User talk:Nascar1996/Archive 2

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Nascar1996 in topic Weird case

Please do not edit the contents of this page. It is for historical reference only. (November 2010-)

Hey there!


Welcome back. --Pi zero (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I couldn't stay away. Everyday once I was home, I looked and see what was happening on here. Then, I just said that some people will miss my NASCAR work, and a lot of the reviewer that were here during the summer (United States) are gone now, so I will start reviewing articles soon. Nascar1996 02:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unsighting unpublished articles


Hi. However it happened, I saw you'd ended up sighting a couple of unpublished articles. Unpublished articles mustn't be sighted. When it happens, you can unsight individual revisions by going down to the bottom of the page, and in the "Review this revision" box, unchecking the "Accuracy: Sighted" check box and clicking the "Submit" button; if there are multiple sighted revisions, unsight them starting with the oldest and working up to the present. --Pi zero (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for telling me. Nascar1996 14:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just reminding you...


...the sources' dates should be in "November 7, 2010"-like format, not "2010-11-07". And, the sources should be in order from newest to oldest. Wanted to review your article, but it's getting late and there's school tomorrow. Regards, Diego Grez return fire 03:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I forgot;I quess its where I edit on Wikipedia too, and the refs are like that on some of the articles I created. Nascar1996 11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Review time??


I'm boggling over the fact that you published three articles in eleven minutes (at 22:04, 22:07, and 22:15). On the first two of those, you didn't make any edits at all except the actual publication. Sorry to put this bluntly, but... did you rubber stamp those articles? You realize that a reviewer has to read all the sources, to carefully verify all the facts and that there wasn't any copyvio (not to mention, that the sources are actually independent of each other), right? --Pi zero (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I made sure that I read the sources on each of them. I have the ability to read very fast. First, I read the the article, memorize its contents, then read over each source. Afterward, I double check the article, then I review it. The last one I reviewed had some minor grammer mistakes from what I have learned in school. So I fixed them. Most of the sources were also very short compared to others I have read. Nascar1996 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Also, from the above comments, I did not 'rubber stamp' the articles. Nascar1996 23:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Figured there'd be some simple explanation. Wow. Still boggling :-). --Pi zero (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

NASCAR: Edwards wins 2010 Kobalt Tools 500


I took a shot at reviewing this, but finally concluded that I'm just too clueless about the sport. I was left with several fragments and two full sentences that I couldn't verify, and it all it felt less like gaps in the sources than gaps in my knowledge of how to find my way around them. I couldn't find info about who was on what team, or that Biffle achieved fourth in the final laps of the race — but I was really lost when it came to championships. Drivers' championship? Manufacturers'?

Sorry I couldn't do better for you. --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've had much the same problem with these NASCAR stories. I just don't know enough about the sport to understand what the articles are trying to say. Gopher65talk 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not too worried about this article, next week it should be published it will have the championship winner on it. The drivers championship is the one for the race car driver such as Jimmie Johnson. Well, Biffle in the closing laps is verifible from the lap-by-lap summary. Then each team, I can add a source if you want. Nascar1996 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm stuck on Biffle too. The last mention of him (or first, since the laps are in reverse chronological order) in the lap-by-lap is "Lap 276 -- Joey Logano is ninth, one spot behind Greg Biffle." Did you watch the race on TV? We can use {{broadcast report}} to cite it if you did to verify that. Just add that to the sources section, and write notes on the talkpage to state what you got from it (i.e. Biffle's position won in final laps), what time/date and what TV station and channel. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  published Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks and finaly :) Nascar1996 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
EPR didn't sight. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's messed me around a couple of times recently. Here's hoping I'm just unlucky, and not witnessing an EZPR collapse. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm almost there with it; a couple points on the talkpage that I need help with. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

South Korean Fires 80 Shells


I looked in the related news and could not find the source for this there either. If it is yet another related news article away, the source ought to be relisted in the newest article and specifically cited next to the number. As it is now, the number is unsupported, and I have made such a note next to it in the article (after not being able to find the "citation needed" notation).

Actually, it wouldn't allow the me to enter the change. The article link is here:,%27_nuclear_war,_if_military_exercises_take_place?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WikinewsLatestNews+%28Wikinews+Latest+News%29 -- (talk · contribs)

I have rejected the changes as I found the source in the related story. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Right link here on Yonhap. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wrong about...? Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 19:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
I double checked the style guide and it said that I could use the related news to source something. So I did. Nascar1996 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas!

