User talk:Johncoracing48

You DO NOT have any new messages (last change). So, don't click either of the blue links in this box.

Speedy deletion nomination of Rusty Baker

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Rusty Baker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rusty Baker

The article Rusty Baker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. Hairhorn (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

- - - W e l c o m e - - -

Cookies to welcome you! Hello, Johncoracing48! Thank you for your contributions. My name's Airplaneman and I just wanted to say hi and Welcome to Wikipedia!! You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of the world's largest encyclopædia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name, the date and the time. If you are already loving Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field every time you edit. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Airplaneman talk 21:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you sir! I truly appreciate the welcome. I'm glad that there are people that try to help new editors with their learning curve. I must say, you are a rare breed: every article I've written has faced heavy opposition so far. You are the first person kind enough to offer me a helping hand instead of deleting my articles. As for any help, I think I've got everything under control. I'm a fast learner and an experienced writer and I beleive I understand everything. I will seek your guidence if I need help though. Once again, thank you--Johncoracing48 (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You can add me to the list of people that you can contact. I'm an experienced contributor with various racing topics with several Good Articles on racing topics (Mario, AK, the Eagle, Richmond, + 1 being developed offline) to my credit. Let me know if you need any help with writing or if problems come up. That next speedy deletion nomination shouldn't be happening. Be especially careful to not upload images except if you took them yourself. Images are very tricky and I'm an admin on Wikipedia's sister images site. Please ask before you try anything - everyone gets images wrong at first. If your an experienced writer - I know some articles that would benefit from a review... Royalbroil 03:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Keyed-Up Motorsports

A tag has been placed on Keyed-Up Motorsports requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), 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. D-Day (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Images/thoughts on articles priority

My philosophy with images is to only take duplicate improvement pictures when you can significantly improve on what exists. People get upset when they come back to find their image missing if it isn't way better. Anything with no picture is always a good idea, even if the result is poor.

The article that would benefit the most from a picky review is the Alan Kulwicki article. I had nominated the article as a Featured Article (the absolute best articles), but it failed. I think it's very close. As always, you can work on whenever/whatever you want. This whole website is purely voluntary. Overall, the U.S. racing biography articles that are read the most are Richard Petty and Dale Earnhardt. NASCAR might get even more hits, but I've done a lot of the work on the history. So these are the most important articles IMHO. Royalbroil 01:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, how interesting! I'm obviously a fan of Kulwicki's or else I wouldn't have worked on the article. I have the Wisconsin connection with him. I even drove a fair distance to Milwaukee to photograph his gravestone & his park. I lucked out an was able to photograph his Winston Cup trophy at the park.

It's very helpful to get strong fan's opinion and take on the facts. Who knows more about the person than a fan? The fan would able to be the most critical about how the facts are presented and portrayed. The real problem arises when the fan writes the facts using "peacock" terms. I've had enough people review it to weed the bad words out, but there were very few because I avoid / look for them. I've done this long enough that it's not a problem. I look forward to your in-depth review (as time permits). Thank you!

I used to pit for a team that topped out with an intermediate class at the local track (street stock). Now I track chase within Wisconsin, hitting the major tracks in the eastern side. My interests are diverse, including stockcar, off-road, ice racing, and even some karting & motocross. I've even watched bicycle, snowmobile oval, snocross and powerboat racing. Royalbroil 04:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested to do another review, I just rewrote the David Pearson article from scratch. I nominated it for the Did You Know (DYK) section on the main page for the best new content. I have also nominated it as a Good Article (GA), which is the second best type of article on Wikipedia. GA has a formal certification-type process where an independent experienced contributor will review the article to see if it meets moderately hard standards of quality and neutral point of view, etc. The article is much less polished than Kulwicki's. Royalbroil 07:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Johncoracing48. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ^talk 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Gunselman

Six races, none of which were completed, doesn't really stand strongly enough. The article about Gunselman himself is fine, but his team doesn't really deserve an article yet. Plus, articles about smaller/newer teams have a tendency to attract spam. --D-Day (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sponsor Norm Benning Racing

Norm is in need of a sponsor for his #57 truck in the NASCAR Camping World Truck Series for the 2010 racing season. By sponsoring a NASCAR team, your company's logo will appear on the Hood, Quarter panels, TV panel, and the Rear decklid. As a bonus, your logo will also travel around on Norm's racing suit wherever he walks! Each race weekend, your product will be placed in front of nearly 1 million viewers both at home and at the track. Norm is also known for making a little money go a long way and is willing to work out the best deal for you. If you would like to contact him, visit his website (http://normbenningracing.com/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterboy88 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Template RE:

Sure, I'll do that some point today. --Talladega87 (talk)Talladega87 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Johncoracing48, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Johncoracing48. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Miranda Uhl

Can you provide a reliable source for this restoration of unsourced content? Cunard (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 15:07, 22 March 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).

