Thanks for closing this deletion discussion. A disagreement rose out of this discussion over whether or not a line about ululations should be kept in the essay (see here for more context). Anders said he would only remove it if the closing admin instructed him to, but you didn't comment on this issue in your closing. What's your verdict? Brustopher (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend removing it under WP:LINKVIO and WP:YOUTUBE. The video's metadata doesn't appear to show valid copyright status. Nakon 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anders Feder: pinging. Brustopher (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The few seconds the video lasts should fall well within the limits of fair use. See e.g. [1].--Anders Feder (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFCCP, this only would apply to articles in the main namespace. Nakon 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCCP concerns non-free content used on Wikipedia. The non-free content in this case is only used on YouTube. The content used on Wikipedia, the literal link pointing to the video, is not copyrightable (see Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.) and thus not non-free. Since no non-free content is used on Wikipedia, WP:NFCCP does not apply to this case.--Anders Feder (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hiya firstly thank you for accepting my rollback rights. Using this is much easier keeping an eye on disruptive edits and vandalism. Secondly I need a help from you to block an IP. [12] this IP has been given many warning but still continues changes filmography of artists. Please help. Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please report the IP to AIV. Thanks, Nakon 19:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Daan0001 (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. People of similar backgrounds and expertise appear on wikipedia. Please explain how they can be listed and Nikk Seagren and Yolande Hobby cannot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InspireTribe (talk • contribs) 01:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see our policy on notability of article subjects, as well as the criteria for speedy deletion (A7) under which the article was removed. If you would like to work on a draft of the article, you may do so and feel free to submit it for review. Thanks, Nakon 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Kwami closed a RfM ... and ignored the overwhelming OPPOSE and moved the page anyway. diff Do you understand what is going on? Ogress _smash! 05:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, it's entirely possible that I misunderstood this RM request. The page had initially been at Elara (monarch) up until the 5th of April, 2015. It's been moved back and forth since then, ultimately getting locked at Ellalan (monarch) on the 26th of July. The RM discussion was started on the same date, with the request to move the article to Elara (monarch). I think what confused me was the "malformed request" part, which was in both the closure statement and the oppose statement. I'll move the article back and lock it from moves as there's no consensus for the move. Thanks for letting me know! Nakon 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you had an interaction with User:Theeditorofallthingswikipedia. His editing approach continues to cause me concern with inappropriate warnings to other editors. I have given advice on his talk page which was instantly deleted. I am sure that he is well intentioned but totally lacking in experience and knowledge. I am trying to rack my brains about how he could be gently brought into line. Any thoughts ? Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took notice to what you said and took it off because I do not appreciate clutter on my page. I should have responded to let you know it wasnt a bad act. Please look at more recent edits of mine. Im sorry you were upset about my handling of the COI issue but I agreed that I was mistaken in that case. Pleade talk this over with me if you continue to have issues not related to the COI. To Velella TheEditorOfAllThingsWikipedia (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And after that, i read up more on COIs and decided to handle them differently. Go to the talk page of the user User talk:Newweird to see how I just handled one. Thanks TheEditorOfAllThingsWikipedia (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC) To: Velella[reply]

• I saw this conversation. You may be interested in this ANI thread on the same subject: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the ANI discussion. I came across it a bit too late, but I strongly support the editing restrictions presented there. Nakon 16:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, glad to help. Nakon 18:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

again. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Nakon 01:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of it! Much appreciated! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the page in question to my watchlist and have semiprotected it for 3 months. Please let me know if any further disruption occurs. If I'm not online, oversight can take care of it as well. Thanks, Nakon 01:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm under the impression that OS is only for extreme cases like doxing. Can they deal with this stuff too? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an edit doesn't fall under the criteria for oversight, the oversight admin processing the request can still delete it under a regular revdel criteria. I would only use WP:OS for severe violations of the BLP. You may get a faster response, however, by pinging another admin that is online at the time. Nakon 01:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nakon,

