As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia. I believe there have been MANY productive responses to concerns on past AfD's, but some still don't seem to agree. If there is any way you can think of improving the article, or contributing to the current AfD, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much for your time. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

Thanks for noticing that. Apparently, I did two indef blocks in a row on named accounts and accidentally did the IP too. Dreadstar † 23:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new page and now the IP has vandalized an entire section by deleting it without discussion or consensus. Before this continues I suggest the IP is warned. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon, please take a look at this article, and the previous articles it was derived from:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chiropractic_care:_Research_and_Criticism
• Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism
• Talk:Scientific_investigation_of_chiropractic/Archive_1
• Talk:Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism

You will see many think of this article as a POV fork, and for the most part created, edited, and "protected" by the same people BullRangifer & Verbal [1] & QuackGuru [2], who put this on their user page:

{{Singh}} (template was deleted today I assume in response to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:SOAP )

It is one thing to state an opinion on a user page, quite another to use Wikipedia to solicit votes for a political cause.

Because of the POV of the article, it invites "revision". I put in one sentence which was derived from the introductory sentence of a source that is used throughout the article, but because this particular sentence puts a perspective to D.Palmer's philosophy that I guess they don't want in the article, this part of D.Palmer's philosophy was not mentioned at all in the article. When I tried to add it, it was reverted by QuackGuru and Verbal for no valid reason.

• I added 1 sentence from Ernst source already used in article
• Verbal reverts it for vague reason
• I put it back
• QuackGuru reverts it and adds his own text
• I add it back

In addition to this, this group has a favorite tactic of accusing anyone who doesn't share their point of view as being sockpuppets: [3] [4]

--stmrlbs|talk 07:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a link on the web to a company called Mogulus. Didn't find the page on Wikipedia but it appears that Mogulus has become Livestream. Tried to make a redirect page, but Mogulus has been deleted and locked. Couldn't Mogulus be a redirect to Livestream? -- Dougher (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I received a somewhat odious but otherwise irrelevant e-mail from this user. Digging a bit I found this. I'm letting you know in case there's some technical problem with an "e-mail blocked" user sending mail via WP. If this info is not useful please forgive the intrusion. Regards Tiderolls 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support at my RfA Nakon. I'll do my best to never be the subject of any "issues" as well. I appreciate the trust, and I'll do my best to never abuse that trust. Cheers — Ched :  ?  03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nakon I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NKbot 2 is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 13:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Texter here.

You deleted a page about me. That's fine. There was some serious vandalism happening. May I get a copy of the talk page for the site for legal reasons.

douglas.texter@att.net

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.193.210 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why did you delete the article about Brad Sommer? It was a legitimate article by Wikipedia standards. Skoalman666 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our verifiability policy and notability policy. The article did not provide any sources nor make an assertion of notability. Nakon 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that over 9,000 times and this article qualified by those standards. If you need proof check out CWA on Facebook. It is a real group and Brad Sommer was in that group. Ask anyone in the entire city of Dayton who either CWA or Brad Sommer is and they'll tell you everything in this article. Skoalman666 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No response? Skoalman666 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs sources that have been published, not "John says Bob is qualified" or fan pages on Facebook. Nakon 03:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between "John says Bob is qualified" and "Dr. Dre says Bob is qualified"? I don't get the double standard. Now you are starting to make stuff up. I am not breaking any of the Wiki laws attempting to bring upstanding African American citizens like myself down. Skoalman666 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The article about rapper Brad Sommer had some major inaccuracies, however it shouldn't be deleted. Go to any hip hop video database and you will find some videos of CWA's mixtapes, like "Korn off the Kobb", ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suedey (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will return! -Betax —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.56.61.193 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to return as long as you contribute to the encyclopedia and not just mess around in your userspace. Nakon 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who signed up early, Wiki-Conference New York has been confirmed for the weekend of July 25-26 at New York University, and we have Jimmy Wales signed on as a keynote speaker.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I sent the email regarding my request for the rollback privilege late at night for myself, and have not received any indication that you have received the email, I'm starting to get a little worried that I didn't actually send it. Even if you're currently too busy to deal with it, I'd appreciate a confirmation that you received my email.

Thanks.

