User talk:Nakon/arc15

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

you're back![edit]

Welcome back! You've been missed! :-D Katietalk 09:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of pi[edit]

I'm not sure if you're watching Talk:Pi, but I think protection is the wrong move there. It's clear that User:Takahiro4 is acting disruptively (he is technically over 3rr, and has been reverted by no less than four distinct editors). I think he should be blocked and the page unprotected so that productive editors can continue there. I've written at greater length at Talk:Pi. I would raise this at ANI, but I think this way is less drama. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayawada Metropolitan Region[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayawada Metropolitan Region had some useful info at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#UA_v_Metro. Can it be taken into consideration or comments should be made at the specific page?--Vin09(talk) 03:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for consideration, but it needs to be made at the AFD page. That's why I extended it for another week. Thanks, Nakon 03:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buondi caffè[edit]

Need guidance for future posts. I understand G11 criteria, don't understand how it was used here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buondi_caffé, but not here: Nestlé_Toll_House_Café

Hello, The page was removed under the G11 criteria as the article contained a large number of external links (11), which suggested it was promotional in nature. This is in contrast to the 4 external links in the other article you proved. Thanks, Nakon 23:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can I have a second chance to improve it? ie, can it be undeleted? Or for the same article, do I have to start new? If new, can I send it to you for review before going live? Thanks

Hello, I've restored the article and have placed it in your Userspace at User:WorldofCoffee/Buondi caffè. Feel free to edit this draft and let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Nakon 00:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see you're back online[edit]

In a previous request [1] which you perhaps missed, I asked you to make a correcting postscript to your comments here [2]. I'm sorry to bother you again, but I really do need to ask that you do that, given that, standing alone as that thread does, it gives a completely incorrect impression of the situation. Thanks. EEng 00:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I'd be more than happy to add a correction. Would you prefer I strike out the section or add a separate comment below the archived thread? Nakon 21:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both would be nice. For the avoidance of doubt, however, I want to make clear that no act of seppuku is being requested. And stay away from the cough medicine. EEng 03:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that these comments will help. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know. Nakon 03:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Honor has been satisfied. EEng 03:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Khilafah Philippine[edit]

Why is this article deleted, that too with no notice period?

Hello, the Ansar Khalifah Philippines article was removed as it met one of the criteria for speedy deletion, namely criteria A7. The article did not indicate why the specific group had a credible claim of significance. If you would like to update the article, I can restore it to your userspace for further development. Thanks, Nakon 00:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map[edit]

Hi,

Could You actually invest some time and see who did what wrong on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map instead of just blocking the page fro whole 2 weeks!. Having page blocked for 2 weeks is much greater problem then having a few stubborn users editing it. --Hogg 22 (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even have to invest your time. Only 2-3, the same users, are constantly breaking the rules because they want to force admins to block others for editing the page, thus making it go away eventually. DuckZz (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've decreased the protection on the module. If the edit warring continues, please let me know so further action may be taken. Thanks, Nakon 01:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon Ok, here. The user "Pakal" broke the "1RPD" rule (1 revert edit per day), instead of 1, he reverted 9 times in 24hours. Here, Here2, Here3, Here4, Here5, Here6, Here7, Here8, Here9. And by the way, he is the reason why the protection module on the page was changed in the first place, because he made 10 edits without provind any source, or providing unreliable sources. Now he is reverting other users (who are cleaning his edits) becauser they haven't provided a source. This shows that he's playing stupid, before and continues. DuckZz (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question has been blocked by Slakr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Thanks, Nakon 18:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan[edit]

