User talk:Nakon/arc3

Archives: 1 :: 2

To add a new message, click HERE

---

Stop spam deleting

You are breaching policy, even though you reference it. Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply). Also, content moved to user space for explicit improvement is excluded, although material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is not.

It is repeated material because it belonged in USER:NARCBERRY instead of NARCBERRY. Now put it back.

why

did you defeat my page im learning now

Your page was deleted per CSD A3, which means it had no meaningful content. Nakon 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. I'm still curious how you find these userpage vandalisms so quick. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

comments

Apparently we disagree widely in our perceptions of what is disruptive. Would you mind if I asked you to stop being disruptive on wikipedia? --Lemmey talk 23:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide examples, I can look into what you have problems with. Otherwise, stop being disruptive. Nakon 23:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about problems I was only inquiring about a possible communication. Now it appears you are trying to make overly-assertive commands. Regards--Lemmey talk 23:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

advertising

There are many companies advertising on here and have external links. Car companies, etc. Check out Ubuildit. Do they belong on here? I saw other similar external links so I figured if other links are on here why not add to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerehill (talk • contribs) 00:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Put User:Narcberry back

Your abuse of wikipedia and misunderstanding of it's policies is embarrassing and annoying. Put the Page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcberry (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

NSS

Hello Narkon - Please see my message at the bottom of the discussion page on Naked Short Selling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naked_short_selling#Restructured_for_Clarity PatrickByrne (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

Please do not use the block log to test. Use the WP:sandbox for that. --Lemmey talk 06:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your unconstructive comments need to stop. Nakon 06:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent block of User:Wenwueghdryfygwvg

You stated username block, yet disabled account creation. Is there a particular reason or was it just a mistake?...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a mistake. I didn't uncheck the box. Nakon 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, just thought I'd check...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this :-) Have a nice day! AVand^talk_contribs 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AVand^talk_contribs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AN

Hey, could you take a look at this revert you did on AN just now? You seem to have blotted out several other users' comments along with the one I think you were aiming for. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AN deletion

I've reverted this edit of yours, which I assume was made in error, fyi — iridescent 01:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I must have misread the diff from earlier. Nakon 01:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

HarveyCarter & SPs

Why did you revert my edits to HC's sockpuppets? This guy has vandalized for years, hundreds of user names and thousands of edits. Friend of his? - IP4240207xx (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic AOL IPs can be used by almost anyone and usually are not marked as socks. Nakon 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

By looking at the "User contributions" of some of these IPs they are EXCLUSIVELY the edits of HC, you can tell by looking at the articles edited and the ones HC & SPs edited. There is no doubt Watson. - IP4240207xx (talk)

Exclusive IPs

These IPs, if you check the history's are all exclusively HC, the articles are the same, these is only one day that is in the history (I have put the date here), and the edits are the same, some of them VERY VULGAR and rude, you should check them.

• 92.8.39.86 (talk · contribs) - 2 May 2008
• 92.8.159.121 (talk · contribs) - 26 January 2008
• 92.9.81.220 (talk · contribs) - 17 April 2008
• 92.9.165.237 (talk · contribs) - 27 January 2008
• 92.10.26.26 (talk · contribs) - 12 February 2008
• 92.10.119.42 (talk · contribs) - 27 April 2008
• 92.10.193.108 (talk · contribs) - 15 April 2008
• 92.10.208.65 (talk · contribs) - 6 March 2008
• 92.10.219.46 (talk · contribs) - 21 February 2008
• 92.10.220.95 (talk · contribs) - 8 April 2008
• 92.10.124.103 (talk · contribs) - 20 March 2008
• 92.10.193.108 (talk · contribs) - 15 April 2008
• 92.11.38.171 (talk · contribs) - 11 February 2008
• 92.11.99.68 (talk · contribs) - 14 February 2008
• 92.11.133.106 (talk · contribs) - 12 March 2008
• 92.11.146.196 (talk · contribs) - 13 April 2008
• 92.11.161.173 (talk · contribs) - 26 April 2008
• 92.11.186.53 (talk · contribs) - 16 April 2008
• 92.11.245.73 (talk · contribs) - 22 March 2008
• 92.12.22.245 (talk · contribs) - 14 February 2008
• 92.12.136.231 (talk · contribs) - 15 March 2008
• 92.12.245.126 (talk · contribs) - 25 April 2008
• 92.13.71.164 (talk · contribs) - 22 February 2008
• 92.13.85.41 (talk · contribs) - 18 April 2008
• 92.13.107.244 (talk · contribs) - 24 April 2008
• 92.226.131.27 (talk · contribs) - 2 May 2008
• 172.141.0.66 (talk · contribs) - 17 January 2008
• 172.141.240.102 (talk · contribs) - 5 January 2008
• 172.142.186.188 (talk · contribs) - 13 December 2007
• 172.159.24.203 (talk · contribs) - 16 December 2007
• 172.159.201.221 (talk · contribs) - 31 December 2007
• 172.189.70.94 (talk · contribs) - 21 October 2007
• 172.200.147.94 (talk · contribs) - 30 December 2007
• 172.200.182.13 (talk · contribs) - 20 December 2007
• 172.206.142.183 (talk · contribs) - 28 December 2007
• 172.207.54.90 (talk · contribs) - 24 January 2008
• 172.207.89.14 (talk · contribs) - 3 January 2008
• 172.209.8.246 (talk · contribs) - 14 December 2007
• 172.212.49.182 (talk · contribs) - 17 December 2007
• 172.213.13.20 (talk · contribs) - 27 December 2007

