User talk:Nakon/archive10

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is now on RfA

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for more details and add your tuppence to the debate... — Rickyrab | Talk 19:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

blacklist removal

I removed the site awardspace.com from the blacklist. It's used for valid reasons by Lithuanians, and the page that was being spammed does not exist any more. - 84.87.200.41 10:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NK Block.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NK Block.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 02:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Blacklist nk.GIF listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Blacklist nk.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aniger pda.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Aniger pda.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ometzit<col> 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)\

Deletion Review for Project Monarch

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Project Monarch. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Just H 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned about an unblock request I handled

Hello, I am posting this same message to User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me,User:Naconkantari and User:Ryulong.

I am deeply concerned by an unblock request I handled today. User:Sircumscribe was blocked by User:Naconkantari on August 10th apparently before making his first contribution, given the reason please contact an administrator for verification, as described on this page.[1]. No information was described on any page this user was likely to be looking at. I found this very odd, so I look through the history.

Another user, anon, pointed out that at the time this person blocked, that the admin was on "some sort of mad blocking binge". This post was rolled back by User:Ryulong[2]. I looked at that log, and User:Naconkantari did indeed blocked 21 people in 10 minutes(August 10, 2006 between 21:58 and 22:08 [3]), including Sircumscribe. I would not describe it as "some sort of mad blocking binge", but I can certainly see the users point. Many of these seemed like very obvious vandals, but at one block every 30 seconds it is very possible Sircumscribe got hit by the crossfire.

The user anon user, now with a username repeated his message, User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me rolled this back again, and informed Sircumscribe that the blocking admin would be contacted[4]. However, even looking at deleted revisions, I cannot find anything about this on the blocking admins talk page.

The same person came and repeated his message, under another name, and was rolled back again by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me.

12 days later, this user asks if there is any progress. I find there is not. I unblocked this user. If I have been mistaken in my interpretation of these events then please correct me, but it appear this new user got bit, and bit hard.

I am not trying to make people feel bad, just trying to point out what happened. If I am wrong about anything here please point it out. I will gladly retract any mistake I made.

Perhaps the user made inappropriate pages that were deleted and I cannot see them in the logs, I don't know because the block reason has no information about the reason for the block. I almost missed the information about the block log because it had been removed. I could find no response from the blocking admin, because the admin was not asked. I apologized to the user for the lack of information. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Racoonfox

What happened to him? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

150m.com

I have removed 150m.com and ueuo.com from the spam blacklist. - Andre Engels 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

viartis.net

See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#viartis.net.2Fparkinsons.disease.2F I'm probably going to take off the link. ( viartis.net ) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

banned

Can you please explain why i'm banned from the Wikipedia chatrooms on irc.freenode.net? I feel it is injust. I tried to ask you why there, but i thought you were away. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kinek Mondjam El Vétkeimet?

Hi.

This is probably a bit late for you to remember 100% of the reasoning, but my I ask why Kinek Mondjam El Vétkeimet? was deleted under CSD A7? The article as written patently asserted the notability of the subject, as it was a debut entry in a notable event (i.e. "notable first") and also placed very highly. As the author of the article, I was also not informed via the templates which can be placed on my Talk page notifying me of this decision - I know these are optional, but they are certainly polite. Consensus has been in the past that ESC entries are in fact notable, and I'm more than willing to discuss that with you in relation to this or any other ESC entry should you wish to do so at my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuyorican Poets Cafe

On November 24, you deleted Nuyorican Poets Cafe on one person's say-so that it was an "advert". This was an article that about a dozen people had edited, about what might be the single most famous Puerto Rican cultural institution in New York City. Appropriately, someone recreated the article; I've now restored the earlier history.

I'm sure this was entirely good faith on your part, but just a suggestion that you might want to look a little more into the history (and/or the content) of an article before taking one person's word for it being suitable for deletion. Especially when, as in this case, it was someone whose talk page consists mostly of people questioning his judgment. - Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Obsessed with Wrestling

Why did you block this website just because 1 user kept adding it to a few sites? It has been used as a reliable source in many wrestling PPV articles and other wrestling articles. TJ Spyke 05:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

Can you please consider using the spam blacklist log here. It saves us all some time when we have to look up why something was blacklisted, and it also makes it easier for us to take off links. (just remove it from that log and be done with it). I'm going to go ahead and log what you have done on that page in the next few days. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've properly logged all your recent additions, this makes it much easier for us to figure out why something has been added. It also makes for one less stop, as the only version is there on meta, rather then having to constantly drop alk page messages. I've personally forgotten to notify you of a few, if you really really want me to I can dig through and figure out which ones they are. :S Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the revert to my userpage, mate!--JUDE ^talk 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

!

I'd like to award you the GoldenWiki Award in apprechiation of your exceptional contributions to Wikipedia. Keep them up! > Kamope < 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for your tireless fight against vandalism. You have beat me to a revert many times today. Peace. James, La gloria è a dio 00:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

blocking

Vandalism may be rampant throughout wikipedia and i applaude your efforts but please do not just block people just because they seem to have vandalised. in my case i was trying to revert vandalism on the article on saturn but i seem to have made a mistake and who was to know that within 5 seconds i would be blocked. please try not to be over-zealous or jump to conclusions in blocking people Songjin 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user requesting unblock

Hi there, 81.109.234.187 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is requesting unblock. I think it's a bit nefarious as all hisedits at the Caledonian Sleeper article and talk page seem to be problematic, but I said I'd pass along a note. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend not removing the block as there is a history of vandalism at that page. Naconkantari 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored an article you deleted

Greetings, I have restored the article Tunnel brokers list you deleted in January – this was requested by its creator, who insisted it was not a copyright violation. I also believe it was speedily deleted by mistake. Happy editings, –mysid☎ 19:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent school blocks

Hey Naconkantari! I wanted to ask you about your recent set of blocks of school IP addresses. These IPs are used by different people day to day and even hour to hour, and so I think blocks of more than a few hours are excessive. "Hard blocks", which prevent account creation, are also generally a bad idea, as they prevent legitimate users from registering an account to create edits. In addition, you blocked 216.56.4.152 and 204.113.90.129 even though they had not vandalized since their final warnings. I think it would be a good idea to be less hasty and more lenient in future blocks. TomTheHand 20:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

People serious about editing can register an account from a different IP. Naconkantari 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

People serious about editing don't always have a computer at home. Moreover, a 31 hour block is not more helpful than a 3 hour block in stopping the vandalism of some kid who's in the library for 45 minutes, and it's considerably more harmful to legitimate users who go there afterwards. TomTheHand 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just went to look at your block log, and I'm really shocked by how quick you are to block people. It looks like you blocked 71.243.153.55 for 31 hours after it had only received a level 1 and a level 2 warning, 209.247.5.78 for 3 hours after just a level 1 and level 2 warning, and Chyeahitsdiana (talk · contribs) indefinitely after the user made exactly one edit. Those are just the three most recent. This is not how we do things, and I'll ask you again to be less hasty and more lenient with your blocks. TomTheHand 21:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how things are done around here. Level "n" warnings are not needed for blatant vandalism. If someone is replacing a page with "poop pee tee hee" or [5], they should expect to be blocked for their actions. Naconkantari 21:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true. An edit like that is a common test that new users may make, and a long or even indefinite block for something like that is completely inappropriate. Users should receive a set of warnings, though not necessarily all four, including at least one that warns of a block, and blocks should be of only the length necessary to stop vandalism. Per WP:BLOCK, blocks of dynamic IPs should be of up to 24 hours, blocks of logged-in users should start at 24 hours and increase gradually. Blocks of shared IPs should be even shorter, because you're not just stopping the vandal, but everybody else who uses the IP. TomTheHand 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

31 hours is a standard block time for vandalism. Registered editors whose first edits are vandalism are routinely blocked. Naconkantari 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I see no indication that you intend to stop violating the blocking policy, I will begin compiling a report about this to post at WP:ANI. TomTheHand 21:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted to ANI here. TomTheHand 22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Naconkantari 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of people in the discussion at ANI have wondered if there is more story behind the blocks of IP addresses without warning, like a campaign against a particular vandal who keeps popping up with changing IPs, or if you really do block an IP the instant you see a single vandalism edit from it. For example, 68.83.247.150 was blocked for 31 hours for this. Could you clarify on ANI whether there is more to these blocks or not? If it is part of a campaign against a particular vandal, could you give some details? TomTheHand 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no one particular vandal that I am after. If someone knowingly vandalizes, I will block them. Simple as that. I'm not going to wait around and go through the "test sequence" before blocking someone that is damaging the encyclopedia. The diff you provided, however, is one of the exceptions to the blocks I have done and I agree that the length may have been in excess. Naconkantari 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

An exception, much like 67.34.225.176 for this, or 216.49.153.132 for this, or 70.20.168.156 for this, or 69.132.182.61 for this, or 24.85.4.255 for this, or 24.128.22.20 for this? That's six exceptions within a half hour: IP address that have never edited Wikipedia before which you blocked for 31 hours without warning for a single vandalism edit. I appreciate that since we've started having this discussion you've cut back on the length of your blocks, but the above block was not an exception; until yesterday it was your standard procedure. TomTheHand 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

SkyLink Air and Logistics Support (USA), Inc

Just a quick question? why was the above page removed? Jonomacdrones 21:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it fell under CSD G11. Naconkantari 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Games from The Legend of Zelda series

A while ago you deleted Games from The Legend of Zelda series and The Legend of Zelda series games. Can you give me the edit history of each page? Thanks. --- RockMFR 22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The history is available here Naconkantari 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Games from The Legend of Zelda series had a bit of history to it and might have been merged somewhere. Can you undelete this redirect? --- RockMFR 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Naconkantari 22:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

those links have been here for a long time!

Those are all useful Charlotte NC links!

They are relevant to the article. This selective enforcement crap is for the birds. Charlotte.com is the most COMMERCIAL link out of them all, and it is allowed to stay? I live in Charlotte, I know what I am talking about!

3R's

Thank you for blocking the Charlotte spammer. If you're still in the mood, there's a revert war going on at Battle of New Orleans, and I'm pretty sure at least one of the several IP addresses has broken the rule. Wahkeenah 01:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And back to Charlotte, North Carolina, another IP address has picked up where the other one left off. Gotta be the same guy. Wahkeenah 02:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting Charlotte. That should cool that guy's jets for awhile. I wonder if you'd be willing to do the same on the Battle of New Orleans page? Wahkeenah 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Thatsuperguy11

Hi, I have just lifted the indefinite block which you had placed on User:Thatsuperguy11, and replaced it with a 48-hour block (see block log).

While that user has clearly engaged in repeated vandalism, and has been properly warned, I was surprised to see that the first block placed was of indefinite duration, and disappointed to see that it as not accompanied by a block notice at User talk:Thatsuperguy11. I have now left a notice there.

