User talk:Nakon/archive5

User:Naconkantari/talk header

Please explain your block of User:Uranus is the seventh planet from the sun. This username is a statement of scientific fact. How could that ne inappropriate? Quepasahombre 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to believe that that account would not make any productive edits.

Naconkantari

00:01, 16

June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize a mere suspicion that an account will not make productive edits was a valid rationale for a permanent block per wikipedia guidelines. Is wikipedia:assume good faith out the window? Maybe the person who created the account wants to focus on edits related to Uranus. That is just as easy an assumption to make. Quepasahombre 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to

Naconkantari 02:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If that is the issue, why did you just block user:Goodfaithuranus(theplanet)editor? Quepasahombre 02:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naconkantari 02:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not. I am just monitoring your log. It is unclear what you are accomplishing by not letting this poor guy (or gal) who is interested in the planet Uranus create an account that reflects that interest. Quepasahombre 03:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Naconkantari. I'm just curious, not a criticism at all, but did you first start off here with the intention of cleaning vandalism? Or did you want to write articles and then got sidetracked because you felt an obligation to clean up messes and stuff. I'm curious because I like to write a lot - see my userpage, but since I became an admin, I've gotten an urge to try and fix all vandalism, block all vandals, delete everything that needs deleting, etc, and haven't been able to write anything. Do you wish to write stuff? Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I maintained a few articles on a previous account, but that was about a year ago. Seeing how vandalism is a major problem for Wikipedia, my strengths in technical matters are greater than my editorial skills. I'd rather spend a few hours monitoring RC than spending a few hours researching fatcs for an article, but that's just me. I'd go with whatever your strengths are.

Naconkantari 03:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:OP

Hello. Can I ask you the result of the IP addresses that I thought were open proxies, diff. Thanks a bunch, as they say..! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 17:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proxy scan returned negative. However, the IP addresses all belong to Verizon (70.104.0.0/13), so it is possible that they are dynamically assigned, sort of like AOL does.

Naconkantari 17:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for The Talk Page Cleanup

-) — Mike • 00

20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

May I request unprotected for your user page. I'm so sorry to request semi-protected. Some of them edits your user page in positive way. Have you ever considered to put semi-protect in your user page? Your user page doesn't get vandalized too much. but IP would be serious issue to edit your page. Ip always vandalized thr article, user page. I'm not prejudiced against IP. Some IP edits poisitive way. So, Do you agree with that? *~Daniel~* 01:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it semiprotected before, but it doesn't work. If there is a problem with the page, request a change here.

Naconkantari 01:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Another Question.

Thank you for reply in this talk-page about my request. I'm just curious about your ID. Please Accept this. It's like sily question. What does Naconkantari mean? Is it Chinese name, Korean name, or Japanese Name? Could you explain to me about your Id? Because I really want to know what does your ID Naconkantari means? Thanks. *~Daniel~* 01:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page was deleted by you a few minutes ago. That's great and all, but I did a quick search and I have in another browser window, a disambiguation page i'm working on with a short list of people with that name. I'm not sure if re-creating a deleted page is against policy/guidelines though, so I wanted to ask you if it is a good idea to click the save button. (i'd rather not be chased by an angry mob of new page patrollers). All the entries on my list have a WP article, so they're notable. MichaelBillington 01:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any problem with the page you created.

Naconkantari 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Necrowarrio0

I believe that a person who creates an account realted to Uranus shouldn't be blocked. You can't just block people out of pure suspicion!User:Necrowarrio0 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was created in a series of accounts that were related to planets that were all blocked.

Naconkantari 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh sorry, I see. [Necrowarrio0]

Dude!

You deleted the Mary French article mere seconds after I added the hangon tag. Put it back, and let me put some content to it first. 72.145.156.194 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naconkantari 03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ugh, look at your delete log: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_French_%28Attorney%29 72.145.156.194 03:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to recreate the page, go ahead. The page was properly deleted per

Naconkantari 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Your deletion of

WP:AFD

if you still feel it's needed.

