User talk:Nakon/arc5

To add a new message, click HERE

Archives
1 :: 2 :: 3 :: 4

I will remove any "wikilove" or other useless "joke" templates.
Please do not add such nonsense to this page.

Deletion of CyberFM and Talk:CyberFM

Hello, were you able to provide reasoning of the deletion of CyberFM? I contested on it's talk page and left for an errand, only to find it had been blatantly erased. MFTU (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism on my talk page

Hay, Thanks for doing that for me. Ok this all started when I reverted this edit and then they got mad at me and sent me this Seen here and then they also sent User talk:Mentifisto this comment Seen Here then Mentifisto Block them. Look at there contributions on 76.8.160.7 Here they even ask for a unblock. Decline Seen Here They got pist off and you know the rest of the story. Thank you for protecting my talk page. Can you send me a message back on my talk page so I know you read this.--Michael (Talk) 06:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let either me or WP:RFPP know when you want protection to expire. Nakon 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank You--Michael (Talk) 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iv'e Reported him

He has been reported for messing with the page. He should be blocked soon and then I will edit it back. Correctionalfacilities33 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert the page again, you will be blocked. Nakon 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have content that I have added. I followed all the rules, did all the text, and then this guy comes along and DELETES IT??? Why does he have any right to go and delete other content that deserves a place there? It just doesn't make sence. Correctionalfacilities33 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our 3 revert rule policy regarding reverting a page multiple times without discussion. Nakon 20:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:Correctionalfacilities33. Sorry for the inconvenience. Rklawton (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Are no fan site links of a particular artist allowed on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonsgothgirls (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the site and your user name are the same, there is a conflict of interest and the link should not be included. Nakon 00:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Nakon, i got very mad. I know this seems weird broadcasting it to the world, so you may delete this. But i got very ticked off. But u r right. Do report me if needed. No reply, please--just delete this after you read.--Betax (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why?

Seriously why would you delete my page it is a growing phonomenon in minnesota dead serious Ps ur a chamid

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia as it is considered vandalism. Nakon 02:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its not nonsense it is a true word its making its way to the dictionary what did i do wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeystar14 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "Shin Fujiyama"

Hello,

Just thought I would say that I created the page for Shin Fujiyama because I was contacted by CNN. They officially accepted my nomination of him as a CNN Hero and he/his nonprofit will appear on CNN in July. The page for his non-profit that he co-founded is here: Students Helping Honduras. It's not a big deal that it was deleted, but before you make that permanent I would love any tips that could help me make that article better/acceptable for inclusion since I am new to Wikipedia!

Thank you,

Bobby

Whenever you can find some reliable sources that assert his notability, feel free to recreate the article. Nakon 03:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

How does the new take on the article look??UMWguy123 (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SHH article doesn't have enough sources. I'm betting you can fix that. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, it's tiring to do it all by myself...give me some time to compile more on that. I also wouldn't mind letting it sit for a bit and allowing others to contribute. To me, that makes it more legitimate as opposed to one person simply writing it all. Is that correct?UMWguy123 (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Relisting AFDs

Yes, that's how it's meant to be done—hidden from the old log and re-added to the current one. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I misread the history page. Sorry about bothering you. Nakon 03:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's not a problem; seems like an easy mistake to make. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section

Im not sure if this is where I should be doing this but what is it you mean by "non-sense" and just so you know (because I know it is hard to tell tones on the internet) I'm not being a smart-alec at all.

I deleted your article because it failed to meet our notability guidelines. Nakon 03:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to rewrite the page on the Kelmendi tribe, as I am actually a member of that tribe myself.

I am going to rewrite it. In its current state the article is woeful, with numerous factual inaccuracies and general linguistical problems.

Listing the surnames including the forced serbian truncations is incredibly offensive. Additionally, the sources the original writer had on the page were from questionable locations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.153.127 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not bother to read?

The information that was removed was erroneous, or of questionable authenticity. This is not a vandalization attempt, but the article as it stands is offensive, and needs to be rewritten entirely.