RE: Cotuit, Massachusetts

Nakon-I have responded your remarks on my edits/updates on the Cotuit, Massachusetts article, on that pages discussion page.Jshcotuit 13:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

my username

Why did you block my user name? I thought it was clever. If it violates some policy, kudos on the quickness. How did you do that so quick? 70.128.104.143 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one you're referring to. Nakon 02:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I just made an account called "I am not Barak Obama" and it said I was indefinitely blocked by you? 70.128.104.143 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

In what universe is the official phone number of a jail anyone's personal information? Personal to whom? Just because it's ten digits doesn't mean it's anyone's home phone #. --Random832 (contribs) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You or me?

Judging by the looks of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Method to protect your user and talk page from "quicky" vandals, I fear he is not going to fix the issue. If that is the case, do you want to block for disruption, or shall I? --Kralizec! (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If he continues editing outside of his userspace with the signature, I will take care of it. Nakon 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Score one [1] for diplomacy! --Kralizec! (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be diplomatic what you need to do next time is to ask if the link template is missing from the raw signature and along with that question provide a cut and paste solution in the event it is. This would certainly speed up the process of raw signature restoration. However, the ultimate diplomatic solution would be to allow the sinebot to provide the user name and link as the rule rather than as the exception.) -- Taxa (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Hi200

Perhaps an indef block was a bit harsh--this user only made 2 edits. I think a shortening to, say, a month may be more appropriate. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 20:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The account is a throwaway vandalism-only account. The editor made the same edits to the article while logged out. Nakon 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, didn't know of that. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Do do... do do do do... do do do do do do (talk · contribs)

Hi. I see you blocked this user with the block summary "bl bl... bl bl bl bl... bl bl bl bl blocked". Is this a username block? He has posted a request for unblocking expressing confusion as to why he was blocked, so your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the username was blocked for being excessively disruptive. I'll amend the block log. Nakon 21:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could enable account creation as well? Thanks, Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

User:CalebBenefiel

I have been reading over this individual's entry's block appeal at WP:RFU and I cannot, for the life of me, determine exactly where you have determined harassment or personal attacks have taken place. The only thing I can find that raises any red flags with me whatsoever is that this editor seems strangely versed in Wikipedia policy for only having a half dozen edits, which makes me wonder about sockpuppetry. But aside from that, and unless there's an obvious link between socks, I'm of the mind to unblock him. Trusilver 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Their second edit was to create their user talk page with a link to OrangeMarlin's user talk page. OM has been harassed over the past few days by new users and IP addresses and I assumed that this was yet another account used for the same purpose. If you feel that unblocking is appropriate, please do so. Nakon 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that was just a misunderstanding. From where I sit, it looks like this user was attempting to steal the template that OrangeMarlin uses on his talk page but inadvertently linked himself to that page, (I looked at the template and I'm pretty sure that had I tried to use it for my own page I would have done something ham-fisted like link to OM's talk page too...) so I don't think that there was any malice intended. Trusilver 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nakon! It was an honest mistake that was only live for ~15 seconds: diffs with timestamps (I'm surprised you even saw it since it was live for such a short time!). I saw the "leave a message" bar on OrangeMarlin's page and decided to do the same on my own, but I accidentally left his username in - which is why I quickly edited it. If there was a way to permanently delete that mistake in my original revision, I certainly would have! Thanks again for helping to keep this project spam and vandal free, CalebBenefiel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles - bardcom edits

