User talk:Nakon/arc9

To add a new message, click HERE
Archives
1 :: 2 :: 3 :: 4 :: 5 :: 6 :: 7 :: 8

...

hm... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my article?

I wrote about the new fictional character ( Supreme Extinguisher X) and why did you delete it. Now i forgot what i had wrote ... not cool man :(


I wrote an article on myself. why did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrilldilly (talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the Rohit Swagarwal article. smh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.157.93 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries of Central America

Hi,
could you comment at User talk:Amalthea#Template? The template mentioned there was actually protected by you.
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 10:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected the template. Nakon 16:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Amalthea 16:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted message

Hi,

I have developed a Biography to one of the most influencial economist in the world,Ibrahim Dabdoub " unfortunately, it is systematically being deleted, could anyone please advise the main reason behind the deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Write2fadi (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BIO. Nakon 19:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Excuse me but can you place the page I created back up? I was creating a page for my music group as a way to get exposure. Thanks for your support in this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbucky1 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, please see WP:BAND for our guidelines on music-related subjects. Nakon 19:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

But why was my account KingPin66 deleted?--78.148.84.145 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Because it was a vandalism-only account. 2. Because it was highly similar to User:Kingpin13. And it was not deleted, it was blocked from editing. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians Institute

You may want to check the 3RR notice - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive142#User:ZingaZingaZinga and User:2.120.240.140 reported by User:F.C3.A6 (Result:48 hours) - the block expires and the same users go at it. Probably best to wait until they are blocked again. Fæ (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, noticed the IP block, so not sure if you were actually doing this as a result of the AIV report. Fæ (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked based off of the AIV report, didn't see the 3RR report. Nakon 17:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider ZZZ's history here, obviously tendentious and failed to take the advice given. I'm not too concerned though as with one party blocked, things will cool off anyway. Fæ (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and blocked both parties. Nakon 17:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a Judgment of Solomon award I think you earned it. Fæ (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Did You Delete "Motionless In White"

Motionless In White is a post-hardcore band from Scranton, Pennsylvania that is signeed to Fearless Records. They recently released their debut full length album, Creatures, which debuted at #157 on Billboard Top 200 chart and #6 on Billboard's Heatseeker chart. Below I've also listed some of the other Billboard chart positions. Here is a link to Billboard's Chart:http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/motionless-in-white/chart-history/937121

3,114 albums sold first week 793 singles sold first week

  1. 157 on the Billboard
  2. 6 on the Heatseeker Chart
  3. 31 on Independent Label Chart
  4. 2 on Alternative New Artist Album chart
  5. 19 on Top Hard Music Albums
  6. 34 on Current Alternative Albums
  7. 148 on Current Digital Albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanefearless (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of deletion, the article did not meet the notability criteria. Nakon 03:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the 'article' meet notability criteria now?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.127.214 (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S.S. Miami/It's Always Stormy in Tranyslvania?

I noticed you deleted that page about It's Always Stormy in Transylvania. You should not have deleted it as there was no discussion. If you could restore the page so I could get the information that would be great. Thank You.

--S.S. Miami (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted for being a blatant hoax, as evidenced by the line "This is a fictional article by User:S.S. Miami." Nakon 20:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

Hi. I would appreciate your input on http://admintools.wikia.com/wiki/Admin_Tools_Wiki:Requests_for_rights/Heymid - thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 16:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

need help

Hello I've created a company article for JadeWits Limited and you deleted the article. can you please tell me why? and if there is some reason then also provide how to create article for company. it said, there is promotional content on my article then tell me how to add business company and why there are other business companies?

Please see our guidelines regarding corporations. Nakon 20:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting deletion on The Dreamer (comic).

I have given a reason why this article shouldn't be deleted on the talk page. You can feel free to reply if you like. I thought that was a really good article started by a new wikipedian. Minimac (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Hi - just a friendly suggestion that sometimes we need to leave older AIV reports up for a while. I like keeping the AIV list clean as much as the next guy, but I think sometimes it is useful for reporting users to see our rationale. This report was 15 min old and my suggestion to the reporting user was left up there for only 1 minute, and I have to guess the user did not see it. It's not the first time this user has been overly bitey in reporting stale IPS or improperly warned users. Thanks,  7  06:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the reporting user being bitey, please let them know on their talk page. Nakon 06:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave them a suggestion on their talk page and will continue to watch this user. Do you think that all reports should be cleaned out immediately after they are reviewed? If so, it seems kind of pointless for us to have all those templates that explain back to the reporting edited. Thanks  7  06:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe someone is being BITEy wrt their reporting, please let them know on their talk page, as they may not see AIV before the report is removed. Nakon 06:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Svpcom