I am aware that all that user's contributions appear to be vandalism (see Special:Contributions/Thatsuperguy11), but I am uncomfortable with the idea of moving straight to an indefinite block. I would suggest that if a further block is needed, it should be for a week or a month, and that an indefinite block would be appropriate on a third offence. What do you think? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Right, because inviting vandals back for a second try is just the kind of thing Wikipedia needs. And it's not like they couldn't make another account so easily. Nardman1 10:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was merely trying to follow policy, though I don't claim to be perfect and may have got it wrong. My reading of WP:BLOCK is that escalating periods of block are the preferred route, but I'd be happy to be corrected if I have got that wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I, Kntrabssi, hereby present you with the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your tireless and continuous fight against vandalism, and for always being a step ahead of me in vandalism reverting :).

Please consider removing three ISBN-related links from spam blacklist (needed by WP ISBN-fixers)

Hello Naconkantari. Please let me know the correct way to ask for these three links to be removed from the spam blacklist: isbn-check.com, isbn-check.de, and books-by-isbn.com.

Your addition of these links to the spam blacklist was here.

If you take a look at CT:INV, the talk page for our mostly-successful informal project to fix invalid ISBNs, you'll see that isbn-check.com is mentioned as a useful resource. (In fact, I have set up my own monobook.css file to invoke it directly, bypassing Special:Booksources). While the operator of that site does provide a menu that lets you click through to Amazon (if you wish), and may thus get some revenue, you should be aware that the site was used by us for its checksumming abilities, and probably none of the ISBN-fixers ever bought a book that way, so he got no revenue from us, and altogether we perhaps made thousands of calls to his web site. Of course we could ask the operators of WP's tool-server to add an ISBN-checking routine, but can you estimate what priority that would get from Brion Vibber? :-) In the dim past, Jimbo Wales actually considered having Wikipedia get revenue as an Amazon affiliate, but that proposal was rejected. Since the addition of this site to your spam list was recommended by an anonymous contributor, I don't feel confident working directly with him, I'd rather ask you how to proceed. I can get testimonials from other editors such as User:Rich Farmbrough if necessary, as to the value of this site. I would prefer it if new ISBN-related links were not added to the spam blacklist unless reasonably proposed in a forum that ISBN-fixers would have access to, such as CT:INV, or even WP:VPT. Also note that isbn-check.com is directly accessed from Special:Booksources, and I assume the developers of that page would like to be notified too. EdJohnston 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What was that?

I was appalled by the recent edit war at User talk:69.81.50.3. The IP seemed to be removing non-warning-related templates. Instead, he/she was abused by numerous users without any reason given, and then the page was protected. And may I add that, while looking at his/her edit history, I agreed with the argument that he/she had done nothing wrong. Please explain yourself. The Blazing Sword 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The IP is that of a banned user who is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Naconkantari 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't excuse the obvious abuse of power. "Metros232" even said that the IP could use the unblock template, but everyone continued to revert any action on the part of the IP. The Blazing Sword 21:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As a banned user, they are not permitted to edit anything. If they wish to challenge this, they may appeal directly to Arbcom. Naconkantari 21:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Yes, TBS, you should have asked Naconkantari about the edit war or the blocking administrator about the edit war, rather than spamming others pages. It is against Wikipedia policy to remove blocking warnings. Real96 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well. When I add what I've previously heard about Wikipedia with what has happened here, I don't get anything good. I'm not going to leave the website, but this pushes the envelope. The Blazing Sword 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for stepping in and helping moderate the dispute over The Scientific Activist. Biochemnick 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

AN/I user:Ryulong

Please UNarchive the conversation, it's not finished. Thank you. ThuranX 03:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No. It is ridiculous how long this has been allowed to continue. It needs to stop now. Please move discussion to the appropriate policy or guideline talk page and get the policy or guideline that is being fought over changed. ANI is doing nothing but fueling the flames. Naconkantari 03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. However, While you were archiving, I made a reply. It posted after your archiving, but in AGF, I left it there. Coinciding edits happen and so on... however, just a couple minutes ago, User:Jibal tried to remove it. I've reverted it, but don't want to muck with archived sections if I don't have to. can you ask him to NOT muck with archived sections? Thanks. ThuranX 03:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ThuranX 04:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari, thank you for your comment on my talk page. But now, Ryulong removed my own content from my talk page and then, under ThuranX's instigation, threatened to block me for "Any further disruption from this account". Surely these actions and comments are against admin policy? Could you please advise? Thanks. -- Jibal 04:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing with Ryulong on his talk page. It appears that he has restored the content that was removed. Naconkantari 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, he has now removed my own comments from my own talk page for the second time; please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jibal&action=history Again, can you please advise how I should react to an admin threatening to block me for future "disruptive behavior"? -- Jibal 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He says here that I replaced everything that was on this page prior to my edits that were removed through my rollback and your removals of ThuranX's comments. Naconkantari 04:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have misread the history. But he hasn't restored everything; I'm going to restore what he changed. -- Jibal 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

IRC - #wikipedia

I am banned from the chat room...what happened? Real96 04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to get a new user to intentionally set their password on nickserv to their nick for the sole purpose of ghosting them. Naconkantari 04:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't do stuff like that. I was trying to help him out. Real96 04:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

JohnnyAlbert10

Hi there. JohnnyAlbert10 has on his talk page asked for you to be contacted to unblock him. --Jon186 22:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. I do appreciate it. --JFreeman ^(talk) 22:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

203.218.46.216

203.218.46.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) According to this, it's Instantnood editing his own page to keep Google off. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If he can log in and verify this on his talk page, I will stop reverting. Naconkantari 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

219.77.105.39 + 203.218.46.180 too, apparently. Maybe more. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm

so my IP address was blocked, but my account isn't blocked, so maybe it's not that important, but I thought maybe I should request unblocking, cause it was me editing my userpage

actually cool that was a matter of seconds~(I mean reverting vandalism) :D Okyea 23:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll unblock it. Thanks Naconkantari 23:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA question

I have replied to your comments on my RFA and I hope that I have answered your questions sufficiently, if you have any more questions please don't hesitate to ask them :) Cheers, SGGH 01:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Helena Valero

You deleted this page.

Can you provide me with the version I had there?

It is very notable. Here is the link for the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Yanoama-Kidnapped-Amazonian-Indians-Kodansha/dp/1568361084/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0803241-7223322?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174194729&sr=8-1

It is actually the most intimate reposrt ofr the life of amazonian Indians from within. (Mentioned as a reference in Yanomami"). Certainly worthy for an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechezkelZilber (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

WP:UW future?

Hi Naconkantari,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latualatuka chain letter

You recently deleted this article under speedy-deletion criterion G1. It has been temporarily restored and listed to AFD. You may want to comment in that discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

blocking IPs in the UAE

Please can you not block UAE IPs. Most connections are required to go throught the same proxy controlled by the country's ISP, and IPs are assigned dynamically...

This account or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Naconkantari for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

open proxy or zombie (see WikiProject on open proxies for information) Your IP address is 195.229.241.182.

signature 19:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotect Rudy Giuliani

I think it is time to unprotect Rudy Giuliani. There is agreement on the talk page about how to go forward, and the most contentious editor seems to have been blocked, per User talk:CrystalizedAngels. Wasted Time R 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Thankyou for your support of my RFA. I'm glad to tell you that it was successful! Cheers, SGGH 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist

I removed a link. Looks like the site is not used to sell pills like it apparently (from the ANI) was used to for. [6] —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into this a bit further :S its odd on why it was even blacklisted. Whois shows the same owner of the domain since 1999. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I may take it off, depends on the reasoning for requesting it whitelisted. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The actions of our "elite class"

Again, this is me. I just wanted to tell you that I quit, largely because of things that you did.

You not only were incredibly biased against an IP address because it was a "banned user", but also had the nerve to "revert" my comments on other users' talk pages when they too were involved in the debacle.

And in addition to that, "metros232" has left a message on my talk page saying that he will delete my userpages. I've looked at things he has done in the past, and it seems an awful lot like he stalks the edits of those people who he doesn't like.

I have a few friends here, and one in particular has had similar experiences.

I'm already sickened by the cabalistic, elitist oligarchy that is this website's administration. And I'm leaving before I can be banned as a "sockpuppet" or "troll" or other such nonsense.

Goodbye, Cabalpedia.

The Blazing Sword 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The coveted Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Naconkantari for diligence both on Wikipedia and on Meta in fighting spam. --A. B. (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whitelist

will you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#viartis.net.2Fparkinsons.disease.2F for me. I think that this might not be spam, based on the translation of your reason for blacklisting it. Please check it out, and if there is something that I am missing, please show it to me. Thanks. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me chiming in -- I believe that site was blacklisted in connection with Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo; I don't know if that was a proper call or not. I was not involved but I do know Tojo that was one of Wikipedia's all-time vexatious vandals and POV-pushers and that he targeted Parkinsons-related articles. Scroll through Special:Whatlinkshere/User:General Tojo for links to some of the ANIs, etc. and peruse Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of General Tojo for names of his 500+ sockpuppets (including XX8 whose only edit was to User talk:XX7).--A. B. ^(talk) 13:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I will recommend not removing this as it was spammed by the banned user. Naconkantari 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That was fast

Did you take a look at that, or just remove it out of hand? I thought that maybe it could stay there for a few minutes before getting removed like some of the other April 1 stuff. I hope that you understand that it was just part of the fun of the day and that I meant no offense and was playing off the merger that they created. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandii and the Sunsetz

Hi, N. You've deleted my page almost instantly. Can you retrieve the info for me? This was an "article requested for two years" and I had done considerable work in assembling the info, which I was in process of assembling into an article. It was ill considered to save it in that condition, but the fact remains now that the work I had done on it is lost if you can't retrieve it. Pkeets 04:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a direct link to the article that I deleted? Thanks Naconkantari 04:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link, but there's nothing there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandii_%26_the_Sunsetz&action=edit

Here's info from the deletion page: 03:49, 1 April 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sandii & the Sunsetz" (A7) 03:49, 1 April 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) restored "Sandii & the Sunsetz" (1 revisions restored) 03:49, 1 April 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) deleted "Sandii & the Sunsetz" (A&) 72.161.39.61 04:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I was editing this page when it disappeared from my screen, and it would have been presentable within a minute. Second, last night would have been a good time to take care of any restoration, when we were both at the computer. Assuming this is available somewhere, you're now faced with the problem of restoring a messy page and then waiting for me to find it. Is there somewhere else you can post the info and links? My user page, maybe? Whatever, I'm fast getting out of the mood to work on it. 72.161.39.61 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I got this back from Centrix. Pkeets 22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

April Fools 2007

YOU MESSED UP MY PRANK!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drahcir (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Old(ish) block

I apologise for the fact that the question relates to actions a while ago, but can you remember why you blocked A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) back in May 2006? The account has been requested (and may be a popular choice) for usurpation at WP:CHU/U and it would be useful if it could be confirmed whether the account made edits that have since been deleted. I can't glean much from the block summary. Anything you can remember about the block of that account would be useful in determining what should be done about requests in relation to it. WjBscribe 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the only edits the user made were to their userpage. I'd check the deleted entries there. Anything beyond that, I have no idea. Naconkantari 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the J. Edwin Orr article

Would you mind giving me the reason for the approval of the speedliy deletion of the J. Edwin Orr article ? --Ted-m 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as being not notable (CSD A7). Naconkantari 20:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kris Classic

You forgot to leave a block notice on the talk page. Tyrenius 03:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note, thanks Naconkantari 03:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you crazy?