Hi, twice (more?) now you've gotten involved in blocking anon IP editors that blindly reverted my edits. Some background: recently, I've been checking articles using the term "British Isles", and I've corrected many articles that misuse the term. This has upset a number of editors, which isn't my intention. Many of my edits are challenged, and I always discuss and explain, and more often than not, the edits are accepted. I also try to limit the number of articles I change per day so as to cut down on the time it takes to reply/discuss etc. I am always happy to discuss my edits, and I spend considerable time and energy on this task. One of the anon IP editors you recently blocked User talk:81.5.133.89 subsequently admitted to having a login, but was chosing to not use it. So, today, User:TharkunColl has blindly reverted most of my work today, and has exhibited the same behaviour as the anon IP addresses. I don't know if there's a link. I'll revert his edits, and I've put a comment on his talk page that I'm willing to discuss my edits, etc. Can you keep an eye? Any advice? Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ace the dog

I think I was tagging as you deleted this article, and I inadvertently created it again. Many apologies - could you please check again and delete if appropriate? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been deleted again. Nakon 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can I add my name to the AWB requests page? --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 10:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You may, but since you have fewer than 500 mainspace edits, you will have to specify a reason for wanting access to the program. Nakon 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB please?

Hey Nakon, I used to be listed as an AWB user, but changed my name and it doesn't recognise me any more. I've listed myself at the AWB request page, but was wondering if I could extradite the approval since I've not been delisted, but simply elected to change names. Thanks! --rm 'w avu 04:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added you to the access list. Nakon 05:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate! --rm 'w avu 14:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Uber(gaming)

Why did you delete the article Uber(gaming), it has useful information, and people can add onto it, and it also has enough infromation.--Ro098 (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The information can be added to a section in the Uber article. There isn't a need to create another page. Nakon 21:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I have what I wrote back so I can add it to the Uber page?--Ro098 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The content is available at User:Nakon/u. Please note that Wikipedia articles are not valid references. Nakon 21:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.--Ro098 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Neglected

I'm not sure what happened, but it appears that you deleted this article just as I tagged it for deletion. Somehow, I've recreated the article. If you wouldn't deleting it again, it would be appreciated. Thanks! TN‑X-Man 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. Nakon 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What does "incorrect namespeace" mean?

My template was deleted by Nakon for that infraction, but I don't know what that particular problem/error means.

The name of the template was "The Simmons-Tierney Bet."

Please clarify and I'll try to do better.

Thanks.

--Innocent Bystander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innocent Byproduct (talk • contribs) 01:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles are not created in the Template: namespace. For more information, please see WP:YFA. Nakon 01:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry--I signed the wrong name

My screen name os supposed to be Innocent Byproduct. Not Innocent Bystander. My bad.

You can automatically add your signature by adding ~~~~ after your posts. Nakon 01:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nakon

I'll try to read up on the link you gave me.

Innocent Byproduct (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Parqués

I see you've fixed the C&P move. I assume you'll do the proper move, too? I warned the user already. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Twinkle

It was just easier to click that button as it's larger than undo, sorry if I repulsed you in any way, I didn't know such behaviour digusted other people so much. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 14:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

i am sorry but how does my family surname violate wikipedia's username policy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.188.206.210 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly why was my Article Deleted? Please explainBlegrand (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:PROF. Nakon 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nakon,

Wirt Wills has written numerous papers and books on the archaeology of the prehisotric southwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blegrand (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My ER

Can you restore it, please, and full-move-protect it? Your "fix" just created a circular redirect. :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 17:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've undeleted the revisions. Thanks for letting me know. Nakon 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense!

Oh & I suppose you have a better use for that page hmm? Perhaps something alternative that can be called 'Scary Ass Mofo'? May I draw your attention to the fact that 'Big Ass Bear' redirects to 'Polar Bear'? Considering THAT I don't think what I did is nonsense. Either make a reasonable accusation or get rid of the 'Big Ass Bear' link too.--Immeyourenot (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Hi, you approved me for AWB, what happens now, that was very easy, do i need to do anything else. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I did that??

I was just trying to remove the phone number that someone put in Xbox. Jeesh. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I've locked the DB countless times before. Sorry if it came across sarcastically. Nakon 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

U of Maryland rangeblock

I saw that you blocked 129.2.18.0/24 in apparent response to Seancarlin84's latest spate of vandalism to my user and talk pages and those of other users who've reverted or blocked him in the past. (A call to Maryland's abuse-reporting people about this says those addresses are assigned to computers in graduate dorms there).