RandomStringOfCharacters (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fulfilled the request when I received the email. [5] . Nakon 02:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see your point. I misunderstood Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments to mean that block notices shouldn't be removed until the block expires. -- King ♣ Talk 13:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You deleted this as a temporary user page. However, it's a talk page - I thought user talk wasn't deleted? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user talk page is included in the category. Nakon 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I take it that this account was being used solely for vandalism, then? I found it odd to have pages I've commented on show up as red on my watchlist without much in the way of explanation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the account was blocked indefinitely in May. Only pages of users that have been blocked indefinitely are being deleted. Nakon 17:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Cheers for the explanation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the cascading protection on the above page is causing protection on the documentation pages. See Template talk:Convert#One works but the other don't.. I had changed the protection level to semi on the documentation pages but as I wasn't unsure what else was on cascade2 I didn't want to touch it. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added every subtemplate of Convert to the cascade-protected page. If there are templates that are affected by the cascade protection, please feel free to remove them from the list, or if a majority of the templates included on the cascade page are being incorrectly protected, feel free to delete the page. Nakon 13:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've changed it to semi for a while. I'll let someone from the convert group remove the documentation pages and then change it back again. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was recently in a discussion (1, 2) with User:Daniel Case about how indefinite blocking of User:Larbkai may not have been warranted. Larbkai is now editing as User:Megazawa07, and although Daniel Case suggested to just let him edit under the new name for now, I'd like to have the old user talk page preserved for reference. Could you restore the page please? --Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to remove the page from the "Temporary Wikipedian Userpages" category. Nakon 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per User talk:Vianello#As for some advices (permalink), an admin from the Vietnamese Wikipedia could use some advice about dealing with page-move vandals. Since the admin that was asked doesn't know what to do to combat this vandalism, I've contacted you to see if you can give him some advice. If you can help, please reply at User talk:Vinhtantran#Re: Mass vandalism (to keep discussion centralized since I've posted this message at the talk pages of several admins). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nakon,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 15:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the protection from Template:Infobox3cols and Template:Infobox Football biography 2. These templates are still experimental and not widely deployed, and I need to tweak them constantly; having to repeatedly request editprotected for them will be a huge pain. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nakon 14:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dankoo multipass. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use an article's talk page before removing material.

If you had, you might have discovered that I live significantly closer to Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (as I live in Champaign, Illinois) whereas you live somewhere else entirely. Thus, chances are good that I have a little more in the way of knowledge about the area than you do. I know your efforts were well-intentioned, nevertheless, your zeal to remove information is contrary to Wikipedia's principle of being bold. In the future, please do the following before removing material: (1) do a quick "back-of-the-envelope" evaluation of the plausibility of the added information (is it patently ridiculous? does it seem legitimate? is there a motive to add false information of the type added? what is my own acquaintance with the subject-matter) and (2) if the previous questions lead you to the conclusion that the information is not apparent vandalism and that you are not familiar with the subject of the article (conclusions, I hasten to add, that you should have reached here), please share your misgivings on the article's discussion page before unilaterally reverting an article.

I will revert your deletion of my edits to the article. If you have misgivings, please, as directed above, voice them on the discussion page. Please keep in mind the rules prohibiting edit wars and please allow yourself to be guided by the principle that Wikipedia is not a clique and readers are invited to be bold in improving articles. While I have taken your actions as a good-faith, but misguided, attempt to police Wikipedia, I will report future vigilantism to Wikipedia administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.175.119 (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

This article seems to be protected by you but is being constantly vandalised, despite reverts, by a user called Ricky j234, thanks. Khokhar (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did remove an edit without even leaving a comment. I will revert back. Thanks!--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the content because you did not provide a reliable source. You were informed of this on the noticeboard. Nakon 13:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I was putting on that article does not need any sources since it a living fact!. everyone sees and knows that African woman have large breasts and by adding that information on the article should be pretty normal eh?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. If it can not be verified by a reliable source, it does not belong in the article. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Nakon 14:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those two have a vendetta against me and continually disrupt whatever edits I make. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are joined by a third accomplice. If you hadn't been brought into this, they would have tried and failed to destroy all of my edits as before, but they know they'll fail, so they go to you and try to get legitimation for harrassment. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nakon. I have blocked this user for edit warring; after having done so I realised that you had already blocked them one minute early. I'm sorry for this, do you want me to restore your block (duration)? Best, — Aitias // discussion 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine with me either way. Nakon 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, thanks for the quick reply. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully ask that you leave the closing of RfAs to bureaucrats. Obviously the result of this one was not in doubt, but that is the job that they have been empowered to do. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of an RFA that is obviously not going to pass, non-bureaucrats are allowed to close. "There is no standard by which such nominations are removed, nor any consensus on whether they should be removed. Nevertheless, some bureaucrats and other parties occasionally do remove RfAs that are going poorly.". (from WP:GRFA). Nakon 15:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this band issignificant to localNew Zealand Music History and think it should be returned from the vandaliser that deleted it! regarding sunny day news, as I am studying this band as part of a University thesis for the University of Auckland. Their cover on Pokemon, which they own for the whole of Australasia has been a key factor in their success.