Can you please have a look at the behavioral evidence presented, as separate from the technical evidence, and my comment at the bottom of the SPI case page? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress, Nakon 07:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked both additional users listed in the report based on the behavioral evidence that you presented. Nakon 07:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Most appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent closing of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr90s

Hi Nakon, I notice that you recently closed the SPI case-page on the sock-master Dr90s, noting that all socks had been blocked. While I am glad to see the case is finally complete, I was wondering if you'd noticed that the thrust of the request had actually been to merge together three separate sockpuppet casepages all attributed to different puppetmasters that are in fact the same person. Previously-convicted sock masters, User:Wikipedian05 (together with his 7 sockpuppets) and User:Majorphase (together with his 2 sockpuppets) are actually all the same person - User:Dr90s. This has been confirmed by SPI investigator, MuZemike, who in addition discovered 2 more sockpuppets. According to MuZemike, "The other sockfarms could probably be merged into Dr90s as they are the same." By this I assume he means that he is OKing the merger of User:Wikipedian05's SPI casepage and User:Majorphase's SPI casepage into Dr90s' SPI casepage. This was not completed before the closing of the case just now and I am wondering if there was a reason behind this or if it was just an oversight. Thanks for you help in this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I am sorry to pester you about this but I'd like to try to resolve this issue at last and I need some input from you before I can progress to the next step. On October 16th I entered into discussions with the administrator User:Hersfold on the topic of how I could go about merging three SPI cases that I believed to be all the same puppet-master. Hersfold suggested that I bring up the idea in a new SPI case and present my evidence there. On October 19th, I filed the new SPI and on October 28, administrator User:MuZemike confirmed that the three SPI cases were in fact the same and could be merged. When you closed the SPI on November 2, you did not perform the merge that I had been interested in. I would like to know if this was an active decision you made (and if so please tell me your reasoning) or whether it was merely a passive declination (either accidental or due to time/workload constraints). Again, I'm sorry to take up your time with this issue. -Thibbs (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yak shaving day

I'm glad that I managed to find a copy of the yak shaving day article in google cache but sorry that no one else will be able to read it soon. It is very relevant to a hacker term, yak shaving. You might want to google it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.182.158 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for taking a chunk of the backlog away. DQ (t) (e) 17:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS24

Noticed you blocked BS24, but I don't see any SP investigation, warning, discussion, or complaint. Just wanted to see what was going on as he was part of a mediation. Morphh (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked based on the comments here Nakon 18:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very weak reason to block him and I find it a little increadulous for you to come in at the last moment and indef block without any discussion, especially after a previous admin had stated the other actions were "stale". Care to explain your actions a little more clear? Arzel (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The report clearly stated, "BS24 has admitted to being NYyankees51" Nakon 00:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Page

I wasn't finished updating my page only viewing it and it was immediately deleted. It is not intended for advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulSamAnna (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STOP Deleting!

I started a new page and was in the process of editing it when you deleted it. You must STOP doing this. Within a few minutes, I would have had it compliant with Wikipedia rules, but never had the chance, because you deleted it within 90 seconds of its creation. This is patently UNFAIR!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtsdca (talk • contribs) 17:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our policy on spam/promotional articles. Nakon 17:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we complain?

To whom to we complain to STOP this user from unfairly deleting legitimate articles??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtsdca (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DaveApter

Ignored your warning to his user talk page, and reverted your edit. What can be done about this behavior pattern? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues, I'd place a short "wake up" block with a link to this VP:T page. Nakon 22:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His taggings are disruptive and inappropriate. He is only doing so due to his pov of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. His concerns about npov presentation are unwarranted. His tagging of "COI" constitutes a WP:NPA violation, as it is wrong. Can something be done about this? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this thing about Skype text?