— User:Adrian/zap2.js 03:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC

Nac: It was not, I want you to restore the history, then you will notice the {{hangon}} tag, I was about to edit the article72.145.156.194 04:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a proper deletion. The current state of the article did not assert the subject's notability. I saw the hangon tag and acted accordingly. I'll restore the article, but if it is not improved, it will be subject to speedy deletion again.

Naconkantari 04:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

(outdent) Thanks for your help. — User:Adrian/zap2.js 04:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

After you blocked MEAT_CLEAVERS_ARE_REALLY_COOL!!! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), huge amounts of autoblocks have ensued, and I've just unblocked a bunch. Still, we need to keep a close watch; look at THAT!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, this is an AOL denial of service vandal that has been attacking Wikipedia for some time now.

Naconkantari 14:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OMG Doesn't Autoblock prevent repeated IP address using? Necrowarrio0

Based off his contributions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mr-ed), I believe that this "mr-ed" character might be a sock puppet of mr pelican shit. I placed this template on mr-ed's user page: {{MPS}}

How do you fine out if an IP address is a schhol 1? User:Necrowarrio0

I will search for it on [1]

Naconkantari 21:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh cool. If it is a school 1, will you unblock it eventually? Necrowarrio0

It depends on the IP's block log and amount/type of vandalism. If it has many blocks or extremely serious vandalism, I may block it until a network or system administrator can contact me, but most of the time a block is only around 3 hours to 3 days.

Naconkantari 22:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok cause before my friends kept editing the Wikipedia info incorrectly, and then i had to send messages to ppl like for example some1 calles sasquatch? And then they unblocked it. Necrowarrio0

How do people use your IP address if they are on another Server, cause there was an accoutn called DARNPEEPS which used my IP address and got me banned. Necrowarrio0

If an account is blocked and tries to edit, they will trigger the

Naconkantari 22:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

ok, Thank you. Necrowarrio0

Can you explain to me please? Necrowarrio0

Take a look through Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. ~ PseudoSudo 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I appreciate you semi-protecting my page. --

]

block

Request - since I'm blocked (AOL) by you, would you add this comment on the talk:Daniel Brandt page after DrPoddle in the last section:

DrPoddle is a contributor to Daniel Brandt threads at Wikipedia Review. Hort Graz 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please either wait for the block to expire or logout and get me the IP address that is blocked so that I can unblock it.

Naconkantari 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

+

Its the AOL range block, unblocking one or two IPs wont help. Sorry for the new section, but I get blocked if I try to section edit. Hort Graz 00:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look over the old versions of User talk:Necrowarrio0. I will let you make up your mind as to what, if anything, you want to do about it. (This person also made all of the edits from IP 203.173.191.165, signing them as Necrowarrio0.) —WAvegetarian•(talk) 00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i don't know what i pressed, i accidentally mucked the whole thing up. It really was a mistake. Necrowarrio0

Oh you talking about my talk page. I think that it was my school friends who did that cause that tiem Nakonkantari bllocked the school IP or it's that they hacked me :). Necrowarrio0

Dear Naconkantari,

I am writing to you in regards to the deletion of the Big Nate's BBQ entry. I understand the policy that prohibits advertisements. For the record, I am not affiliated in any way with the restaraunt, Nate Thurmond, the NBA or any of it's teams. I'm just a fellow Wikipedian who enjoy's good BBQ.

I would submit to you the argument that if there are Wikipedia links to Geno's Steaks & Pat's King of Steaks in Philadelphia that there is a place for Big Nate's in the Wikipedia, especially given that the owner is a basketball legend who is frequently spotted at the restaurant.

If need be I can provide much more content for the listing and would delete the link to the restaraunt's website if that is a concern. There is a cult-like following of Big Nate's, which is certainly on par with Pat's or Geno's and it deserves to be represented on this site. I am asking you to please restore the Big Nate's listing.

Thank you for your consideration. A reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Baileytix

Baileytix 00:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Naconkantari,

> Can you provide evidence to these accusations? Naconkantari 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can. Can you please email me at [email protected]

Please look at the Many-Worlds article. And read Lethe's comments on the article's talk page from the time I made my first edit. Then read his comment and the comment of Sam Blanning on my talk page. Please note, that these attacks were made on my first day editing Wikipedia and the next few days after that.

