User talk:Nakon/arc16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To add a new message, please click HERE
Archives
1 :: 2 :: 3 :: 4 :: 5 :: 6 :: 7 :: 8 :: 9 :: 10 :: 11 :: 12 :: 13 :: 14 :: 15

23:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome Back Nakon[edit]

Welcome back to adminship. A quick way to catch up on what you missed would be to review WP:ADMINNEWS and the back issues. — xaosflux Talk 01:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll review these pages before I make any administrative actions. Nakon 02:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back! You were missed! :-) Katietalk 12:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Nakon! Nice to meet you (for the first time lol)
usernamekiran(talk) 10:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing vandal[edit]

Our vandal started off with IP edits. I expect more problems will arise. Please stay alert. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to watch the article. Thanks for the heads up. Nakon 04:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to have an Auto patrol permission?[edit]

Hi i was only new here in wiki , and recently i just editing articles with adding un referenced tags to the unsourced /cited statements so here's my question just want to ask what should needed to be grant an auto-patrol the pages i edit ? thank you? Palasulam-angtalk

Hello, the criteria for being granted the Autopatrolled user right is outlined at Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Nakon 03:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for fixing that error up over at RFPP. Turns out the bot archived stuff, meaning when I clicked edit on the section it took me to the wrong edit box. I gave 1 month to Peppadew, but I have no opinion on Šiprage. If you want to change it from 1 month PC, do it by all means. I never looked into that article's history, so I don't have an opinion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've increased the protection to full until the dispute can be resolved. Thanks! Nakon 04:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you very much re this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Hi, Nakon. I was wondering if you could please look into this editor - 67.165.17.94 - due to their constant disruptive editing? They have been disruptively adding material either without citations or ones that do not support their claims, while constantly replacing their information whenever other editors remove it, without any explanation (other than claiming its correct) nor any attempt at any discussion. Here are two examples of the many pages they have been disruptively editing, The Left (Germany) and Alliance 90/The Greens. I would greatly appreciate if you could please look into this. Thank you for your time. Helper201 (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I'd recommend reporting this user to the edit warring noticeboard so that it can be reviewed by a broader audience. Thanks, Nakon 19:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Harmony[edit]

Hello, I see that you've protected the Fifth Harmony page. Since only autoconfirmed users can edit and you protected it, I came here to see about making an edit. I think it's appropriate to remove the second paragraph from Camilla Cabello's description in the members section. Since she has her own article and is no longer a member of the group, only information pertinent to her time with the actual group should now be mentioned. Not really sure if this is how the process works but let me know if I can remove it!

Howdy, I'd recommend requesting this edit on the article's talk page. Other editors more familiar with the article may be able to better help with this edit. Thanks, Nakon 19:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block rationale[edit]

Thanks for blocking HowToGetBanned2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just wanted to mention the block rationale appears to be incorrect; it's showing "(Promotion / advertising-only account)" instead of a hard block or similar. Home Lander (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising-only appears to be a valid reason for blocking this account. I don't expect the spambot to request an unblock. Thanks, Nakon 00:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I thought you might have clicked that one in error. Home Lander (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does autopatrolled not show up on my User rights Log?[edit]

deisenbe (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to see the log entry, but I've included it below: "2017-08-26T15:58:26 Nakon (talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for Deisenbe from extended confirmed user to extended confirmed user and autopatrolled (+autoreviewer; Requested at WP:PERM; Special:PermaLink/797364165#User:Deisenbe (using userRightsManager))" Thanks, Nakon 01:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the block you put expired, and the IP is back to the same old phishing scam. Possible to reinstate? --Nanite (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the private edit filter. Thanks for the heads up. Nakon 07:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also engaged the checkuser team and some bad accounts have been blocked. Please let me know if any further abuse occurs. Thanks, Nakon 07:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Time (Bros album) page protection[edit]

