Jump to content

User talk:NASCARfan0548/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

WikiProject NASCAR September 2020 newsletter

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


Your GA nomination of Ty Majeski

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ty Majeski you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ty Majeski

The article Ty Majeski you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ty Majeski for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ty Majeski

The article Ty Majeski you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ty Majeski for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Ty Majeski at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR October 2020 newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Gray brothers

Thanks for catching that one, I actually thought it was Taylor, but Racing-Reference had mistakenly listed Tanner on the race results for a bit (which they've since corrected). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Bcschneider53, You're welcome! NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry!

I apologize if that ping was unwelcome! I looked at Off-road racing, saw your name, looked at your user page and saw you'd created multiple articles about drivers, so thought you might be interested. No offense intended! —valereee (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, That's OK! Did I offend you? I'm sorry if I did. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Not even a little bit! :) —valereee (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Ty Majeski

On 12 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ty Majeski, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after qualifying on the pole at a late-model stock car race, Ty Majeski chose to start at the rear for a chance to win more money—and won the race? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ty Majeski. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ty Majeski), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stewart Friesen

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stewart Friesen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stewart Friesen

The article Stewart Friesen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Stewart Friesen for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stewart Friesen

The article Stewart Friesen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Stewart Friesen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Stewart Friesen

On 19 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stewart Friesen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on occasion, Stewart Friesen runs NASCAR and dirt on the same day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stewart Friesen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Stewart Friesen), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

We wish you a Merry Christmas,
We wish you a Merry Christmas,
We wish you a Merry Christmas,
And a Happy New Year!
May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! MWright96 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Merry Christmas from Sean (Cavanaughs)


Cavanaughs (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope you had a nice Christmas yesterday! Sorry for not responding earlier- I had a busy day with my family! I did see your message when you sent it. Now I've returned the favor! Cavanaughs (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Cavanaughs, Thank you, it's midnight here, so I have to go to sleep now. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 08:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Information icon Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Newfoundland and Labrador: you may already know about them, but you might find 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. Taumata994 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Taumata994, A tool that I use, Huggle, automatically does that if the talk page is not edited too recently. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

NASCARfan0548,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
CAPTAIN RAJU, Thank you and you have a Happy New Year as well! NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, NASCARfan0548!

Happy New Year!

NASCARfan0548,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Cavanaughs (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Cavanaughs Thank you. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 00:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Adminship Nomination Request

Hey! I saw that you wished to become an administrator. I am willing to nominate you! Do you accept? SoyokoAnis 02:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

SoyokoAnis, Yes NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
NASCARfan0548, okay! I'll create the page. Best of luck.