2500 deletions in 3 hours? That's barnstar worthy.

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For deleting 2500 user and user talk pages of vandals in a 3 hour stretch. You really deserve this. —METS501 (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You should really give the barnstar to User:Bookofjude, as I'm just using their script ;) Naconkantari 02:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm not so sure. As the category states: "although there is no consensus on the exact period of time, one month is widely accepted." You've deleted User talk:Benjiwolf after 3 days of inactivity. This user is a chronic sockpuppeteer threatening to disrupt Wikipedia for profit. This page need to be restored as Benjiwolf is still very much active. I'm afraid to check the other 2500. - auburnpilot talk 06:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe we are going to have no choice but to review all 2500. I clicked a few at random and have already come across a few that should not have been deleted. User:Esanesan was deleted less than 9 hours after creation; User talk:Fluaus approximately 1 week; and several others so far. - auburnpilot talk 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to go through and review them, that's fine with me. I'm not going to do so as the pages are supposed to be temporary. There's just no feasible way to check every single page in that category. Naconkantari 13:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is your deal here. Clearly you are not looking at the pages before you're deleting them. Yet again you've deleted the pages I referenced above. If you aren't going to do it properly, I must insist you not do it at all. - auburnpilot talk 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN/I#Mass_deletions. - auburnpilot talk 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, please do not delete anymore. We are going to need to review all of them. --Iamunknown 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you truly feel that you want to go through and review every one of my deletions, feel free to do so. I'd think that your time would be better spent elsewhere, though. The pages should be deleted and I will continue to do so after the matter is resolved on ANI. I'd just wish that people would assume good faith and see that my actions are improving the encyclopedia instead of demanding my head because a few pages out of thousands are miscategorized and deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naconkantari (talk • contribs) 00:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nakonkantari, you've already done enough damage. You fail to realize that I personally cannot go through and review all of your deletions because I am not an administrator. --Iamunknown 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how this is damaging to the encyclopedia. I deleted a bunch of worthless pages. They don't need to be sitting around. If there's sockpuppet notes or other stuff, then put the info on a separate page that won't be deleted when the category is cleared or remove the page from the category. Naconkantari 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My semantics are off, I apologise. I didn't suggest that you damaged the encyclopedia, but that you made it significantly more difficult to go about sockpuppet-related tasks at least for editors who do not have the sysop flag, that you deleted a very large number of pages without, so it seems, looking at the contents, and all this despite a notice at the top of the category requesting that exact opposite. --Iamunknown 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk page deleted

Hello, I was just wondering why my talk page was deleted. I had a barnstar (my first ever) in there :-( --- Dakilang Isagani 07:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Typo on protected page

Hi, there's a typo for simple wiktionary on User:Naconkantari/projects, but the page is protected, so I couldn't fix it. ElinorD (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it, thanks :) Naconkantari 13:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My Monobook

FYI, you just deleted my monobook.js. I'm a little suspicious of whether or not you were watching those pages that you were deleting, because deleting an administrator's monobook does seem a little unusual. Anyway, I've restored it. The issue of my page appearing the that category appears to be stemming from the block messages I use later down on the page. I have no idea how to prevent the page from appearing in that category. Any ideas? alphachimp 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it has been fixed. I see you are already aware of the ANI discussion. I don't really feel like weighing in on the discussion, and I'm not upset...although I was a little confused when I lost my .js functionality. Cheers, alphachimp 06:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Runtshit sockpuppets

You have deleted several temporary userpages for sockpuppets of repeat abusive vandal User:Runtshit. Thuis has had the effect of removing their names from the relevant suspected sockpuppet page. Please leave these pages with the tags, so that a record can be maintained and accessed. Thank you. RolandR 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The pages that were deleted were improperly tagged. If these pages are so important, then ensure that they are not placed in the temporary pages category. Naconkantari 15:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Since these pages are important, which you seem unwilling to recognise, then don't delete them. Regards, Iamunknown 17:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your bot edits to Adam Carolla

Please be more careful when editing - You did take out some of Carolla's page that contained unsourced information, but you also deleted plenty of information that was properly sourced. Judging from comments on your talk page, this is not an isolated incident. Please be more careful with the usage of bots. SGreenwell 03:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Every edit I made was without a bot. I only used AWB to get a list of pages to edit and did my editing through the program. Naconkantari 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Locum tenens Deletion

Sorry if I just missed something, but I never noticed that Locum tenens was marked for deletion. I tagged hangon before the talk page was deleted, because I wanted to make sure a valid redirect or page on wiktionary was in place before it was completely gone. Could you point me to any logs showing that Locum Tenens was marked for deletion, I'm not contesting it, just making sure it wasn't accidental. Optigan13 04:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The page was tagged with a {{prod}} tag, which specifies that an article can be deleted after five days if there are no objections. More information about the proposed deletion policy is available here. I've restored the page. Naconkantari 04:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I guess I just didn't notice the page being tagged. I'll work with MER-C to take care of the article. Optigan13 05:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Fatwhales

Please restore this userpage you deleted. This user is a sockpuppeteer and has been socking under 4 different accounts including one today. It is recommended you keep the pages of blocked sockpuppeteers. Retiono Virginian 13:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit here placed the page in the temporary category. If you do not want the page deleted, then do not place that tag on the page. Naconkantari 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Saving Private Ryan

Your recent revert brought a nonsense edit back to the current version. Please double check before reverting.--Lepeu1999 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You blocked 71.171.216.249. You realize that you blocked the wrong IP. The above was reverting an act of vandalism done by 64.250.195.26 and your revert brought the vandalized version back to current. Please unblock 71.171.216.249. I've restored the article to the most recent non-vandalized version.--Lepeu1999 19:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the IP based on this edit [7]. However, thanks for informing me that I mis-reverted the other edit. Naconkantari 19:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah! In the words of Emily Latella 'Nevermind'. Yes, that's pretty blatant. Sorry for the assumption on my part.--Lepeu1999 19:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beverly Hillbillies Trivia

...thank you, thank you, thank you! --emerson7 | Talk 20:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Next Fiday

i had use another account just to get on this because what page(s) did i vandalise my account is Next Fiday and i cant even edit my account page or my talk page iv been bloked of is for vandalism --blok off 10:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your account was blocked for vandalism. [8], [9], [10], etc. Naconkantari 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just three pages u guys are lyte

Spam whitelist - what do you think?

At User:Eagle 101's request, I have gone to various editors seeking a consensus on this discussion, as I personally know the artist whose site it is - therefore, there is a small issue of WP:COI. Please take a look and leave your thoughts there.--Vox Humana 8' 23:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

SBL

I have removed tabulas.com from the spam blacklist, you can update your logs if you like :) Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my talk page

Thanks but that was unnecessary and inappropriate. If I cared, I would have done it myself.--Sludge 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I mass-reverted all of the user's contributions, one of which included your user talk page. Naconkantari 04:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the user was a sock puppet and was so in a way that is "forbidden" per WP:SOCK. I guess it is reasonable that their edits were reverted (to my talk page too). Is this the normal policy? Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The user in question's only edits were to spam talk pages. In situations like this, the user is blocked and all contributions are reverted. Naconkantari 04:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Understandable, sorry for my tone.--Sludge 04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I get this all the time :) Naconkantari 04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Uni-Link image

Just briefly am curious as to why the following image was deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Image:Uni-link_caetano.PNG

Cheers,JHJPDJKDKHI! 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The image was listed as now being on commons. Naconkantari 15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Pyknon article

I am also curious why my article about Pyknons is deleted? http://en.wikipedia.org/Pyknon, it can still be found on google btw User:thenestor, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:PROD. Naconkantari 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA leak scandal (2003)

Regarding your revert: After reading Template_talk:Long, and this comment by an admin on a talk page, I thought that {{long}} should be put on the talk page. It's there for editors, not for readers. Gratuitous prominent tagging of articles downgrades the appearance and readability of articles and is too often done on purpose for that exact reason. But I'm a relative newbie, so maybe you can tell me why it should be on the article page instead of the talk page. I'd appreciate any input. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that you also reverted my change to {{Plamefull}}. Could you elaborate on that? I introduced a margin so that the text wouldn't "hit" the box in the article pages. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 14:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry about that. I must have accidentally hit the rollback link on your contribs page. I'll go through and revert. Thanks for noticing! Naconkantari 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and no prob. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Creestowfer

I'm giving this user the benefit of the doubt and reduced his/her indefinite block to 48 hours. Hopefully, he/she might wise up a bit after getting to know our policies better. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question regarding my RfA

Hi! Wanted to let you know I answered your question. Thanks for asking it! Best, --Shirahadasha 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Extraordinary_Machine

Do you know something that I don't? You reverted User:Extraordinary_Machine redirecting his userpage to his talk page. Jkelly 01:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that either the account has been compromised or the editor is away from their computer and someone else is accessing Wikipedia through it. Naconkantari 01:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been following developments on that userpage and usertalk page myself, beginning with what I thought was a vandalism revert on talk which didn't work out as I'd expected. As long as only his userpage or talkpage are involved it's safe just to monitor, but if this extends to other pages someone should block the account. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He's prone to whimsy. I don't think that there's any danger here. Jkelly 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User_talk:Chronic_The_Wedgehog User was already unblocked. -- Y not? 04:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If the user was unblocked, then the page should not have been in the temporary category. Naconkantari 05:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI vs AN

You are among those who express non-support votes due to an ANI post. It may be worthwhile to note that WP:ANI and WP:AN serve different purposes. I contacted AN over the unusual edits. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. regardless of whether you change your vote, I would appreciate it if you would correct your explanation so that others are not misled. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of userpages

Hi, I noticed that you have deleted Impacts Music, Lucky6446 and MC. Keenan. Per Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, please do not delete user pages tagged as sockpuppets. Those three are all sockpuppets of Josh Gotti and were tagged for WP:CN purposes. Thanks! Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I have said before, if keeping these pages is so vitally important to the project, then ensure that they are not placed in the temporary category. Naconkantari 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Watch out, you're on his enemy list donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=18525 too *rolls eyes*. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

lol Naconkantari 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll put up my personal information on my userpage then. Why make it hard? Naconkantari 03:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Confused

How can someone edit war when they have only made one edit to the article in one day? I am talking about Global Warming. Mind you, I can imagine how there might be an edit war even with one edit, but I think the rules need to be understood. What's going on? --Blue Tie 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this has just been answered on the ANI thread by User:Akhilleus Naconkantari 05:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad and Biophys

Thanks for doing something - it's better than the alternative :) But I think Biophys block should be shortened to one day (see my arguments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editors_blocked. I thought about Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (haven't seen that one before), but I'd prefer if you'd update your blocks rather then risk any possible wheeling :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for your reply.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Shqipman

Here: So you took out Barakovo just because you couldn't find it on a map. Fat excuse. You obviously know nothing and you don't know your facts. Your pretend Yugoslav nation never existed and Kosova is Albanian, forever. Death to Serbs. Shqipman 16:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that incivility and disruption is too light in this case? --PaxEquilibrium 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If he continues to edit disruptively after the block, I will block him indefinitely. Naconkantari 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of Biophys

Hi, Naconkantri

I am looking into the Blocklog and can not figure out what the current block is suppose to mean: (status) 00:00, April 17, 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Biophys (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 23:39 16 April 2007 (continued drama on WP:ANI) (Unblock)

Is he unblocked yet or not? The expiry time was 20 minutes below the blocktime.