I have extended that one to two weeks to cover the end of Maryland's current academic year. I will also be blocking the 129.2.44.0/24 range ... he has sometimes used that, too. And I'm semi-protecting my user and talk page for the same time period. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hagger

User Hagger or H A G G E R, has been deleting content and moving pages for about 12 months now, He's probably not going to stop anytime soon, Just to let you know. Buddha24 (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks for the note. Nakon 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:R.Tabor

Hi, I see you blocked this user in response to a post at WP:ANI. On his talk page he is protesting his unblock. His edits appear to me to have been an, albeit clumsy, attempt to remove highly controversial and poorly sourced information from Suzanne Olsson and hence not subject to the three revert-rule. Please would you review this block. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the block was justified as it appears that he did not attempt to engage in any discussion. If he would like another administrator to review the block, he may use the {{unblock}} template. Nakon 23:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

His clumsy attempts to remove the material suggest he is not confident with processes and conventions of Wikipedia and should not be expected to necessarily select the most ideal course of action. However, he did attempt to discuss the issue (see Talk:Suzanne Olsson), although given the nature of his reverts, there was no requirement for him to do so. Although he has not used the {{unblock}} template he has clearly asked for a review of his block. As an adminstrator reviewing the block, I still do not believe this block to be justified and so I ask you again to reconsider it. CIreland (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to remove the block. Nakon 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Because we have been unable to agree, I have requested further opinions at WP:ANI. CIreland (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New Shadow187 sock?

Hi. As you deleted Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shadow187, I thought I would bring to your attention User:Shadowpower187, who is almost certainly a sockpuppet, from username and contribution similarities. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Thanks for the report. Nakon 18:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB

How long does it take to get approved for AWB? I've got my name on the list waiting to be approved and I have over 500 mainspace edits. I've been waiting for hours.(No, really):)Xp54321 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Here's a cookie for squishing vandals. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

you win

You win. I give up. Please correct that article that you reverted my error report. BVande (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop spam blocking

Your spam blocking is annoying everyone, so stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old men are wierd (talk • contribs) 23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

R. Cedric Leonard

Thanks for restoring this -- he also blanked the talk page for the article, which I restored. I gave him a warning about that (I didn't know at the time he'd tried to blank the article) which I hope is ok. He's also trying to use his personal knowledge (as described on the talk page) of a college to remove a reference which I think is a RS because he says it's wrong.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I don't know if you created this, User:Nakon/gr or what is going on. Just wanted to let you know it's there. I was going to CSD it, but there's no "This page has been nominated to be speedily deleted because it is a subpage of a user that was not created by the user." J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the page. Thanks for your concern. Nakon 02:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Please stop disrupting the noticeboard. Nakon 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

With a trivial amount of compromise you can avoid a revert war. But you are running the show with an iron fist. Tells a lot about how ani discussions go. I will stop reverting the second you restore my comment and remove the discussion templates. -- Cat ^chi? 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Three editors have told you to either drop it or take it to DRV. Stop edit warring and do so. Nakon 01:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I will not going to take it to Drv. And I will revert that page back. You could save me and everyone a lot of time if you just restored my comment. -- Cat ^chi? 01:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So because three (four including myself) have asked you to drop it, you're going to continue just to violate WP:POINT? Nakon 01:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Point? What point am I illustrating? Do not throw random policies and guidelines at me. I am far to experienced for that. -- Cat ^chi? 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't throw account age into the ring. Your actions are clearly disruptive and need to stop. I'd advise you to listen to this edit by Daniel. Nakon 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

How ironic. You are accusing me of being elitist indirectly because I complain about arbcom eliteicism. -- Cat ^chi? 02:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who mentioned account age. Nakon 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not. I merely said I was experienced. You interpreted that on your own. -- Cat ^chi? 02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Corey Delaney