I am not sure what you are referring to as your history shows no recent edits to any article. Nakon 04:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again not trying to be contradictory or argumentative but the information is authentic (I am a close friend of Rick, the creator, in real life). Also I'm just wondering how my article could have been considered offensive?

Your article did not meet our notability guidelines. It was not offensive, it just didn't meet our guidelines. Nakon 04:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowlauncher (talk • contribs) 04:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and your friend rick need to sit down and have a conversation. I am not saying that the article in its entirety is erroneous, but there are substantial errors that I would be glad to discuss with rick. Listing the surnames with serbian truncations is highly offensive. Additionally, as it stands the article is in such poor shape, cut from different locations and pasted in. I am from that clan, and I have documented sources for information, as well as my own knowledge.

I think it merits a rewrite, or at least removing the article in its entirety, as there is another kelmend document here on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antishkja (talk • contribs) 04:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who Rick is. Removing whole sections of articles along with references without discussion is usually seen as vandalism. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning behind these changes on the article's talk page. Nakon 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. If that isnt enough, Ill include exactly what I want to change, in outline format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antishkja (talk • contribs) 04:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter short circuiting

Abuse filter rules apply short circuiting from front to back (i.e. in "A & B", "B" is evaluated only if "A" is true), so inexpensive criteria should be placed at the front of the rule to limit the evaluation of more expensive criteria. Dragons flight (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Nakon 19:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Math Champion

Just wondering what this is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMath_Champion&diff=285551022&oldid=285545825 -down load | sign! 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of test pages such as Math is Cool Championships in the main namespace is not permitted. Nakon 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. This was not a test page; he was planning on expanding it and it is a notable competition. -down load | sign! 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WSLK

Thanks! That was beginning to get annoying. I am not sure if you seen my request from WP:RPP for protection on the page or not. If you didn't, please let me know and I will remove the request from WP:RPP. Again, thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 00:08

Why was WSLK unprotected? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 00:31

There was a concern expressed by User:Rjd0060 about the page. Nakon 00:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is an OTRS ticket on the page apprently. I am, of course, not allowed to see what is on the OTRS ticket. So....are we ignoring WP:OR on this one? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 00:34

I am going by what User:Rjd0060 says as he is the one who has OTRS access. I would discuss any further changes on the article's talk page. Nakon 00:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He won't even tell me what is in the ticket. I am quite upset at the moment, cause I have been insulted by these people on several accounts and their original research is allowed to stand. Plus I am being threatened by User:Rjd0060 because I used my rollback on one of the edits. I am becoming the bad guy on this one and I don't like it, so please pardon my tone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 23, 2009 @ 00:38

Warnings

Why do i keep getting warnings? i am planning to expand those pages that I have created (see note I wrote on the pages) Thanks Math Champion (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being developed should be created in your userspace until they are ready to be moved into the mainspace. Nakon 01:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hit and Run On The Editing?

Please see my note on the talk page for National Emergency Medical Services Association. Hit and run editing doesn't help here... try helping instead... thank you--NEMSA (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion

I seem to have put the tag on the talk page by mistake.

This the page that was to be deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Dog_of_the_US.jpg

And this was the source that is commercially protected:

http://www.firstdogbowl.com/web/img/logo.jpg

And this is that same image on its webpage (near the bottom):

http://www.firstdogbowl.com/web/index.php?cid=1

Sorry for the misplaced tag - or I just don't understand the system and you were still processing the deletion...99.142.1.224 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The media file is located at the Wikimedia Commons at commons:File:First Dog of the US.jpg and a request for deletion must be made there. Nakon 02:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you just deleted the talk page attached to it - I guess I don't understand? 99.142.1.224 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the talk page is deletable under CSD G8, which includes "talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons". Nakon 02:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steppick123?

See [1] - I don't understand the shared IP template on the ISP who did this, by the way. I'm going to give it a short block for this and other edits. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama_(disambiguation)

Hi, Nakon.