If you would kindly remove the protection from Jordan article, we are almost reaching a consensus on the talk page and I feel like editing something in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced the protection on the article. Thanks, Nakon 23:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for taking the time to review and approve my request for rollback rights. I'll repay by greater effectiveness in countering vandalism! -- Jmc (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I'm trying to fight back vandalism by a political PoV pushing IP. Rousseff is still the President of Brazil, even though her powers & duties are currently suspended. GoodDay (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm afraid that I have no insight into that particular political issue, so on the surface it appears that there is an ongoing edit war. Neither of the parties appear to be providing sources either way, and with a lack of sources I'm unable to ascertain if the edits may be vandalism. I would, of course, be willing to review any reliable sources you may have that would show the IP's edits to be vandalism. Thanks, Nakon 03:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an IP, persistently inserting Michel Temer into the article List of Presidents of Brazil, even though he's not President. Anyways, I'll let others weigh in on both those articles. I' don't feel like getting blocked, over troublesome IPs. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than willing to work with you on blocking IPs that may be vandalizing articles, but I would need to see sources that support the position you're endorsing. Unfortunately, without that context, this looks like a 3RR situation. Nakon 03:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Thanks for being reasonable and not giving me a lifetime ban. Yes I vandalised all right but I really was drunk yesterday, I had half a litre of brandy while watching the Eurovision and it made me start feeling silly and facetious. Not to be repeated, I served my ban. Eyes forward from here. Thanks. Marvixo (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Numerai article[edit]

The article was put up for deletion in under 30 minutes after creation. I had not even finished adding all the sources. I do not believe that the AfD-requester was either knowledgeable about the topic or took the time to find other sources. I spend 8 hours on creating this article.

"The Financial Times source seems to be the only available independent source. Fails WP:GNG."

The Financial Times was not the only available independent source, there were at least 5 editorial sources.

These sources were "Significant coverage": not merely a one-sentence mention.

"Reliable": The sources were editorial and are used to source other articles on Wikipedia without problem

"Secondary": The sources were secondary.

"Independent of the subject": The sources were created of their own will and not simply PR.

"multiple sources are generally expected": And multiple sources were provided.

The article may not be sufficient to stand on its own, but then it could be added to other, more general pages.

So there is no strong case of it failing WP:GNG.

"A case of WP:TOOSOON, I think. I'm fine with it being moved into Draft: or User: space: It's possible that substantial coverage will appear in reliable sources independent of the FT, but who knows? WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. "

This comment was added after numerous editorial sources were added to the article.

WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL talk of unreleased movies, while this is an active and already functioning company.

"DELETE as clearly too soon, not nearly a year old and there's not enough imaginably of course."

What is clearly too soon and why is this a rule on Wikipedia? What should have changed for it to be not "too soon" in a few months? Notability is established by sources, not topic age right?

"There are something on the order of 10,000 hedge funds in existence. The truly notable ones have been around a long time and hold assets measuring well in excess of $1 billion. Here, the subject holds 1.5 million (not billion), which the article says was raised just last month. The modeling contests that they sponsor do seem interesting, but I don't see it as enough to get the subject past the notability criteria."

The truly notable ones, like Renaissance Technologies, have actually funded this company... The fact that they have a fund is not the notable part, the fact that they host crowd-sourced competitions on encrypted data is notable (This company is known in Bangladesh...). The subject trades with an unknown amount way more than 1.5m, the 1.5m was funding for the company, not the cash used for trading.

I am very disappointed once again in the notability deletion process. I'd like this to be judged on knowledge-ability on the subject, not someone who feels it is "too soon", or who says it breaks a totally unrelated rule, or who gauges notability to what the absolute top in the market is doing. That way a budget movie can not be on Wikipedia (because blockbusters have billions).