I see you reverted my edit of adding a couple of tags to the Werner Erhard vs CBS article on the grounds that there were some spurious Skype text included. I can't see any such text. what is this all about? DaveApter (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look here. Notice the text "begin_of_the_skype_highlighting" in the second part of the diff. The best way to prevent this from happening again is to disable your Skype toolbar until Skype fixes their buggy product. Thanks, Nakon 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok I see what you are talking about now. You will appreciate that I did not intentionally include that text, and so the accusations by Cirt of vandalism on my part are somewhat overblown. I will look into disabling this plugin. I do have grave misgivings about the POV and COI of this article which deserve some scrutiny. Thank you. DaveApter (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to edit the article as you wish, as long as you resolve the Skype issue. Thanks, Nakon 22:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again the WP:NPA violations with the repeated claims of "COI", by DaveApter (talk · contribs). Nakon, can something be done about this inappropriate behavior pattern from this user? -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marknutley

Can you please explain this? [1]. Why is rollback being removed? It frankly looks like kicking a regular user for the sake of it. He's blocked, but not for abusing rollback - so why remove it?--Scott Mac 16:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I routinely remove users that are indefinitely blocked and listed on Wikipedia:Database reports/Blocked users in user groups. Nakon 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please can I ask you to stop doing that without some consideration. Indef blocked does not mean banned. In this case Marknutley is blocked pending conversations with arbcom, and stripping his privileges is only likely to inflame any negotiations - and is totally unwarranted. An indef blocked user isn't going to abuse rollback in any case, so in in doubt, leave it alone.--Scott Mac 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sorry to disturb arbcom's discussions. Nakon 22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a request

can i see the deleted itdunya article? 11:39, 2 November 2010 Nakon (talk | contribs) deleted "Itdunya" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)--Umar1996 (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed you a copy of the article. Nakon 17:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope

Not vandalism, not even remotely plausibly compromised. If you are unfamiliar with the editor's history, you ought to have researched the matter before blocking. Please rescind the action directly. Skomorokh 03:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I posted just before you placed the block message, even. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied at ANI. Nakon 03:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, in light of [2], you wouldn't have any objection to a short, fixed-time block or an unblock? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the editor has had enough leeway on the project, but if there is consensus to alter the block, I do not have any objection to someone making the change. Nakon 03:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm asking. If there were clearly established "consensus" I wouldn't have to ask you at all. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on ANI. Nakon 04:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested in a response

I don't know if you missed it because it was higher up on your talk page, but... I am still awaiting a response to my inquiry here: Please account for your failure to perform the merger as requested. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I am not suggesting that you should perform the merger yourself if you are too busy. If I am allowed to do it I would be glad to do it on my own. Do you know if a non-administrator would be allowed to do such a thing? At this point I'd honestly be satisfied with any sort of communication from you at all. The silence is thoroughly demoralizing. -Thibbs (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologize that I missed that section. I am not comfortable with performing the merger myself, but if you want to do so, please go ahead. Nakon 15:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. I will try to do so on my own then. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

permissions ++

Thanks for setting me up as a reviewer. de Bivort 00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks

Can you please take a look at this page? I think you deleted the wrong version in the course of reverting the page move. Peacock (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was a move conflict. I've restored the page. Nakon 00:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, too many people reverting the page moves at the same time, I guess. Thank you. Peacock (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block notifications

Hi! I happened to be looking through some of your recent blocks, and I noticed that in very few cases could I find any block notification by you on the user's talk page. This seems to be contrary both to common practice, and WP:BLOCK. Perhaps I'm missing something here. I'd appreciate it if you could share your thinking on this matter with me. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 06:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not leave notifications on editors that are indefinitely blocked, as their block notice will give them the appropriate information. Nakon 06:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I do see that most of your blocks are indefinite. I guess you're saying that the links and templates used in the block message are sufficient information. I can see the argument that a well-written block message plus the extensive verbiage at MediaWiki:Blockedtext ought to be enough to help anyone respond to being blocked, but that doesn't seem to be the consensus view as expressed in WP:BLOCK and in various ANI threads. And by both intuition and observation, users who get blocked are often not the most clued-in of editors. Also, I'm afraid that I don't quite see why you distinguish indefinitely-blocked users for notification purposes. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't bother because a large majority of my indefinite blocks are for vandalism-only accounts that would not be unblocked anyways. Nakon 01:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I do recognize that I haven't been leaving block messages for non-indefinite blocked accounts. I have added the appropriate block message to my tabs and will try to remember to do so in the future. Nakon 01:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for listening. Bovlb (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Jakobi

I was about to remove the speedy deletion tag from this article as the article clearly asserts notability - it states Julian Jakobi was Ayrton Senna's manager. Please could you restore the article? Thanks. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nakon 16:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons behind why you deleted Sigma Kappa Alpha???