Since there was no consensus in this debate, please reconsider your close, which should have been "no consensus".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that the close was a "no consensus" result. If you have an issue with the way I closed the discussion, please use DRV. Nakon 19:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review is here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heading for a snow overturn, if you want to get some comment in first. . DGG (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please clarify romotion vs. information

An article I recently tried to post about a company (not my own company) was rejecred by you. Apparently you felt the article was too promotional. How do you differentiate between a promotional page and an information page? For example, Loopt has an article on Wikipedia. While it's very information-rich, it undoubtedly provides a significant marketing benefit to the company. Why was it allowed?

The upcoming Star Trek movie also has a Wikipedia page. Once again, this is an information page, but it is also a valuable marketing vehicle for the movie's producers.

The page I tried to post (about a company called Webgistix) was similarly informational. It contained no sales literature or marketing propaganda. I would appreciate it if you could explain why it was rejected, and how I could tweak it so that it conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaucho Jeff (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because it did not meet our corporate notability guidelines. Nakon 23:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pagan Babies (band)

I just declined your request for speedy deletion on Pagan Babies (band). The article makes a claim to importance/significance in that it claims two members who went on to become notable on their own right. This meets WP:MUSIC criteria number 6. This does not mean that the group is in fact notable or could suvive an AFD, but only that it is not eligible for A7 deletion, which only requires a claim to importance/significance.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion??

I am a founding member of a band called Pagan Babies. There is another band with the same name (with Courtney Love) as well as a book.

I would like to include this band to the search and post the article that was deleted.

The band is a legitimate working band with releases on two major noted record labels. we are also mentioned in the philadelphia hardcore punk section on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_hardcore (this is NOT the Courtney love band of the same name)

Pagan Babies Drummer Bruce Boyd was also the drummer for Grotus, also on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotus

if the page needs editing to legitimize please advise. thank you in advance. -paganbabies

List of topics related to Barack Obama

Hi Nakon. Your closure of this AfD seems to express your opinion that categories are superior rather than a list article, at least in this case. This didn't really seem an to me to be an accurate interpretation of the consensus. It seems like a no consensus or a relist to try and reach a clearer one would have been prefereable and what was indicated by the discussion. As it was a messy AfD with a lot of inappropriate accusations and some moves and improvements along the way, I'm wondering if there's a way to get further reconsideration or a review? I would also encourage you to look at the Obama article and consider whether the categories at the bottom of the page and the numerous templates (mostly collapsed) are really a superior organizational tool for our readers. Just the other day I came across a fungus that was named after Obama at DYK. Sounds silly I know. But as there are already other subjects named after him, that's a perfect subcategory for the list article and I would have liked to have added it in. But alas, the article is no more. Let me know what you think. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we could use some clarification. Setting all the AfD clutter aside for the moment, this was a much-watched AfD on an article created to deal with a serious concern over how Wikipedia can serve readers who come to the encyclopedia interested in various topic areas that are not fully treated in the main Obama article or the links immediately available from that article. There are a number of long-term editors who argued for and against deletion, or who suggested moving the information elsewhere, and it raises questions over how we should organize information about Obama and the Presidency. At the very least, would you mind expanding your closing rationale so people can more fully understand the basis of your conclusion? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, both.

Nakon has already refused to reconsider his decision, earlier on this talk page. I have already started a DRV for the matter, which is here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry. I don't think either of us saw that discussion. Thanks for the update. Sorry Nakon for cluttering up your talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question from HectorSo

I'm a new user in Wiki. If you don't mind to repeat, please give your main reason why Xiao's article got deleted in your professional point of view, so that it may help me to avoid the mistake in the near future. Thanks, Hectorso (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning.

Recently I received a "last warning" from you saying the next time I inserted a link from Bringonmixedreviews.com that I would be blacklisted. Well I have made no such posts after the warning but all of the links that I had posted before hand have been removed. I would like to know why the posts are being punished when I have followed your rules. Thank you. Bringonmixedreviews (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message to you and two other admins at Talk:Sheree Ali

Hi there. You might want to read and/or address the message left at Talk:Sheree Ali. Regards So Why 19:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better Days Deleted Again

My article was deleted seconds after I created it, while I was still writing on the talk page asking for help. Please send me a copy or at the very least tell me why you keep deleting it.