> This editor seems to be somewhat confused. From the low volume and quality of

> his edits [56] and the high number of blocks he has nevertheless attracted [57]

> I expect that he has come to harbor a grudge against administrators.

> --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The high number of blocks I have are because I post from AOL. All but three blocks or blocks were intended for others, not me. Two of those three blocks that were intended for me were put in place by Lethe. Both were for violating the 3RR.

The fisrt time he issued the block, it was my very first day editing Wikipedia. I did not know there was a 3RR. Instead of identifying himself and explaining the rule to me, he just blocked me for twenty-four hours. The second time he blocked me for 3RR, I don't believe I violated the rule. I did not revert the same material three times in one day. The material I reverted, remains reverted. Other editors agreed with me that there is no known category called "Gray Rape." A Google search of "Gray Rape" only turned up the Wikipedia article that described it. I have made dozens of important contributions. Other editors have described the quality of my contributions as "excellent."

Only one other block was intended for me. That was by Sam Blanning for putting commentary into an article. I realized someone would see the commentary and correct an error in the article. I was afraid to correct it myself as Lethe was reverting every edit I made. Someone did read the commentary and made the change I requested. Again, this was on one of the first days I was editing Wikipedia, and did not know it was wrong.

Instead of Sam Blanning introducing himself and explaining the error I had made, he just blocked for 24 hours, and left a nasty note on my talk page. At the time, I didn't even know I had a talk page.

It seems like Lethe and Sam believe their opinions are infallible. If they feel someone's edits are low quality that must me the case.

Lethe and Sam Blanning were both as nasty as can be. They were patronizing, condescending and scolding like school marms with PMS. They continually insult my writing ability, and belittle my talent.

With administrators like this, it seems to me Wikipedia is hell-bent an making enemies and discouraging new editors.

> I'm not sure what Michael is spefically referring to, but I'm

> not surprised he's being reverted for edits like these (I myself

> reverted him twice when he was inserting commentary into

> that article). He would be better off trying to understand the

> policy of verifiability instead of spamming everyone in sight

> looking for an "advocate". --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Wikipedia policy of verifiability very well. I have reliable sources for everything I have added to Wikipedia. Just about all my edits have remained in place. Most of what I wanted to get into the Many Worlds article is now there, despite the fact that Lethe wrote everything I added was patently false, and reverted all in its entirety.

Now, Sam Blanning and Lethe continue their personal, petty war against me, attacking me every chance they get and making snide remarks.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and patience.

Warmest and kindest regards,

Michael D. Wolok 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naconkantari,

Lethe refers to me as "the lamentable Michael D. Wolok." I think this is uncivil and an insult.

Warmest and kindest regards, Michael

Your note on my page is surprising. I was contacting only a relatively small group of users for a specific set of reasons, not "spamming." I was contacting only the following: (1) users who have established solid reputations in the community for long-time, quality contibutions to articles on history and politics (2) long-time users who know me well and whom I know, giving me an idea that they may be interested in the subject (3) users who are currently active (4) and finally users I have contacted in the past regarding similar requests who tend to respond to my talk page posts. Again, I was not "spamming" anyone but seeking feedback from some of Wikipedia's top editors; this is a prime example of the kind of peer editing process on which Wikipedia is based. 172 | Talk 03:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I recognise many of the names that 172 messaged are well known for high quality contribs to political and historical articles. That's speaking from a person who doesn't edit the articles myself, but having seen these people from afar. I don't think it is random spamming. Also, there is no conflict of interest as I have not edited stuff that 172 has edited in the past. I wasn't one of the people contacted by him either. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Whether spamming is random or targeted makes no difference. From what I saw, it appeared that

Naconkantari 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Dick Clark made the point better than I did: The only notices I have seen left by 172 were civil, non-confrontational, and seemed to be made in good faith. It appears to me that he is not self-promoting, but rather seeking additional opinions from other editors who miht be interested in the subject matter. Naconkantari, the WP:SPAM definition of spam that you cite on your own userpage clearly doesn't include such encyclopedia-building activities such as these messages that you are concerned about. Now, as it happens, I think I disagree with 172 about the Norm Coleman "trivia" deletion issue. Nonetheless, he appears to be seeking community input as every editor in a contentious situation should do. Dick Clark 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I was not necessarily trying to "gain support" for editing an article; I have no way of predicting how anyone would respond to the note. 172 | Talk 04:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, as it seems like a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, I've got no reason to pursue this further. Sorry for bothering you.