Could you explain your reasoning for the reversal of the closure at Ellalan (monarch)? Thanks, Wugapodes (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I reversed the closure as there was no apparent consensus to perform the move. The close rationale did not reflect the discussion, and most of the comments were against an immediate move. If the editors can't come to a consensus, I would recommend listing it at WP:RM for outside opinions. Thanks, Nakon 15:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you declined my request on rollbacking, but why? I can still edit pages and I have not been blocked for edit warring, for a different reason. RMS52 (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Netherless, I am happy to wait a month or so. Until the block would not be concidered recent. RMS52 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the semi-protection that you have imposed is because of the repeated intervention of the non-named user who keeps, without a stated reason, reverting my reasoned edit that the religions of William and James were more relevant in the context of the Battle, rather than the Countries where they were born. Unfortunately you have intervened when his version is in the article.

I have not come across semi-protection before, but on looking it up it seems likely that we would still both be able to edit this article, the criteria being very mild.

I don't feel very strongly about this, but I do find his/her anonymous and unreasoned edits annoying. What would you suggest please?

Mark126 18:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The semiprotection will prevent the IP editor from making any further edits to the article until the protection expires. Please feel free to remove the IP's version. Nakon 17:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Thank you. Mark126 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have rescinded my template editor request. I misinterpreted the guidelines, not making distinction between sandbox type. Sorry. Spartan7W § 16:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, please feel free to apply again once you've met the criteria. Thanks, Nakon 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unblock request at User talk:Mugshots. I am inclined to unblock, but I should be grateful if you would let me know if you have any opinion on the matter. The following are my thoughts:

1. The user page edits for which you blocked appear to have been mistaken placings of messages there instead of on the corresponding talk page, rather than vandalism. The particular message posted (an immediate level 4 warning) was also probably not appropriate, but misjudging the level of warning to give is a very different thing from vandalism.
2. Even if you do for some reason think the edits were vandalism, an indefinite block for two fairly mild vandalism edits is surprising.
3. A "vandalism only" block for two "vandalism" edits from an editor with dozens of non-vandalism edits must surely have been a mistake. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked the account and have apologized to the editor. I reviewed the edits and they were clearly not vandalism. I must have gotten mixed up between the bulk removal of sourced vs. unsourced content. Thanks for understanding, Nakon 20:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nakon! As the other main "regular" WP:PERM Admin (along with Swarm) these days, I thought I'd ask you your thoughts on my proposal at WT:Autopatrolled. (I've followed up with this proposal at VPP, but so far it's getting no feedback...) Anyway, as one of the main "user rights" granters these days, I thought it's important to get your feedback about the proposal. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MPCon

I don't believe consensus was reached there. The deletion discussion should have been closed and the notice removed under no consensus. The arguments made by the two Delete votes were discussed and disputed with relevant evidence. Sepharo (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there was a clear consensus that the article did not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If you disagree with the close, please feel free to list the discussion at deletion review. Thanks, Nakon 14:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's done so. —Cryptic 22:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nakon

Many thanks for unblocking my account. I have requested for username change also I had an issue that is my IP Address was blocked which I think is still blocked, could you please help me in this regard.

Thanks & Regards Srishti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journal of Creating Value (talk • contribs) 04:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nakon

Many thanks for your help in unblocking my page, but I still have a query if my IP address has also been unblocked? Could you please help me in this regard.