Please see our guidelines regarding web content. Nakon 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this has now been taken to DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Ono (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nakon da Hui Presents All Graffiti All The Time IS NOT SPAM!!!!

Nakon I am shure you are just trying to do your job. Well then follow thru check my site. I am not spamming. I have a website that fans of the movie would like to see. I would like to have a link added to wikipedia. http://dahuipresents.blogspot.com/ is a site for fans of the movie AMERICAN GRAFFITI. I don't know what else to say????????

If you are the operator of the website, you are not permitted to add a link to it per our external link guidelines. Nakon 02:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the owner of the website. I do contribute to it. Its a great site fans love it and I just wanted to share it with American Graffiti fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All graffiti all the time (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Safety Geeks: SVI

I don't know if you read anything on the page or not, but considering it was deleted mere seconds after hitting the save button, I'd have to say no.

The page was not spam. It was meant as a reference page for a legitimate show currently playing on koldcast.tv.
As you can see, the page didn't even have a link to the show, so I don't see how that could qualify as spam. The only external link was the reference for the content I posted.

I couldn't remember the password for my old account, which I had stupidly registered without an email address, so I created a new one to add this page, so I can understand how it appears my account was a dummy account.

My name appears on the page second from the bottom in the crew list, I do Digital FX for the show.

There is no copyright violation here, and there is no spam. I thought that would be clear by looking at the page.

Movies and TV shows have listings here, I see no reason why web series should not.

Please re-instate/undelete the page.

thanks.

Temsi72 (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about web content should follow our notability guidelines or they may be subject to deletion. Nakon 02:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the "notability": The creators and stars of the show, Dave & Tom, have a following online and their videos have aggregated over 12 million views.
The female lead is Brittney Powell, whom you can find online due to her popularity since her recurring role on Xena, and her several television series. Temsi72 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Geeks: SVI

Do I need to update anything? I couldn't find how to respond to your original response, so I updated the original message.

As I explained, the "notability" is because of the cast and creators.
Also, the fact that the series has over 1000 composite shots, more than the first 3 Star Wars movies combined is noteworthy.

Temsi72 (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend going to deletion review as I do not believe the article fits the guideline. Nakon 02:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly will submit it for review, as I do not believe your judgment on this matter is correct - or final. This is a legitimate listing, which you obviously didn't bother to read before deleting, seeing as you did so within seconds of it being created.

Also, if you or some other moderator decide there is insufficient information, how are we supposed to add it to the page if we can't edit it? Start from scratch? This whole deletion business seems rather archaic and arbitrary. Also, if I were a spammer, would I waste all this time debating this?

Temsi72 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

In the future, please provide a clear edit summary as to why you feel you should be overriding a checkuser's action [2]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted User:YellowAssessmentMonkey's removal of a section of text. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Nakon 06:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users are prohibited from editing; a checkuser has the privilleges to determine if they come under another account and edit despite the restriction. If they do, then they are blocked and all their edits are reverted. We typically don't extend the courtesy of archiving reports made by banned users which is why this text was removed; so why did you revert to reinclude that text, and why did you not provide an edit-summary? It's disruptive to interfere with checkuser work as if it's just any other edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regions of space in the Honorverse

I was wondering how you ever came up with delete since there is a majority of keep or merge, therefore it is either keep or no consensus. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 07:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

Thanks, Otisjimmy1 (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting my page?

I'm trying to make a myhawk article and you keep deleting it and it's very hard to edit when you keep deleting it. Please stop, i am in the process of making it.

Please see our guidelines on notability of web content. Nakon 18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nakon!

I've been off wiki for a few days with an assortment of family events that rate as near melt-down on the Richter Scale (no, I'm sure that's not right) .... to find that Davidx5 had attacked my page and that you had kindly reverted it. Thank you for taking care of it.

