User talk:Nakon/arc1

Aaron North page

Thanks for reverting it back ;). cheers, Heckler1337 —Preceding comment was added at 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:O

Why the rename? Though your name will be incredibly easier to search for now. You have no idea. :P Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to synchronise all of my online accounts. I do agree that this one is much easier to remember and find. Nakon 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is with great enthusiasm that I remove your name from WP:MW [1]. Welcome back. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. :) Glad to see you're active here too. :) Acalamari 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also ditto the welcoming back. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (GMT)

Yes, better name. Welcome back (and thanks for reverting vandalism on my page today) -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the thoughts above, somewhat belatedly: glad to see you're back, and helping with administrative tasks like you never left! Hope to see you around more, Gracenotes^T § 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Hi Nakon, are you an admin? No one seems to be checking Administrator intervention against vandalism, where can I find someone who'll check it and block users? Thanks. :) Somno (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it. Nakon 01:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have also discovered WP:AN as a way to get the attention of administrators. Somno (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

I addressed your concerns but a bot wiped them out to the archive. -- ALLSTARecho 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd check with User:Viridae and see but given your response, I don't have a problem with adding +rollbacker. Nakon 01:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFR

I cannot beat you to giving rollback! :) jj137 ^♠ 02:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section

Excuse Me?!?!

Who gives you the right to delete my page on WHYPIQUE. FOR YOUR INFORMATION we are trying to spread the word so it catches on which is the only way to get it into the dictionary, and we can't do that if you delete our page. i find this extremely rude of you to decide what i can and cannot put on wikipedia. it is a violation of freedom of speech which is a right I INTEND ON KEEPING.

The page falls under the "Patent Nonsense" (G1) part of the speedy deletion policy. Articles that are utter nonsense are deleted immediately. If you continue to recreate the article, you will be blocked from editing. Nakon 05:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your orange signature

I didn't notice your signature at the end of your message on my talk page, being in orange and my eyes are not good, I thought it was from Homologeo but I reverted myself and have commented. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me about my signature. I'll try and make it more readable. Nakon 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback-cat

Awwww. But the Rollback-cat was awesome!! --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 06:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was so awesome it jumped to the Wikipedia Talk: namespace. Nakon 06:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I had to say something though for removing it. Granted I fully understand why you did. Long live Rollback-Cat! --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 06:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Your Note Concerning Editing of Adult-Child Sex

I responded to your comment and warning on my Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the delete?

Hi you just deleted an article I was working on, just wondered why? In my opinion Sleepy Town Manufacture are worthy of a wikipedia entry and I think the rules about band entries are a little vague and open to objective decisions about who is worthy and who is not of having an entry. Let me know, I would like to be able to write the page up to a quality standard. Thanks (User Talk: Lowflyingowl)

Hi, I removed the page as it did not contain an assertion of notability. For more information, please see the Speedy Deletion policy (A7).

Why the delete on my human cloning section??-Cheetopuff44

Comment

I originally posted this on the page where the discussion was taking place, but ran into an edit conflict.

I'm not sure if I can present some clarification here and if not I apologize. TTN has been vandal editing (see the 3RR rfc, ani, and I believe an rfar, cases against him), and because of this I have stepped back from many of the issues surrounding him. I went and read the rules pertaining to the privilege of this feature before I used the few times I had, and I want to state that I would not use it on an established editor. The TTN issue goes way back and probably requires more time than you all have to review it. However, if you all deem it necessary to revoke this privilege, I will (not because I have to) accept that. Please reconsider my edits overall and not just the issue of TTN. --Maniwar (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was fair to just base the decision on this one case. The issues surrounding TTN are vast, but again, I would not use it on him or another user. And my history will show that to be the case. I have made mistakes early on in my editing, but like any editor, I have grown and will continue to do so. Please reconsider if you will the decision. Cheers! ----Maniwar (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd recommend discussing the removal with the admin that did so. Nakon 23:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who was it? Thanks --Maniwar (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

How bout instead of undoing my obviously constructive edits, just moving the pages yourself? Now I'm not going to do anything else to this page, because your actions are discouraging and pointlessCosprings (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned before against moving pages via copying and pasting. Please do not do so in the future. If you would like help moving a page, please see Help:Moving a page. Nakon 23:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.114.62.96

I believe you did not leave a message to this IP for vandalizing; I thought you suppose to leave a message that s/he were blocked.[link] --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They'll receive a message when they try to edit. Nakon 00:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK --Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Doczilla (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe you need to check your reversions a bit closer in the future. Nakon 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to read what you're reverting. I doubt a man who was in Congress in the 1980s invented peanut butter. Doczilla (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check here, you will see that I am removing the content. Nakon 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I see what happened. You and I had tried to fix the same vandalism at about the same time. You fixed it but the program I'm using undid your edit, and then I just kept misinterpreting what I was looking at. Sorry about that, chief. Doczilla (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert on my talk! Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

backlog

Please help clear the backlog at AIV and RFPP Alexfusco⁵ 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acting quickly backlog was probably due to the disputes with rollback Alexfusco⁵ 03:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Twatface I can't believe this name was already registered