Thanks & Regards Srishti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journal of Creating Value (talk • contribs) 04:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon, could you e-mail me so I can forward you the above user's e-mail to the utrs-admins mailing list? Thanks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nakon 22:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MPCon. 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. Sepharo (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people#Break have to do with the ANI discussion? Those edits were made prior to the edit warring, reverted by this edit, protected and a request was made. I'm not arguing about wrong versions, just wanted the edit done pursuant to the discussion. The ANI discussion started off on the issue how the project page should list the results of the RSN, there hasn't been a dispute about the RSN conclusion, just people who think that the WOP project shouldn't say it and just ignore it. Whether or not the project guidelines say what RSN concludes isn't the basis for how pages should be edited. I only proposed removing the section (which also has BLP concerns about poorly sourced names and birth dates for people), not the re-merger done here which is what all the fighting is about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI discussion has concluded. Will you reconsider or should I file a new request? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot it. Protection expired I see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you unprotect the title Jesse Gonzalez and move the article Jesse Gonzalez (soccer)? He made his professional debut for the Pittsburgh Riverhounds about a week ago so he now meets WP:NFOOTBALL. See here. – Michael (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks, Nakon 13:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nakon. I want to begin by thanking you for all the work you do on Wikipedia. Your username often pops up on my watchlist for your many positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I also want to thank you for taking the time to review my request for template editor privileges. I understand why I wasn't granted the privilege, and am not here to contest that. I am however disappointed with your comment stating that I should "propose the edits to the templates on their talk pages". The reason this bothers me is that, if you had read my request thoroughly you would have known that I was volunteering to edit the 500+ language templates to add the "lit." parameter that had already been discussed and implemented on a small number of templates but was then forgotten about. I don't think you could have possibly put in the time to carefully read what I had written since you're suggestion for me to edit over 500 talk pages was unreasonable. I'd like to remind you that your job as an admin is not to mark things as "finished," but to improve the encyclopedia and offer constructive support to users. I feel like in this case you did not do either of those things. Again, I am not arguing that I should have been given the permission, I'm only suggesting that you be more careful in future interactions with users, even if it means getting a little less done. Thanks for your time, Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your request was visible on the RFP page for nearly 24 hours. Another editor (L235 (talk · contribs)) with the "templateeditor" permission commented that you had not "worked on, well, any protected edit requests or sandboxes". Per the requirements on the Template Editor page, administrators are discouraged from granting permissions unless specific criteria are met. WP:TPEGRANT defers the final disposition to an administrator, and I have determined that you do not currently meet the criteria for this user right. You are welcome to disagree, in which you should appeal to ANI and gain a consensus at that noticeboard. Thanks, Nakon 07:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely astonished by this response. You have just proved that you are not carefully reading what other people write to you. I wrote twice above that I was not disputing your decision, but rather suggesting that you are more careful in your correspondence with other users. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've thoroughly reviewed your request, and I disagree that being BOLD is a good use of the template editor permission. You should suggest the edits on a few of the template-protected templates first. I will not grant this right to an editor that does not meet the minimum criteria. As I previously indicated, you are welcome to disagree with my decision by appealing to the adminisrators' noticeboard. Thanks, Nakon 07:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I'm not saying that you should have granted me the permission, only that your comments indicated that you weren't taking the time to read a proposal and respond in a constructive manner. If you had written "Declined, does not fulfill the criteria" I would not have had a problem. It's the fact that you suggested I edit 500 talk pages, indicating that you were not aware of what was being asked in the first place that bothered me. I think that admins need to be more careful than the average user and not rush to complete tasks for the sake of completing them. Your later suggestion that I edit the sandbox then ping you to apply the change was very reasonable and constructive and I will be doing that. Thank you, Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize that I did not indicate that I fully reviewed your contribution. I thoroughly review every submission at WP:RFR, even if I do not leave a detailed message describing my decision. I review at least seven different criteria before making a decision on granting or declining user rights.

I did not mean for you to edit 500+ talk pages for the template to be updated. A few of the highly-transcluded templates' talk pages would be more than enough to review your template edit/submission history once the edit was approved. If you have any additional concerns, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, Nakon 08:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you for clarifying. I'll begin the task and post the links to the sandbox edits below. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per our previous discussion, here are the first batch of sandbox edits to the language templates.

1. Template:Lang-et/sandbox
2. Template:Lang-az/sandbox
3. Template:Lang-be/sandbox
4. Template:Lang-bg/sandbox
5. Template:Lang-bn/sandbox
6. Template:Lang-br/sandbox
7. Template:Lang-ca/sandbox
8. Template:Lang-cs/sandbox
9. Template:Lang-cy/sandbox
10. Template:Lang-da/sandbox
11. Template:Lang-ko/sandbox
12. Template:Lang-fa/sandbox
13. Template:Lang-fry/sandbox
14. Template:Lang-ga/sandbox
15. Template:Lang-gd/sandbox
16. Template:Lang-gv/sandbox
17. Template:Lang-hi/sandbox
18. Template:Lang-hr/sandbox
19. Template:Lang-hu/sandbox
20. Template:Lang-hy/sandbox

Number 12 required a more substantial edit. It seems like the original template was never updated with the "language with name" template when the others were. As it is now the template documentation is incorrect, as pointed out on the talk page. My edit would fix this and replace the left-to-right marker with the appropriate parameter in the Language with name template to increase functionality and be consistent with the other templates.

