---

The page that you have just deleted copied information from pages which have been licensed under creative commons. Where did the content of the page go now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giadefa (talk • contribs) 10:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to editor's claims that the artist did not fully meet the criteria, the previous deletion reviews were turned down. The page is being placed under 'speedy removal' without any consideration to policy. The following statement is taken directly from a Wikipedia criteria and a Wikipedia editor, from an earlier deletion:

       * "The kind of independent reliable sources we'd need to justify the claims in this article would be things such as articles in culture- or music-oriented magazines, newspaper articles, mention in published books, newsmagazine articles, TV news segments, and the like."

The following is a TV news segment from Fox News, in which Mikie Da Poet performs a song and closes the show (4:32 mark of video) for platinum-selling hip hop group, Do or Die, who are also found to be notable by Wikipedia. [1]

       * News anchor David Navarro calls Mikie Da Poet a "hot new star" (0:09 mark of video) and Fox also reports him to be "the new Eminem" according to fans and music critics. (4:32 mark of video)

Wikipedia, among others find Fox News to be notable, therefore Mikie Da Poet is notable.

       * Mikie's song "Exploitation" is under license by 20/20 Media and has been used as the featured song in the upcoming film/documentary "Business As Usual: Exploitation of Hip Hop", starring Mekhi Phifer, Kanye West, Dr. Cornell West, Bobby Brown, and many more Wikipedia notables. [2] (Video at bottom of official site)
       * [3] His name is mentioned in the credits at the conclusion of the trailer.
       * IMDb page for the film, credits shown for Mikie Da Poet's composition and writing of the featured soundtrack. [4]

To sum up, based on Wikipedia criteria, the sources provided above should be more than enough to restore this page. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.44.99 (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did I do wrong? You didn't help me much or give me advice you just trashed the pages instantly? Where exactly did I mess up? --Randomwikiuser4000 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. This user dropped by #wikipedia-en-unblock, and you were the blocking admin. I left note about the whole thing there. --slakr^\ talk / 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that! I was trying to undo it, but you beat me to it! Sometimes using my mobile phone to edit can be a pain! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 05:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember in placing a deletion tag on articles to notify the editor involved. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the RevDel on my Talk page - I don't think I've had abuse that's needed that before, so I must be doing something right :-) I've actually restored the first rant, the one before the RevDel version, as it doesn't seem too bad in that state, and I've provided a friendly answer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Unblocking this editor didn't work. He's blanked his talk page and immediately created over 50 extremely low quality stubs. It needs stopping. What do you think? --Kudpung (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the IP disrupting Talk:Falkland Islands.

Thought it might be worth bringing to your attention this edit, apparently from the same editor, and also the fact that he has been canvassing on es.wiki: see here and here. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 21:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take a look at this article? It's another one of Time_Will_Say_Nothing (talk · contribs) pages that are from the autobiography. I've tried redirecting it, I tried warning him, but nothing is working. Thanks.--v/r - TP 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him a final warning. Nakon 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your final warning. Your conduct is unacceptable harassment. You state there is no context. Read the first sentence and the source which together provide the context.

Another page in this series has been deleted twice. Why is one page directed and another deleted? There is no consistency in your approach, demonstrating that it is the product of wilful and caprcious harrassment. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking to add primary source material, you may want to try over at our sister project, Wikisource. Nakon 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is secondary source material. It is from a published book. I have given the source on each page concerned. There is no consistency in your statements. First, you say put the extracts on the main page. Now you say put in on a different project.--v/r - TP 03:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no consistency in the objections to these edits. First they are said to be promotional. I note that that ridiculous objection has been removed by the editor who made it, having been disproved. Then the objection seems to be vandalism of a page. Now you suggest indiscriminate collection of information. What exactly is the objection? There is nothing indiscriminate about this project. I intend over time to add significant extracts from the book. These extracts will take up too much space if they are all on one page. As it is they are co-ordinated (and therefore not indiscriminate) by the fact that they are linked from the main page Up To Now. This is a carefully thought-out project, unlike the raft of inconsistent objections, and aggressive edits. Kindly stop preventing information from being posted in an orderly and co-ordinated manner. Thanks Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough content to warrant individual articles for each piece. Either add it to the main article, or add it to a different project. Nakon 23:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you make a further totally different objection! This not about effective editing, but about the egos of the editors involved. I also notice that a box was placed on the main page (Up To Now), saying there was no source, although I had previously put the source at the bottom of the page! Don't your editors bother to read the pages before tagging them?. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't place the tag, you'll have to speak to the editor that did. Nakon 23:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you make a further totally different objection - "not enough content"! This not about effective editing, but about the petty egos of the editors involved. There will be too much content for the main page. Therefore individual pages are justified. Your comment "add it to a different project" is ludicrous. There is only one project. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the other Wikimedia projects. Nakon 23:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I can't see how they will help. They are for free to use content. This is not free to use content. I own the copyright. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia is for free content too. Contributions to Wikipedia is your consent to release those contributions under the CC-BY-SA license.

