User talk:Nascarking/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Respond

Nascar1996 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Kentucky 400

Article Wizard
.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{

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. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 16:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC) by
talk
)

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

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)

Talkback

Hello, Nascarking. You have new messages at Dcheagle's talk page.
Message added 00:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Your request for rollback

Hi Nascarking/Archive 2. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
    Twinkle
    .
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
    good faith edits
    .
  • Rollback should never be used to
    edit war
    .
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see

Wikipedia: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! FASTILY (TALK) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Survivor Series edit

Regarding this edit: a) The ip's edits were perfectly valid - they corrected

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)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 14:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC) by
talk
)

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 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

page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nascarking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I broke the 3 reverts rule yes and I apologize. But I was only trying to protect the integrity or whatever Wikipedia uses for integrity of the wrestling articles. And in the process I forgot that I was also reverting the edits as well. Certainly someone knows what your judgment is like during an edit war, almost nothing. This kid though has been a real Thorn in my Side for the last couple of days for not just me but 3bulletproof16 and Dcheagle. I think the block on me though is not as necessary as it is on The Cleanup Kid. I know what I did wrong and I can promise you with anything that I will never take part in an edit war again or break the 3 Reverts Rule.

Decline reason:

I was only trying to protect the integrity or whatever Wikipedia uses... Being right does not entitle you to edit waring.

Certainly someone knows what your judgment is like during an edit war, almost nothing. That's why edit waring isn't allowed.

I think the block on me though is not as necessary as it is on The Cleanup Kid. Maybe but that doesn't mean it's not still necessary for you.

You say that you were so upset you couldn't control yourself and then say it wont happen again? Take a day off and cool down. You'll be a better editor in the long run. - Selket Talk 06:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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.--

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

Truth-- 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC) by
talk
)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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. Pyrrhus16 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)

Hello, Nascarking. You have new messages at Kelapstick's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Article renaming

In case you have failed to notice, the discussion on

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 (Talk) 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour at AfD

Hello. Your comments regarding User:Chzz at Wikipedia: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. The359 (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.

ianrocker90 00:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

hey Nascar

Quit talking to yourself, will ya? Feedback ☎ 23:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to

Wikipedia: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. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:

  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.

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. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been
(t) (e) 18:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nascarking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Last I checked, you can't get blocked for reverting vandalism or for undoing/reverting something that's wrong. Voices in my Head WWE 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're right, you cannot be blocked for reverting vandalism. That does not appear to be what happened here; who's wrong and who's right is what

WP:DR is for. Kuru (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nascarking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did nothing wrong and I even stopped before someone left a warning message on my talk page. The IP who was also involved was trying to add information that was completely wrong. Plus I've also been told blogs can't be used as sources and the one he/she was using was more of a prediction of what they'd think would happen. Voices in my Head WWE 19:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Whether you were warned or not is irrelevant. You reverted edits seven times in a row, which blows the

a/c) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:NASCAR
Newsletter (June 2011)

--

Nascar1996 (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 Scotland Casliber (submissions) 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 Ohio Wizardman (submissions), claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by Norway Eisfbnore (submissions), 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 Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), 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

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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.

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?

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.--SteamIron 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.

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.--
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.

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

White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Scotland Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions
)). 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

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nascarking/Archive_2&oldid=1083616306"