A robot has removed the protection from Athens Metro. Could you please protect it again, as the user who caused the problems is still around on the greek and english Wikipedias. Sv1xv (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please revert any disruptive editing before protecting, leaving the article to the version dated 01:24 2009-07-24. Sv1xv (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The protection on the page has automatically expired. The bot removed the tag since it was no longer needed. I have the page on my watchlist and if it continues to be disrupted, I'll look into it.

OK, thank you. Sv1xv (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this User:Pplatis started again deleting sections of this article. Could you please roll back to version 21:25, 24 July 2009 and protect the file? Thanks. Sv1xv (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few references to any of this. This is ridiculous, it sounds more like a fairtale prose than actual history.

Please, for wiki's sake, read the article yourself. It is extremely biased and fits the wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.116.218 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images are not orphaned; there is an editor acting in extreme bad faith by continuously removing them, claiming that there is no rationale at all on them (which you can see, there is, whether it is sufficient or not). He has gone to the lengths of removing parts of the rationale on them and inserting obsolete or incorrect information to make them purposefully violate the guidelines. If consensus dictates that the rationale is insufficient, that's fine, but right now there's just been vandalism and dishonesty.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you User:85.240.105.211 ? Nakon 05:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have re-tagged the images for deletion as they are not included in any article. Nakon 05:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...No, I'm me. And again, the images are used, the only reason they're not showing it for now is that BlackKite keeps removing them while the discussion over them is going on. Again, if the discussion ends up that the images should be removed from the article, that's fine and proper, but isn't it clear that it's bad faith to delete them beforehand? Isn't the whole point of wikipedia to be a community effort, not a single editor enforcing his will?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nakon,

I have re-creared the article 'A Guy Thing: A Magical Love Story Of An IITian'. Now I want to publish it. Please, check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.55 (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored one of the section to the version previously reverted to by you [6], because there was no consensus to remove these materials. If you disagree, please tell. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 13:15, 23 January 2007 Dbachmann protected Rajput ‎ (edit warring anon [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)
• 02:44, 24 March 2007 Centrx unprotected Rajput ‎ (hist)
• 05:32, 8 February 2008 YellowMonkey protected Rajput ‎ (edit war [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (hist)
• 17:30, 20 May 2008 Nakon changed protection level for "Rajput" ‎ (try unprotection [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (hist)

So the last change to the protection log was nearly 18 months ago and it's been semiprotected all that time. I'd like to review that to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. This is part of my large-scale review of all longstanding indefinite semiprotections. Please see the discussion I have started on Talk:Rajput. --TS 03:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the autoblock from your block of Dancouvert (talk · contribs) as it is blocking other users. However, it may be that a schoolblock will be necessary if this does not work out. Fred Talk 14:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nakon. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked 64.81.71.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which you had blocked as an open proxy. There are open ports, but rather obscure ones 5009 and 10000. There have been no edits since 2005. If you feel those open ports can be exploited, feel free to reblock but please drop me a note. Fred Talk 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you admins turn blind to Tajik (talk · contribs) when he goes around use sockpuppets in your faces and vandalize pages after pages. Is Wikipedia some type of gang related website? User:Tajik is removing sourced material from articles, this is vandalism and you admins allow it. He uses the excuse "falsification and POVs" but it's really him doing those if you concentrate on his edits. These are only few examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] He and Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (sockpuppet of Anoshirawan) pops up as a tag-team and usually at the same time, I believe that account is shared by him and someone in USA who's English is not so great. It's so strange that he comes everyday but only edit very little, so it's very likely that he's using sockpuppets to evade his 1 RR restriction. Tajik pretends that he is against POVs but it's he that is a POV pusher."The author - in this case al-Biruni - is referring to the Suleiman Mountains. In that case, it is highly probable that he was referring to Pashtuns, because he had described them as a "Hindu people" before.... Tajik (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)". It's very clear for readers here that Tajik hates Pashtuns with great passion so he wants to give them a new history which would make them being Hindus when all the scholars, history books, encyclopedias, and the Pashtuns themselves, disagree. There is "zero traces" of any Hindu culture among the Pashtuns. Anyway, Tajik was blocked 17 times and banned for a whole year but he doesn't seem to care about any of that, he just wants to remove things from articles that he doesn't agree with or doesn't like. This is a serious problem and you guys should put an end to it. I also believe Muxlim (talk · contribs) is him.

Hey, you deleted this page but it was clearly a sock's user talkpage and those are never deleted. Please be careful when "clearing out CAT:TEMP". I have ended up undeleting a lot of these.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you send me a copy of the history page for Poisoned Minds? The content you deleted appears to be in use on WikiFur and we require the history for GFDL compliance. Thanks! GreenReaper (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nakon. This is to let you know that I've blanked User:NKbot/delete owing to a few problematic items on the list. As both you and the bot are inactive I trust this is not a problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]