You are just doing your job, and I am -- probably annoyingly -- venting. But this is very discouraging as an author. Consensus may have been reached, but the argumentation was weak. Will try again in 6 more months, with, no doubt, a few sources added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

Best Rolly Jodger (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your comments regarding this article's deletion. I do apologize that I removed the page after you invested the time in creating the article. Based on the comments in the AFD, a majority of editors felt that the article was not yet ready for inclusion. I would be more than willing to restore the article into your userspace so it could be edited further. The article could then be re-submitted for inclusion. Please let me know if you would like to pursue this restoration. Thanks, Nakon 04:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

42nd Peoples Choice Awards protection[edit]

Hello, an unknown user deleted my request to have the 42nd People's Choice Awards article semi protected (I have since reinstated it), and I want it that way because of all the edit warring going on with it. I hope you can hear me out on this. Thank you. 2601:601:4002:E260:5029:271:DF84:AEEB (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semiprotected for 3 days. Thanks for bringing the removal to my attention. Nakon 05:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Good morning. When you get a chance, there is a ticket that has been in your queue for awhile. Thanks!--v/r - TP 19:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I've sent the user a response. Nakon 01:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europa League[edit]

Hi. Galatasaray is fifth placed in turkish league. Thanks Ionel141 Ionel141 20:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See duck User:Owensucksatgarageband2 back at same article. Meters (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've blocked the account. Nakon 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nakon, your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Eyes Crew (2nd nomination) was incorrect and in contradiction to the consensus of the discussion. There is no precedent, policy or process against speedy renomination on a non-consensus AFD. IF you do not think consensus was achieved please relist it but "No changes to article have been made since previous no-consensus close. Please refer to WP:DELAFD before relisting." is not a valid reason for another no consensus close only after a week. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I stand by my close of the AFD as the original one had continued over a month without reaching a consensus and the new one was relisted the day after the close. There weren't any substantial comments on the new AFD which would suggest that the lack of consensus changed, so I closed it as "no conesnsus" to prevent another month-long discussion. I would welcome you to appeal my close at deletion review if you feel I am in error. Thanks, Nakon 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I have submitted an appeal at WP:DRV. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A message of thanks[edit]

Greetings, I thought I'd send a message of thanks for semi-protecting both the Hall of Game Awards and the 42nd People's Choice Awards articles. Those two have been subject to edit warring for a while now, and I am glad you were able to take action. I just wish StealthForce and a few unknown IPs who are behind the edit warring would know how to stop..... thank you once again. 2601:601:4002:E260:55C6:9EAA:146D:35 (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You closed this, but it was a clear delete prior to 20 minutes before the close. The keep voter also claimed that a student magazine was RS, and our policies on WP:NBAND criteria 1 specifically say that that is not the case. Therefore, I think it needs to stay open to address the points. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the additional information. I will reverse the close and relist the AFD for another week. Thanks, Nakon 21:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting article[edit]

Hi, can I get Trevor “Qu1ksh0t” Henry restored to my userspace. The AfD is here. Thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Moved to User:Prisencolin/Trevor Henry (commentator). Thanks, Nakon 04:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nakon. I see that you recently protected the Erica Kane article because of Cebr1979's disruptive editing. The Todd Manning article needs that same protection. It was previously semi-protected from his edits. And, yes, it's him. He likes to pop up at my talk page during these cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REVDEL request[edit]

Hello, Nakon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nakon. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion.
Message added 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers N3rds[edit]

Hi Nakon,

I recently created the page for the musical Numbers N3rds, which was deleted because it wasn't notable.

Recently, the musical has been written about by several large newspapers and websites (the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, and BroadwayWorld.com), which I think make it notable enough to merit having a page. I would like to recreate the page and include these sources to demonstrate its notability, but the page with the title says to contact the deleting administrator (which I believe is you) before recreating the page.

Can you please advise?

DTEwikipedia (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (Non-administrator comment) Hi DTEwikipedia - although I can't answer for Nakon, you may find a couple of answers to your query here, here and possibly (I'm not so sure) here -- samtar talk or stalk 19:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DTEwikipedia, you are welcome to create a draft article in your userspace with the new sources and then request that it be moved to the main article namespace. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Nakon 00:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nakon[edit]

I hope such disputes wouldn't happen again in any wiki pages as it can reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. However, I thank you for disabling the page from edits. JCPOA is a hot topic of debate inside and outside of Iran and U.S., so I believe data presented in its page should be based on correct citations of both news and international organizational bodies' websites with timely updates. At the end, the nature of such debates and disruptions can be both political and accidental wars that preferably must not take place.