You may want to re-review, Nakon. He can't register a new account since I hardblocked him. — madman bum and angel 17:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He can register when his autoblock expires. Nakon 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Which is twenty-four hours, yes? — madman bum and angel 17:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Nakon 17:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In the case of an indefinite block, autoblocks may continue to be set by the software weeks or months after the initial block has been set." I disabled account creation. Should I go back and tweak it? — madman bum and angel 17:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The autoblock will be reset if he tries to edit from the account again. Nakon 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbacker

Can I ask what this is, because I do not understand what it is, and I would like to try and help one of my adpotees that you have removed them from. // F9 T 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure who you are referring to. Nakon 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sunderland06 is the user I am on about, sorry. // F9 T 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Draft poll

I don't edit war, so it's up to you whether you revert yourself. If you think your actions will actually cause less wikidrama then feel free to leave the page closed. If you think it's likely to increase it, I'd suggest you re-open it. I'd also suggest that closing valid discussion out of the blue in line with your own opinion appears to me somewhat disruptive and also violated good faith somewhat. Still, all the best, Hiding T 20:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm preparing a response, please stand by. Nakon 20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. I've said my piece, it'll work itself out one way or the other. Take care, Hiding T 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was just a simply mistake, but what you closed was not a poll. So if you closed the discussion because it supposedly was 'yet another poll', you might want to think about undoing your action. --Conti|✉ 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your swift, bold and judicious close of this unprecedented piece of mind-numbing bureaucracy, I hereby award you this Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. Oh, and welcome back, by the way. :-) Grand master ka 21:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, civility and good faith really died on this place. WP:DICK to one and all and good night. Hiding T 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Tibet

I am unsure why you deleted User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/Tibet . Is there now a new userbox elsewhere of the same topic? Kingturtle (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He requested deletion per CSD U1. Nakon 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over bureaucratization of WP:RFR

Hi. I saw you denied User:Sirex98 for not using the right template. With respect, this seems like unnecessary bureaucracy. It just isn't needed. It's obvious he wants rollback. Barring any revelations, you should have just given it to him without forcing him to jump through another hoop. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Nakon did grant rollback to Sirex98. Acalamari 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Sirex jumped through the bureaucratic hoop, yes. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Apologies for that reporting the user as a bot. I'm sorry, I've learnt my lesson now, and know what to avoid next time I report at AIV. --Solumeiras ^talk 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage, much appreciated! BanRay 00:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my edits to the MIL-STD-1553 page?

Who are you and why did you remove my edits from the 1553 page? I replaced a link that was removed by an anonymous user and you immediatly removed by changes. Please explain yourself.

Richard Wade COO/CTO Alta Data Technologies

Per WP:EL, you may not add links to websites that you own or are affiliated with. From the page, "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Nakon 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hello. I need help from an administrator. Blue Laser appears to be trolling [2] [3] [4] [5]. Could you talk to him please? Thank you. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note. Nakon 00:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE

Ok, fine. But if i do continue does that meean im banishes............forever? Blue Laser (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adult-child sex

You might as well lock the page again. The first thing that happened was somebody rewrote large sections inserting POV, without any discussion on the talk page, followed by 3 reverts. <sigh> I find it rather frustrating when people aren't willing to admit that they might have some POV problems. Pairadox (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be watching the page closely. If I detect that it is getting out of hand, a few people are going to take some time off from this site. I really don't like locking page for extended periods of time but if I have to, so be it. Nakon 06:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you recommend that we proceed? Considering that the users insisting on the new intro and definition are not addressing the concerns expressed by others? If there's no response to legitimate comments and reverting is no longer allowed, how are we supposed to bring this article back up to shape? ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Is there any way to get it back to the form it was in when it was unlocked, before the unilateral changes made without discussion or consensus? I feel really strongly that any changes after the unlock need to be discussed and agreed upon. Otherwise SqueakBox "wins" just for being the first to make changes. Pairadox (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Homologeo, perhaps you could try Wikipedia:Neutrality Project. That wikiproject may be able to help rewrite the intro into something neutral. In response to User:Pairadox, I'll compare the differences and see if it needs to be reverted. Nakon 06:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your decision, thank you for giving it consideration. Pairadox (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the story of Br'er Rabbit and the tar baby, since you touched the article, I thought I'd ask you to evaluate the recent move of the article to adult-older teen sex. I've been through the talk page and I don't see a consensus for the move. Would I be out of line to move it back pending the development of a consensus to move? Would you be willing to look at the situation and make an objective determination, something I (an involved party) am not in a position to do? Thanks, SSBohio 04:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please step in if you can. I thought everyone involved understood that big controversial edits such as this should not be carried out without gaining consensus first and giving all (or most) involved editors a chance to respond. Neither of these conditions have been met, yet the page move was carried out. I would move the article back myself to its original title but it seems the page is currently move protected. Your assistance or, at least, input would be greatly appreciated. ~ Homologeo (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know there's been a bit of fighting and stuff going on there, including a non-consensus move to the blatantly silly "Adult-older teen sex". I have after carefully reviewing, reverted the entire thing back to the last time you looked at it as I don't think consensus points in any direction atm. I'm a bit concerned that a fellow admin seems to have instigated the move, hence voiding the entire point of sysop-protecting to begin with. I was hitherto uninvolved with the article but saw the stuff on AN/I. If you disagree with anything I've done on this matter, I trust your judgement on this one. Orderinchaos 16:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, you've lost a lot of credibility for announcing and posting a revert ban on the article and then totally failing to follow up on it. Pairadox (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Is that addressed to me or Nakon?) Orderinchaos 16:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was addressed to Nakon. As far as I could see, Order, you tried to do your best and got tarred and feathered by SqueakBox. Pairadox (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little mistake?