This is a very cunning vandal. In many instances his edits look like bona fide corrections. He may have been banned, but he also edits without signing in, and will almost certainly be back under another name. Anyway, I'll check through my long list of watched articles to see what has been happening. Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's the end of it, but considering he's used IPs to edit I'd be surprised if it is. His accusations were ridiculous and ignorant. Adding references to the parts he edited is now a high priority. Nev1 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion

Nakon, Gaia Octavia Agrippa 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 20:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

RfA Thank You

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAA mistake?

I assume you didn't mean to remove the whole section and leave a comment tag open.. Did you mean to simply remove one entry from there? (I only reverted to preserve the page and page template, I did it in good faith, and it feels REALLY weird to rollback on an administrator). tedder (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I must have seen the first template on the page as part of a report and removed it. Thanks for catching that. Nakon 01:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -down load ׀ sign! 01:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A dove for you

--Betax_{(Talk|Sandbox)} has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I would recommend laying off of the user namespace edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Nakon 22:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. Otisjimmy1 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with that person in general, moreso. Tyciol (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}, TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Nakon, please review Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Nakon and see if you are up to the task. If you are, list on the WT:BAG page and notify the proper forums per policy. Best. MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Back

Dont know how long you've been back for because i myself have been away for a while but good to see you editing again. I remember all the things you have done in past and was always looking at your contribs page to see if you were ever going to return. Nice that you have. Enjoy your time on the wiki again. Thanks 211.30.100.167 (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Russian apartment bombings resumed

Hi! Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs) is back, despite your final warning. Colchicum (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC) His edits elsewhere are also mostly reverts. Colchicum (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colchicum, this absolutely not your business, whether "I'm back" or not. I have the right to edit WP. Nakon, I'm sorry, I did't notice your warning. I apologize for this. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, not a battleground, not a playground and not your private backyard. As long as you edit here disruptively, it can become anyone's business. In particular, you are still edit-warring elsewhere, adding gross BLP and NOR violations. [3] Either you will reform yourself, or you will get what you deserve sooner or later. It is not enough to apologize and continue disruption. Colchicum (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP is not a battleground, not a playground, not a place for harassing other people. Why didn't you say the same words to Biophys when he was blocked a week ago? Why didn't you stop edit-warring at Soviet War Memorial at Treptower Park? Stop your false accusations and take a look at yourself first. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is what I saw there: 3 (three) of my latest 100 edits were reverts. Of your latest 100 edits, about 40 (forty) were reverts. If one counts only mainspace edits, around 95% (ninety-five percent) of your edits were reverts. And this has been continuing for years. Any further questions? Colchicum (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, reverts are perfectly fine, when they help to come closer to normal encyclpedia version. I can only once again say once again, take a look at yourself first. Oh, Nakon, excuse me. This was my very last message here. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~~

My Signature

My "images" in my signature are "flagicoms" specially customized to fit a person's signature. They have been wiki-formated to fit in all the regulations. No other administrator has complained of them..although I've recieved many complaments saying that it was a cool and acceptable signature. Please be understanding:)Schnitzel MannGreek. 21:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the guideline page. Images must not be used in signatures as they cause multiple issues. Please remove them. Nakon 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Nakon's Day!

Nakon has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Nakon's Day!
For being a trustworthy, sensible, reliable, and cooperative administrator,
enjoy being the star of the day, dear Nakon!