Not at all. Please read the summary at CC-BY-SA. It is explicit that there is no obligation to make content free. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you also need to be aware of this: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Your editing style plainly violates this aspect of deletion policy. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay and is not official policy. Nakon 17:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page he created contained a real name, address and e-mail addresses. Give 'em a trout? HalfShadow 23:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was stunned by the speed with which you deleted this page. This is a very important company doing extremely valuable research. Did you even bother to review their web side? I have no affiliation or personal stake in this company, just happen to know about their work. I am amazed I didn't even have a chance to add the {{hang on}} label. I have been a contributor to the Wikipedia for some six and a half years, have made thousands of contributions and have created many articles, and never had this happen to me. You are doing a disservice to the Wikipedia by doing this. I wonder what gives you this right. I urge you to undelete the article ASAP. Pasquale (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore and send it to AFD. Nakon 00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it, Nakon, however, a few hours after you did and before I could get back to the article and flesh it out, another admin, Slakr, speedy-deleted it anyway, adding the comment "was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something". Well, the only thing that's blatant here is this kid's ignorance and arrogance! As a steady contributor to the Wikipedia since June 2004, I find this charge offensive and libelous. What prompted me to create the article about this company is the fact that there are red links to it, so I searched for information on the Web to start a stub. That's called advertising? I find this behavior on the part of certain admins egregious and abusive. As I repeat, I have no affiliation or personal interest in this company. I now ask you to please undelete it so that I can get back to it, edit what's there, and add more information. Let me remind you that the Criteria for speedy deletion state: "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. [...] Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." Pasquale (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KLAS Enterprises, LLC. Nakon 18:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, thanks a lot for letting me know. I hadn't even seen this! You would think the creator of the article would be alerted sooner, wouldn't you? I am deeply puzzled by the users who make pronouncements without the least knowledge of cause, such as "Not notable." (E. Fokker); "Obvious advertisement." (Soewinhan); and so on and so forth. These people don't know what they're talking about, but they probably get a kick from exercising this kind of power. In six and a half years of contributing to the Wikipedia, I have probably dedicated several thousand hours to building the Wikipedia, but have never once engaged in this foolish, vain, and destructive type of exercise. Oh, well, I'll have to rewrite the article, keeping in mind that the Criteria for speedy deletion ("Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. [...] Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.") are apparently ignored and without consequence! Pasquale (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know for what :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nakon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--v/r - TP 03:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seid%C5%8D_juku Hi, what was the reason Seidō juku page got deleted? I read the google cache and found it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.47 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted because its deletion was uncontested for a week. Please see the proposed deletion policy for more information. Nakon 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you choose to delete it you idiot. I practice Seido Karate. A moron like you had no reason to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.13.26 (talk) 07:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's how the process works. If you would like more information on the process, please read the proposed deletion page.

There is consensus to the move.

First, I suggest it.

Then, someone added an opinion that the year, 2011, was important.

All of these were incorporated into the title move.

If you complain and threaten but do not participate in the discussion, YOU are wrong.

If you oppose the move, then discuss it. Your voice would then be part of the consensus. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The poll was closed and any further moves will be considered disruption, as well as a breach of the three-revert rule Nakon 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you did is really wrong and improper.