Hiyas Nakon!

I noted these three lines in the AIAV history:

(cur) (last) 19:15, 16 January 2008 HBC AIV helperbot3 (Talk | contribs) m (1,190 bytes) (Empty. rm 24.248.36.14 (blocked 3 hours by Nakon (AO ACB)).) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:15, 16 January 2008 HBC AIV helperbot3 (Talk | contribs) m (1,523 bytes) (1 IP left. rm 208.108.100.38 (blocked 3 hours by Nakon (AO ACB)).) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:14, 16 January 2008 HBC AIV helperbot3 (Talk | contribs) m (1,843 bytes) (2 IPs left. rm 64.30.2.42 (blocked 3 hours by Nakon (AO ACB)).) (undo)
(cur) (last) 19:14, 16 January 2008 HBC AIV helperbot3 (Talk | contribs) m (2,174 bytes) (3 IPs left. rm 71.245.232.34 (blocked 31 hours by Nakon (AO ACB)).) (undo)

I was wondering if this might have been a mistake; The first user recieves a 31 hour ban, yet the others only recieve a 3 hour one. Since this is pretty short, and considering that there are three in a row (And that 3 is an easy type of 31) i was wondering if this might be a little error. If not, sorry for the disturbance :) --Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did intend for the blocks to be only three hours. Thanks for your concern. Nakon 18:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: 70.184.34.72

Hello! I noticed from the WP:AIV history that it says you blocked this user. I checked the page and there doesn't appear to be a block on the talk page or in the block log. just thought you'd want to know. Wikipedia was out for about an hour for me and some of my edits didn't get through either. joshschr (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+rollbacker problems

About the +rollbacker, the two reversions i made to the Milan Matulovi and Adult-older teen sex talk pages were both unintentional, the Milan Matulovi reversion was because it click the wrong rollback link and he Adult-older teen sex reversion was because it contained the word 'nigger'. I have realised that i should have not used the tools to revert comments on talk pages. I hope this has clarified what happened, i would be really grateful if you would re-instate my +rollbacker rights, i will pay more attention to the page title and toggle the details to see what it fully says. Thanks. Sunder land 06 16:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll re-add the +rollbacker to your account. Please be more careful in the future. Nakon 23:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much, i'll remember to look at the details when i rollback and i will keep well away from talk pages. Sunder land 06 10:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:72.148.144.40

Isn't one month a little long for a first time block of an IP as in User:72.148.144.40? A fair portion of this user's edits seem plausibly good faith. Admittedly not very high quality -- they seem to have a problem with edit summaries and citing sources. The particular issue that got them reported looks like a content dispute (in which I believe the IP is wrong -- but not so obviously so that it couldn't be a mistake made in good faith). Perhaps a more targeted warning (regarding WP:V) and a shorter block would be in order? -- Why Not A Duck 01:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reduce the block and leave a message about how to discuss their changes. Nakon 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CelebHeights

Hey! Why the fuck did you delete this article?! There wasn't a discussion of this article being deleted too. CelebHeights has to be notable like MySpace, YouTube and so on! Pls restore this article. D@rk ^talk 12:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd advise you read the civility policy before leaving any more messages. The article was deleted as it is about a non-notable website and thus speedily deletable per CSD A7. Nakon 12:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I don't see the reason why this article isn't notable. It's famous just like YouTube and so on. Many of celebrities are shown there. You can also visit CelebHeights and you will see the relevance. And why are my created articles always deleted? D@rk ^talk 12:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rollback!

Just writing to thank you for granting me rollback. Much appreciated! Phuzion (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Teenage wikian v2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I note that you have indef blocked the above editor (moments before I was going to). I was also going to refer the matter to user:mangojuice, who Tw v2 comments as advising them to open a new account. Are you going to pursue this, or do you think this is just misdirection? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that he is a sock of User:France a, proven by checkuser on his previous account. I'm not going to unblock unless a checkuser says otherwise. Nakon 13:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudget

Please don't take this question as sarcastic or the like, but how are we supposed to verify the story regarding User:Rudget if the name is blocked? Whoever left the message on his talk page said (allegedly his mother) they would update there, but there's no reason to believe she knows how to use the tools to unblock him and do so. - Revolving Bugbear 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They may contact me via email to verify the account has not been compromised. The directions on how to do so are located on the block page. Nakon 16:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. - Revolving Bugbear 16:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know the situation has been solved. - Revolving Bugbear 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted??