Hi, you recently protected the page The Time (Bros album), due to a supposed edit war. However, if you look at this page, you will see that the user adding the unsourced claim of 3 million sales worldwide for this album has a history of vandalising Bros-related pages, and one pattern in their vandalism is accusing those who revert their edits of being vandals themselves. They recently re-instated the 3 million sales figure claim to this article, before the page was locked, and now I am unable to revert this unsourced, and exaggerated sales claim. Can you please revert this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_%28Bros_album%29&type=revision&diff=798500540&oldid=798498914 yourself? It is an unverified claim.Nqr9 (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My protection of the page is not an endorsement of the current version. I'd recommend discussing the change on the article's talk page. If there was vandalism on the page, please report it on the talk page so it can be removed. Thanks, Nakon 08:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the page has been locked so that only administrators can edit it. I requested page protection on it due to the return of the vandal with multiple accounts and IP addresses (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomWatkins1970) after page protection recently lapsed. You will notice that several different IP addresses have recently added the "3 million sales" claim, and reverted my edits when I revert theirs. While this may appear to an outsider as an edit war, it is not - I am reverting vandalism. I have added the IP addresses to the sock puppet investigation page. This user is a vandal; it is not a controversial addition where consensus needs to be established - they are adding an unverified worldwide sales claim to the article. I don't see how reverting that is controversial.Nqr9 (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source shows 3m+ copies sold. I'm not going to get into a discussion on the validity of the source here. If you'd like to dispute the content or the validity of the source, please do so and gain consensus on the article's talk page. Any admin is free to unlock the page once consensus has been gained. Thanks, Nakon 09:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discogs is a user-generated site, and is not an authoritative, or even sufficiently reliable for wikipedia's standards, source when it comes to worldwide sales claims. The wikipedia article only lists 2 certifications, both for 100,000 copies. How you then get 3 million worldwide sales from that, I don't know.Nqr9 (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring this to the article's talk page. The source was in the article prior to the edit dispute. As previously said, my protection is not an endorsement of the article's current content. Thanks, Nakon 09:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, did you look at the talk pages for any of the recent IP users who have added this claim to the article? All of them have vandalism warnings from other users.Nqr9 (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't negate the edit war on the article. Please continue to discuss the disputed content on the article's talk page. Thanks, Nakon 09:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't an "edit war". Reverting unsourced content is not a controversial action that requires consensus. Even if, for argument's sake, the information is correct, that they have not provided a *reliable* source to support it means that it's fair game to remove it. The article has had little recent activity, other than me reverting the vandalism added by this user, so I doubt there would be much point 'discussing' it on the talk page. I am not particularly interested in this article or group, but have it on my watch list as this user is a serial vandal across Bros pages. I don't have a personal stake in this; I'm trying to rid these pages of vandalism and unsupported claims.Nqr9 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd recommend disputing the content/source on the article's talk page. I'm not going to unprotect the article based on discussions here, and since you have already requested the protection be reviewed, you should make any additional arguments on the RFPP page. Thanks, Nakon 09:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read WP:EW? "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is one of its exceptions. Given that fact, together with what you will find at [18], [19], and [20], I am most interested to hear how this protection could possibly be construed as appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning was that when the SPI request had been filed, the IP wasn't a confirmed sock of the banned editor. The initial protection request presented itself as an edit dispute. This initial review turned out to be incorrect on my part, and I've reduced protection on the article as per the discussion below. Nakon 11:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protect[edit]

Hi, Nakon, I think this was a bit over the top.Rather than using sysop-protect, a good option was to wield the block button esp. when it's a many vs. one-case and two of the issues have been discussed on t/p already.And as much as an sysop-protect prevents edit-warring, it leaves out good-faith-contributors from editing.As a side note, will an ECP be valid?Regards:) Winged Blades Godric 09:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I understand that you executed the protection after visiting the RFPP request which, I'm afraid, was poorly worded.All through the while, I see selective reversion of True Insan's edits by Bishonen, Utcursch, Shinnosukeandme and the filer himself.And I believe Shrikanth was a fly-by contributor.Winged Blades Godric 09:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Nakon, I came here to ask about that protection, too. Did you really mean to fully protect the article for over four months? I see the latest semiprotection, by User:SpacemanSpiff, was set to expire at 04:36 17 January 2018, UTC, i. e. at exactly the same minute as your current full protection, so perhaps you somehow accidentally kept Space's end time? (And I too would have preferred the block button in this case, but that's another matter.) Bishonen | talk 10:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Howdy, I didn't intend on keeping the page protected that long. It was simply the increase of the protection strength without resetting the previous semiprotection period. While I don't have anything against another admin reducing the protection on the article, I'll go ahead and restore the previous protection settings as I've caused more disruption than necessary on the article. Thanks for the additional insight and review. Nakon 11:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Nyttend (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Winged Blades Godric 11:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Thanked without checking the execution. [reply]
I'll go ahead and leave everything as-is for the moment (both reduced to semi). If anyone wishes to make further changes to the protection status of either article, please feel free to do so without further inquiries. Thanks, Nakon 11:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! Missed the enquiries by Nyttend at it's entirety! Me too seems to be pretty confused:)Winged Blades Godric 11:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I've confused the two sections as well. I've reduced the article to semiprotection. Sorry for any confusion! Thanks, Nakon 11:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)have[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric: It's normally a courtesy to ping someone when you discuss their "poorly worded" requests in order to get more insight into why they made such a request. I made the request to get the users to the talk page since their were many hands involved and blocking would have been inefficient. The lack of protection has just allowed the edits to continue. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed user[edit]

Hi, regarding this, I would really like confirmed user rights. As reverting vandalism is my primary mission for now, I'm tired of having to enter CAPTCHA's whenever adding external links (sometimes restoring external links removed via vandalism is necessary). I'm also tired of getting tripped up by abuse filters such as this one and this one which prevent me from tagging WP:NOTWEBHOST violations in the userspace. Please reconsider my request. Thanks. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I'm afraid that the 'confirmed' right is only given out in certain special circumstances such as confirming a legitimate alternate account. Wanting to bypass CAPTCHAs and abuse filters does not fall under this criteria. Thanks, Nakon 23:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove permission[edit]