Biophys is complaining of autoblock. Should I clear the autoblocks? Alex Bakharev 01:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I reset it to one day per ANI, and when I reblocked, I realized that the block had already expired. Please release any autoblocks. Naconkantari 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Already fixed by Luna Santin. Thanks for the quick answer! Alex Bakharev 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Notification of concern

Per this I would have expected admins to start taking notice of the slow escalation. Last night people got blocked on one good faith edit. Now reverts are starting without repercussion. Forcing reverters to work with other editors is probably a good thing. --Blue Tie 02:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

thanks. Might have run into it otherwise. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to WP:AN Naconkantari 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Global warming-related thread on WP:ANI

Hi Naconkantari, since you've been "policing" the Global warming article, but otherwise seem univolved in that situation, would you mind taking a look at a related matter at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_WP:POINT_and_WP:HARASS_blocks? I'm probably too involved in discussions on Talk:Global warming to take action, if any is required. Thanks! --Akhilleus (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

Hi, as you've been involved in blocking or unblocking Tobias Conradi during the past six months or so, I'm making this courtesy edit on your talk page to notify you that there has recently been an inconclusive community sanction discussion, and I have taken this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

BLocking Me

Was there a reason for you to block me??? I am JustMaria...& I do not recall me as a vandalism woman...who go mess up the articles....

76.214.83.252 02:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting userpages of sockpuppets

Hi, I notice that you deleted User:AST3, which was marked as an Amorrow sockpuppet. Please don't delete userpages of sockpuppets of banned users, as the category for the sockpuppets or suspected sockpuppets of a banned user helps admins to find other socks of the same account, and more easily to recognize a pattern (writing style, favourite articles, etc.) when a new sock appears. The Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages actually has a little box at the top, warning administrators of that. Thanks. Musical Linguist 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If these pages are so important, then ensure that the people who block sockpuppets do not place the pages in the temporary category. Naconkantari 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shirahadasha RfA thanks

Thanks so much for taking the time to comment on my my RfA, which was successful. I learned a lot from the comments, I appreciate everything that was said, and I'll do my best to deserve the community's trust. Thanks again! And thanks for your kind words and support. --Shirahadasha 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Solana

Why is adding Solana's statement vandalism? Stop reverting my addition :I . -Lapinmies 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV requested for Category:Wikipedians_who_crack_boiled_eggs_on_the_rounded_end

Hello, please note that I have requested a deletion review of a category you sppedily deleted. The review can be found [11] here. --Ramdrake 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to find a resolution wihout escalating anything, it might be better if you didn't continue removing the deleted category from User:SchmuckyTheCat's user page. As long as it isn't recreated, I believe that leaving it as a redlink won't hurt anything. There's a long thread at WP:ANI concerning this user and user categories, and it would be nice if the issue cooled down, which your removals can't encourage. CMummert · talk 01:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Revert

Your reasonable hidden request here has been reverted here -- interestingly enough without a talk page discussion as you requested. Despite the aggressive efforts for a few hours, I believe the page is being neglected under the rules that were previously established. Now the only thing left to do is archive the instructions that were placed on the talk page and everything will be back the way it was. Is that the program? --Blue Tie 16:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another SBL link

I removed viartis\.net from the spam blacklist. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Your recent blocks

I noticed you recently blocked quite a few users for various things such as linkspam, vandalism, etc. While all the edits leading to those blocks were problematic and probably made in bad faith, I think a lot of the blocks were premature. You seem to have blocked quite a few users after they had received only one warning, or in some cases no warnings, which violates the blocking policy. Could you explain this please? I'm all for blocking persistant vandals, but some of your blocks seem to bite the newcomers without giving them a chance. Pyrospirit ^Shiny! 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before in my talk archives. I'm not going to sit around and wait for someone to vandalize just because I haven't gone through the "test sequence". Naconkantari 01:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand in that some cases, but what about your block just a few minutes ago of 70.153.132.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who you blocked for 3 hours after a single incident of vandalism on the page Hopla, which appeared to simply be a test edit? I don't doubt that you have good intentions, but this goes completely contrary to Wikipedia's consensus on blocks. To quote WP:BLOCK#Guide_to_blocking_times, "Blocks should generally not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism." I'd say that case deserved at most, a {{uw-vandalism3}}, and even that would be a bit heavy-handed. Really, a lot of your blocks seem to potentially cause more harm than good. How many editors you block might have become good editors, but were discouraged by a quick block for one editing test? Pyrospirit ^Shiny! 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see [12] and [13]. My blocking method has been endorsed on ANI and I see no reason to alter my methods. Naconkantari 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I finished reading through those, and it seems that while WP:ANI didn't exactly denounce your blocks, there was still a lot of discontent regarding them. Your blocks are severely biting the newcomers in many cases, and it seems you never give users any warning whatsoever. They come to a Wikipedia page for the first time, notice the edit button, doodle "hi" on a page to see what happens, and get blocked for three hours. Sure, it may have prevented more vandalism, taking a few seconds to revert each incident, but what if they would have become a good editor? How do you "revert" the fact that good information could have been added but wasn't, because that editor left the site in disgust at the hostile reception? The purpose of Wikipedia is not to defeat enemy vandals who try to destroy our site; it is to build an encyclopedia, and preventing good information from entering our articles is much more damaging than some petty vandalism could ever be. As this has already been discussed, I won't take this any further, but I strongly advise you to think about what you're doing. Blocking isn't the only solution to vandalism. Pyrospirit ^Shiny! 03:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

{{wikihermitalert}}

What's your opinion on this? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 02:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the only thing I can say about that is "ugh". Naconkantari 02:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 03:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that CVU is good in theory, but the practical application is not constructive for the encyclopedia. Yes, vandalism is bad and is increasing rapidly. Yes, having a group of editors devoted to removing vandalism is very helpful. But glorifying it by creating wikiprojects and "DEFCON levels" and other things are not what reverting vandalism is about and makes it worse. Vandals will "compete" to lower the DEFCON or get a page at LTA. I strongly endorse the WP:RBI method of countering vandalism as it is one of the most effective methods that I have found. In closing, I can understand where you are coming from, as I've been involved in CVU before, but in the long run, projects like those (from my point of view) do not benefit the encyclopedia. Naconkantari 03:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

user:sdpate

Thank you for your actions. -- Zanimum 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

TFA

I have reverted only twice, and that's only if you're counting the change I made to the caption as a revert, which was specifically made in response to a comment by ShadowHalo.--Pharos 03:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Do U know when my vandalism block for my account User:Next Fiday is goin to expire or it is just going to stay like that

The block will not expire. Naconkantari 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Armenia

It seems like Dmcdevit was successful at stopping Ararat arev, at least for a while, and Turkey has been at semiprotection for a bit now with no trouble. Would it be a problem if I reduced Armenia to semi as well? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not object to lowering it to semiprotection. Naconkantari 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Naconkantari, thanks for participating in my successful RfA. You expressed concern about me not answer the questions; I've written some brief reflections, including an answer to Question 3, in case you're still worried: User:Ragesoss/RfA. --ragesoss 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance needed - Re: Previously Failed RfA

Dear Naconkantari,

I would like to ask for your assistance. About 14 months ago, I self nominated for an RfA, which I ultimately withdrew (see here). During that RfA, you lodged an oppose vote, and I have taken a lot of the comments from that failed RfA on board since then. I am now up to an average of near on 875 to 900 edits per year, having only recently got back to the net from health issues (Throat cancer), and I am once again considering attempting a request for adminship. I am writing to all those editors who opposed my original self-nomination to ask them to see if they would be kind enough to review my recent work, and to see whether they consider that I have taken those points from my old RfA on board enough to warrant another attempt.

I am enjoying getting back into the swing of working on Wikipedia again, and looking forward to enjoying many more years of work. I am now using Twinkle and VandalFighter for my reversion work on RCP and CVU, and looking to the future.

Thank you for your time, and for your comments.

Thorsteinn A. Malmjursson User:Iceflow / Formerly User:Tmalmjursson 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dalkey Archive Press

I would appreciate if you didn't edit that page anymore, seeing as how the information I put up about UIUC sophomore Jeff Brandt was true. He has made major revisions and edits to that website that deserve commendation on this wikipedia page.

130.126.67.198 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Chartreuse

Please see WP:NOR, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV. Naconkantari 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling anony AfD guy

• ...is back as Special:Contributions/172.162.65.72. :/ JuJube 06:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you, Nakon, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course. Thank you once more, · AndonicO Talk

Block of Giano

What's the point of that? The page he was edit warring on (I trust you also blocked Doc Glasgow, btw?) has just been deleted. Please unblock. Bishonen | talk 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

I have blocked all four of the editors warring on the page and am posting to WP:ANI as we speak. Naconkantari 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what diffs you have access to, and I'd like to see them, but Cyde was not edit warring. --Iamunknown 22:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have treated everyone equally and I fully understand your intentions, but I do not see this series of blocks as likely to reduce the drama level. Quite the contrary, alas. Newyorkbrad 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would make an addendum to that statement and say I agree with Newyorkbrad; your blocks of the parties were fair, but I am not sure how it will help (or what will help, for that matter); it wasn't a content dispute, a wheel war, it was a dispute as to who got the last punch at the Kelly RfC. --Iamunknown 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So

I wish to have nothing to do with this site until the rampant incivility and other shit is taken care of. I can understand people coming into conflicts, as that's true of any community, but in this case, it's going to overwhelm this project very soon. Please don't bother replying to this, as I honestly don't fucking care anymore.