Hi Nakon...i just found tht you have deleted the page i was working on could you tell me why? cheers sunny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sutp (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The page was deleted as it appeared to be a copyright violation. Nakon 16:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice?

Hi. I see that you've blocked the editor from Rod (cryptozoology) that had made threats of legal action against me. Thanks for stepping in, though I have a question or two. He stated, even before the block was up, that he would use anon IP editing to circumvent any block. If there appear to be such edits, what should I do about them? Report them here to you? Ask for semi-protection? Not knowing what the fallout might be, I'd like to know if there's anything I should know before something unpleasant happens. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed the article on my watchlist. I'll keep an eye on it and if he starts disrupting it, I'll step in and sprotect it. Nakon 23:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hate to ask (I'm sure you've got other stuff of greater concern) but could you take a look at the history, and tell me if I was off-base in removing his edits? It wasn't my intent to have him blocked without at least having an admin look things over first and maybe explain things to him - I don't know if it would help at this point or not, but I left a message on his talk page trying to point this all out. But when someone inserts text into an article that reads "ORIGINAL Explanation made by Jon Watkins a.k.a. "The Cyndicate", below" then, to me, that looks pretty cut-and-dry regarding WP:NOR (and the sort of revert-warring he initiated certainly often leads to a block). Maybe if someone else talked to him? Peace, Dyanega (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You said that if he started disrupting the article, you'd step in to sprotect it; he has now edited the page twice, using two different proxy IPs (68.108.187.173 and 70.43.99.50). The first proxy IP was used to directly re-insert his "original material" text that started this whole mess. The second proxy IP inserted material of a similar nature - not only in content, but likewise largely redundant (as pointed out by an independent editor, who removed the new text), and likewise unsourced, leaving little doubt that it's the same individual, insistent upon inserting his OR into the article. I'd like to think that if someone could convince him to actually READ the WP:NOR policy, he would understand why his edits are being reverted, but the question at this point is whether he is even willing to acknowledge that WP policies apply to him. I leave it to your discretion as to how to proceed, but the point is that he does appear intent on continuing to edit the article, as he promised, using proxy IPs to circumvent the account block. Dyanega (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected the article. Nakon 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Hollow Page

Hey, I was making a biographical page for a novelist named Eve Hollow. Now, I can understand that tehre were some mistakes, but I was going back to put on the final (somewhat final) updates when you deleted it. Okay, so to you, the guy doesn't exist. I'll bet to you, a lot of people don't. But I had plenty of reference notes that I found as proof that I had problems making. Other than that, I didn't see how I made a nonsensical or inappropriate article. Can you perhaps tell me what you found so wrong with it? Jadell-Leigh (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our notability policy. The page was deleted as it did not show how the subject is notable. Nakon 21:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, that's what I meant. Reference notes, right? I had plenty of that stuff, but SOMEONE deleted it before I could finish it. Jadell-Leigh (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10tacle Studios Slovakia

Hi, I find your speedy deletion of this article rather unfortunate. You never gave a chance to prove that the subject is notable. Anyway, there already was an article linked from an independent source, the Slovak biggest online gaming portal, Sector, which wrote about the developing company. There are at least two other notable and important independent sources I can provide: a major Slovak gaming portal ([6]) and one of the major Slovak daily newspaper, Hospodárske noviny ([7]). Also, the company is one of the two largest Slovak game developers, which adds to its notability.
Even if that is not enough for notability, the content was worth keeping until it's merged with the parent company.--Svetovid (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reply?--Svetovid (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Outcomes Research Consortium

According to the Deletion Log this page was deleted, because there was no indication of the importance or significance of the Outcomes Research Consortium (ORC). I would like to appeal this decision and point out that the importance/significance of ORC is found in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the posting. These include a large international membership, its goal to facilitate scientific/medical exchange, collaboration, and research, coordination of a large number of clinical studies (100 or more) involving hundreds and, for some studies, thousands of patients, and results from some of its most notable studies which showed that easy, low cost interventions such as keeping patients warm and supplying supplemental oxygen dramatically improved surgical outcomes and furthermore changed clinical practice. Taken together this makes ORC one of the premier anesthesia research organizations in the world. Perhaps this posting can be edited to make the importance/significance of ORC more apparent. I hope you will reconsider the decision to delete this page and add Outcomes Research Consortium to Wikipedia. Thank you. Dsessler 16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This may help you [8] and [9].--Svetovid (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three more points are worth consideration about the notability of ORC: First, a Google search of “outcomes research” lists Outcomes Research Consortium number 3 of approximately 3,800,000 listings. Second, the ORC website (See: OR in the News)] lists approximately 50 news articles from 1999-2007 which detail the specialized views, expertise, and accomplishments of the consortium’s investigators. And, third, as an indication of the significance of the work done by ORC’s investigators, its published work was cited in peer-reviewed journals more than 800 times in 2006, and this number continues to increase annually. Collectively, all this seems to be a fair indication that ORC is important, significant, and notable. Indeed, ORC is “worthy of notice.” – Again, I request that you reconsider the decision to delete this page, or at least provide some guidance that would make this article suitable for Wikipedia. Thank you. Dsessler 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsessler (talk • contribs)