NASCARfan0548, a nomination from someone with under 100 edits isn't going to be well-regarded by those commenting on the request. I strongly suggest you take the advice at the candidate poll you started and defer any plans for requesting administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Isaacl, I see that the user is inexperienced, but I want to see how it plays out. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
You've been advised that a request is unlikely to succeed, and if you followed the instructions of the poll and read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, you read about the importance of having an experienced editor nominate you. I urge you to avoid having a failed request in your history. isaacl (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to echo what's been said both here and on the ORCP. You are not in a position to run for adminship at this time. I really am not trying to be rude in saying this, but your chances of passing...most especially being nominated by someone with less than 100 edits...is effectively zero. The question of what you need the admin toolset for has not been answered at your ORCP. Running an RfA at this time could impact your running at a future time. I encourage you to be thoughtful about this; consider why you need the admin toolset and be able to strongly articulate that with ample evidence to support it. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    Hammersoft, I want an admin toolset to see how good I actually am at editing Wikipedia while also following the guidelines. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    You're basically saying you want administrative privileges so that you can use administrative privileges. If you want a request to succeed, in addition to building up a stronger track record illustrating your knowledge and good judgement, you also need to be able to communicate clearly and succinctly. Please take some time to read through some of the advice on becoming an adminstrator, if you haven't already, and consider carefully what you need to do to show you are what people are looking for in an administrator. isaacl (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
If you really want to be nominated as an admin, I recommend you draft answers to the three standard questions on a subpage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, Like what? NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
All RFA discussions have the same 3 questions the candidate has to answer. If you haven't done enough research on how RFA works to know that, you probably shouldn't be applying now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Power~enwiki, I just had an IP address vandalize my talk page. This is one reason I want to be an admin, to block that sort of thing from happening. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
NASCARfan0548, I created your page. If you'd like to wait till I have more contributions/edits I can. But the page is right here. SoyokoAnis 14:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • NASCARfan0548, I have reverted your transclusion of your RfA page because the RfA was not correctly formatted. I have gone ahead and reformatted your RfA page for you—see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NASCARfan0548. If you still wish to proceed, you need to substitute the time parser, sign right next to where it says Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:, and then re-transclude the page onto Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. However, I have to agree with my fellow editors above; in my view I do not think that your request has any chance of passing, and although I will not stop you if you decide to proceed, I strongly discourage it. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    Mz7, Hey there, I want to be an admin because of what happened to my talk page last night. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I cannot stress how ill-advised that is. Nominators should already be admins with a good tenure and a long track record. They should also be intimately familiar with the candidate, be willing to write up a few paragraphs about them, and be very familiar with the process of running. To become an admin is very hard, and usually requires a very well planned out campaign. For a personal example, I am an admin. I got two nominators, not just one, and both were admins with long experience, and one was a sitting member of the arbitration committee. You can see my attempt at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/CaptainEek, you'll note even with having two great noms, a featured article to my name, and years of experience, I still only just barely got elected. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    Should you choose to run again with an experienced nom, please read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have closed your RfA per WP:NOTNOW. If I didn't do this, more people would oppose the RfA and you would probably find some comments upsetting. If there's one thing RfA voters unanimously agree on, it's that a candidate being put forward should be worth spending time looking at and assessing with no obvious red flags, and they get cross about timewasters. You should read the advice above carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    Ritchie333, Now I'll never become an admin. What could I do better? I'm not good at finding references to reliable sources. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    Well, you could have listened to the five(?) different editors who told you exactly how this would go and that you should reconsider. Listening is certainly something you could do better. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) If you're worried about becoming an admin, you probably shouldn't be one. The best administrators are discovered by longterm admins and experienced editors, and persuaded to put themselves forward. Given that RfA is an open-book exam that the entire Wikipedia community can take part with, you should feel apprehensive about putting yourself forward. Anyone can revert vandalism on WP:JIMBOTALK, but deletion and blocking are serious actions that can cause upset, frustration and bitterness when done incorrectly, and absolutely need a diplomatic touch to put things right. For example, above CaptainEek mentioned he had a tough RfA that narrowly passed. One part of that was I was not happy about a rollback action he'd taken which was probably placed innocently but could invite accusations of trying to whitewash a politically-motivated murder. He gave a good answer to the question I posed based on that, and consequently I supported. That's the sort of response you need at an RfA to be successful.
As for what to do - we have a huge backlog of copyright violation cases, stretching back years. You don't need the admin tools to get involved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As I predicted, the RfA failed badly. NASCARfan0548, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the project. However, you need to be able to listen to the advice of other editors and consider such advice carefully, most especially in significant decisions such as running at RfA. It's not that you have to do what people tell you to do. But, refusing to consider that four editors (including me) gave you feedback at your just recently closed ORCP that you were not ready yet, and refusing to take the advice of everyone above who told you this was a bad idea, was most emphatically the wrong direction to go. Administrators do not exist in a vacuum, and exhibiting "I didn't hear that" sort of mentality and moving ahead with a then malformed RfA [1][2]...even though you had been warned it was malformed [3]...showed a singular inability to make appropriate decisions. Please, I beg of you, take onboard the advice in your ORCPs and the advice given here. I strongly advise you not to attempt an RfA again at least for a year if not considerably longer, combined with exhibiting some recognition of the advice given. I also strongly encourage you not to accept a nomination from someone so unqualified to do so as your nominator in this RfA clearly was. An editor with less than 100 edits who joined the project within the last two months is most emphatically not in a position to nominate anyone for RfA. If you ever attempt to run an RfA again, you absolutely must read the advice at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates before doing so. You made a significant mistake here. If you want to prove to the community you can be trusted with the tools, you're going to need to show that you've learned from this mistake. Understand, none of this should be construed in any manner as an attack on your editing here. The only point you seemed to want to do administrator work for was in anti-vandalism work. While the RfA was going on, I was looking at your contributions to WP:AIV, and had gotten back to November before it was closed. I didn't find any errors in your reporting to AIV, which is heartening. Others appear to be quite supportive of your article editing as well. These are good bases from which to rebuild. Keep on keeping on, but please...when multiple voices give you advice not to proceed with something, it's a good idea not to proceed. Feel free to seek me out for advice/input in the future on anything. I'll be happy to help. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe this is my fault. I saw that this person was really dedicated to becoming an admin. I apologize NASCARfan0548 for ruining your chances. And I apologize to everyone involved in this discussion. This is my fault. SoyokoAnis 07:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
SoyokoAnis, It's OK, now I have to wait for a while before I start another RfA. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 15:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Your campaign got further than mine did, so you're still a current leader to me, if that counts. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Zoom call