Regards, Vahid

Talk: Young Liberal (Australia) Wiki[edit]

Hello

Several attempts have been made to remove "and insulting remarks made by Mr Camillieri towards Mr Miljak's girlfriend" on the Young Liberals (Australia) Wiki as you can see in the edit history: Edit History. It is not an attempt at vandalism or censorship. It is untrue, and in any event, unverifiable. Thus, the appropriate action is to remove it.

You will find original source here: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/young-liberals-meeting-boils-over-as-verbal-clashes-turn-physical-on-night-of-leadership-spill-20150917-gjotc7.html

Regards

Hi Nakon, as one of the users involved in the so-called "edit war" (a term that I don't agree regarding my constructive approach), I ask you to look at the page history again and reconsider your judgement. Here I removed what I suppose is original research, because it was interpreting one's saying citing a UN resolution (=primary source). This is a new section that I added to the article using reliable sources.

I really see no reason for the article to be protected for 20 days, but If you decide to keep it protected, I want you to add the removed well-sourced section and reassess the portion that I believe is original research. Pahlevun (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've reduced the protection at this time. Thanks, Nakon 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for granting me the page mover right. I look forward to being able to serve the community in this regard. RGloucester 02:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

"With only 2 edits to the mainspace, I don't think you have sufficient editing experience yet..." sorry to say, but was that your mistake? - Invisible(Talk) 03:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my mistake with your recent rename. Thanks, Nakon 03:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nakon, it looks like you approved my request to semi this article for 2 weeks but it doesn't look like the protection was ever applied. Would you be able to lock it for me? The reddit nonsense is still going on. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks, Nakon 04:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail.[edit]

Hello, Nakon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

userRightsManager.js[edit]

Don't think I pinged you when I posted about this at WT:PERM: Check out User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager.js. Once installed, click on "Assign permission" on any PERM page and it will ask for (optional) closing remarks, mark the request as done, assign the right with a permalink to the discussion, and post the corresponding template on the user's talk page -- all in about 2 seconds. Saw you like to include permalinks in your rights change summary so figure this could help. Best! MusikAnimal talk 03:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I'll definitely check this out. Thanks! Nakon 03:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nakon,

There is lots of IP disruption occurring at this article. Do you think a protection would be in order here? I also put in a request at WP:RFPP. Thanks. Vensco (T / C) 02:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've fully protected the article as it appears this is a content dispute. Please refer to dispute resolution for further actions. Thanks, Nakon 02:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't Do That![edit]

You Don't Do That! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I think needs their talk page privileges changed... Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I've revoked their talk page editing privileges. Nakon 03:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

rollback request[edit]

Hello, You declined my rollback request and said that I need to understand how to use the anti-vandalism tools without using rollback. I really want to get this privilege one day, can you please tell me what I should do to get the experience so I can pass? What anti-vandalism tools should I use? Thanks. NikolaiHo 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would recommend reviewing the Counter-Vandalism Unit which is a great place to get started with gaining experience in anti-vandalism efforts. Thanks, Nakon 02:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Userfication request[edit]

Hi can I get Draft:Trevor Henry (commentator) undeleted please, or seeing as you didn't respond to the WP:REFUND discussion, should I just proceed to DRV?--Prisencolin (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article to your userspace. Thanks, Nakon 03:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty : Infinite Warfare Autoconfirmed List[edit]

Why can't i edit the Call of Duty : Infinite Warfare Page . It says we need to be a autoconfirmed user to do so.Please do me favor by adding me in the list

Howdy, your account is now autoconfirmed. Thanks, Nakon 03:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

On 8 July 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monita Chatterjee[edit]

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monita Chatterjee a full two hours after it was reopened. Is that really an adequate time for discussion? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last relist stated on the AFD was from July 1. I'll revert the close and add a note on the AFD that it was relisted for July 9. Thanks, Nakon 19:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