Hello my name is John Beck, I am a former president of Sigma Kappa Alpha and the current new Member Educator and Co-Historian of my fraternity. I would like to know why you deleted my page within a minute of me creating it I understand the article that I created is not as of yet complete. The fact that this page has been deleted so many times when many of my brothers have worked hard to create this page. We have followed a similar structure to all the other fraternity's at the University of Redlands Wikipedia pages. Please let me know what I need to change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lspsurfer (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our notability guidelines regarding organizations. If you wish to resubmit an article, please consider using our Article Wizard. Nakon 22:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're not calling it vandalism now...okay.

Hey there Nakon. It's nice to see that at least you're not making the same baseless vandalism accusation over on "my" talk page. You've refined it to "uncivil". At least that's a little more justifiable.

It still concerns me that you removed the section here that I added called "Knock it off on baseless vandalism charges". Sure, it's your page and you can do what you want here, but it WAS typical of the things I've seen you do elsewhere, such as deleting objectionable stuff instead of working with it. My earlier "bullying" charge (that you removed from here) looks stronger in that light.

108.7.9.222 (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Your summary deletions on the Irony talk page were made too fast. You would have been justified, according http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments, if I had been trolling, and for few other (inapplicable) reasons. Removing discussion comments is serious business not to be undertaken without due diligence and not without knowledge about what justifies it. You failed at both! A simple quick review of my contributions would have shown you that I was not a troll. A moment's hesitation on your part before heaping a "vandalism" label the my talk page would have given you the time to think better of that misstep.

Editors are generally not blocked for minor incivility. Civility is a goal, not a standard. You threatened to get me blocked, first for a baseless vandalism charge, then for minor incivility. How is this not bullying?

You acted rashly, and at my expense! You bullied me. I resent it all thoroughly.

108.7.9.222 (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism cleanup

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page :) -Addionne (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donbrandoni

Hi Nakon. I directed a question to you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Donbrandoni. Thanks much. --Bsherr (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

operamission

operamission is an arts organization, see http://operamission.org/ thanks--Operajen (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six productions in the past twelve months, this NYTimes listing from August 2010, features in the NY Post and NY Observer as well as print listing in The New Yorker, as well as regular listings in Time Out NY and Metro. --Operajen (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk:JV Smithy

Thanks for getting deleting that revision. Is it possible you can delete (or change visibility) of this one too? JV Smithy (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Child

Thank you for semi-protecting Abigail Child from vandalism. In response to your removal here, this information is sourced. This article from the Bright Lights Film Journal confirms that she is a lesbian. Would you undo your removal? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Kosovo

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kosovo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theserialcomma2

Hi,
I don't see how the account Theserialcomma2 violates WP:SOCK. It's an implicitly declared alternate account, and the original account was not blocked at the time of creation.
Cheers, Amalthea 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The account was blocked for a now-oversighted edit. Nakon 00:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of an unclear situation there then, block log reads "Abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theserialcomma". If the edit was disruptive enough for an indef the original account should be blocked as well, and the block log should reflect that (not least to give the user an explanation, and if they so desire something to appeal). Amalthea 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what was in the diff that was oversighted. The functionaries would be able to provide more guidance that I would be able to provide. I'd contact that list directly for more information. Nakon 03:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting this. You said you blocked the account because of that edit. But you don't know what was written there? Were you asked to block by the oversighter? Amalthea 09:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would believe it falls under the good-hand/bad-hand part of WP:SOCK. I do not remember what the content of the edit was, unfortunately. Nakon 00:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A declared alternative account can't be a bad-hand. I'm going to unblock since the reason listed in the block log doesn't apply. Other reasons may, of course, but at the moment that does not seem clear cut to me, but then I haven't see the now suppressed edit. May all be moot if the user has left. Amalthea 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of General Hindsight

Hello Nakon. General Hindsight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. As you will see on the user's talk page, a check user thinks there is reasonable room for doubt, and my own investigations do not really produce convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, so my inclination is to unblock, but I would appreciate your opinion. Regards, JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointment

Hi

You blocked Remind_me_never (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) based on a single 'identical' edit which is not identical to anything counted, apparently. Edits shall be judged by the knowledge they brought into article.--96.231.71.176 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users are not permitted to edit Wikipedia, regardless of their contributions. Nakon 00:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Regarding the IP you blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shutterbug, can you please log the block, at the page WP:ARBSCI? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nakon 00:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can the two other IPs be blocked, and logged, as well, as likely socks of banned User:Shutterbug? -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making Pumpkin Pie

I want to appeal the deletion of my article. What I need to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwywy (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Habitat Magazine

H Nakon. Just to let you know that this was already speedied once earlier today. --Kudpung (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Chick tract

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chick tract. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Comment duty. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot blocked

Hi you have blocked my bot User:Fti74Bot. Could you please help me in getting back on track and especially how to register my bot (I did not know that a bot had to be registered before going live) Fti74 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed your BRFA. Nakon 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a million 20:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What if

What if I expand material on the page you deleted, will you let it on?Hojinaska (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you can provide some more information on what the topic of the page actually is, that would be terrific. Thanks, Nakon 02:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my page deleted RE:zombiance

I wish to know why my page was deleted. Your reason listed were either not very clear or was hard to understand. It was listed as a blatant hoax?!? Here is a link that proves it exists just maybe not in the wiki world. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zombiance Caliblunt (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Rich[reply]

Re: AN

Not sure if you saw this, but in the future, if you block a bot (especially a very important adminbot), please notify the operator. I would not have seen it had I not decided to randomly check AN, an that could have left dozens of images unprotected on the main page. I fixed the problem, but it would have been nice to get a notice. (X! · talk)  · @717  ·  16:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WackyWorkshop (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref remover's range

Thank you for putting a block on that range. It is impossible to coerce these individuals to stop making such unhelpful edits. The only vandal like this that I think left for good was one in Canada that used to be listed on my user subpage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added citations and categories and would like for wikipedia to remove the messages requesting that I do this. Can you help with this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintmatters (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please un-close the SPI on Humbert1, who just fielded a new sock?

No sooner did you shut down Enuch than a new account Asakharov has been created and made the exact same changes to Jennifer Lerner. See [3]. I don't know if Checkuser will help or not. This person is clearly watching the bio to remake those changes if they get removed. Thanks! betsythedevine (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just created a new SPI for the new incident. betsythedevine (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete DVDFab Virtual Drive

why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVDFab_Virtual_Drive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond5776 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously deleted. Nakon 04:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTREV - Not just pages?

Thanks for trying to clear up my confusion in the matter of AUTREV. You wrote, "autopatrolled is for new articles, not just pages." Then you followed by pointing out that the only mention of articles in WP:AUTREV is "A suggested requirement is 75 valid articles." I'm just as confused, if not more so by these responses.

While new page patrolling is mostly (entirely?) about patrolling new articles, WP:AUTREV doesn't make this clear. I figured since I create so many new pages that any help in separating them from others would be beneficial to other editors. If autopatrolled is no help at all in this situation, then WP:AUTREV needs to make this clear. Do you understand enough how it works to explain it, or are you just following the "75 valid articles" suggestion?

On the bright side, I'm learning about new page patrolling. I've simply patrolled recent changes, looking for tagged problems or edit summaries that suggest possible problems. --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, only articles need patrolling. Nakon 04:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll seek clarification elsewhere. Thanks for your time. --Ronz (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article

--Sid.young (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Im just starting to create an article in my sandbox - Please dont delete it while its under construction[reply]

The article was not in a sandbox. Nakon 04:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pleas add this to eardoc page

pleas add this to eardoc page if you think this violates wikipedias rulls please advise us how to change or edit the content Thank you.


Eardoc, developed by Kencap ltd, a medical device company founded in 1997 and headquartered in Israel, helps to release air and fluids trapped inside the middle ear in a non-invasive way.

Mentions in the Media

Eardoc was featured on CBS show "the doctors" in 2009, and appeared in several medical journals (ENT News, 2009) and medical websites on the Internet (Medical News Today, 2008)

Product

Eardoc works by transmitting vibrations to the Eustachian tubes, draining the excess air and fluid that causes pressure on the ear drum and thus earaches. The device conforms especially to the structure of the middle ear, and is placed behind the ear, pressing against the mastoid bone. Unlike other therapies; it treats the source of the problem and stops the ache from coming back. Eardoc provides a non-invasive method to reduce the pain and edema (swelling) associated with ear pain. It offers an alternative to prescription drugs such as antibiotics and ear tube surgery (myringotomy).