Hi Max,
I don't have time to join this Zoom call that you've set up. I am back in school so for that reason, I don't have time, but I also, respectfully, am not really interested in doing these kinds of meetups with other editors. I only really edit Wikipedia in my free time/for fun and don't want to make it like a job.

Although I'm not interested and don't have time for the Zoom call, it sounds cool and it's cool that you're doing it! Who else will be joining you? Other NASCAR editors? Hope it goes well!

Cavanaughs (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Cavanaughs, Thank you for your info, I just thought you would like to join. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

I have semi-protected this talk page for a month. I don't like protecting user talk pages, but under the circumstances it seems like the lesser evil. At times over the years my talk page has had to be protected, and at those times I have used a subpage of my talk page for anyone who can't edit my main talk page, with a message on the main talk page linking to the subpage. I suggest that you consider doing something like that. Theoretically, of course, there is nothing to stop trolls and vandals just posting the same trash on the subpage that they would otherwise have posted on the main talk page, but in practice for some reason they almost always don't. Perhaps the pleasure of trolling is lost if they think it isn't publicly visible, or perhaps there's some other reason. JBW (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

JBW, Thanks for protecting my talk page. I'll take it, no problem. I know, why is this guy attacking me every day seems like? NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
To answer your question, partially -- because you're good at anti-vandalism, and you recognize and revert his edits. He attacks everyone that way. He has been harassing me, no joke, for 15 years -- the first time I found in the archives was February 2006. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Antandrus is perfectly right: the more anti-vandal work you do the more likely you are to be the target of one of these people who obsessively vandalise and attack on Wikipedia for years on end. Although I still do some vandal-blocking, that is now only a fairly small part of what I do, whereas years ago I worked almost entirely on anti-vandalism; that is reflected in the fact that I get attacks on my talk page far less often than I used to. Even so, one person who used to attack me all the time years ago still very occasionally turns up. 15 years, however is extreme: only a tiny proportion of vandals keep it up that long. Goodness knows what is in the mind of someone whose idea of how to spend their time is to keep that kind of crap up year after year. JBW (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is NASCARfan0548 blatant and deliberate privacy violations & defamations; full name must be deleted as shown:. Thank you. OP didn't notify you, yet the post has been up for ten minutes. I commented on it so I thought I'd do them a favour and notify you.D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It's gone now (I was removing the section at the same moment someone else already did). For what it's worth, this LTA uses his own name all the time. He even routinely links to a thread on a hate site that he started under his own legal name. He has no reasonable expectation of privacy if he uses his own name on Wikimedia projects, or links to it elsewhere. Antandrus (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello NASCARfan0548, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Doggy54321: Thanks, although where I live (California), it's still the 13th, not the 14th. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
You’re very welcome. Up here in the freezing cold Canada, it’s the 13th still, but it’s Valentine’s Day UTC and I figured I’ll do it now in bed as I’m getting sleepy rather than first thing in the morning when I have 87 notifications, 3 messages on my talk, 2 email replies and a partridge in a pear tree (maybe turtle doves would have been more appropriate for Valentine’s Day...). D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘)

Short descriptions

Hi NASCARfan0548! Just a reminder that when important short descriptions from Wikidata, like you did in this edit to Opposite lock, you need to check carefully that the description is appropriate, or write your own description. In this case there were two problems: (1) the misspelling of "colloquial"; and (2) the description is not helpful to readers because it doesn't identify the scope or subject area of the topic (a colloquial term in what? Farming? Astrophysics? Journalism?). The short description is there because the reader is thinking "I'm looking for a term about cars, is this the right thing?" so we should answer that question. I've changed it to "Driving terminology". Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, Sorry, I'm known for importing short descriptions and adding them to articles that didn't have them before. I'll do better next time. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"AB 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AB 2. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 25#AB 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud, Sorry, I thought "AB 2" could refer to the highway, like state highways in the US are referred to as, for example, "CA 99." NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
No apology necessary - no worries. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NASCARfan0548/Archive_4&oldid=1236507401"