Wishing you all the best, Naconkantari

Your blocks were obviously of good faith, as almost all on AN/I have said, I hope you consider this and come back ASAP - you were standing up for wikipedia and its values. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Quitting over this? Not worth it. Hope you'll reconsider. Best wishes, El_C 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hope to have you back; you made what others considered a mistake. So what? Just come back and get to work on the encylcopedia. :-D --Iamunknown 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, really. I agree that the blocks were not the best way to address the issue but you did them in good faith and were trying to help. Take a pill and chill. Then come back. We need you. --Richard 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you find that you're able to return sometime soon. For my part, while obviously I don't agree with my blocking, I appreciate that you were only trying to do what was best, and I harbor no ill feelings of any kind. Friday (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto on Friday's sentiment. You acted in good faith and presented a controversial decision to the community. Keep up the good work. alphachimp 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well-intentioned Wikipedia editors (masquerading as deer) try to stay out of the way of a raging forest fire.

It's hard to fight a forest fire, especially one of this magnitude. I hope the situation calms down soon, though I'm not sure what'll fix it. In any case, I hope you come back soon. It's hard to see editors burned out. (Sorry.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn

If I'd realized you'd take it this badly, I'd have handled it myself. Come back soon, hm? DS 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

ForestFires?

We actually have some unwritten rules for dealing with forest-fires to do with redirecting. No one else seems to be writing them down though. <sigh> --Kim Bruning 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto

See all of the above comments in response to your announcement. Ditto and ibid. as to all of them. Each of the foregoing comments of other users is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length in this paragraph. Don't let us lose you over nonsense. And I'm sorry about disregarding your request for no replies, since normally I would honor a request not to post on a user's talkpage, but WP:IAR was made for this. Regards and hope to see you soon. Newyorkbrad 01:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a break, but come back please

It seems like you want or need to take a break, and I support that. It can help a lot with stress levels.

That said, you're clearly one of the good guys around here, and I strongly urge you to come back once you've had a breather. We need more good guys.

Georgewilliamherbert 02:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not allowed to break for too long. It's been like....36 hours since I last had an edit conflict with you getting to a block or vandalism revert before me. I'm starting to go nuts...I need my fix. It's too easy without you. I've gained like 4 pounds in the past couple days, because I haven't been shitting bricks in frustration from you always getting to vandalism rv's and vandal blocks before I do. Basically, wikipedia sucks without you, so if you need a break enjoy it, but come back soon. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't go. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You did what you thought was right. Criticism will always come no matter what you do. Don't take it to heart. -- Samir 07:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Ditto on that. Don't stay away too long .. - Alison ☺ 09:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a relaxing break and do come back, dear Naconkantari. You're too valuable, straight and good to let go just like that. Please, take good care, we'll be waiting for you. Love, Phaedriel - 06:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please come back at some point. You will be missed. >Radiant< 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you can come back after taking a breaks. I think that most of editor will miss you including me. Daniel 5127 01:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Dwyane Wade

User:75.110.81.47 has made another sock, today a 75.110.xxx ip came up and as his first edits suggested created a criticism section on Talk:Dwyane Wade. See his suspected socks and the history of Wade's talk page. He's spamming the talk page again. Lobstering, who you banned, was most likely a sock of his, that's why I'm notifying you. Quadzilla99 20:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Luckyluke.JPG

Hello, Naconkantari. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Luckyluke.JPG) was found at the following location: User talk:Naconkantari/archive8. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Welcome back.  :-) --Iamunknown 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal

This IP doesn't seem to learn:

• Special:Contributions/128.243.220.22

-- Fyslee/talk 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Luckyluke.JPG

Hello Naconkantari, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Luckyluke.JPG) was found at the following location: User talk:Naconkantari/archive8. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 13:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Temporary Wikipedian userpages

Good to see you are back editing some. I noticed that you have helped clean out Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. I wasn't really aware of this category, nor realize one of my sub-userpages (User:Aude/Blocktemplates) was in it (and inadvertently deleted). This page is just a list of block templates I use, for quick reference when I need to find the right one. I think the category is included in some of the block templates. When you clean out the category again, please disregard the fact that my subpage is in the category and don't delete. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a huge backlog in the category. --Aude (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool

It has been a long while since I was able to put in the edit summary "rv/v to last edit by Naconkantari." It is great to see you back editing (and whacking vandals). --TeaDrinker 00:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to come back in at least a limited way and try to help out come more. I've decided to stay away from the more drama-inducing areas and just focus on what I do best. Naconkantari 00:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucracy

I suggest that the IP:131.104.218.102 being blocked temp. I my mind it is claer that it only wants do do vandalism, to duplicate a section and give a false edit summary is a sneaky form of vandalsim. I would like to hear your opinion before I nomiate the IP.
Best regards adn happy editing. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the protection and block the IP instead. Naconkantari 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This subject has/is also being debated at User talk:Magnus animum‎. Mads Angelbo ^{Talk / Contribs} 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Endbringers Anonymous

Guess what. The articles on Justin Timberlake, Coca-Cola, CNNand Incubus(Band) are all articles about a group, indivduals, organizations and companies. Please explain why my page is any different. MarkelDevalus 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:N and WP:NOR. Naconkantari 23:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So, for all intents and purposes, my pages subject is not "important" enough. Despite how the page contridicts itself by stating that popularity is not an issue, then immediantly after stating that the subject must be fairly well known, to the extent that no original research is needed. MarkelDevalus 23:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection / Deletion

Can you help me on the article I submitted. I duped the content becuase I wasn't sure how to redirect alternative spellings for the entry. thanks

RapidWeaver

The links are not a directory but like the old page are intended to be a comprehensive, thourough listing of external links and information on themes and plugins. It is not in anyway used for advertising or promotion. Either way I was going to compile the list, but I figured it would be something that nearly everyone would want access to, and so I decided to share the work that I was planning on doing.

DIRECTORY 1. I am not using Wikipeida to list loosely associated topics 2. I am not lising genealogical entries or phonebook entries 3. I am listing directory entries, TV/Radio guides, or resources for conducting business.

LISTING 1. The sites are not personal web sites or blogs (Even if a few are personal websites the same links existed on the old rapidweaver page). 2. I am not affliated with any of these links. 3. The intention is NOT, nor does that page exist to attract visitors to a website or to promote a site. Ultimately, it is a reference to serve RapidWeaver users not the 3rd party developers or any other interest.

I don't feel that any of the external links are inappropriate. I am simply expanding on the external links (of 3rd party themes and plugins) that were on the old page. Previously, there was a list of exernal links to these developers. I am simply expanding on that by providing hopefully an end-all be-all type reference page detailing all the plugins and themes availabe, by who, for how much and how to access the pages. In addition, I haven't composed the article in a biased way. I think the page will be a valubale resource for any RapidWeaver user and will be a enhancing tool. The price is done is a non-biased way and is not intended to promote any particular company/service, beside RapidWeaver.

After I complete the page, I will be more than happy to move the added info to my personal page if you still desire.

I hope this works.

I appreciate you sharing your content with Wikipedia, however the external links you are posting are to a commercial website which advertises the software for sale. This is not permitted per Wikipedia's External Link guidelines. If there is a page that doesn't link to a way to purchase the item, it will most likely be allowed. Naconkantari 03:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Morris palter

Thanks for taking care of that so quickly. --Milton 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fixed typos

Thanks :-) ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Gilliard article

Can you please revert the article back into existence. More information will be forthcoming. As I understand, the article had a deletion notice placed on it giving it time to develop. There is a chance that a newspaper might write an obituary for the guy. As it stands, all the major left-wing political blogs have reported it, including Daily Kos, Americablog and Atrios.

Gilliard was no minor player in the political blog world. Jeff Jacoby wrote a piece attacking him back in 2005. Please check the external links. --One Salient Oversight 04:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:DRV. Naconkantari 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that, I'll restore it and send to AFD. Naconkantari 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Next time, please be a little less quick in assuming non-noticability and read up on the sbuject in question before deletion. --Martin Wisse 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me out (and subsequently blocking him or her). --ElKevbo 05:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Crumb family

Um, aren't you supposed to not speedily delete articles when the speedy deletion is disputed? Otto4711 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are around the Crumb family is currently hanging around DRV on the 3 june log. You may wish to comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

KnightCite

Would you please undelete the KnightCite article. In addition to the references in the article, it is also cited by at least two university libraries,Kent State University LibraryUniversity of Washington Library and this has been used as an alternative test of notability for reference works. Dhaluza 12:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEB and WP:DRV. Naconkantari 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with those. Give me a chance to clean it up first, and then if you still think it should be deleted, put it through AfD. Dhaluza 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Naconkantari 17:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please help, I am looking for...

Please help, I am looking for the deletion discussion for Rowlee Steiner. It wasn,t as I expected, under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowlee Steiner. You were the deleting admin. Any idea where that discussion can be found?

Cheers! Geo Swan 14:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It was speedy-deleted per CSD A7, which includes unremarkable biographies. Naconkantari 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

AllHipHop.com deletion

Just wanted to remind you that deleting AllHipHop.com left a series of orphaned talk pages, broken redirects and other pages that need to be cleaned. I tend to forget that stuff too, so I'm starting to take care of them. Thanks for the removal of junk pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Holy fudge! I'll hop on AWB and see what I can clean up. Thanks Naconkantari 17:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

Hi, I have noticed you have changed the ratings I have given to some of the articles. I am totally okay with you changing them if you feel you disagree. However, I am not okay with you saying things like "did you even read the article?". Another thing I think is kind of ridiculous is you simply taking off the rating without putting one that you would think is more accurate, like you did to Alfred Drake. I am currently working with the unassessed biography articles, where more than 113000 articles need to be rated. You taking off the ratings is very disruptive.

As for the articles I have rated as stubs, it was because they did not quite fit the criteria for "start". Here is an example of a Start class article David X. Cohen. Here is something written in the stub section of the biography assessment scale:

"NOTE: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Having an article on Wikipedia is a passing grade, since it has to pass Notability. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need some improvement to reach Start or B-class".