RD3[edit]

The chap from ANI has moved to BLP/N after I protected ANI. I don't usually do RD3 deletions, can you check the new stuff at BLP/N and see if it's required? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nakon 04:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

I'm sorry for removing critical reviews from How to Train Your Dragon. I guess I was a bit upset about them. I know it was stupd and I'm sorry Pikagirl16 (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel for account creation log[edit]

FYI, when redacting an entry from the account creation log for self-created accounts, it's only necessary to redact the user name field. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Social Work[edit]

Hai there, there I see you have pp-protected its talk page. This probably might be from Timothys request. There was an ANI involved with this editor in continuously attacking along with other editors and it was solved there. The editor was inactive on the article for sometime after the ANI. But granting them this requests will only support their disruptive behavior in future and motivate the editor to resurrect the dead horse. These editors work with a confidence game which many have fallen to its trap, the current premise for this block request is in updating the talk page archive settings which doesn't come under disruptive editing.(this information wouldn't be disclosed and would only disclose information that can bring [usually falsified ANI where the involved editors have talked in-between without the knowledge of others, or diffs that by singling out can be shown as problematic without providing the full picture.] a block without double check) The current intend of Timothy is to make a list of IPs(who engage in input) a process unseen in wiki and discouraged earlier and it doesn't relate to the content of the article to be included in talk page. I hope you would review it and notify it @ the page. The ANI that I mention was around the time when the article page was stopped having revert block, revert block process. The next process will be blocking the article if any edit made and will see a continuation of the same cycle. If the diffs are reviewed, you could see the pattern that is there. The best thing about the new development is this issue was already solved or had this effect. I hope this doesn't come across negatively. It is just the seriousness of the issue.59.99.39.124 (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asked a question on Talk:RFPP, but haven't gotten an answer, figured you'd know...[edit]

We've got two AfDs up; one NN mixtape and an unreleased album, same artist. Both have been redirected and reverted several times. A redirect is fine, but the articles are not. Can I RFPP a redirect to prevent it being changed? MSJapan (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

PrabhuBaskar (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)how to create article for deepam hospitalsPrabhuBaskar (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Barsi needs to be protected again. Probably for more than a month this time. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe Undeletion[edit]

Hi, can I get “Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Olasunkanmi_Tegbe restored to my userspace. i'm interested in improving the writeup with new reliable sources. Thanks. Ebubay01 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I've restored this to your userspace at User:Ebubay01/Joseph Olasunkanmi Tegbe. Thanks, Nakon 01:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Trying to locate page content after Deletion[edit]

My site was deleted and I am trying to find the content so I can edit the page. AlBarts (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the article was deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Donald Barton. If you would like to retrieve a copy of the page, I can provide it to you so that further edits can be made. Thanks, Nakon 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Alpharock[edit]

User:XPanettaa has asked for a deletion review of Alpharock. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Hi, is it possible to undelete an article for editing? AlBarts (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be restored into your userspace for further editing. Please let me know which article you would like to have restored. Thanks, Nakon 03:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revoke Talk Page Access Request[edit]

