User talk:Nascarking/Archive 23

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)

Reply
"00:25, 23 October 2010", "01:50, 23 October 2010", "01:50, 23 October 2010" now I'm pretty sure thats in under a 2 hour period of him reverting Good Faith edits, and I was in my rights to make note of his edits on the TNA Employees page, and like I've stated before I'm clearly following guidelines in MOS:TEXT when I'm making the edit. I did nothing wrong for what you're implying and I don't appreciate idle threats such as the one youu made. Afro ( Talk ) 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (October)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

WWE Raw
Please stop removing the templates from WWE Raw, unless you can provide secondary sources and address the issues of the history section and the many tables. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, do not remove these templates without addressing these issues. Insulting edits like this one this one violate WP:CIVIL. If you keep this up, I will ask for a request for comment regarding your edits. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Nattie Neidhart
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Nattie Neidhart a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. ''In addition, there is no move discussion at Talk:Nattie Neidhart. I've already told you to get a consensus there. Please don't continue to unilaterally move pages, especially not to incorrect names (the article would be moved to Natalya (wrestler), not Natalya (professional wrestler), per standard). Please start a discussion at Talk:Nattie Neidhart to gain consensus.'' Nici  Vampire  Heart  01:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WWE Raw
I know an editor has already spoken to you about revisions of this nature, however I would like to inform you that Wikipedia strives to represent all points of view without any bias as it's important to represent the professional wrestling articles from a point of view outside of a wrestling fan. Templates such as multipleissues are to encourage editors to improve the article to meet such requirements. If you would like to learn more about the given subject feel free to read WP:NPOV. If you have any questions don't be afraid to ask more experienced editors within Wikipedia. Afro ( Talk ) 04:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering your summary comment was and I quote "This was added from someone who knows nothing about WWE", your comment is clearly in reference to the POV from a WWE spectators view, my comment was simply a reminder that articles on wikipedia should be written in a manner that is understandable from and I quote again "someone who knows nothing about WWE". Afro  ( Talk ) 22:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Clap clap clap
Nicely done... you've managed to stay off the radar for quite some time now, almost a full year even. And you know what, you almost had me there for a second... Nicely done...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please
Vandalism this user, revert please. Page protected. 201.35.158.28 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (November)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 12:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

See RFPP
You listed a page for unprotected that has never been protected. Given that you listed a dab page, I think you hit the wrong button somewhere, please check and list the page you actually meant to list. Thanks. Courcelles 17:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not always right.
Reverting edits for the sake of reverting them does not make you a great contributer to Wikipedia. If you don't have time to check edits before reverting them, don't revert them. Let someone else do it or, preferably, leave them as they are and trust that whoever made the edit has made it for the right reason. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.98.239 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hell in a Cell. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Hell in a Cell. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Hell in a Cell. 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 the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Deep breath
I want you to take a deep breath, open this link and read CAREFULLY every single word. Good faith can only take you so far... Feed back  ☎ 18:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (December 2010)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 01:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC).

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Elimination Chamber
Hi Nascarking, I don't know you here on Wikipedia, anyway, I reviewed Elimination Chamber, which for GA, minor edits need to be made before I can pass it. After I pass it, you can claim 30 points for the WikiCup (I am also a contestant in that).--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube source
Yea the yt source still says nothing of him being in the match. All he said that he would be in the match, that he would win the match and go to wrestlemaina. ie that just him saying he's in the match.-- Steam Iron  01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Match Participants
the sources you provided do not state that any of them are in the rumble please re fram from re adding them till better source are found, Sources that say they are in the match.-- Steam Iron  01:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Him coming out and spilling his bullshit story doesn't mean shit about him being in the rumble if he was the wwe would say it but they have done nothing to officially listed him in the match keep adding it I will keep removing it.-- Steam  Iron  02:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good god theres still two fucking weeks till the damn ppv just hold it they list them every year just wait.-- Steam Iron  02:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought I would drop you a note here regarding my reply there. Per WP:RS, the source would have been acceptable. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (January 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

Comments
Any exact reason why you did this? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know tht I started a GAR on this. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

O.k, you said that if an article fails one criteria, you'll still pass it. I want to make this comment off the record. Would you pass this? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. 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 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Is there a reason you removed an on-topic thread questioning a source from the Chris Benoit murder/suicide article? Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "forum" discussion. He was asking for a source to back up information (a possible BLP violation) that is not listed in the source currently cited.  There is absolutely no reason why that should have been removed, and to think it was not relevant to the discussion implies you hadn't even read what you had deleted.  (In fact, did you?  Do you know what was being asked?) Do not do that again. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly made it seem like an off-topic form discussion? When he said the names listed weren't in the source?  Or when he said if a source wasn't provided it would be removed?  This is not the first time you've removed something you don't like, as you twice removed the Good Article Review request from the Elimination Chamber article (and you never explained why you did that when asked, either).  If you continue this behavior it will be reported.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (February 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject NASCAR at 00:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. 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 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (March 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject NASCAR at 00:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of SummerSlam (2011)


The article SummerSlam (2011) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Future event, not yet notable; WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Chzz  ► 19:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

big gold belt image
There is no need for an image containing a duplicate of the attitude belt. Simply use the singular big gold belt image.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 22:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. 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 01:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to the notice at AN, you need to make any notification notice neutral. The format of "The linked article article has been nominated for deletion is an acceptable notification. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Re your message, I'll investigate his contributions. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts
Hello, Nascarking. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding your abusive behaviour. Thank you. --Jezhotwells (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above alert has now been referred to AN. Your complained of adjectives are un-necessary and inappropriate, and must not be repeated. If you are unable to make your comments without resorting to colourful language then it is best that you do not do so at all, because if you continue the net result will be the same - as you will have your editing privileges removed. To avoid doubt, this is a level3(ish) warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD
You inadvertently left two separate redirect votes. I've gone ahead and struck the second. CycloneGU (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. 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 19:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (April 2011)
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wikiproject NASCAR at 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

WrestleMania
You're pretty much arguing the same issue I am. As we are currently in the middle of the discussion, do not revert until we've come to a consensus. Feel free to read the comments and join the discussion at Talk:WrestleMania-- Unquestionable Truth -- 00:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NASCAR Newsletter (May 2011)
-- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. 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 23:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2011)
This was not vandalism, so your revert was inappropriate, and misuse of Twinkle. "Undo" would have been fine, but please do not accuse me of being a vandal. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 04:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, come on, not fair;


 * "an overzealous deletionist like you"
 * "an editor who many of us are certain has a personal vendetta to delete all wrestling related articles"
 * "you overzealous deletionist"
 * Let's argue about the content, sure; no problem. But, those comments are personal, and aggressive. If I were less easy-going, I'd be posting to AIV and asking for a short block for WP:NPA.
 * So come on; play fair; let's discuss content, not users.  Chzz  ► 03:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)