Er, is there any chance you could expand on the logic behind your close? Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus to keep the article deleted. Nakon 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding that interpretation. The breakdown was 17 in favor of recreation, 14 in favor of keeping it deleted, 3 in favor of "wait", and 2 for "reluctant restore". Combining the 14 for kd and three 3 wait, leaves 17 in favor 17 against and 2 weakly in favor. That might be a no-consensus, default to status quo but I have trouble seeing that as a consensus to keep deleted. This is especially the case given that some endorsements of deletion were explicitly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua. Nakon, I really think you have failed to use your admin. privileges correctly. --WikiCats (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to complain about your closure http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_7&diff=prev&oldid=213163822. The lack of rationale, given that the debate was well contested, shows a lack of respect for all involved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to pile-on, but speaking as someone who has previously closed a discussion on this article as deletion endorsed, I really think you dropped the ball on this one. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nakon, are you going to respond to anyones concerns here? JoshuaZ (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. I thought the closing was very poor— no rationale given whatsoever. At the very least it should have been a no consensus. I think the Australian Wikipedian Noticeboard deserves an explanation. The fact that many of the contributions for deletion occurred on the last day of the debate makes me rather suspicious too (but that has nothing to do with you). JRG (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I did not participate in this DRV (although I did have plenty to say in other discussions) but none of the objections here seem to grasp the point that assessing consensus is more than counting votes. From WP:CONSENSUS

  "In determining consensus carefully consider the strength and quality of the arguments themselves, including the evolution of the final positions, the objection of those who disagree, and in complex situations, existing documentation in the project namespace. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority"

  For myself, the reason I did not participate in the latest DRV is because I could see merit on both sides, given BB08 etc. However, reading the DRV discussion, there has not been an argument to restore that meets the legitimate concerns raised under WP:BLP1E. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Futhermore, a consensus is required to restore a biography of living persons at deletion review, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, which may have been the intent of Nakon in closing. Daniel (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But neither of you know that— the fact that he did not give a decision is poor administration. The debate should be opened up again and more people given the chance to comment. JRG (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's distinct, if Nakon wants to say he judged there being no consensus to restore that's a very different claim than saying there was a consensus to keep deleted (especially because at the next DRV it will influence how people perceive the situation). Mattin, not repeat the entire DRV but given that Delaney Worthington got attention for 1) his party 2) his CD release 3) his Big Brother appearance, the BLP1E argument is really not persuasive. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think this guy is even an admin. So why is he closing major debates. He should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎.

Nakon, I think you should unclose the Deletion review so an experienced admin. can do it. --WikiCats (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He is an administrator. See this. Daniel (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Angela2109

Re block of User:Angela2109: An indef block as the first block? Err, what? Anyways, user is requesting an unblock and seems to now be fully aware of the situation, and has pledged to not let the bad copyright uploads happen again. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If they understand that uploading images as public domain when they are clearly not is not appropriate, I would not be against an unblock. Nakon 04:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the Fair use policy

I can understand you ridding my page of the image "Famous stars and Straps" because it is under a fair use policy. But, please understand the other 2 that you continually delete are not. So stop deleting them. Thank you.

^{(no lie)}|Iamagenius!_{So bow}^(t)_(c) —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not what the licensing tag says. Nakon 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

John Bot III

Hello, Nakon. You have new messages at CWii's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cascading protection

When I was taking a look at the code for {{pp-meta}} I discovered that you have a page User:Nakon/cascade that has cascading protection set to it clearly on purpose. That is unorthodox and against what the Wikipedia:Protection policy says about when and how to use cascading protection. Instead you should apply protection directly to the pages you list in your /cascade page, and add the proper {{pp-something}} template to those pages in their noinclude sections.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School threats MfD

Hi there, Nakon. Regarding the MfD, you do realize that we don't delete proposals for policy and guidelines. We either reject or accept them. I was wondering if you'd change your mind about the MfD? Bstone (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Does Assassin's Creed for x-box 360 have free-roaming? --Lbrun12415 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Nakon 01:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

blocking - message on talk page

Hi, I see that you blocked User:203.25.141.6, but you didn't add a message to their talk page. I thought it was standard practice to add such a message - both for the user, and for anyone else considering reporting their vandalism to AIV. Was it just an accidental omission? PamD (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ForVandalism

I reblocked this user without account creation disabled so he/she could create a new account that complies with policy. --Selket ^Talk 17:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Note

Exactly which part of that policy does it violate? Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[2]. Nakon 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Kabul University

You protected Kabul University on User:Ibrahimzai version and that is another sockpuppet of the banned editor User:Beh-nam. The page should also have Pashto pronounciation, which you helped removed. Pashto is considered the official language of Afghanistan and the Kabul University was established by the majority Pashto speakers. Editors should be nuetral here. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.66.104 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for covering my back.