May your family have
a joyous holiday season
and a new year blessed
with hope and happiness.

fetch·comms 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey there; just a friendly note to let you know that over-linking to Wikipedia is often discouraged: when most of an article is highlighted green, perhaps a copyedit to make things clearer is required. I understand the (probably justified) use in names in Jeff Gordon wins the 2011 Subway Fresh Fit 500, but perhaps (as a personal opinion) things like EST & Fox — and to a stretch, w:Red Bull Racing Team — do not need to be linked. The perfect article explains things without having to redirect the reader to find more information: although a probably unobtainable goal, it is one we should strive for. — μ 09:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually, kinking for time zones, and linking for currencies (US dollar, Euro, Pound stirling, etc.), are puzzles I've been thinking on for months. It's useful technical information to know what Australian Eastern Time is, or whatever; so the solution for that is to provide some sort of Wikinews page to link to —something that clearly caters to our nature as a news site, so we're not poaching on Wikipedia's territory— then create a mainspace redirect to it and have all the {{w}}'s switch over automagically. (We've passed the landmark of having one percent of our articles use {{w}}! Horray! Less than eighteen thousand articles to go.)
And saying that, I've finally thought of something that might do. Hm, I see a water cooler post looming... --Pi zero (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I forgot about the links. Also, Red Bull Racing Team would need to be linked because it can be confused with the Formula One team, Red Bull Racing. Nascar1996 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply



The content from can be copied in all external sites.. see the license of them.. Memo18 (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't find the license, so I assumed it was 'All Rights Reserved'. Also, there were other problems with the articles right? --Nascar1996 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
You still can't copy vertabim, as the bias of the source will be transferred across with it; e.g. w:Voice of America. — μ 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I've noticed that you've been failing articles as |copyright=no: more information is required (or at least, would be helpful), for example "What is the copyvio? Where is it copyvio'd from?" — μ 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I will add the information. Thanks. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 15:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)



Just a note, as I noticed an edit description where you mentioned using {{w}} on all but the lede. Make lead now knows about {{w}}, so there's no longer any need to hold back using it on the lede. --Pi zero (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, okay. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 23:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

New York tour bus crash kills 14


A correction notice was required (link).

Don't know what happened here, but a rule of thumb: passing an article with no copyedits should be a rare occurrence. I suggested to one of our new reviewers recently, to always look for some improvement to make (there's nearly certain to be something), as the looking helps keep you on your toes, and the visible evidence of the pre-publish edit helps keep the author on xyr toes. --Pi zero (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm horrible at copy-editing. I never can tell where it needs it. I'll start trying, but its probably going to make it worse. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 19:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh. Well, your judgment, obviously. It just seemed like it might be helpful to have something to slow yourself down a little. Since it looked, from the outside, as if a pretty basic fact hadn't gotten checked successfully, and moving a little too fast might conceivably have accounted for it. (Of course, it could have been an error in the source, that got corrected after review...) --Pi zero (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't remember it saying Manhattan on it. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 21:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


edit my talk page. C628 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply


Hi, when is it appropriate to create one of these? And how is it done? I have been experimenting around but can't figure it out.

I wrote an article ICANN approves .xxx domain for pornography. Then I noticed that there are many articles on the topic of ICANN and domain names on Wikinews, e.g.

What, if anything, is the best thing to do? Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

So you want to create a category that all of the above can be included in? Maybe Category:ICANN? I don't think a new portal should be created for these, but the category could. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 16:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you're right. Mattisse (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
By the way, to create a category add the related Wikipedia article, and Commons category if they are available. If not, just add the related categories to the category, such as Science and technology, World and Internet. Also you may want to include {{latestcat}}. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 16:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for fixing the category business. All my attempts were failing. Mattisse (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Celebrity bear Knut dies suddenly at the Berlin Zoo


Pointed out the sources. Maybe you meant something else? Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! "Search" and "find" have failed me too at times when the words were clearly there and I found them visually. I chalk it up to Internet irrationality. Mattisse (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Your welcome. I read through it as well, but maybe I moved down to fast or something. I'm not sure. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

get well soon


---^ Bawolff 00:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I hope you feel better:(. Gopher65talk 00:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Take care, get well soon :) — μ 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks guys. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion requests