Signed,
Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

→ Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Account creator

I know have done my six and there is another request. Can I have this permission now? --T3chl0v3r (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:153.107.97.152

Thank you for handling this vandalism. Would you consider lengthening the block? The IP has had prolific vandalism over the past month, with escalating blocks by other admins. The last block was 2 weeks. This new block, however, is only 3 hours. I worry I will have to report the user again in 4 hours. Thanks Shadowjams (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: My Signature

Nakon,
You wrote: < /br > No, it really isn't. Please see the appropriate guideline at WP:SIG which states that signatures must "Avoid markup such as tags and markup (which produce big text), or line breaks ( tags), since they disrupt the way that surrounding text displays." Nakon 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have no line break in my signture at all. What you're seeing is the super and sub scrip tags used together. Part of my signature is superscripted , the next half is subscripted. ALso, I'm not using any "H1", "HX" tags, I'm using pixel size. My signature also has the same text as it did before, it just enclosed in a box (a lot of wikipedians , like Ratel, have boxes around their name) so I don't belive my signature is in volation in that sense. I do admitt, because the color and pixel sizing instructions were too long to put in the signature field in preferences, I've had to use a different method for signing. I claim IAR on it as the text is signs is the same. However, If consensus is this signature is wrong, belive me, I'll adjust it. Thanks !
_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes}^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 16:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The box is too large and it breaks threaded conversation. You are free to have a box and super/subscript, but if it breaks a conversation, it should be removed. Also, please remove the html comments from the signature as it adds unnecessary text to a page. Nakon 21:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Welcoming users]

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

Chzz ► 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't leave block tags for obvious blatant vandals. Nakon 21:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in future, please could you do so, per policy;

"Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to."

Thanks, Chzz ► 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "good reason" is that the block templates are redundant to the "blocked" message. Nakon 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon, if I may add a third-person's input: does this mean that your interpretation of said policy is "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them, by leaving a message on their user talk page, unless they can't be bothered."? Trafford09 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:WAZZATAKKAMAKKA

Hey, could you elaborate on this block? It looks like the user posted a single message to WP:AN with a request for help with saving a page. It looks merely as though they meant to ask a question at WP:HELPDESK and found the wrong page instead. Is there some greater background that I am missing, like is this a sock of someone else? Because with no information to go on, I can find no compelling reason why this account should have been blocked. Please let me know so that I may respond intelligently to his unblock request. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the account indef because of the message on his (now deleted) userpage which showed IMO an intent to disrupt the project. If you want to unblock, please feel free to do so. Nakon 00:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be. I don't see that message as anything more than a "hey, what's up!". Let's not be so bitey in the future, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Nakon 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you've just blocked a user for asking for help (albeit in caps and on ANI), and putting an inoffensive message on their own user page?

That user has subsequently come into the IRC help channel and been cooperative and friendly.

I'm quite shocked, and I ask you to please release the block so we might have a chance of teaching them how to edit. Chzz ► 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would check the logs, the user has already been unblocked. Nakon 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that now. He's learned how to make a user subpage - use bold and italics, wikilinks, and how to add a picture. It is in User:WAZZATAKKAMAKKA/test. He's now reading through some of the guides. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

This isn't really you, I'm guessing? --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the page. Thanks for the heads up. Nakon 01:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Office

Hi User:Nakon,
Sorry that this resulted in a edit conflict, but The Office is a mockumentary not a sitcom.
It even says it farther in the article.
Can you please explain to me why you reverted my edit?
Thanx!...:)
ATC^{. Talk} 01:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific edit I intended to revert was this one which was the removal of an entire sourced section without a reason to do so. Nakon 01:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was adding the "Writing" in the "Background" section, by copy and pasting.

Sorry about that, miss-communication.

Do you mind reverting my edit, so I could continue?

Thanx!

ATC^{. Talk} 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nakon 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Query re page-deletion]

why did you delete my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_and_Tanya

I removed the page because it failed to meet our notability guidelines. Nakon 01:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what do i have to add to the page to have it kept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forwardsri (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70.71.22.45