Common Medical Conditions

Eardoc is primarily intended for those who suffer from: • Trapped air and fluids in the middle ear • Ear infection • Otitis Media • Hearing Loss • Eustachian Tube Dysfunction • Ear Pain caused by air travel • Ear fullness caused by colds, sinusitis or allergies ==

Clinical validation ==

A study performed by the Medical University of Hungary using a tympanometer showed that Eardoc opened the Eustachian tube , thus releasing trapped air and fluids from the middle ear reliving pressure and pain from the eardrum.

Deletion of Infinite Computer Solutions

Hi. I see that you have tagged my article for deletion. I want to share that I have created article due to the belief that the Organization is Notable. Per Wiki standards the definition of "notable" is:

"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

This comany is notable for many reasons...It has grown from 1000 dollars to approx $200M in 10 years. It is public on both the BSE and NSE. This topic affects people accross the globe. They had an IPO that was 45 times over suscribed. There is more...All of this information is public on the Internet. This item was investigated for deletion before and the "deletion" was remove. Here is the removal index:

(cur | prev) 03:11, 21 December 2010 Stephen (talk | contribs) (2,496 bytes) (Decline speedy, notability asserted) (undo)


Could you please remove the "deletion" on this page. Thanks you.

Eagle team (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Infinite Computer Solutions

Hi. I see that you have tagged my article for deletion. I want to share that I have created article due to the belief that the Organization is Notable. Per Wiki standards the definition of "notable" is:

"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

This comany is notable for many reasons...It has grown from 1000 dollars to approx $200M in 10 years. It is public on both the BSE and NSE. This topic affects people accross the globe. They had an IPO that was 45 times over suscribed. There is more...All of this information is public on the Internet. This item was investigated for deletion before and the "deletion" was remove. Here is the removal index:

(cur | prev) 03:11, 21 December 2010 Stephen (talk | contribs) (2,496 bytes) (Decline speedy, notability asserted) (undo)


Could you please remove the "deletion" on this page. Thanks you.

Eagle team (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please make your arguments regarding deletion at this page. I will not close the discussion early. Nakon 21:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megaphone Duck

Hi., it;s not a bot and it's just a little hiccup. Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, I'll unblock it then. Thanks, Nakon 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kind sir. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Replying about Request for being a reviewer

Hi Nakon,

I am brianlo747, I want to ask you what are the requirements to be 'experienced' so I can be a reviewer and help the wikipedia community.

Regards, brianlo747 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianlo747 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the guide at this page. Nakon 04:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.34.22 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting my application to be a reviewer...

... and also thanks for explaining how to become one in the first place. betsythedevine (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob

Please you you undelete my bob article? Perhaps I could use it for uncyc? --Andy Handy Smurf (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you add an email address, I will email you the last revision of the page. Nakon 23:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't feel save, and just please revive for it a hour or two. Thanx. --Andy Handy Smurf (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to restore the page. Nakon 23:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't threaten me, and you can't delete other user's USERSPACE articles. --Andy Handy Smurf (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense or hoax pages may be deleted anywhere on the project. For more information, please see WP:CSD. Nakon 23:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was exprimenting with humour and format. --Andy Handy Smurf (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just move it on my userpage then. --Andy Handy Smurf (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's where it was removed from. You can not use Wikipedia in that manner. Nakon 23:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? --Andy Handy Smurf (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Nakon 23:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arsefodder! --Andy Handy Smurf (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to comment constructively on this page, please don't return. Nakon 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save you and me lots of time - just revive the article! --Andy Handy Smurf (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not happening. Nakon 23:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

m:User:\+" %:=?'ü&

^ For what it's worth. I tried to create a user page here saying the same thing, but the stupid title blacklist got in the way. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provident Bangalore

Hey, this is regarding the article Provident Bangalore, which you recently deleted. I hadn't paid much notice to the article of late, and I did not notice the PROD tag to it. I request you to un-delete the article (if that is possible), because the cricket team in question(Provident Bangalore) is a part of a cricket tournament Karnataka Premier League, and articles of most other teams exist (see Bangalore Brigadiers, Mangalore United). So, I would ideally like this article to exist. MakingTheMark •Wassup doc? 10:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please request undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Thanks, Nakon 16:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

I am not editwarring! I am just trying to correct some wrong information! The fact is that some users editions are automatically accepted! And the one refusing mine is the one that agrees with the wrong information! It is difficult to help like this! In his talk page we discussed and I presented him a lot of reliable sources from the official site and he came out of arguments and said it is over! But he is acting in a diffenrent way on the article reverting the information back to the wrong one! Can you help me in this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.89.67 (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So...?