Hi Nakon. You can remove my accountcreator flag now. Thanks again! --Tobias (Talk) 07:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I hope the event went well! The flag has automatically been removed from your account. Thanks, Nakon 03:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You blocked Special:Contributions/2601:602:9701:161c:8583:ef39:a7f:bdc3 (an IP address) indefinitely. Did you mean to set an expiration on the IP address block? —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! I've unblocked the IP address. Nakon 22:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Process of fixing Portal:Current events archive pages[edit]

Hi! Would you take a look at my process for fixing the archives that I've been using. Does it seem like this is an appropriate method of working with these pages or would you recommend some other method? Thanks! — RossO (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

May Page Poorvi Bhatt is eligible for WIkipedia.[edit]

Hi, Is Poorvi Bhatt page eligible for Wikipedia, as she is Under 14 tennis player and own the ASIAN Tournament title this week.[1]. GKCH (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) As long have you have enough sources and have read up on policies. I also would suggest making it through our WP:AFC tool. You may also ask for help on our IRC channel if you would like. #wikipedia-en-help connect Best of Luck! Bobherry Talk Edits 15:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

14:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Nakon[edit]

I want to try to put our differences aside regarding what happened in 2015. You are a cool admin. I would be happy to talk with you sometime. Bobherry Talk Edits 02:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, apologies for the delay in a replay as I've been busy with a new job opportunity. I'm always available on #wikipedia-en if you'd like to chat. Thanks, Nakon 06:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

00:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

18:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Artyom Mikaelyan[edit]

Hi there, I noticed that (you?) protected Artyom Mikaelyan from being created a few years ago after persistent creations of a non-notable player. Mikaelyan has now played for Armenia and fits the notability criteria. Thanks. --Dave logic (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I've unprotected the article. Apologies for the late reply to your request. Nakon 06:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Nakon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nakon, would you please restore this article so I can work on it? If you could put it in my draft space that would be fine. Thanks very much. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I've restored the article into your userspace at User:FloridaArmy/Dexta Daps. Thanks, Nakon 04:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

15:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hello, Nakon! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Apologizes[edit]

Hi Nakon, I want to give you my apologizes, and say sorry. I rudely called you "sweetie pie" here when requesting pending changes rights back in 2016. It was very inappropriate of me. Anyway, I just wanted to apologize for that. Hope your year has been wonderful. Cheers, CookieMonster755 05:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries, I accept your apology and appreciate the comment. Thanks, Nakon 05:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For an ongoing event, weeks seems like overkill. Please consider a few days, or blocking the edit warriors, instead. El_C 08:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I'll reduce it to 3 days. If you feel it should be modified again please feel free to do so. Thanks, Nakon 08:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We'll see if the issue (whatever it is, I'm not quite sure yet) can be resolved on the talk page in that time. El_C 08:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing protection level for 2017–18 Iranian protests[edit]

Hello. We've been having a constructive discussion on the page content and I think autoconfirmed users can now edit the page smoothly without edit-war. --Expectant of Light (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, thanks for the update! I've reduced the protection level on the page. Thanks, Nakon 19:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trout[edit]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You deleted Talk:Lynn Johnson (makeup artist) under G8, but the corresponding article does exist. (Don't worry, it's been restored.) Please be careful next time! Cheers. ToThAc (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. 03:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Echidna[edit]

I was just about to set up an RfP for Echidna. You're a true hero. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 03:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Aplogies[edit]

Hi Nakon,

I've noticed how you deleted one of the pages that I created recently due to a copyright infringement. I apologize for my actions and so now I'm asking permission to recreate the page except having it done in my own words. I promise that from now on, my contributions to Wikipedia will be created with my own words and won't be copied from other websites.

Sincerely, Ricardo 6167 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardo 6167 (talkcontribs) 03:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, the page that was removed was a copyright violation as it was copied from "https://stjosephtheworker.ca/?page_id=79". You are welcome to recreate the page provided it does not include copyrighted content. Thanks, Nakon 03:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

23:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

17:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Palaye Royale[edit]

Hi Nakon. You protected Palaye Royale last week for a few days to stop the disruption caused by IPs and SPAs over content related to the band's members. The disruption has started up again since the protection ran out, so I'm wondering if you have any suggestions on how to proceed from here. Posts have been added to user talk pages, and hidden notes have even been added to the article itself, but the person or persons behind the edit warring do not seem interested in discussing things. WP:AN3 or WP:SPI are options, but it's likely more SPAs or IPs will show up to replace any which are blocked. Maybe some kind of extended temporary protection would work instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Easy solutions[edit]

I protected it because it's been created four times and the capitalized version is salted. Enigmamsg 06:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's more than acceptable. Nakon 04:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)