WP:AIV

Damn, you're quick! Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For reverting the vandalism to my user page :-) Cheers. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock review

I took a look at the block you gave to The Norse and while I think that he's disruptive enough that he warrants a block, being a pain in the ass doesn't necessarily make him a vandal. I think that an indefinite block as a vandalism-only account is more than just a few shades too extreme for someone who does generally make good faith edits. You might want to look over his edit history and review your decision again. Trusilver 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the decision and find it is correct. The Norse has taken part in disruptive editing since he's been here - he's harassed several editors and has been warned many times previous. That final personal attack was the last straw. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is, however, a problem with the block in that the message left says it's temporary and he can edit again once it expires. Which, looking at his block log, is clearly not true. - Revolving Bugbear 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, he is blocked indef - to avoid confusion, he the block message could possibly be changed to "disruption". Ryan Postlethwaite 00:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

Hello, there's a block review pending at User talk:Reliefappearance. At first sight I really can't see anything there that would warrant such a hefty block (indef, no less!). He wasn't vandalising as far as I can see. Only some minor revert-warring and poor use of edit summaries (seems it turned out he was right about the content after all), and several of his reverts on that article were actually removal of vandalism or blatantly unsourced claims. Am I missing something? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the block. Nakon 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promise of Redemption

Hi, I see you just closed this as a delete. With your permission I would like to redirect it to Valencia (band) and move the discography to the parent page. Chubbles (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Nakon 05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Denner page deletion

I guess you just deleted the article about Richard Denner. I'd like to write about this Berkeley poet and I stupidly did not save a copy of the page--now it's unavailable. Is there a way to see it? I worry that my keep vote pushed it into fleeting prominence, thus prompting the deletion. I'm new--pointers would be appreciated.Wageless (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you enable your email address, I can send you a copy of the article. Nakon 14:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've enabled my email address--many thanks. Wageless (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Riskdata deletion

Hi, I'd like to ask you to rollback the Riskdata entry so that I can continue editing it. I was away from my computer yesterday and now I see there was a deletion. Thanks. Ribi111 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there was an AFD discussion that resulted in the article being deleted. The article is no longer available. Nakon 14:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I participated in the discussion. One guy made some good constructive comments and I was about to make modifications but then you deleted the article out of the blue. I believe there must be a log or something so that one can restore it. Ribi111 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article after the specified time period (5 days) expired. Nakon 17:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTTF timeline

I'm at a bit of a loss, given that there was no refutation and indeed an acknowledgement that the article flat-out fails policy, as to how the AFD can close as keep. Otto4711 (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus to keep the article. If you disagree with that, please see WP:DRV. Nakon 14:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Back to the Future timeline

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Back to the Future timeline. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Hashmi

Hi, I don't disagree with your decision on the retention of this article. Bearcat's comments in the AfD prompted a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Local_government. The consensus reached is that London local councillors, with no other claims, are not notable; this matches the precedents that I have experienced and WP:BIO. I've read WP:DELREV, but that only refers to a disagreement with the admin's decision. I would like to relist, but don't want to seem disruptive by repeatedly relisting. Could you offer me some advice? BlinkingBlimey (talk) 11:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI, That consensus information should have been included in the AFD before its close. If you disagree with the close, please see WP:DRV. Nakon 14:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WP:DELREV/WP:DRV only seem to apply when I disagree with the decision. I cannot, reasonably, disagree with the decision, so will just relist mentioning the WP:OUTCOMES decision. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deletion of Centre for Policy on Ageing

There may be a misunderstanding. CPA is not a company - it is a not-for-profit charity and supplies information and writes reports that are of benefit to policy makers in the field of ageing and older age. As such it is the same as Age Concern, Help the Aged and the National Pensioners Convention (with whom we share premises), all of which have entries under the category Charities for the Elderly. This is the first article I have submitted so it may be that I not laid out the information in acceptable form. NatLievesley (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus keep

Hi, I was wondering if you might consider relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar to try to get a better measure of consensus. Thus far only five people have weighed in on the subject and we may find if more people discuss it a clear consensus will develop. Please respond on my talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like relisting would generate more discussion, feel free to do so. Nakon 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio do Conselho Municipal

This stadium was associated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caju Industrial, but is still tagged with the AfD. I initially tagged this as db-xfd, but the discussion / closure may not look clear enough to an outside admin. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't notice that in the discussion. I've deleted the article now. Nakon 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saros (band)