Johncoracing48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not abuse anything! I have spent all my time on Wikipedia constructing articles for the improvement of this sight. I can't believe that I have been blocked for two weeks without even being asked for an explanation of what is happening. I demand that this block be lifted for I have done nothing wrong! The editor that I have been accused of sockpuppeting is a friend of mine but he is not me. I deny that I have ever sockpuppeted and I believe that this system which has ensnared me is flawed. It appears as if my fellow Wikipedians have been judge, jury, and prosecutor! This is entirely unfair and my explanations have been completely unheeded. This total lack of fair trial reminds my of the Nazi regime which has haunted our past. I call for change in this system and, more importantly, the repeal of my banishment. This banishment is keeping me from a number of the articles that I have created and will put well behind in updates when my sentence has concluded. If this banashment stands, I hereby refuse to contribute to Wikipedia again.--Johncoracing48

Decline reason:

Read our guide to appealing blocks and try again without comparing Wikipedia administrators to genocidal maniacs; it will likely work better. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:01, 22 March 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.

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).

Johncoracing48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologize for my earlier outburst. I was simply appalled because I was suddenly blocked without warning. I sincerely apologize to all who I have insulted. It was not my intention to compare anyone to genocidal maniacs. I was just trying to find a comparision to being judged, condemned, and prosecuted withoiut having the chance to defend myself. I am here to state now that I have never done anything on Wikipedia that can be truthfully defined as illegal by Wikipedia's rules. I am not guilty for sockpuppetry and I resent the fact that I was not given the chance to clear my name before my banishment was exacted. I ask now that my ban be lifted so that I can continue my work which mainly is upkeeping NASCAR articles. I ask, once again, for the forgiveness of those I have insulted. Thank you,--Johncoracing48 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A checkuser was run on this account, with a finding that it was "extremely likely" that you had indeed abused multiple accounts, and your wiki-lawyer-ish language in your unblock request does little to convince otherwise. Two weeks isn't so very long to be blocked for such a thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:10, 23 March 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.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Johncoracing48 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Regardless of the time period or my legal language, it is still not acceptable for me to be banned for two weeks. I am the sole editor on a number of articles that could have significant changes every day. I already have a list of updates I have to do in the day that I've been suspended. Once again, I swear that I did not and have never done sockpuppetry or any other thing considered illegal on Wikipedia. The fact that it is only a two week suspension is irrelevent since I am being unjustly prosecuted. I ask that my suspension be repealed immedeatly. Thank you.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Regardless of the time period or my legal language, it is still not acceptable for me to be banned for two weeks. I am the sole editor on a number of articles that could have significant changes every day. I already have a list of updates I have to do in the day that I've been suspended. Once again, I swear that I did not and have never done sockpuppetry or any other thing considered illegal on Wikipedia. The fact that it is only a two week suspension is irrelevent since I am being unjustly prosecuted. I ask that my suspension be repealed immedeatly. Thank you.--[[User:Johncoracing48|Johncoracing48]] ([[User talk:Johncoracing48#top|talk]]) 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Regardless of the time period or my legal language, it is still not acceptable for me to be banned for two weeks. I am the sole editor on a number of articles that could have significant changes every day. I already have a list of updates I have to do in the day that I've been suspended. Once again, I swear that I did not and have never done sockpuppetry or any other thing considered illegal on Wikipedia. The fact that it is only a two week suspension is irrelevent since I am being unjustly prosecuted. I ask that my suspension be repealed immedeatly. Thank you.--[[User:Johncoracing48|Johncoracing48]] ([[User talk:Johncoracing48#top|talk]]) 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Regardless of the time period or my legal language, it is still not acceptable for me to be banned for two weeks. I am the sole editor on a number of articles that could have significant changes every day. I already have a list of updates I have to do in the day that I've been suspended. Once again, I swear that I did not and have never done sockpuppetry or any other thing considered illegal on Wikipedia. The fact that it is only a two week suspension is irrelevent since I am being unjustly prosecuted. I ask that my suspension be repealed immedeatly. Thank you.--[[User:Johncoracing48|Johncoracing48]] ([[User talk:Johncoracing48#top|talk]]) 19:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Without commenting on the case itself, you will probably want to respond to the accusations/evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johncoracing48 (specifically, the case archive). Such a response could be posted here. Also I've consolidated your pair of open unblock requests into one, since they seemed to have duplicate text; seems like simple housekeeping, so hopefully this isn't a big deal either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)