From now on, please don't interfere with the ratings I put up. Thanks in advance, ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gilliard

as your probably aware, this AfD has had a flood of SPA hits in order to put keep !votes in. I'm considering early closing it as no consensus possible, with an immediate re-run of the AfD with autoconfirmed protection on to stop the SPA's. Any thoughts on this? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objections to this. Also, please note the comment posted here Naconkantari 19:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I object. There is a difference between an SPA account and a logged in account. We should either support anonymous editing or do away with it completely including doing away with pseudonyms. I am sorry you are bigoted against anonymous editors, or SPA. I can assure you every SPA in the AFD discussion has used Wikipedia many times. But this is the first time they are compelled to edit something and/or they have some need that we cannot judge for anonymity. By disallowing SPA, you are telling those people to go away, and making POV judgments regarding their need for anonymity. Assume good faith. Is that true only of logged in accounts, or of any Wikipedia editor?130.76.64.16 19:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the objection. The SPA issue is a wash, but editors shouldn't be forced to work with an AfD hanging over them, at least not for the moment. Holgate 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Real World: St. Louis

This article has re-appeared. I had originally Db'd it and was still watching. Your name was on the last delete. I am sure you are watching as well but this is a heads up anyway. I will watch. Thanks. --Stormbay 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism on my user page:) Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 23:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Joe Eigo

I'm assuming you reverted my edits ([14], [15]) by accident. The article is badly in need of a clean up. --81.179.113.175 02:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You've included entirely too many cite tags. Please remove/modify the offending material instead of littering the page with these tags. Naconkantari 02:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that amount of citations is standard for good articles. Generally most or all statements should be sourced or otherwise verifiable, depending on the subject. In any case the correct course of action on your part would have been to remove the tags, rather than undo by edits. Please read more on correct Wikipedia policy --81.179.113.175 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact it would have been perfectly acceptable (and in fact the correct procedure) for me just to have removed almost all the unsourced content seeing as it's an autobiography of a living person. --81.179.113.175 02:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is what you should do instead of reverting the page again. Naconkantari 02:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Closing the AfD for Steve Gilliard

How long will this review continue? Hasn't the AfD served its function? Shouldn't the page now be left to evolve without this emblem of "insignificance"? Thanks!  ∴ Therefore  talk   17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Given the NYT mention of Gilliard and your obvious past track record with keeping WP clean with necessary deletions, isn't this a good time to rectify this error and boldly reverse the AfD tag instead of waiting five days?  ∴ Therefore  talk   03:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a "speedy keep" for this article on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request "speedy keep" for Steve Gilliard  ∴ Therefore  talk   06:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rickroll

Any chance that this page can be protected from recreation? Wildthing61476 20:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

24 Day 0

Hey, you just deleted 24: Day Zero, and i dont mind, but there is link to it on List of Other Media for 24 (TV series)#Online media and it says to make an article about it on Talk:24 (TV series). If the page really shouldnt be there, these links should be removed. --Ncusa367 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

69.246.167.114 block

What was the point of the block on 69.246.167.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? IPs last edit was on May 27, and the reporting user just added a warning today. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I must have misread the dates. The IP has been unblocked. Naconkantari 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pot Belge

Could you please explain why this article was deleted?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Firsthippy (talk • contribs).

The page was deleted by three different administrators. Please see WP:CSD#General_criteria under "G1" and "A3" and WP:DRV regarding restoring the article. Naconkantari 00:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		151.197.193.94 00:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? What??! It was NOT gibberish, not 'that' poorly written. You still haven't explained the deletion. Oh, it also did have content other than just links, ie. the description of the word.

LEAN diet

I disagree with your speedy deletion of LEARN diet. Please look at its proposed version at User:Badgettrg/Lean_diet and see if you change your mind. This article is needed to unburden content at Obesity#Low_carbohydrate_versus_low_fat. If you do not agree, lets go for a {{Delrev}}.Badgettrg 01:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Expired prod

Hiya, I saw that the Games, Learning & Society Conference was recently deleted via prod. I'm sorry I missed the prod notice in my watchlist, but I do disagree with it, and would have removed the notice had I seen it. Could you please reinstate the article? It's about a very high-quality academic conference sponsored by a major university. Thanks, Elonka 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Naconkantari 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

AUBCLogo.jpg

Hi, this image was deleted by you, the reason being that it lacked a fair use rationale. I had added a fair use rationale after the image was tagged - it seems that this was not taken into consideration.--Yeti Hunter 06:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When you added the fair use rationale, you did not remove the deletion template. I have restored the image and removed the template. Naconkantari 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for the confusion. The template said to leave it there until an admin (or someone else unrelated) assessed the rationale. Cheers for putting it back.--Yeti Hunter 06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hi. I believe you deleted both Image:After We Go Tantric.jpg, Image:At Last...The Duets Album Kenny G.jpg and Image:Best Kenny G.jpg because neither of them had a fair use rationale. However, I had quite clearly provided a fair use rationale after the images had been tagged. Could you possibly explain to me why these rationales were insufficient? Thanks. -Panser Born- (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the section right above this one. Images restored. Naconkantari 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the template because it quite clearly stated I was not to, and to wait for an administrator to do so. I don't wish to be rude, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, but perhaps you should pay greater attention when deleting images? After all, not everyone might watch images they have added a rationale to. Thank you very much for your time and restoration of said images. -Panser Born- (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the text on the template states "If you can address this concern by adding an appropriate fair-use rationale, or in some other way, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this template if you have successfully addressed the concern.". Naconkantari 06:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that message was not there when I added the rationales — I suspect it has been updated so the backlog for administrators to clear is significantly reduced. I do not have time to investigate now, as I need to go, but I'll take a look a bit later in the day. -Panser Born- (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My image was also deleted; the tag specifically advised it could be deleted only by an admin. Such tags now have a different wording, putting the onus on the uploader to remove the tag. Unfortunately this admin is deleting images regardless, without bothering to check whether rationales have been added. Poor work. Grimhim 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Same problem

You recently deleted Image:Brooks Firestone.jpg, (possibly sooner than 7 days from the tag?) and I was hoping I could add a rationale. Thanks! --LEKI (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the image. When you provide a rationale, please remove the deletion tag. Naconkantari 06:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, done. Thank you again. --LEKI (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion

I think that very little independent thought is being applied to the mass deletions done by this bot. Image:BCYP Mace.jpg and Image:BCYP Arms.jpg were deleted despite being properly tagged and despite proper fair use rationales being provided. I was the creator/artist who made one of the images in question, and said so in the rationale, yet the image was deleted nonetheless. Please restore both these images immediately. Agent 86 07:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Second that. A whole raft of images relating to David Bowie singles to which I'd added fair use rationales following their tagging by the Betacommand bot appear to have been deleted. These should be restored - by the way, if the deletions took place because the tag was still in place, it's because the tag specifically requested that it not be deleted until an admin had reviewed the rationale. Cheers, Ian Rose 07:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Schmoof album covers (Image:Bedroom disco.jpg) was deleted, even though I'd added fair use rationale Afront 09:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

These images have been restored. To User:Ian Rose, please provide a list of the images that were deleted. Naconkantari 15:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I added fair use rationales to six images but wasn't sure whether to delete the fair use template or not. I left it on two and these have been deleted. I asked Betacommand about which was correct as the correct process isn't clear, but I didn't get a response.

The two deleted files were:

• File:AMC lovesongsforpatriots.jpg
• File:AMC engine.jpg

I will replace these complete with fair use rationales if they aren't restored over the weekend.Sfgreenwood 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored these images. Please be careful to indent all of your text the same amount; it makes it much easier to read.TomTheHand 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response (and formatting) Sfgreenwood 15:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

These are them... Cheers, Ian Rose 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bowie AlabamaSong.jpg

Image:Bowie Baal.jpg

Image:Bowie BeautyAndTheBeast.jpg

Image:Bowie BeMyWife.jpg

Image:Bowie BoysKeepSwinging.jpg

Image:Bowie BreakingGlass.jpg

Image:Bowie Changes.jpg

Image:Bowie DiamondDogsSingle.jpg

Image:Bowie DJ.jpg

Image:Bowie DoAnythingYouSay.jpg

Image:Bowie DriveInSaturday.jpg

Image:Bowie Fame.jpg

Image:Bowie Fashion.jpg

Image:Bowie GoldenYears.jpg

Image:Bowie HeroesSingle.jpg

Image:Bowie HolyHoly.jpg

Image:Bowie Hours.jpg

Image:Bowie IDigEverything.jpg

Image:Bowie JohnDancingAgain.jpg

Image:Bowie KnockOnWood.jpg

Image:Bowie LifeOnMars.jpg

Image:Bowie MemoryOfAFreeFestival.jpg

Image:Bowie RebelRebel.jpg

Image:Bowie RockNRollSuicide.jpg

Image:Bowie RubberBand.jpg

Image:Bowie ScaryMonstersSingle.jpg

Image:Bowie Sorrow.jpg

Image:Bowie SoundAndVision.jpg

Image:Bowie TheLaughingGnome.jpg

Image:Bowie ThePrettiestStar.jpg

Image:Bowie Tuesday.gif

Image:Bowie TVC15.jpg

Image:Bowie UpTheHillBackwards.jpg

Image:Bowie WhiteLightWhiteHeat.jpg

Image:Bowie WildIsTheWind.jpg

Image:BowieCrosby PeaceOnEarth.jpg

Images restored. Naconkantari 17:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Another image deletion problem

A fair use rationale was posted for Image:Buck_Fever_cover_art.jpg after the deletion tag went up and the image was recently deleted. From reading these other topics, I see that the main problem has been that people have been adding fair use rationales to images without removing the image tags. I would be grateful if you would restore the image. And please work out whatever problem that has occured that is getting these images deleted without first checking them for newly-added rationale -- it's obviously becoming a bit of a problem. Pele Merengue 07:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Pele Merengue 23:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Image:Bad Timing-triffids.jpg

A fair use rationale was posted for this image immediately after the deletion tag went up and yet you choose to still delete the image. Can you please explain why you didn't agree with the fair rationale provided. Can you please check before deleting image maybe you should just delete the tag instead. From reading the above it would appear that this is not the first time you've acted before checking the details Dan arndt 10:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AOLblock review

Hi Naconkantari, could you please check if 64.12.96.0/19, 152.163.0.0/16, and 205.188.0.0/16 are still operating as open proxies? We've been getting about 2-3 emails a month regarding these IP addresses since April, and AOL OpenRide is no longer available, so I'm guessing AOL may have reallocated these ranges back to their normal customer pool. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  09:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Image:Bad Timing-triffids.jpg"

Hi, You tagged Image:Bad Timing-triffids.jpg as an image without a fair use rationale. A fair use rationale was promptly added. You deleted the image aanyway with the comment "Expired disputed fair-use image, concern was: no fair use rationale given". Was my fair use rationale insufficient? Or did you simply not check whether a rationale was added? It bothers me that you require a tag to be added, I go to the trouble of adding it, yet you delete the image anyway. How can I avoid having this happen again? Any comments please. Grimhim 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I had the same problem. Oh, well. Such is the life of us little people. :) 70.186.172.75 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The image has been restored. Please see the above sections. Naconkantari 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aiwasegacd.jpg

This image was tagged with a fair use rationale request. I promptly added a fair use rationale but the file was deleted. Would you please consider reverting this deletion as I believe the fair use rationale provided was a valid one and the use of the image in this article was warranted Variations_of_the_Sega_Mega_Drive#Aiwa_Mega_CD. Thanks. - X201 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - X201 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AdamGregoryCD.jpg

Image:AdamGregoryCD.jpg was tagged with a fair use rationale request. I promptly added a fair use rationale but you deleted the image and stated that no fair use rationale was given. Can you please explain? Eric444 13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Please read the above sections. Naconkantari 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Eric444 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images

As you've probably realized by now, until June 5, Template:Dated dfu stated that the fair use rationale must be evaluated by an administrator before the deletion tag can be removed. Could review all of the deletions of images you've made lately, and restore the ones which have proper fair use rationales, instead of waiting for users to complain about specific ones? TomTheHand 13:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:77SunsetStripAlbumcover.jpg

When this image was tagged as lacking a fair use rationale, I added a detailed rationale that discussed the use of this album cover image in the article 77 Sunset Strip. The article contains specific discussion of the album and general discussion of the television program on which the album was based. I believe the rationale qualifies this image for fair use in the article, since no replacement free image will become available for many years (the album was released in 1959). Please undelete the image because the deletion reason you gave – "Expired disputed fair-use image, concern was: no fair use rationale given" – was not applicable because a detailed fair use rationale was provided. Thank you.