I was wondering why you closed this discussion as a delete. There was no closing rationale, and although it was relisted, and the only new comment was one to keep the article. Could you have been in error here? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw two deletes, a weak keep, and another keep that didn't have very much reasoning behind it. If you feel my closure was incorrect, please use WP:DRV. Nakon 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay, that may be a good idea. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Saros (band)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Saros (band). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I extended the block on 77.97.245.64

Largely due to this edit summary: [10]. Such threats, in my opinion, are not to be taken lightly. Feel free to shorten it if you feel I over stepped my bounds in extending your block, or in starting a discussion at WP:ANI. Thanks... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Fowler deletion

Why did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Fowler (Writer) as a delete? After I rewrote the article at the request of the nominator, only one other person commented. This surely can't be enough consensus for a delete (especially without any comment from the closer)? I was expecting it to get relisted to generate more discussion, at least. — brighterorange (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion that followed the rewrite, I didn't find that the article sufficiently showed how the subject was notable. Nakon 19:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the purpose of the closing administrator to interpret the consensus reached, not to make a decision himself? At that point there were only two disagreeing parties, which can't be enough to establish consensus. Do you have any problem with me relisting the article? — brighterorange (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to relist it, I don't have a problem with that. Nakon 19:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll note your comment there. — brighterorange (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey joel keller

why did you delete my article so quickly, it did not merritt speedy deletion, at least an afd. he is of note. its well referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icamepica (talk • contribs) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Hughes deletion

Having reviewed the the notability guidelines, i was probably wrong in creating this article and you were right to delete it. However, i have to object to the fact that you deleted when there were a total of three responses to the nomination, one delete, one neutral leaning towards keep, and one weak keep. That does not strike me as a consensus by any means. --Samael775 (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just reviewed this AfD, and I'd agree with the article creator that it seems not to have gained consensus. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for following up on that rangeblock. The stuff the guy was adding in Czech was really quite nasty. Are you experienced with rangeblocks? There have been a few times I've thought a rangeblock might be appropriate, but I don't have sufficient understanding of the process to do it. It would be nice to know who to consult.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed rangeblocks before. The hardest part is finding the exact range to block from an address. I'd be glad to review any future rangeblocks that may need to be placed. Nakon 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Fortunately it doesn't come up often, but it's good to have someone to talk to rather than me accidentally blocking a few million people.--Kubigula (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.N.K.Chaudhary

Author turned it back into a blue link, time to turn in back to red.....thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 05:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tiptoety ^talk 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete LogiCity?

Could you explain why you deleted the LogiCity article? It has as much right as the other global warming games to have it's own article. The some other games listed (V GAS & Keep it Cool, esp) don't seem as popular or have high notability as LogiCity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenackers (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was merged as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logicity Nakon 17:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Of My Article!!

I have recently found that you have deleted by article on the game 'Garden Gnome Carnage' citing that 'the web-site does not assert significance' but I fail to agree; YoYo Games is a very fast-growing game development site with over 11,000 games and countless hundreds if not thousands of members. It was recently entered for the Open Web Awards Finals and came pretty high. I'm sorry, but just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it isn't enjoyed by numerous people and 'significant' as a website. How much more significant does it need to be exactly? Does it require millions of views every second? Sorry but to be quite frank I think you're taking the mick here.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the notability guidelines regarding web content. Nakon 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wargames Research Group

I notice that you deleted this article recently after a fairly marginal AFD with one keep, one delete and one weak delete. The thing is that WRG were THE major publishers of wargames rules during the 70s and 80s, as big and as popular as Games Workshop or Wizards of the Coast were later - facts I would have added to the AFD if I had seen it. If you have no objection I would like to undelete this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Nakon 18:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind having a word with User:Trialsanderrors. He seems to have got fixated on the proper procedures and objected to my undeletion. He isn't listening to me, but another voice might make him see reason. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hello Nakon, have you considered re-creating your old name to avoid it be re-created by someone else? Acalamari 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optionstar

Hello Sir,

Please kindly reconsider undeleting optionstar as it definitely is important and significant to the derivatives trading community. Optionstar is referenced by several high volume trading magazines which have been in publication for over 20 years. These publications have a much larger existing user base which make it well known in the financial derivatives markets.