On Wikinews, we're quite tolerant with new articles: if things aren't newsworthy, we don't delete them until {{abandoned}} has passed, and instead tag {{not news}} or {{tasks}}. There's a very limited list of things administrators can delete — generally, if there's problems with it that don't boil down to "pure vandalism" or "no content" e.g. test pages, blanked pages, author requests, take it to WN:DR or tag it. Three days isn't too long to wait for a deletion. — μ 10:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've used the abandoned template, but not the 'not news' and 'tasks'. Everytime I tried to use {{not news}} it always came up as nonexistant. I must have had something wrong. Thanks anyways. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 10:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

China plans to ban smoking in indoor public places


Hi, I added a source I had left out. The exact quote in the article is:

"China counts more than 300 million smokers, World Health Organization statistics show, and nearly 1.2 million Chinese people now die from smoking-related diseases each year -- making up 20 percent of the world total."

In order not to copyvio I wrote: "The World Health Organisation says Chinese smoking-related deaths account for one fifth of deaths from smoking world-wide."(Since 20 percent is one fifth and "of the world total" can be rephrased as "worldwide", I think.

Hopefully this is OK, or I can just remove the sentence. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 05:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)



NASCAR driver Juan Montoya earns 2011 Auto Club 400 pole position has been moved to User:Nascar1996/NASCAR driver Juan Montoya earns 2011 Auto Club 400 pole position, per your request. — μ 09:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply



{{Unblock|Deciding to rejoin.}}

The user is causing way too many problems, but there is a solution. Either he promises to behave well (here and on IRC, where he asked to be unblocked some minutes ago), or he rather stays blocked. My opinion. Diego Grez return fire 19:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Addressing only the request here: I'm inclined toward unblock. Promises however sincere —certainly required promises— don't mean as much as actual sustained good behavior, and there's no way of demonstrating sustained good behavior if one isn't permitted to demonstrate any behavior at all.
If/when Microchip has a position on this, I'd be interested to know what it is. --Pi zero (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • This user should absolutely be unblocked. It's not fair to hold a grudge against him for *one* rash/immature action, where there hasn't been any pattern of disruption or rudeness. He's been very constructive and helpful in the past. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree with unblocking. At this time i don't think there is any point in keeping him blocked on wiki. After all he's not blocked on irc, where the events in question took place (and where punishment for any such events should take place), the block is in essence a self-requested block. Bawolff 20:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not have any problem with being unblocked as far as the offence that warranted the original drama, etcetera. It, as Tempodivalse rightly says, was a single rash action. The community, as a whole, overreacted. Tensions were running high, and actions were made that probably shouldn't have happened. I'm not concerned about that. The two things I am slightly perturbed by are a) the current indefinite block, and b) edits to User:Nascar1996 from this edit onwards (and other post-event actions I'm not going to waste people's time describing). To take the second reason first: a retirement commuted to a wikibreak and elevated back to retirement. It just strikes me as indecisive, and reminds me of a few incidents on p_simplewiki that I'd rather forget. The other is the user-requested block, which is frowned upon, and I'd like to know why the block was requested. The fact that it shouldn't have been granted (IMO) is irrelevant, and the issues of "requested on IRC" summaries and "self-block" requests are both things that should be thrown up on the water coolers. Nevertheless, the reason I requested the hold is purely procedural — once a self-block is in place, the blocked user no longer has a say in when it is rescinded. As such, "because I want it lifted" isn't a valid reasoning: there's no entitlement to a block ever being lifted. If the user wants a say, alternatives exist. To sum up this verbose, detracting comment, "no problems with the first offence, slightly worried about the events that unfolded, and don't want to set a precedent with this unblock request". For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not the blocking administrator. — μ 21:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

To answer MC8, I wanted to enforce a break. I knew I needed a break because I could not continue at the time. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 21:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Why did you feel the need for an enforced block? — μ 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
After the events that took place, I felt I needed to leave and let everyone calm down, or something else probably would have happened. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 21:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Self imposed/self-requested blocks are still generally frowned upon, and administrators are not actually supposed to apply them. I found this out after having it made abundently clear at another project. As one of their admins, Keegan, told me - If you cannot keep your cool, walk away. I'd say the same applies here. No one forces you to edit, you can walk away, cool down, let everything else chill, and come back later, when the dust has settled. BarkingFish (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would say the dust probably have settled by now. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 15:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I don't know what happened on IRC but on wiki, Nascar1996 has always been a generous, helpful, open minded editor, willing to learn. Mattisse (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Unblocked. Diego Grez return fire 02:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you everyone. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 02:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)