Have you been following this discussion after the block? If true, then probably a shorter block is in order. David D. (Talk) 20:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is considering to unblock the wikihounder despite the IP refusing to stop hounding me. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is considering to give permission to the IP to revert my edits. QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issues with unblocking the IP editor provided that they do not resume the same kind of editing that lead to a block in the first place. If they resume harassing you, please let me know. Nakon 03:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has contradicted his previous edit by commenting at the Jimmy Wales talk page about another page I edited and has continued the co-founder debate again by claiming I changed something to "misquote the associated press". The IP is testing admins to see if it is okay to hound me on one or two pages. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thank you for handling that protection request. The reason I had requested protection as opposed to 3RR reporting, is due to the activity on that page, and some correspondence I had received via email. I note that you have blocked that editor. There were others involved in that edit war who I see remain unblocked. Please consider unblocking that editor and protecting the page, hopefully we can move this dispute to the article talk page. I believe that blocking in this case may prove to inflame a situation. Thank you for your consideration, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an issue preventing you from discussing this? NonvocalScream (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The block has already expired, I'm not sure what more you want. The discussion at ANI did not lead to an unblock. Nakon 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to post to your talk page. A reply of some sort, since I usually keep checking talk pages I post to. :) Incidentally, the discussion at ANI was not designed overturn you, it was designed to address a time sensitive request, that unfortunately did not seem to resolve itself either way at ANI. But that is an aside. Just any reply would be good. Keep up the good work! Cheers, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfBAG

Hello, Nakon. I am sorry to say that at this time, there does not appear to be a consensus for your admittance into the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. You did receive some directed advice regarding your presence around the group's pages, and it is likely that should you implement that advice into your regular activities, your next attempt will be successful. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please restore article u just deleted which i am in the middle of working on

Please restore Mount Zion Church article, which i am in the middle of developing right now. I believe i had posted an "under construction" type tag on it, and i was just sorting out some stuff at a related, more specific Mt.Zion dab page, and then i get notice of speedy deletion nomination and also that it is a redlink all at once. Would you please restore it now? ! doncram (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to User:Doncram/Mount Zion Church. Please feel free to move it back when you have finished cleaning it up. Nakon 23:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it. I moved it back to mainspace and am continuing. I think you were wrong to disrupt my work. If you had taken 2 seconds to read the under construction type notice in the article, and to look at my recent edits, you would have seen that i was actively working on it. And I had not even received the Speedy Deletion notice when u deleted it. Don't be so trigger-happy, you are just hurting not helping when you make a bad delete decision like that. doncram (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please develop articles in your userspace before creating them in the main namespace. Nakon 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not required that an article be perfect before it is in mainspace. I have developed lots of disambiguation pages in mainspace and will continue to do so. And the work is good work that adds to the wikipedia. In the future, please don't delete my work. Thanks! doncram (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block?

Are you able to block User talk:Man in blak suit1? The user's many edits suggest that they are not here to help the encyclopedia.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user has already been blocked. Nakon 23:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooger Fooger

It was tagged as speedy before being listed at afd. Why not just close the afd and have it deleted speedily, since the speedy came first? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to let AFDs run their course. There has not been a request at the AFD to speedily delete the article. Nakon 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you procedurally close the afd and speedily delete it, since there is at least a consensus to delete? I don't see what's wrong with speedy and afd overlapping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that the speedy should overrule in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi, I am an Indian editor on visit to Wawasan Open University in Malaysia for a week or so. Have been trying to edit from here, but am unable to due to a block as follows: You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them.
Editing from 61.6.54.11 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Nakon for the following reason(s): This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If your ISP has misconfigured its proxy, you can try bypassing it by logging into Wikimedia's secure gateway at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/. For more information about open proxies and what you can do, please see the WikiProject on open proxies. (Multi-RBL lookup • Sandbox test edit)
This block has been set to expire: 10:02, 6 July 2010.
Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail.
Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

I need to keep loggin in secure everytime I edit. Is there a way I can bypass secure login from here? Also, it seems strange that a University's ability to edit is blocked by this. Any help possible? prashanthns (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have lifted the block. Nakon 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick action!prashanthns (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showing you are an admin

Howdy. Would you be willing to put something on your User page indicating you are an admin? I was reading this and I went to your user page to see if you were an admin or not but there was nothing there. I know there are other ways to find out, I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask though.--Rockfang (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I have not had an "admin tag" on my userpage since early 2007 and have not had any problems. I will not be adding a tag to my userpage. Nakon 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]