I just reviewed some of the above messages and saw that the language of the warning template has apparently been changed. I'm sorry that I did not notice the change in wording, if it had been made on Image:77SunsetStripAlbumcover.jpg. At the time that I added my fair use rationale to this image, the language said that the warning template could be removed only after an admin reviewed the image. At any rate, I again respectfully request an undeletion of the image. Thanks. Casey Abell 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Casey Abell 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Same problem

I have added a rationale for fair use, but did not remove the template since the template was explicitely saying it could only be removed by an Administrator. I therefore would like the ask for the following images to be restored :

• Image:Almaty2014.jpg
• Image:Aphrodite DVD.jpg
• Image:Aston martin rapide.jpg
• Image:Aslan.jpg
• Image:Bangkok2007.jpg
• Image:Borjomi 2014.jpg
• Image:Brown-Cow-Logo 250W.gif

I have acted in good faith and would have removed the tag if felt allowed to do so. Hektor 15:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images restored. Naconkantari 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.Hektor 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Bonzo.jpg seems to fall in the same category. Brookie added a fairuse rationale after tagging. Agathoclea 16:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also restored. Naconkantari 16:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN comment

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Naconkantari.27s_deletions Dragons flight 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image Deletion and Restoration

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I WilyD hereby award this Tireless Contributor Barnstar to Naconkantari for not only plowing through the CSD no-fair-use rational images, but promptly restoring them if they were deleted in a confusion about the template. WilyD 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Armageddon score.jpg

Howdy! I see that you deleted Image:Armageddon score.jpg. I saw a complaint from a user to BC and checked, and it looks like it might have had a proper fair-use rationale. Getting rid of these improper fair-use images is important stuff, was wondering if you could take a quick second to check the file I link to above to see if it got mixed in by mistake. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 17:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the image, I do admit that I didn't provide a rationale when I first uploaded the image, however that was when I was fairly new to wiki. I have tried to provide a reasonable fair use image. Douglasnicol 17:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Apple Iveys.JPG

Hi, please explain to me why you deleted that image on grounds of "no fair use rationale given" although I had recently added one. It seems to me I have been right after all in ignoring the dozens of canned messages on my talk page as images once tagged that way get deleted no matter if, or what, I do. Best wishes, <KF> 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above sections. Image restored. Naconkantari 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I hadn't realised that this time it's not just me who's been singled out for special (unfair) treatment. :) Thanks. <KF> 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Caister2007-lowres.jpg

Hello, could you please explain why you deleted this image? It was flagged to me (by a bot) as requiring a fair use rationalle, which I then added, using the appropriate Wikipedia template for such a rationalle. The tag requesting a fair use rationalle instructed me NOT to remove said tag, but stated that an admin would do so. Perhaps you could get back to me. Many thanks. Timothy Titus 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above sections. Image restored. Naconkantari 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adelaide 1998.jpg

Exact same situation as above. Added rationale, but didn't remove tag. Image was deleted anyway.--Jeff79 19:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 03:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

bbnlogo.png

I inserted a fair use rationale! It was absolutely there, on the image. edit: I should have provided a link: Image:Bbnlogo.png . Mine was deleted in the same manner as all the other deletions here. and I will add that the no-rationale warning specifically instructed us not to remove it after adding a rationale.

Vivisel 20:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above sections. Image restored. Naconkantari 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding your deletion of Image:Avatar - The Last Airbender 203 Return To Omashu-Ty Lee.jpg

You recently deleted the above-linked image, with the given reason being "Expired disputed fair-use image, concern was: no fair use rationale given". While it is true that, when the dispute tag was placed on the image, there was indeed no rationale, I added one afterward, so the claim that it was deleted for not giving one confuses me, and I'd much appreciate clarification. Thanks in advance.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading above to see what's happened, I'd like to request the following images be restored:

• Image:Avatar - The Last Airbender 203 Return To Omashu-Ty Lee.jpg
• Image:Avatar - The Last Airbender 112 The Storm - Ozai.jpg
• Image:Avatar - The Last Airbender 103 The Southern Air Temple - Momo.jpg

Again, thanks in advance.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images restored. Naconkantari 03:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BladeRunner_Voigt-Kampff_machine.jpg

I did provide a rationale. Insufficient? The article it was used in supports a featured article. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above sections. Image restored. Naconkantari 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted in error

I am aware of your current episode of deleting several thousand images in error. Please restore the following as soon as possible:
Image:Baylorschool.jpg
Image:Baylor old.jpg

Thanks Malson 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images restored. Naconkantari 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bsp eaglescout youthpatch.jpg

I gave a fair use rationale for this, why was it deleted anyway? Chris 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above sections. Image restored. Naconkantari 03:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

More accidental deletions

Hi! Can you restore these casualties of the recent fair use bot misunderstanding?

Image:BeBeCherch.jpg

Image:BeBeIHaveADream.jpg

Image:BeBeDream.jpg

Image:BeBeChristmasPrayer.jpg

Image:BeBeLiveUpClose.jpg

Image:BeBeLoveFreedom.jpg

Image:BeBeStayThankYou.jpg

Image:BeBeInHarmsWay.jpg

Image:BeBeWinans1997.jpg

Image:2ndchance.jpg

Thanks! Souldier77 22:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Images restored. Naconkantari 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maze war.jpg

You deleted Image:Maze war.jpg recently based on the fact that it was {{dfu}}ed with a "no fair use rationale given" explanation. This was true, when it was tagged. Very shortly after it was tagged, I added a rationale, and asked the person who had tagged it (User:ESkog) to review. I did not hear back from him, and didn't remove the tag because I didn't think it was appropriate to do so. I bring it up now, though, because the summary you provided for the deletion log suggests that you weren't aware of the change. If you had another reason for deleting it, I apologize for bothering you, but I wanted to make sure that you were aware that there was a fair use rationale on the image at the time of its deletion.... – Sean Daugherty (talk) 04:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 05:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ceph

Sorry to bother you, but my question is why the page Ceph was deleted. As far as I know the following has happened:

1. Page created by someone, as far as I know one of the writers of a paper regarding Ceph. Content of the page was very similiar of the abstract of the paper. Page tagged as having copyright problems. Paged deleted.
2. I asked why and got a resonable explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Garion96#Ceph
3. I created a new page, with my own words describing the features of the file system. Page tagged as blatant advertising. Page deleted.
4. I created a new page, where I compared this file system with similiar other file systems and explained why it was significant. Paged tagged again. So I slimmed down the page to just the skeleton, while trying to figure out how a page regarding such content should be written. But then, page delteted, blatant advertising.

So. What I am mostly interested in is distributed parallel fault tolerant file systems. There are not so many around. The usage of them is slowly growing. They are in my impression a very important technology since this is where the current supercomputing clusters are heading, this where large scale webhosting is heading and Googles successfull implementation is one of the cornerstones behind Googles success. This the kind of technology that for example would make a very large wiki a lot easier to implement. How should such a article be written to be accepted to Wikipedias administrators? --JerkerNyberg 07:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I also discuessed the reason behind the tagging on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JerkerNyberg and got the impression that they were not sourced, which I was planning to add. --JerkerNyberg 07:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In the criteria for blatant advertising: Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. The page that was deleted didn't say much more than Ceph is a distributed fault tolerant parallel file system or something like it which can hardly be called inappropriate. So? Can you undelete the page you deleted please, or give a better explanaition? --JerkerNyberg 12:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image - incorrect justification

Hello. I believe you deleted the following image, Image:Arcadie cover 1975.jpg, by mistake. I added a fair use rationale a few days ago, after receiving notification on my talk page. Could you restore it please? Thanks. ntennis 09:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted images with fair use rationale given

Hi, I just wonder why did you deleted some album covers with fair use rationale given. These images are:

• Image:Atlantis lucid dreaming.jpg
• Image:Beyond the Darkest Veils of Inner Wickedness.jpg
• Image:Beyond Sanctorum.jpeg
• Image:Bells of Doom.jpg

Could you explain me what was wrong with these images or fair use rationales? —Visor (talk · contribs) 09:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't remove the {{dated dfu}} template from the images, which caused them to show up in a CAT:DFUI subcategory, which got eventually autodeleted. I have restored the images and removed the tags. Миша13 13:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the fair use rationales!!!!!!

Yo! I added the fair use rationales to some images but you still deleted them! I don't know if you can check, or restore them, but I'm 100% certain they had FURs on! The two images (ive noticed so far) are: Image:Anthem watf.jpg and Image:Bmth logo.jpg It's a bit frustrating as the reason they were deleted was "no fair use rationale given" but there was! I know you probably receive lots of messages saying "you deleted x, y & z" but in this case perhaps you missed the added FURs (or more likely I was suppose to remove the delete sign, and I didn't!) Please could you review and restore these! Thanks, Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"(or more likely I was suppose to remove the delete sign, and I didn't!)". This is correct. Images restored. Naconkantari 16:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember to do that in future! Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 09:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Assafir.gif

Image:Assafir.gif was deleted although I provided its source, and the license. (It was a newspaper logo as suggested). But the bot marked it as disputed. Could I know the real reason why it have been deleted? Thanx Banzoo 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please leave new messages at the bottom of talk pages. Also, please read the above sections. Image restored. Naconkantari 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cough...

Sorry, but Image:Bfi.jpg was deleted although I gave fair use rationale... Can you explain me better why ? :) --Raistlin 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above sections. Image restored. Naconkantari 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well actually the tag itself says "do not remove" ;) --Raistlin 12:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

More deletions

Looks like you deleted Image:Alisonlightnovel.jpg and Image:Baccano.jpg even though I had added fair use rationales. Looking above, there are a bunch of similar posts - either check to see if their is a fair use rationale before deleting, or change the code telling us not to remove the deletion warning. Doceirias 22:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the template has now been changed. Ignore that bit! Doceirias 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Images restored. Naconkantari 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BohemianArchiveofJapaneseRed.jpg

I'll spare you the compliant....I've added a fair use rationale before the deletion, so please restore the image. Thanks. _dk 23:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Image restored. Naconkantari 00:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What you do best ...