You, as an administrator, should know better. This is a blockable offense.

What I discuss is entirely valid. It is whether we even need a reactions section, whether we should rely on reliable sources to decide who has a notable reaction, or whether we should allow original research to decide whom I deem as important.

This is very reasonable and an important issue.

Ok, so you don't like a poll so I've bowed down to your wishes and made it a discussion and not a poll. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still shaped like a poll. Please read about how Wikipedia determines consensus. Also, please be aware of the three-revert rule, which states that "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period". Nakon 00:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a discussion. You are free to introduce more than the 3 ideas.

Please know that I have the very best of intentions. Every shooting and earthquake and typhoon will have a reaction from politicians. Americans tend to worship politicians. They put them on money unlike some countries who will put authors, artists, and explorers on money. They want to edit in the reactions of politicians in Wikipedia.

By trying to decide the issue before the bad event occurs, we can be objective. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To show that I have the best of intentions for Wikipedia, I am moving away from the Tucson article (probably won't edit it today) and bring the issue to Village Pump so there can be discussion among people who are not related or have any interest in Tucson. There, an objective discussion can be made. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following and hounding me. In good faith, I backed away from the Tucson article. You keep following me around. That is very vindictive and childish.

My discussion is for the betterment of Wikipedia. We can decide problems that we know WILL happen. If you make up laws after the crime to fit the crime, that is very devious. Likewise, to make the rules to apply to the article already written is bad. We already know the potential problem so we can discuss it now before it happens.

Once again, the problem is that there will be a desire for some to have a reaction section to major events. The discussion is whether we should allow reliable sources to determine who is a notable reaction or if we even need a reaction section since all politicians will express regret or sorrow to a tragic event. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology: When I am wrong, I will admit. I am sorry to have called you childish and vindictive for following me. I have read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hounding#Wikihounding What you did was not childish or vindictive. It is, according to Wikipedia, disruptive. Please do not be disruptive. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

My page with my Bio got deleted saying it's copyrighted from Linkedin. No, that's NOT correct. The similar Bio is there, yes, but it's MY Bio. Am I doing something wrong with using it here?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkerris (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out this page regarding copyrighted material. Nakon 00:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Anne (film) was a joke, not a hoax. My history teacher made us create a W@ikipedia page on a WWII item that would never see the light of day. It could be anything we wanted and this is what I made. As soon as I get my grade I would've deleted the page but please, don't delete before then. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blink ava44 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Your instructor was incorrect in assigning this kind of project. Hoax articles have absolutely no place on Wikipedia and will be deleted as they are discovered. If you continue to create the page, you may be blocked from editing. Nakon 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert (without explanation) what appears to be a good-faith edit by another user in this AfD? YardsGreen (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. As such, they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia and any contributions may be reverted. Nakon 07:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither User:Carol1946 nor the puppet master User:JohnWhitehurst seem to have pages at Sockpuppet Investigations. Can you tell me where else I can find information regarding this specific case? YardsGreen (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial block was placed by Brandon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), a checkuser. Nakon 08:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reverting his edits, could you leave an explanation please or use a bot? Outback the koala (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the user's block log. Nakon 07:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Outback. Reverting any discussion without explanation looks both inappropriate and highly suspicious. Explaining in the edit summary why the revert was made would avoid any confusion from the get go. YardsGreen (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is in the user's block log. Nakon 08:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the system was taking a long time to update, but when I checked the sockpuppet's user page immediately after your revert, there was no obvious indication that the user had been blocked. Also, it still looks bad to those who don't take the time to look at the user page to get to the user's block log. Adding a small message like "User blocked as a sockpuppet" to the edit summary would take seconds and would prevent a lot of misunderstanding. YardsGreen (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an easy way to do that through the rollback links. There will usually not be a block template on the user's userpage. Please check the block log in the future. If anyone has any questions about the legitimacy of a revert or block, I welcome their comments here. Thanks, Nakon 05:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page on Tehmina (Tamie) Adaya was deleted, presumably for not being properly sourced. Could you please let me know what needed to be fixed so we can get that back up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneevs (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted through our proposed deletion system. Please make a request for undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Thanks, Nakon 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do so wrong that the page I have put up is being considered "blatant vandalism"? This was not my intent...the article was created in a good faith effort...is it because of too many edits within a 24 hour period? Would appreciate some explanation and the opportunity to correct whatever seems to be wrong here. Thanks:

User talk:MediaMogulManFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 04:46, 11 January 2011 Nakon (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:MediaMogulMan" ‎ (G3: Blatant Vandalism)MediaMogulMan (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which page are you referring to? I can't find any deleted contributions attributed to your account. Nakon 07:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. After investigating further, it appears that your user talk page was created by a user that was ultimately blocked for vandalism. Please ignore any messages regarding that as it does not affect your account. Thanks, Nakon 07:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm on Huggle and I see edits by a user to a sandbox page. Looks like they're trying to add WP:SPAM. I check their user page and see your warning about creating articles, but don't see it in their edit history making me think the an article has been deleted. So I report over at WP:UAA because of WP:SPAMNAME. Given that you warned them, and the page was deleted, that probably should've been a clue that you're an admin that could handle it without a report at WP:UAA. This is when I decide it's time to go to bed. Have a great night!--Gnowor^T_C 08:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am concerned that User:Glassberg8068 managed one last shot[1] at Michael Zarnock with the unblock request. If you get a chance, can you read that and see if you agree it would be best to delete that? Thanks for your time. Seaphoto^Talk 17:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it

The content is inappropriate to post on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a web host. Please consider posting it elsewhere. Thanks, Nakon 03:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has had several days to "vent" and he's still at it, insulting other editors. I think you should disable his talk page access, and then remove the personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nakon 16:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't know whether you forgot to do it, but you forgot to RevDel SineBot's edit summary at WP:AN. Could you RevDel that too? Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 16:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. HeyMid (contribs) 21:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is so mean.

I am trying to change the title because someone didn't like it.

Old title: 2011 Facebook killing

New title: 2011 Facebook related killing in Lithuania

Please do it. Nobody is opposed to it. Two people are opposed to the current title. Donotkill (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a request at WP:RM. Thanks, Nakon 00:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes seem to have cause a load of false positives at AIV/TB2. Perhaps you could take a look and see if anything can be learnt from them? I hope there'll be a filter set to disallow by midnight UTC or it'll be madness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realize that someone set it to report there. I believe that I have most of the false-positives ironed out and am going to let it run flag-only for a bit to see if it needs further tweaking. The previous method of detecting the vandalism appears to be ineffective now, so I'm trying something different. Nakon 18:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was inefficient, but they're fairly predictable, so we could catch up quickly when they changed, but something that detects the behaviour is certainly better. We've got about 5 hours before the fun starts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It already has, check the log. Nakon 19:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block for User:Momma82, User:mlcdimes, and 2 others on the same IP address who made and immediately reverted mere test edits to learn how Wikipedia worked was _inappropriate_. An indefinite block for their IP address is against Wikipedia policy. Please read up on how blocks are supposed to work. An indefinite block on an academic IP address is now allowed. I require these students to learn Wikipedia as part of a university course. You didn't know that. Regardless of that, though, we are supposed to administer indefinite block only in specific circumstances, and their test edits (like adding an extra space between sentences) do not qualify. Doczilla _STOMP! 19:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These edits were suspicious and followed a pattern of previous abuse. Since there was a vandalbot operating at the time, I took the action to prevent any potential disruption. I do apologize that these blocks were inaccurate, and will unblock immediately. Thanks, Nakon 19:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Doczilla _STOMP! 19:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, 2 minutes from creation to indef-block. Maybe not a record, but in the neighborhood. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all without twinkling or huggling Nakon 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "The moors in england" took just 1 minute. Moor or less. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think actually I hold the all-time record. An editor posted an amazingly offensive image, involving both pornograhic nudity and defaecation, and I blocked him within 45 seconds!--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this filter is catching wrong IPs recently, and they are blocked immediately for 1-3 years only because the filter said so. Not 100% sure, thus asking. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother, but, could you please go to Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#137.122.203.217 and answer? I have no knowledge of what this filter is doing or why. —Soap— 15:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That edit filter is preventing a vandalbot that uses proxies from editing. I'd rather not discuss on-wiki how the detection is made as that would give the operator clues to evade the filter. Nakon 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He says he's reformed, and I really didn't see anything in the edits leading up to the block that justified it. Was I missing something? Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits that led to the block were in the filter log. Nakon 16:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revision delete several of the edits made to Lad, A Dog?Per User_talk:Elockid#Lad.2C_A_DogSmallman12q (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were removed as a part of WP:DENY. There is an open RFC on RD3 if you'd like to comment. Nakon 17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the RFC link! It's nothing personal, I just find the RD3 a bit overused/abused lately.Smallman12q (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First the background:

Hi. I've created my first page and it was speedily deleted. All the information in this new article was from another Wikipedia article (Kruger National Park). The idea being to to start somewhere and expand from there. Apart from the introduction, about 80 - 90% of the new article was in my own words since I contributed it to the original Kruger National Park article. I've also provided references. Can you please point out the offending parts? Or must I start from scratch using the same references again? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salitje (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry, forgot about signing Salitje (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If the text was taken from another Wikipedia article it has to be deleted there also, as it was taken word for word from a third party source. Travelbird (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of History of Kruger National Park Mmm I see what you mean - it was taken from "Author's Statement". Extinct Megafauna - The First Victims of the Human Caused Extinction. Edmeades (self). http://www.megafauna.com/author.htm. OK lesson learnt... Salitje (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC

Question. Is it possible to restore the article minus the offending part? Or must I start afresh? Salitje (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the copyvio content was in the original article, please recreate it without the copyright violation. I can email you a copy of the deleted article if you'd like. Nakon 20:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you deleted the page 'zsilent z' how come? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shootingarrows (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not meet our notability guidelines, as explained on your talk page. Nakon 00:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cleanup, whatever it was. Nice to know others are on the job when I'm not. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you tell me after how many months/days will I be able to apply again for Reviewership? I guess I satisfy all the other criteria.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolyme (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say at least a month or two. Nakon 20:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Is there a way that you would be able to transfer the information you deleted in my article, Seoul Sisters?

Thanks for your help, --SayItRight1 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may either request undeletion at WP:RFU, or I can email you a copy of the article if you enable your email. Nakon 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the grace of AlMighty Allah, this is an extremely important page for Pakistan as well as Pakistanis. The wrong media perception of the country (which has population of more than 200 million people Alhamdulillah) is strongly countered by Amusing places like Dreamworld. People of Pakistan are passionate, fun loving, family oriented people who live a very normal and usual life like most of the other 5.80 billion people of the world. Dreamworld is one such place through which Allah provides such life style to Pakistanis. The Australian Dreamworld page on wikipedia have much more info than this page which is infact giving a "promotional" impact of that Amusement Park. But more importantly it does not have its national identity associated with it as loudly as this page, as you may notice the title of this page: "Dreamworld PAKISTAN". Thus, this page is not only fit on wikipedia criteria but its subject is also very important and significant as it adds another value into Pakistan's true National image.

It is strongly recommended to not only restrict deletion of this page but also help in deigning it better. You may visit the official website of Dreamworld PAKISTAN and see for yourself that by the grace of AlMighty Allah how big the Resort is. How many Resorts in the world do you think have following so many attractions in one place: Water Park, Amusement park, Golf course, Hotel, Spa, numerous Restaurants, etc?

In further support of the current stand following text of "WikiProject Amusement Parks" is pasted here for your quick referrencce which gives another reason that why it is extremely important for Dreamworld Pakistan to have its own individual identification on Wikipedia: Project scope The ultimate goal of this WikiProject is to improve the quality of articles relating to amusement and theme parks. In order to accomplish this goal, Wikipedia will need an article on every amusement park in the world (as well as parks that are no longer operating) as well as articles on everything related to amusement parks. This includes, types of rides (ie. log flumes, roller coasters, carousels, etc.), people involved in developing rides and amusement parks and actual ride installations.

