un needed there is no ongoing edit war take it to the talk page before both of you are banned for edit waring.--<font face="Goudy Stout" color="Black">Steam <font face="Goudy Stout" color="FireBrick">Iron 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem! Apart from the one guy who was talking to me there, nobody seems to see that I requested we talk about it. Despite being told by mabdul in chat I should should change the edit and leave a talk page note explaining/asking, Nascarking came along and decided to ignore my request to discuss it so I reverted that but obviously it'll be an edit war if I revert it again. I'm still not getting any feedback about why my version is incorrect. I'm not planning on editing it back but... I feel like I'm in a rut. If I edit it back, it's clearly going to descend into an edit war and if I don't edit it back then I don't get to discuss why it should be changed. Gorlack36 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend taking Dcheagle's advice before you do end up being blocked because you are both being involved in an edit war, also Gorlack36 you have a history of edit warring under an IP.-- <font face="Verdana" color="blue">PoliMaster talk/spy  10:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well now, hold up. I get that I did edit war under the IP. I admitted to that. I also made my account to defend myself. If you'll remember on the discussion about removing rollback from me, you'll see it was mentioned that I was more than happy to wait with my new account until the block on the IP had expired. I understand I did wrong. I also understand that punishments are to be given for edit warring. But I think you're not seeing the fully picture. I get exactly why you think it's an edit war but I don't feel it's become that yet. I feel that the only questionable action from me was my last revert on the page after I undid the edit by Nascarking. I was told in chat (by mabdul I think) that it was acceptable to reword the stipulation as I had directly copied the stipulation from an official source (which was against policy). So I reworded it as per advice from the chat room. I felt that was the right thing to do. You'll note that every edit I made (except the one were I edited my own edit to fix a grammar error), I requested each time to discuss it on the talk page. Which only one user did. I got bothered by Nascarking editing it back in. I felt it was rude as both my self and him have been in trouble for the edit war before (I was the IP that edit warred with him). This is why I just let him edit his own take on it and hoped that by contacting him directly on his own talk page, I'd get some sort of dialogue with him since my request to talk about it on the article's talk page was ignored So, apart from editing his edit in the article, I don't see how I did anything wrong. I get you feel you it'll become an edit war. That's why I've been practically begging people to discuss it first on the talk page but so far... they seem to ignore my request and at this point I don't see why we have policies if they're being blatantly ignored. Gorlack36 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (July 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of SummerSlam (2011) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SummerSlam (2011) 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 Articles for deletion/SummerSlam (2011) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article.  Chzz  ► 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)