When you do a google search on optionstar there are close to 3,000 results: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,860 for optionstar. (0.16 seconds)

I am also the key reference in the wikipedia option arbitrage article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_arbitrage

Thank you for your consideration, esu2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esu2 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the article is stuff i came up with in the past hour doing research on the company. The article is neutral and informative, and I dont work for Issue or IT. So get off my back. Krymson (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Ryan Postlethwaite has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CelebHeights again

Please discuss this article out because if you wanna hear my opinion, this article has to be created on Wikipedia. It's famous. D@rk ^talk 19:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you read WP:WEB. The article does not make an assertion of notability. Nakon 19:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of external link to Hempsteadcommunitypage.com

The Hempstead Community Page is a free resource directory for the Village of Hempstead anyone can use it to add their business profile to the directory list. I feel that the Village of Hempstead and the chamber of commerce is doing a poor job of promoting the small business in this community. The site is sponsored by a few of the local business in the Village and it is free for anyone in this community to use. I would ask that you would reconsider this addition by simply taking a look at the site for yourself. The site is http://www.hempsteadcommunitypage.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspencer398 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism blocks

Thanks for your actions re: User:Xihix. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a revision please

Can you delete this revision please, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jet&oldid=187616770 only this revision. Please don't delete my userpage. Jet (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've nuked the revision you wanted. You may also want to see WP:RFO. Nakon 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested WP:RFO. Jet (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jon denning

hello can i ask why you deleted jon denning he is the ONLY JEWISH NASCAR DRIVER i find quite significant, so significant that a major israeli newspaper wrote an article about him to see this go to http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3499745,00.html User:star-of-david92 —Preceding comment was added at 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article deleted - Clayton Crooks

Hi, I had just saved an article about Clayton Crooks when it was deleted. Can you help me get it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmoore622 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Shakespeare Company performance database

I'm amazed at how quickly & thoroughly you reverted a bunch of my edits just now. Quite impressive.

After reading the relevant Wikpedia guideline, I'd like to suggest that this database somehow be included or adapted to be an "acceptable" source of information for Wikipedia as it contains important historic biographical information about some significant artists that currently isn't available anywhere else. I don't see it as being any different, less relevant, or more commercial than the Internet Broadway Database. --Dizzy hiss (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher entry

Well, I suppose as a practicing teacher and researcher I'm not qualified to remove any of the ridiculous drivel floating around in the entry I revised. See my comments in the talk section of the entry, and block me if you so choose, but those sections have to be removed, as they in no way pertain to the entry at hand and present a ludicrously biased and misguided view. But, this *is* Wikipedia, afterall. A hotbed of plagiarized and misinformed material (I've caught it and reported it many times to no avail). This is yet another reason why I won't allow my own students to use this site. Ever. Peer-reviewing means something is reviewed by a group of people who are experts on a topic, not Joe Schmoe who has an opinion to put forth.

Thimaeus (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert

Why did you revert my edit to WP:DELREV just then? I just added Corvette (pinball) and now it is gone??? what are you doing? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? Can you provide a diff? Nakon 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this has been an honest mistake, i swear to god mine wasn't there! but it must of been?!?1? sorry for bothering you, ima go get my CPU checked lulz. - Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PROMINENCE reversion

I agree with your reversion of the above redirect when an IP user changed it to a proposed policy and added text, but your comment that WP:namespace is for redir only - didn't make sense, this sounded like you were saying that WP:Project namespace is only for redirects, which I doubt was your intent. (please reply here or cut and paste entire discussion to my talkpage, thanks).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw the ALL CAPS in the title and didn't notice the namespace prefix. Nakon 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no harm no foul, just wondered. I wouldn't have noticed if it weren't for a recent MFD on that page. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

This a heads-up. I don't know that much needs to be done, but I noticed that Firefly123123, one of the three accounts that chimed-in at AfD/Jay Fawcett (which nomination I launched and you closed), had and has made no edits except for voicing an opinion there. —SlamDiego_←T 03:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hakka-Pac deletion

I made some changes to the article between the time deletion was proposed and when it was carried out. I believe these changes address the deletion criteria, in particular notability and secondary references. A second look would be appreciated; I will stand by your decision. Chewyrunt (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to take another look at the page as it was immediately prior to deletion? Chewyrunt (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted per an articles for deletion discussion. I just interpreted what the community's wishes were regarding the article. The appropriate venue to dispute the deletion is at deletion review. Nakon 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try my luck there - Chewyrunt (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

71.94.44.22 block

Hi, FYI: User talk:71.94.44.22's block log shows you blocked him/her today, but it doesn't show in their talk page. NJGW (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD closure comments

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogcatalog‎ yesterday with an edit summary of "closing." It would be helpful to use an edit summary such as "closing--delete" for the convenience of anyone with the page on their watchlist. Thanks! Matchups (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked account

Hello Nakon! There just occurred a little misunderstanding, which was entirely my fault: You blocked SebastianHelm who wants to be Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was an account I created for WP:USURP#Sebastian_.E2.86.90_User:SebastianHelm_who_wants_to_be_Sebastian. I should have known better; I could either have used a name that refers to the usurpation page or write a note on the new user page. Either way, don't worry about it; I'm just writing to you to let you know that I'm unblocking it for now so that the 'crats are free to proceed in which way they deem appropriate. — Sebastian 15:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'm sorry for the confusion. Nakon 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution

Thanks. ^_^ --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for blocking User:Stinging P and reverting the edits on my talk page. Very much appreciated. All the best. Bobo . 04:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reidweaver

Can you please review my comments on User talk:Reidweaver? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked. Act as you see fit. Bovlb (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asia fan club link