Now, if Dreamworld Pakistan will not have the page here than how will it participate in the above existing project of Wikipedia.

Another reason: Following text is pasted from Dreamworld Australia page which is very promotional than Dreamworld Pakistan: Dreamworld is a large theme park situated on the Gold Coast in Queensland. It is currently Australia's largest theme park with over 27 rides including 4 roller coasters. The park is made up of several themed lands: Ocean Parade, Nick Central, Wiggles World, Gold Rush Country, Rocky Hollow, Tiger Island and the Australian Wildlife Experience. These lands feature a collection of rides, animal exhibits, shows, food outlets and merchandise shops.[1] Dreamworld is well known for being the location of the Australian Big Brother House for 8 years. In December 2006, Dreamworld expanded its offerings by opening WhiteWater World next door.[2] Numerous times throughout the year, Dreamworld remains open after dark. This event, known as Screamworld, features all thrill rides and a selection of children's rides.

Tariq Hilal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariq hilal (talk • contribs) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this article again. When you deleted it, I tagged it G11 and effectively recreated it in the same moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beruby My76Strat 02:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NM it is  Done My76Strat 02:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...for this. :) Andrea (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found that I can't create a page under the subtitle of Chen Chao. Can you let me have the right to create this name again? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeyou8286 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted under criteria A3 of our speedy deletion policy. A3 includes "Any article (other than disambiguation pages, redirects, or soft redirects) consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images. Nakon 06:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am only asking because I don't want to repeat my, erm, "crime" - and if I am under the wrong impression about what crime I committed then I may do it again by accident. Reissgo (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone breaks the three-revert rule, they will most likely receive a block. Nakon 16:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, YOu will not let me work on it! Why not?--!!ViewCountFun1 (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try developing the article in your userspace first. You can work on it at User:!!ViewCountFun1/Dare County Alternative Schools. Very short articles are subject to speedy deletion. Nakon 22:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I promise I'll never misuse it. Novice7 | Talk 04:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rapid intervention at UAA just now. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have autopatrolled rights, then the page does not show up in the new pages or as an unpatrolled page highlighted in yellow. Theoretically, the page wouldn't get marked for speedy deletion because new page patrollers would not see it. In all honesty with no sarcasism, am I correct? Thanks for your time. Mìthrandir (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrollers would not see it on Special:Newpages, but it would still be visible on Special:Recentchanges and other areas. Autopatrolled is not a way to evade the speedy deletion criteria. Nakon 23:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the advantages of using it then? (I am not trying to be smart, just trying to get help) Thanks. Cheers... Mìthrandir (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of using autopatrolled or Special:Newpages? Nakon 00:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using autopatrolled... Cheers.... Mìthrandir (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask someone on new pages patrol. Nakon 00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at my recent reverts to see anti-vandalism in action Benjamin Kerensa 05:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're going to need more than a day of experience to get +rollback. Keep up the good work and feel free to request again in a few weeks. Nakon 15:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Ok, I read Wikipedia:GlobalBlocking, but doesn't that apply only to IPs? How is this applied to a named user, and how could they have created an account? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locked, not blocked. It's a bit confusing. m:Global_Lock#Global_locks. Nakon 18:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ah! Ok, could we please add to that list please? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd contact Oversight as they are better equipped to hide the names. I've also redacted the names from your comment. Nakon 18:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon, Would you kindly send me the contents of the article that you deleted, Seoul Sisters. Thank you for your help! --SayItRight1 (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily posted it at [3]. Nakon 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your deletion of Allen Brothers. The article was created by someone with a COI. It was tagged for speedy deletion, and I excised the promotional content. From the Google cache, I note that there is a citation from the Wall Street Journal. A Google News Archive search also confirms that the company is notable. I ask that you undelete the article since it is notable and no longer promotional. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nakon 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate! I'm not sure how substantial the old article on Hengzhen was, but I'd like to recreate the article on him. I normally contribute to WP:ROYALTY, so I'm familiar with WP:BLP notability and verifiability requirements. Could you undelete the article? Nightw 14:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted through the proposed deletion system. To request undeletion, please make a request at WP:UND. Nakon 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HELP US! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Sleven (talk • contribs) 19:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a web host. Please find some other place to host it. Nakon 19:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the source says it's under the CC-BY-3.0 (see longer reply at ANI). I think the CC-BY is compatible with the CC-BY-SA if copying into Wikipedia, but I'm not completely sure. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add an entry at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for further clarification? Nakon 21:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i posted a new page it needs a lot of work please help and ad to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb1078r (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its called ww2 weapons of the holocaust — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb1078r (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my wiki on Minecraft Maps?