I hate to be a smartass, and I do appreciate you're promptly reverting those deleted images, but you'd have to agree it's been one hell of a week. All of which makes that comment you made back on June 2 all the more rich ... I've decided to stay away from the more drama-inducing areas and just focus on what I do best. Ah, the irony of it all... Grimhim 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring images?

Are you still planning to begin reviewing your deletions from June 5 at some point? TomTheHand 17:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

image:ASMS.jpg

Looks like this image was also the victim of the June 5 deletion campaign (to put it nicely). I have provided the fair use criteria (logo displayed at the organizations's website). Please restore the image. Lobster 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to have been reuploaded with a proper fair use critera. Sorry someone had to do that instead of the image getting undeleted. TomTheHand 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete request: GenerationQ.Net

My recollection is that this article asserts notability. Could you please undelete it? If it doesn't assert notability, I'd be glad to edit it. Thanks! --Ssbohio 02:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Abc57.jpg & Image:Amen940.jpg

Would you please restore Image:Abc57.jpg and Image:Amen940.jpg? I would have added fair use rationales but missed them before they got deleted. I will add them as soon as I discover they are restored. Thank you. DHowell 05:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Abc57 had a fair use rationale when it was deleted. Amen940 does not; please add one immediately. I will delete it again if it's not added soon. TomTheHand 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a fair use rationale. TomTheHand 22:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Undelete request: Army Man.jpg

The reason given was "Expired disputed fair-use image, concern was: no fair use rationale given" but I added a fair use rationale a few days previous? --Rubber cat 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. TomTheHand 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Two images to restore

First, could you please restore the version of Abreu vineyards logo.gif deleted June 6, and delete the current image (which is my unsuccessful attempt to re-upload) by that name?

Second, Image:Abreu 1997 cabernet.jpg.

In both cases I added a fair use rationale but failed to remove the image deletion warning, so the images got deleted even though I had justified their use.

Thanks, Wikidemo 00:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored Image:Abreu 1997 cabernet.jpg; I appear to have made some kind of mistake restoring Abreu vineyards logo.gif. Why do you need the previous version? TomTheHand 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. First, I see that I didn't make a mistake before, it's just that there was some database lag and I didn't see the undeleted image immediately. Second, I see why you needed it restored: the large version, when resized, isn't legible. I restored the shrunk version. TomTheHand 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Britomart Logo

While I did not upload this image, and at the time was ceptical whether it would help the article, I am curious as to why you found fit to delete it. After all, there was a clear explanation as to who owns the logo, and where it is used. As a logo by definition cannot be but copied (i.e. a public domain alternative created) I am puzzled as to why you'd delete this, but not, for example, the Transport for London logo.

Image I was talking about was "Image:Britomartlogo.png" at the Britomart Transport Centre. I'd appreciate an undelete. MadMaxDog 11:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. TomTheHand 18:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

An article that you speedy-deleted is being discussed at WP:DRV

Hello Naconkantari. See the DRV entry for Onesidezero (designer). EdJohnston 18:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help on Scentura. Please watch this page so other distributors dont deleted the well referenced article. Calendar 00:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community

If you are not aware Category:Wikipedians who support the LGBT community was re-created.--Jorfer 04:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bigkmart.jpg

Please also restore Image:Bigkmart.jpg, so I may add a fair use rationale. DHowell 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Please add the fair use rationale immediately. TomTheHand 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a fair use rationale. TomTheHand 22:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AssasinsRadicalSectsInIslam.jpeg

Please restore this image as a fair use rationale had been given

--CltFn 12:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. TomTheHand 18:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:AmericanJihad.jpg

Please restore this image as a fair use rationale had been given

--CltFn 12:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. TomTheHand 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Britannica.jpg

Please restore this image as a fair-use rationale was given. TimVickers 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Done this myself, now I see the problem. TimVickers 19:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Looking over your talk page, it appears you have deleted quite a few images that had valid fair-use rationales. Is there some kind of problem here that could be solved through wider input from the community? Are the output of the bots being used to mark images for deletion with no further manual checking? I've asked about this as the admin noticeboard as well (link). TimVickers 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Van Morrison album covers deleted

Could you restore these images from Van Morrison Albums; They were legal under fair use rationale as they were being used only on the albums that they were created for. The editor who uploaded them chose to ignore the {images to be deleted} notices and didn't answer my inquiry when I asked if he was going to furnish it — when I decided to go ahead and put in the fair use rationale myself they had been deleted. I will furnish this as soon as the images are restored. Thanks, Agadant 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Image:Avalon Sunset.jpg
• Image:Best Of VM.jpg
• Image:Best Of VM2.jpg
• Image:Back on Top (album cover).jpg

Restored, please add fair use rationale immediately. TomTheHand 18:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding fair use rationale quickly. TomTheHand 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:Bubsy.jpg

I did not upload Image:Bubsy.jpg myself, but I believe that the picture was of Video Game Cover Art, which means that the picture would fall squarely under the { Non-free game cover|SNES } licensing. If at all possible, it would be good to see the picture restored. Thanks. --Eptin 22:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, I'm not going to restore this image. You've got to provide a specific reason why a fair use image should be used (a "fair use rationale"). It's not enough to have a game licensing tag. If you prepare a fair use rationale I'd be willing to undelete the image so that you can add that rationale immediately. TomTheHand 18:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:BrassMan.jpg

I added a fair use rationale template to image:BrassMan.jpg as a book cover, but didn't realize that I should have removed the template that marked it for potential deletion. Would you restore the image? -- Upholder 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. TomTheHand 20:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Atomisk Records deletion

Wondering why the Atomisk Records page was deleted. Reason given was - (CSD A7(Group): Article about a club or group that does not assert significance). Atomisk artists, primarily Cassette, have been receiving pretty significant national college radio airplay this year (charting on the CMJ radio charts), have toured nationwide, and are well known in South Florida. Not sure what level of significance needs to be attained, however.

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:America album.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. fuzzy510 03:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

I don't mean to add to your pile of concerns/complaints, but please, for the love of Pete, remove links to images you delete from their respective articles. --Spike Wilbury 14:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:4 3logo.png

Could this image please be restored? It's a logo, and I hope that if I mark it as such that it can be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. It's used in this article: [[16]] Thanks. --RenniePet 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Please add a fair use rationale as soon as possible. --Spike Wilbury 17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done my best. But I'm not the original uploader, and he/she does not seem to be active on Wikipedia any more. --RenniePet 17:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Suncrest, Washington

Just so you know, I've undone your speedy deletion of Suncrest, Washington. It had survived a previous VfD and so was ineligible for speedy deletion, and the A3 criterion didn't really apply anyway. Bryan Derksen 18:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about why you deleted - and what happened to the page

Hello - I hope you can assist me. I'm struggling to understand why we can't have a page for Netafim like Rain_Bird, Toro (company) and Jain Irrigation have.

You deleted a page which I took a long time to make - and now I can't find it in any of your logs. Here is the reference. Do you know if this content is still available somewhere?

04:00, 20 December 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) deleted "Netafim" (G11)

I'd at least like to get the page back to see what was considered (G11). I was working with another editor to make the page acceptable and I'd ask that anyone who wanted to delete the page to please contact me before they deleted the page so I could address their concerns.

If you can simply delete the Netafim page - am I allowed to simply delete the Jain Irrigation page?

I'm sorry - I just don't understand why you allow Jain Irrigation to have a huge reference - and will not allow us to even add one word.

Below is a post I made to Mr Stephen where you can compare these pages and hopefully understand my position.

I appreciate your reading this post.

We honestly feel some reference to Netafim as one of the early developers of drip irrigation is informative and not merely commercial. While I await your response - I'll post some information that is exactly similar to Rain_Bird and Toro (company) so hopefully you'll not have any issue with it.

--NetafimUSA 04:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)netafimusa

Fair Treatment - Lost Information - Really need some help

Dear Mr. Stephen:

Please see below for all referenced links.

Thank you in advance for helping me with this very frustrating problem - regarding Netafim Drip Irrigation Company.

I could just cry. Sure hope you can help me figure out what has gone wrong. I spent such a long time in December trying to get a business card page up for Netafim. I worked with you and begged others not to delete the page without giving me some reason or at least notifying me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NetafimUSA

All we want is a page similiar to Rainbird http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_Bird. We're not even asking for something as elaborate as the Jain Irrigation page.

It doesn't seem fair that we've had to stuggle so much just to have a listing. Our company name is unusual and we believe a Wikipedia listing explaining that we are a drip irrigation company would be helpful to web users.

Is it possible that Jain Irrigation had our Netafim page deleted? Why should Jain Irrigation be allowed two listings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_Irrigation_Systems and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_Irrigation_Systems and we can't even have a short one page.

If you find out who deleted us - can we report them to some kind of fairness commmittee?

I can't see any reference to the nice "uncommercial" Netafim page I made. Has this information been lost now? I've clicked back and forth and tried to read everything - but I can't find anything I posted in December.

Fair use image deletions

I noticed that you deleted Image:Ainjel Emme-Heartache Is Boring.jpg due to fair-use reasons. I had updated that image to include a reasonable explanation of fair use, but I think you may have deleted it without noticing the updated rationale. I had not removed the template that had been originally placed onto it indicating that its fair-use reasons were missing (since the template said that it should be left and administrators would check the reasons later). -- Bovineone 05:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Restored. --Spike Wilbury 04:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:72.155.157.18

Just letting you know this IP is currently requesting unblocking; any comments or thoughts you have are welcome. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

G-e-m-i-s-i-m-o

Hi, I am the owner of the site and I guess you saw the long discussion we had on the request for removal from the spam blacklist. I saw you did not approve my request and offered to go for local whitelisting, just to explain our request further and ask for some consideration we are asking to be removed from the list because it had a real bad effect from an SEO perspective and directories are not accepting our submissions and other problems. We are not asking to be whitelisted and we know that wikipedia can add us back on the blacklist when they want but what we are asking is to give us a second chance and give us some consideration. We invested a lot of money into our new site and we really do not want a silly action of one employee to hurt the site so much. Please as we said before this is really important for a new site and it is really hurting us, if possible remove us from this list and give a second chance, I can assure you this will never happen again and we already put across to all our employees not to venture in such actions ever again. Thanks for the considerations (PS I just thought I would post this here as well to make sure you see it) 77.124.9.227 07:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

deletion of article "yfma"

I notice that you have deleted an article that I contributed to, namely the article about "YFMA".

I realise that previous entries in Wikipedia for YFMA were not appropriate and hence deleted, however the last time I saw the article I thought it had been substantially improved upon and I personally made several edits to remove "advertising".

It seems that the reason you deleted it was for "Blatant Advertising", however I thought that the article (at least the last time that I saw it), was a valid entry about that on-line community.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#G11 "simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well."

At the time of my last edit to that page, the article was factual, partially referenced, and although incomplete I thought that it had made a good start as an encyclopedic entry. I therefore find it to be a bit drastic to completely delete the article without allowing the contributors any opportunity to remedy any failings in it.