That's not out of scope. It's just a spammy copyvio. Out of scope means there wouldn't be sources like this. Please take time to carefully check these things before calling it a misplaced encyclopedia entry. Thank you, fetch·comms 21:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know. I accidently pressed the wrong button. My mistake, sorry. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer request re-opened


I've re-opened your reviewer request at Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions, solely because it was closed too quickly. It should run at least a couple days, even for a snowball, in part because the community at en.WN is small and not everyone will have a chance to even hear you're up for it. One hour was simply too brief, though I am fairly sure the decision will stand. - Amgine | t 19:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just a note. {{QuoteLeft}} and {{QuoteRight}} are only for pull-quotes, i.e., quotes that also occur in the text. They are not supplementary material. --Pi zero (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh okay. Thanks for the note. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You did no wrong. That quote is also in the article text. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Mattisse: I removed it. Pi zero replaced it. Look at the history of the article. Note: [1] and [2]. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know. I couldn't tell what was happening! Sorry, Mattisse (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Its okay, you might want to change your comment on Pi zero's talk page. Next time, you might want to consider looking through the history first. :) --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I did note my mistake on Pi zero's page. Thanks for the suggestion. Mattisse (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would you consider this?


Reviewing Deadly tornadoes rip through southern US, killing close to 300? It's about to go stale and it's the worst storm in over 40 years in the US. No one has even reviewed it and its been there for days. Everything in the article is well sourced. Thanks for your consideration. Mattisse (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I finished reviewing it. Very nice article Mattisse. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 15:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much! Mattisse (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please review:


I added a pertinent animation to Deadly tornadoes rip through southern US, killing close to 300, please review to accept the pending revision. Thanks. Tadpole256 (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you get the chance, please review Sixteen killed in Marrakech bomb blast. Thank you for your time. Tadpole256 (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I reviewed the pending revision; however, I was not able to review the article because I was busy. When I returned, it had already been published. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 04:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am soliciting your input please!


I am attempting a Dispute resolution at Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brian McNeil and Mattisse and I am soliciting your input as to the problem. I urge you to give feedback. Soliciting input is the next step in the Dispute resolution process. Please do! Your viewpoint would be much appreciated. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry Mattisse. I rather not be included in the resolution. I hope it goes well (both of you begin to avoid each other.) I have been watching some of the conflicts, most definately the one about the socking. I'm not going into further detail about that. Sorry, and happy editing. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 00:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand. It is an ugly situation and would probably get you in trouble if you got involved. I am not socking at wikinews. I am not socking anywhere. But I understand why you would not want to get involved. You are a nice guy, a good guy, and I am sorry that I am not wanted at wikinews. All I did was write and copy edit articles. But that is not what is appreciated here, I guess. Thanks anyway, Mattisse (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Mattisse, you are wanted at Wikinews. You just have a dispute with BrianMcNeil. Sometimes when something happens such as that, stay away from that user. Try not to communicate to them. You convinced me to stay, so why shall I not try to convince you to stay as well. This project is more strict than others, and most things you need to ignore. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)




PeP applied

Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.

Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use. You can view your user rights log here.
Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

--Pi zero (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Understandable. :-) --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 02:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)



Dale Earnhardt Jr. Wins 2014 Daytona 500 -- may be of interest. There is too many terms for an average reader (such as me) to get an idea, at the moment... —Gryllida 11:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was concerned that one might be stale already, having gone the long way 'round through es.wn and translation. Haven't had a chance to look more closely. --Pi zero (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Weird case


This morning, I was notified "A link was made from Borussia Dortmund signs Emre Mor on a five-year deal' to Borussia Dortmund signs Emre Mor on a five-year deal. Was something merged and later its edit history was removed? I really don't understand why I received that notification &mash; edit history didn't reveal a thing. Any clue?
acagastya 16:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would ignore it. It may be a result of this edit, where I mistakenly edited an older version of the page instead of the present version. I quickly undone the edit and later removed the deleted picture. – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 16:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
I did notice that edit, but I never receive a notification when someone edits an older version of a page created by me. Just wanted to know if everything was fine. Thanks for replying.
acagastya 17:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
No problem. The log page for the article is empty so nothing was merged into the article. It may also be related to where {{review}} was changed to {{develop}} by a different user who did not have the reviewer user right. – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 17:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Nascar1996/Archive 2".