Matthias Malone

After a quick search, it looks like the user made this edit today (12). I thought it might be useful if you're starting a profile or conducting an SPI. OlYellerTalktome

Thanks, Nakon 06:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Sarah Glendening

I didn't intend to publish the page without any information. I was gathering things, and pressed save instead of delete. I had intentions of filling the page with information about Sarah from sources like IMBD, and other creditable sources. Trust me, I was not creating a page of non-sense. I promise. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Musicfreak7676[reply]

I'd recommend first developing the page in your user space and then move it when the article is ready. More information on how to do so is available here. Nakon 22:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, once again, I had no intentions of creating a page and just leaving it empty. I intended on putting all of her information, I just pressed "Save" by accident. no harm intended. hope all is well. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Musicfreak7676[reply]

Tb

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

Added Spatial Ventures

Hi Nakon,

I created a page to share with others what Spatial Ventures is and it seems you deleted it... It's a community of people involved in the commercial opportunities of space. This is no sci-fi, or advertising.

It's a movement I initiated with other friends recently because we're seeing so much traction around this lately (see this: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/commercial-spaceflight-2011-outlook-101229.html

Can you please re-consider?

Thanks! Scmoatti (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming sock puppets

Sorry to disturb you and I know it's too late now, but I noted that three IP addresses have been used by a single person to vandalize pages related to Hello Kitty, Onegai My Melody, and Ni Hao, Kai-lan as they seem to support each others' edits. The IPs in question are: 76.117.98.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.58.37.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 69.242.55.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are addresses used by the vandal who was using the now blocked 68.44.142.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). They seem like they're used the same person to me due to the kinds of edits the former three dished out. Just discovered this after reverting edits at the Kai-lan article (first using an anonymous IP myself in my sister's laptop before logging in with my own laptop). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Cheers for Monitoring Nakon,

We Actually own the content I was editing, and are now starting to maintain it as part of our official role. Will sandbox any tests, but, I need to upload the new Logo, hence the edits.

Cheers QuickiWiki Look Up

Look Up — Preceding unsigned comment added by DECWesternAus (talk • contribs) 08:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest. If you manage the content, you are not eligible to include the content in Wikipedia. Nakon 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popstation (Online Singing competition)

Hi Nakon. Thanks for deleting this. If you look at the contribs of this user you will see that he is a 'sleeper'. His only edits have been to constantly recreate this deleted article several times, over an extended period of time, and under slightly different names. If you haven't already done so, I would suggest salting the possible page titles and adding a procedural block for creating inappropriate pages. Just suggestions. Best wishes for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rich mann

I believe that's his real name, and his website is named after him. While I don't endorse his editing, which I reverted, I'm not so sure that the username should be blocked as a violation. The relevant issue is more about him spamming his website, which can be handled other ways if it continues. What do you think?   Will Beback  talk  09:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is a violation of WP:U, and I have blocked the username as so. Nakon 09:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. Which part of WP:U is being violated? A couple of sections allow for using one's real name, WP:REALNAME in particular.   Will Beback  talk  09:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He enabled his email so I wrote to him to see if he wants to contribute non-promotional material, and suggested that he use a non-real name just as a reasonable precaution. So it's all fine for the time being. If he decides he wants to go back to his old name I'm sure you won't object if I unblock it. Cheers,   Will Beback  talk  10:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection at at all. Nakon 20:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oraak

Hi Nakon,

I see you deleted this page before, and this is it's third creation. Could you take a look and see if its any different to the deleted versions. Action as you see fit etc etc... Pol430 talk to me 21:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lagoo sab

Hi Nakon. GinGongGangGing (talk · contribs) seems to be another sockpuppet of User:Lagoo sab, related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lagoo_sab/Archive. What do you think? Regards. Tajik (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed and blocked by MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Nakon 02:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page for my Non-Profit Ministry

Why was my page deleted? I am trying to start a Wiki Page for my Ministry. Am I someway breaking the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeantLunsford (talk • contribs) 00:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our policies and guidelines on conflicts of interest, corporate notability, and spam. Thanks, Nakon 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]