Is it appropriate to revoke talk page access for ToddyWiper (talk · contribs) who is now blocked as a sock and making comments such as "why are you acting like dumb??" on their talk page? If so, could you please? Thanks! -- Dane2007 talk 03:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locking talk page access is approved. Nakon 03:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they still have access, they just pinged me and added something to their page. -- Dane2007 talk 03:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, looks like it's been revoked by another admin. Thank you! -- Dane2007 talk 03:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for protecting this, Nakon. Unfortunately, you reverted to the version that's the source of trouble, a spurious death notice. Apparently the article's subject is very much alive, and not named Torres. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it to a valid version, thanks. Nakon 03:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not there yet. I think you expunged the correct versions, and left those that announce his death, that of an unrelated gentleman. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting closer [121] but don't stop yet. A number of accounts did a number on this. Thanks. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nakon, I don't understand what this is about [122], nor the rev-deletion of discussion at the bio's talk page [123]. From what I saw, Nsxtasy was the one account trying to fix the article in the face of vandalism by multiple IPs. Have you found a source that supports the death claim? If not, someone's been blocked for no reason, and well-intentioned discussion has been removed. 2601:188:1:AEA0:19F6:B75D:5103:599C (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(No attempt to change IPs--my rural connection does that to me. This is the same 2601...) 2601:188:1:AEA0:19F6:B75D:5103:599C (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is the discrepancy between edit summaries and actual edits. I can see the edit summary "HE IS NOT DEAD...", yet the associated edit text shows "|death_place= Orlando, Florida". I won't be releasing the edit lock on this article at this time. Nakon 04:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for the lock to be released--I requested it. Someone else has removed the death claim. There was no reliable source to support it. What was there was a spurious reference to a different person. What I'm asking is a reconsideration of the blocked account and restoration of the talk page discussion. 2601:188:1:AEA0:19F6:B75D:5103:599C (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be as clear as possible, this is the linked source that vandals supplied as a death notice [124]. I came across this when I saw Nsxtasy's exasperated edit summaries. He, or she, was right--their edits were the correct ones. 2601:188:1:AEA0:19F6:B75D:5103:599C (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Best as I can tell, this is the account that started the shitstorm [125], which was accidentally abetted by one or two well-meaning editors, then restored by a series of IPs, presumably socks for R257kty. 2601:188:1:AEA0:19F6:B75D:5103:599C (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, I've unblocked and unredacted edits from Nsxtasy. I've sent Nsxtasy a reply regarding the inadvertent temporary block. Nakon 05:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:19F6:B75D:5103:599C (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for John Basedow[edit]

StonefieldBreeze has asked for a deletion review of John Basedow. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Hello, Nakon. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

just asking[edit]

How can i become a member of Counter-vandalism group here in wiki community and i want to auto patrol some wikipedia pages and look trolls who doing vandalism here? thanks (JournalmanManila (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Cardiak Article[edit]

Hello, you deleted the 'Cardiak' article. His production credits are referred to on artists page as well as other credible sources. There can be credible citations. How can we go about recovering? tav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvirgil (talkcontribs) 04:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon has not edited recently. The article was deleted per community consensus as a result of this discussion. If you think the closer (Nakon) closed this discussion incorrectly or there is new information on the topic of the article that was not available at the time of the discussion, then you may request a deletion review. From my review of the discussion, it could not have been closed any other way. Also, who is 'we'? Please fix your signature to comply with our guideline. — JJMC89(T·C) 15:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 17, on the off chance you come back and see this before it's closed. —Cryptic 19:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

16:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Recreate a page you had previously delleted[edit]

I would like to recreate a page you had deleted by the name "Cyprian Nyakundi" He is a well known public figure in Kenya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterxcdzca (talkcontribs) 13:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterxcdzca: Nakon is currently inactive. The article was deleted as a result of this discussion. If reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject have been published since the article was deleted, you can request a deletion review and present the new sources there. — JJMC89(T·C) 17:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Mrs Globe Classic to draft[edit]

Hi is it possible to make this article that was deleted a draft please https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mrs_Globe_Classic I need to use the work for a related article Mrs Globe Australia Australianblackbelt (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Nakon.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Nakon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock review: User:Musa Raza regarding an issue with which you have been involved. Thank you. Just Chilling (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

20:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Nakon![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on new article[edit]

Hello, I recently posted a new article on my employer’s company, Spredfast. I now see that there was a previous article, deleted in May in a discussion you took part in. I understand that I have a COI. However, I believe with this new version I have closely followed Wikipedia’s editing guidelines and that the article is written in a neutral tone and is supported with credible references. If you're able to take a look, I would appreciate feedback. Bthoma (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

19:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-ip-edit-confirmed, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-ip-edit-confirmed and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-ip-edit-confirmed during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

19:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

15:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

15:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

22:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

15:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

21:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)