This was posted accidentally to your userpage by Shubopshadangalang (talk · contribs); I moved it here. CIreland (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon- It has been suggested that you are the person to contact for un-blacklisting this link. Several editors of the [Asia (band)] article agree that the link should be reinstated. I'd list it here, but apparently the blacklisting process won't even let me list the URL here, in this request to have it un-blacklisted ;) it's asiafanclub dot com. ;) Thanks. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nakon & thanks for fixing that, Clreland. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Meredith Emerson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Meredith Emerson. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 3sides (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread

Hi there. I mentioned you in an AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The next step. I'm notifying you so you can comment there if you wish. I mentioned you because you were mentioned here. Can you shed any light on what happened here? Carcharoth (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Null edits

He guy, what are you here doing? Stop it! --Petar Marjanovic 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed in depth on WP:AN. Nakon 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist

Hi, on 2 February, you made this [11] addition to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist in response to this thread [12] at WP:ANI. After discussion at the talk page of the relevant article, various editors have agreed that, whilst the method to achieve the insertion of the link was unacceptable, the link would nevertheless be a suitable addition. Would you mind either removing the link from the blacklist or giving me the OK to do so; obviously I would not wish to unilaterally overturn your decision. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any response either way, I've gone ahead and removed it. CIreland (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

[13] Jmlk 1 7 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your request on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback has been approved

Thanks for the notification. :-)--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 01:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for moving it... I forgot the "user" istead of "usuario" in spanish... Goodbye! Epiovesan (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted?

Nakon;

I am wondering why you deleted the page I created; "Morgan Harper"?

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganharper (talk • contribs) 05:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please check our guidelines on notability for musicians and bands. Nakon 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

Image:Archdioces of Philadelphia Crest.gif Could you restore it? I have a "fair use" us for it. --evrik ^(talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've restored the image. Please be sure to add your rationale soon otherwise the image may be tagged for deletion again. Nakon 23:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full protect not the right solution

There is only one disruptive editor on the article Prem Rawat, namely Momento (talk · contribs), per multiple comments from different editors at WP:ANI/3RR. Full protection is not the right solution here. Cirt (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archival

Hi, im Truco, would you like me to archive your talk page?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I usually do so but haven't done so yet. Thanks for the offer. Nakon 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 04:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

protection

should i try later then?Д narchistPig (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If you notice that the page is being changed multiple times a day by multiple editors, feel free to re-request protection. Nakon 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be time for another range block

Hi Nakon, you previously helped out with a range block on the Czechs vandal - abuse documented at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x. He used some slightly different IP addresses earlier, but he appears to be back with the more familiar ones now - [14] [15][16] --Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and now [17]--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

demography of Afghanistan

Hi admin. You have protected the article in a factually wrong version. Previously, the IP 203.175.65.102 (which is another sockpuppet of banned User:NisarKand) had removed references from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: [18], although the issue was already discussed in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon user above is none other than banned Tajik (talk · contribs). He continues to blindly revert legitimate edits by various editors as he has done here: [19] and here: [20]. He also accuses me of being NisarKand (talk · contribs), simply because I am fixing his errors. --RomainSnd (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple checkuser file will prove that you are another sockpuppet of NisarKand. And even if not, you are certainly proxying for him, which is also bannable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement was posted by the controversla banned editor Tajik from Germany, who agreed on Talk:Demography of Afghanistan to allow all numbers from all 3 major sources (Britannica, CIA and Iranica) but then decided to change his mind and resort to edit-war and vandalism. Tajik also agreed for images of citizens of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan not be displayed in the Demography of Afghanistan article but then decided to keep them and started edit-war over this. What is images of citizens of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan doing in Afghanistan? Tajik further states that a map made by the CIA is wrong (or Afghan nationalism map) but the one controversial banned editor Behnam has falsly made is more reliable. Please keep the protection for as long as possible because there is hardly ever anything good added to the article but POVs from these controversial banned editors. They are pretenders, they know that they are from "other" ethnic group but pretending to be ethnic Tajiks. This banned editor Tajik has never added anything good in any Afghanistan related articles, he uses Wikipedia for edit-wars only.--203.175.65.58 (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ret. Animal Babies under devel

Thank you for your comment on the Deletion Review for Feb. 11. I have extensively reedited the article and added refs. Would appreicate your constructive criticism. Again it is at [21] Many thanks. Eric Barbour (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenwhat

This is considered trolling? To me, it looks more like good-faithed advice, if a bit distressed. I'm aware Jimbo asked him, but Zenwhat is obviously concerned about the state of Wikipedia, and rightly so I might add, and he's not at all alone with his opinion. Did any discussion take place before this block? User:Dorftrottel 10:38, February 12, 2008

Nevermind, but you could have pointed him to the ANI thread. User:Dorftrottel 10:44, February 12, 2008

User:Steff2

This user whom you recently blocked is asking for an unblock. Just thought you should be aware; it may be good faith. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to the request. Nakon 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kvrx1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Kvrx1.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]