Thanks for covering my back against Eauuuuuuuuuuu (talk · contribs). He vandalized both my talk page and my userpage. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Aleksi Asikainen after PROD

I would have contested this PROD. I was gone for a couple days (certainly not five, but maybe I missed it before). Could you reinstate Aleksi Asikainen? I don't believe it meets deletion criteria. -kotra (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the article. Nakon 21:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -kotra (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GDonato (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

You might what to check your logs and make an appology :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 17:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person

[3] Luckily, I'm a forgiving soul :) GDonato (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about double posting :S GDonato (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that mistake. I must not have been looking. It won't happen again. Nakon 17:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of Eauuuuuuuuuuu

As well as reverting the vandalism to my talk page. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Following our brief wikipedia-en-help chat

Hi again. Just to recommend that your "ban-on-pagemove" system does at least show a warning page first -- even if that means one more page might be moved by someone or something acting in bad faith -- so there's some chance that someone acting in good faith doesn't suddenly find themselves banned (indefinitely). Also, suggest the summary/explanation "pagemove.." is expanded to something like "Too many pagemoves in too short a period (over X moves within Y minutes)." (At first, I really didn't understand what had happened to me!) Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I intentionally don't release the block metric as it would allow the vandal to time their moves to evade detection. I will look into the other issues you've raised. Nakon 04:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, good point re the "X moves in Y minutes". You may also be in a position to recommend implementing the means to add an edit-summary-style note to a block record so future Wikipedia defenders have more context with which to decide whether or not someone is editing in good faith but unknowingly falling foul of a defense system. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User:DanaUllman

Are you sure you knew what you were doing when you deleted this user page with the edit summary "Housekeeping - User page or User talk page of indef-blocked user"? Since he was only blocked "pending the resolution of [his] arbitration case" it doesn't look like uncontroversial housekeeping to me. Even the deletion of a banned user's user page (which this was not) wouldn't be uncontroversial in the sense suggested by the wording of CSD G6. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The user page contained the tag {{indefblock}} which placed it in the category Temporary Wikipedian Userpages. There were not any additional tags or notes that suggested the user was blocked due to an arbcom case. I've restored the page and removed it from the category. Nakon 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The template seems to be for all users who have been blocked indefinitely, not specifically for banned users. Perhaps you should rethink your approach of mass-deleting user pages with this template on them. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From the template's description page: "The template places pages in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, where they will be considered for routine deletion at a later date. To override this in special cases where there is a good historical reason to maintain the page indefinitely, use {{indefblockeduser}} to place pages in Category:Blocked historical users instead." Nakon 21:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stacey Robert Greenstein (talk · contribs)

Oy. This user's other accounts need to be blocked.... they created this account to slam me... this is my real life name. I've reported it to WP:UAA, even though you've already done the block, so that someone can investigate what other accounts they have. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT EDIT MY USER PAGE

Don't you have more constructive edits to make here? Leave me alone!!!! ILuvTea (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:USER regarding simulating Mediawiki messages. Nakon 13:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB Access

Sorry to rush in. I left a request at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for AWB Access. Kindly grant me the same -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Beloved (band) Deletion

I feel that the article Beloved (band) was improperly deleted. The artist in question meets the notability guidelines set by WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles. They have been the subject of non-trivial published works (#1), toured nationally (#4), released two albums on an important indie label, Solid State Records, the hardcore/metal subdivision of Tooth & Nail Records that has a history of more than a few years and a roster of other notable performers (#5), and contained members who later went joined otherwise notable bands (#6). It had been deleted once before by User:Gb, and he allowed me to expand the article and he found my expansion acceptable enough to return the article to it's place (see here and here). I am not a terribly active Wikipedia editor, and the Wikipedia login cookie doesn't stay active nearly long enough, so I didn't see the notice of the proposed deletion until today. If I could have gotten to it sooner, I would have contested the deletion. I request that you undelete and restore the article. Theonethird (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was properly deleted. The proposed deletion system automatically deletes articles that are not edited after five days. I will restore the article. Nakon 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the article. Theonethird (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ildatch

Will you transpose what was on this page (that you deleted =]) to Shannara artifacts#Ildatch? I can't so....yeah. Thank you in advance. =) the_ed17 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:24.185.212.233

Could you please extend the block on 24.185.212.233 (talk · contribs) - they've already been blocked three times before, the last time for 72 hours, their harrassment of me is due to my reporting them the last time for their vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 01:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Corvus cornix_talk 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Greetings, I semi-protected your talk page after a series of IP vandal edits...I set it to June 2 but I'm sure it can be taken off sooner than that. RxS (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP vandal edits are from 4chan.org's b forum. FYI. (http://img.4chan.org/b/res/70557080.html#70559773) StanBrinkerhoff (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)