I spent so much time on it! Could you please be more specific?

Thank you, the hard working, Casper Bezemer, creator of Minecraft Maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CsprBzmr (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted as spam. If you are affiliated with the subject, a conflict of interest exists and it's strongly suggested that you not edit or create articles on the subject. Nakon 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it informational then? Did you even read it? I do not want to be or even sound impolite here, but I think you are just authoritarian, and kind of overuse your power by deleting innocent wiki pages because they are the work of small, innocent, beginning web developers, who just want to create a basic knowledge, history and status base just like mine, on Minecraftmaps.net.

Could you please reconsider actually reading it, and being a little less harsh in your decisions whether to delete a page or not. I was not aware of any violation in any way, and deleting it this instantly, without further information or help given is not a humane thing.

Please be more tolerable in the future, and if you still can, read my article, and decide whether it really is as much 'spam' as you say it is. :) Yours Sincerely, Casper Bezemer — Preceding unsigned comment added by CsprBzmr (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policies on spam and notability of websites. Nakon 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my burst out there, man, but I seriously think you should consider being more mild in deciding if something is spam or not. I spent one and a half hour on that wiki page, and then one person, which in this case is you, Nakon, instantly deletes my hard and totally innocent work. You could at least have given me a warning first, instead of instantly destroying it. But again, my apologies, I'm not a hateful person! :) CsprBzmr (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied again for reviewership. Kindly process it.:) Boolyme ^Talk!! 09:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm half inclined to leave this be, unless he starts causing trouble again; but I thought you might like to know that User:Ggoere who you recently placed an indef block on as a vandalism only account looks to have started editing as User:GeorgeGriffiths. I'm not 100% sure that this is the same person, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.—Jeremy (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You recently autoblocked an entire library systems ip address. I was working on that ip address and noe can no longer edit. Can I get an exempt from that or something. It was really disruptive.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please request the unblock on the IP's talk page. Nakon 23:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy block of Flixfox - Rich(MTCD)^{Talk Page} 23:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i just made a page for the first time. why was it deleted?

Please see the biography guidelines. Nakon 20:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Grimmeh I dispute this decision, because A. It is not false information. B. It is about a character that does exist on IMVU, it is not a hate page . And they are "famous" on that website. I want to make a page on them, I feel it is just. This is free encyclopedia, and Grimmeh is a section of it I doubt will /ever/ be used, thus is harming nobody. There is far worse pages that have NEVER been deleted which hate on people who are physically disabled or mentalled challenged like "TsimFuckis", a whole page of slander about a poor physically challenged child who is trying to make better of himself by placing humor on it so he can have some sort of peace with himself.Every word I posted about the character I spoke about is true, I have the users permission to post such things about him, I do not see why it needs to be deleted especially when I am granted the individuals permission.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Nakon, I hereby present you with this barnstar for your constant dedication towards protecting the encyclopedia from spammers, trolls, vandals and making Wikipedia a better place. Yours truly, --Addihockey10 e-mail 02:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you didn't block this user after he/she vandalized your talk page. I'm just wondering why.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user is blocked. Nakon 03:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange though that you didn't notify him/her, but like all blatant vandals, the warning templates say blocking my occur without notice.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing that vandalism from my user talk. Knowing me, I probably wouldn't have noticed it for weeks! Have a cookie.

123Hedgehog456 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]