Thank you for your help with this, it is very much appreciated. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in responding to your message. I've been away from the wiki for the week due to the start of classes. I'll be able to get to this in the next few days. Nakon 04:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, take your time. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rystheguy: I apologize, but I am not going to have the time to submit these edits. I'm sorry for the lengthy delay, but I am not able to give the time to make these template edits. If you can submit that you meet the criteria for the Template Editor permissions, I can grant you access. Otherwise, I would defer you to he article's talk page for edit requests. Nakon 05:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Maybe I'll try applying for the user right again now that I have more template template edits under my belt. Thanks again for your time, Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since your already involved in this case, could I get a block for this? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the range as an open proxy. Thanks, Nakon 04:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

user:erigits hallo admin.I would like to create an article Cyprian Nyakundi.I find that you deleted an article with the same title.what were the reasons? can I go on and create my different version ? (Erigits (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Deku-shrub (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Per #1 of Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions I'm getting back to you regarding John R. Schindler, given you were the closing admin. I'd like to shed light on this new source on the National Review. Given the nature of the deletion discussion and this new source, I'd like to hear your opinion regarding the viability of this article's undeletion. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I just realized the article on Randy D. Funk was deleted with next to no participation. I think the point that 6 months before the discussion had closed keep should have at least caused pause until people were notified. The arguments for deletion were false based on Cavarrone's false view that any source created by a Latter-day Saint is related to all other Latter-day Saints. The writing of LSD shows either ignporance or malice or both on the part of the writer. Him and Purple backpack have consistently engaged in an attempt to delete as many articles related to Latter-day Saints as possible. In this case they seem to have sought to avoid any notification of people involved. I request a reversal so that the issue can be more fully discussed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nakon, I want your help for restoring Abdul Kadar Khatri Article. It was deleted by you. It was my brother's mistake, he didn't knew how to use wikipedia he mistakenly did that. May you please Restore this Article. (It is a Important Article!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matin78692 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I think new WARx2 Wikipedia page was deleted earlier today without following proper Wikipedia rules and guidelines Katymall (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

18:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

16:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Nakon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Supdiop (T🔹C) 12:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

so......y did u delete the boob nazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.11.170 (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nakon, you previously closed the discussion for the deletion of this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Battle of Lang Son. User:Dino nam has reinstated the page, I'm not sure how to compare it to the previous deleted page, but it contains minimal detail. I have tried discussing this with User:Dino nam by posting on both the article talk page and his/her talk page: User talk:Dino nam#Second Battle of Lang Son but have received no response. Are you able to delete the page? If not can you please advise how I should proceed as my attempt at relisting this page for deletion takes me back to the closed discussion related to the earlier deletion. Kind regards Mztourist (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Nakon,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Baada Aal Bal for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Officialjjones (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Furry Fandom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Create indefinite full protection: Nakon, request staff that template/article is considered high-risk, make it full protection whatsoever, change from indefinite semi-protection to full-protection. 112.209.86.65 (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already declined. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Second Malaysia Plan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Some IP editor(s) are persistently removing the "Security" section of the Ubiquiti Networks article. I've tried speaking to one, but I haven't got a response. Since you've protected this article in the past for similar reasons, would you please be able to protect it again? `Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

17:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I realize that you are possibly inactive, but there is a standing request to unprotect one of pages you recently protected [153]. I think it should be unprotected right now, since an agreement how to proceed has been achieved on article talk page. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the page is now unprotected. Thanks, Nakon 05:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really mean to classify 45% of the students at Elk River High School as "disgusting hicks"? lol. Happy editing! Jacona (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing out the additional vandalism on the article. Nakon 01:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Nakon, I just wanted to let you know that I am now auto-confirmed, so you can remove my request on WP:PERM/C. Thanks. Boomer Vial (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I see that the request has now been cleared. Nakon 01:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm a little confused as to why you saw the need to indef EEng for NOTHERE, revoke talk page and e-mail access, and blank his user talk and user pages. I don't really know EEng, but apart from some civility stuff, I don't really get the block rationale or need to revoke talk page access immediately. Was this block in error? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on this block. I've restored the talk page and email access. I feel that the indefinite block is necessary, however. Thanks, Nakon 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't get it, even from a cursory look at his contribs over the last couple months he definitely seems well-engaged in the encyclopedia building process. Again, maybe there's some evidence I'm not in possession of, but I don't think I've ever seen a NOTHERE block that's confused me more. In any event, thanks for taking the time to look at this! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the account for abusive comments, especially this one: [154]. Nakon 05:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EEng is known for his off-beat humour. Indeffing him without warning and blanking his talkpage strikes me as an extremely severe action. I think block needs review at a suitable noticeboard. Dr. K. 05:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. That is not an abusive comment by any stretch of the imagination and I'd strongly suggest you undo this block immediately, as it's a very, very bad block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with this. EEng made a bit of an oddball comment, which is not unusual to my understanding. Even if a block were warranted, ratcheting it up immediately to an indef strikes me as extreme. Even if we take it as an abusive comment, I think an indef would be unwarranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "I feel an indefinite block is necessary" - your feelings are not a valid reason for blocking anyone on wikipedia. Unblock, or provide a reason with an actual basis in policy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I'm about 100% confident that EEng's comments in that diff were meant in jest. Suggest unblocking. At the least, consult with Drmies about this before proceeding. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also didn't block him for civility reasons. You blocked for WP:NOTHERE -- and, at least as far as I see, didn't substantiate it except after the fact with the single diff which shows, at worst, inappropriate joking around. A quick glance at his edit history renders the generalized WP:NOTHERE pretty baseless.

Pinging Drmies, who was the target of the comment, in case he wants to jump in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your "especially this one" example I don't see any basis for such draconian measures, even basis for a mild rebuke. Clearly a severe overreaction. "Not here to build an encyclopedia"?? Very much the contrary! This is one of our most able, prolific and dedicated editors!! Please check EEng's long-term record of contributions. What kind of discouraging message does your action send to the rest of us? There must be a total misunderstanding involved. Please reconsider and reverse this absurd and unjust block. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only nine days in, and we already have the winning candidate for "worst block of the year". Dude, try reading WP:NOTNOTHERE, which applies in this case. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a courtesy note to state that I've overturned your block of EEng, which was unjustified. Indefinite blocks for abuse should be used for egregious statements - I note that you didn't even feel it was necessary to revdel let alone request oversight of the edit. With no outside discussion before or after the block, no warning, no evidence of a pattern of abuse and a weak block summary - this was a poor block and AN consensus was emerging to confirm that. Worm^TT(talk) 09:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my stupid phone, and can't see what I'm typing. Haven't had coffee yet either. I haven't seen what EEng said but I doubt iit would warrant an index block. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nakon! I'm requesting a revedel on this edit (and my reversion) at Stan Kroenke. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit has been redacted. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Nakon 05:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dr. K. 06:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{User talk before you block}} --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've read the Wikipedia:Deletion review but am unsure how to proceed recreating the PureScript page deleted last April? I've begun gathering new sources on its wiki. Would you kindly offer guidance? I know credibility isn't comparable between pages but PureScript has gained popularity on Github equivalent to its nearest "competitor." Dnalot (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nakon. If nobody is using the page linked above, would you mind deleting it? I'd like to reduce the sheer number of different forks of gadgets. Thanks. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

18:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Biscayne Wall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 1305cj (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Biscayne Wall. Since you had some involvement with the Biscayne Wall redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 1305cj (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

18:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

20:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please userfy plus talk page to my space? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

19:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

20:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

21:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)