Naconkantari 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Glad to hear that we're all on the same page now. Good running into you for the first time. 172 | Talk 04:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that 172 has permission to spam my talk page. ;) Incidentally, I ended up taking a position opposite to his, and I only found out it was opposite after making an (albeit minor) edit to the article. Also, it isn't actually a debate he could expect to gain political support from (notwithstanding the subject being a politician), even if he would have chosen more or less single-pov editors, which he didn't. It's really is a debate about the bounds of

WP:SELF. El_C 11:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Lawtons

The Artictle "Lawtons"is not an advertisment either is any other article do I write or start . I am well versed in Wikipedia's policies on such. I future plaese consider in future article I write .--Vic 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed them at

Naconkantari 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on

. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

What's up? I just spent some time editing an article on E. Mochila, Inc. It's tagged as an advertisement, so I've changed some things to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia. I was wondering if these changes are now sufficient, and if the article complies with all of Wikipedia's rules. If not, please let me know what I should change to make it appropriate. Thanks for your help! I hope to hear from you soon. Songmytran 19:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert! Aeon 05:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Unlike past vandalism, this doesn't seem to be an IP address I've had interaction with previously, so it's kind of puzzling why it happened at all. --Christopher Thomas 06:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pistolpierre 16:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally made warning pages for a non-existing user,

]

So where's the link to that other page?

]

Naconkantari 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, maybe you could look at the page and see if I did it right.

Wahkeenah 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd not link it yet, as that page will be moved on Wikisource out of the transwiki space to a more appropriate title.

Naconkantari 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Google Toolbar With Firefox

Hello, you recently left a comment on my page regarding the google toolbar with firefox chopping off the article. Do you know if there is any to fix this? Thanks. Zealotgi 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I can recommend is that you disable the google toolbar when editing Wikipedia. There are many editors that are experiencing this same problem. Wikimedia and Google are aware of this problem and are working on fixing it, but for now it would be better if it was turned off. Thanks

Naconkantari 02:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my user page. IrishGuy ^talk 03:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same!

]

Idiot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOS_%28video_game%29 I REMOVED the links (spam) you are referring to and didn't add them like you accused. You should learn how to use the revision tool. 194.46.243.185 11:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Naconkantari. There are some articles that is not necessary to be in Wikipedia. Could you delete the article Callumvine. It's completely non-sense article in Wikipedia. I hope you could delete the article Callumvine. I highly admire you because you always protect Wikipedia. Thanks. *~Daniel~* 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mine. other Admin already deleted it. *~Daniel~* 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Quicker deletion of non-compliant images proposed	News and Notes: 100 x 1,000, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Just looking for some feedback on the article rewrite I did on the Solitary (TV series) article. D.valued 06:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for this link to be added to the spamlist a while back and you refused saying I should warn and block if they continue. I'm worried that would make the user continue under another account which I can't keep an eye on if the one I know about is blocked. I'd have to check every new account to find out if they are evading the block. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to semi-protect my user page called "

]

I have semi-protected the page. Please write me if/when you want it unprotected.

Naconkantari 19:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the support! --

customer service - thank you for your cooperation.) 00:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

RfA thanks

Thanks so much for the support on my recent

]

I think you can help

I recently posted a question at Wikipedia:Village pump/(miscellaneous)/‎(Anons flooding AfD). Based on your recent Meta comment I think you could help. Do you have a minute to help sort me out? Thanks. --Doc Tropics 04:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the last three or four months, a very determined individual has been adding spam links to various articles. He has now added the same links around 200 times, and his various IP's have been blocked 22 (ok 23 as of tonight) times to no avail. He very rarely strays away from Freeware and Shareware, but adds the exact same two links every time. So, do we 1) keep blocking and reverting, 2) sprotect the articles for some unspecified period of time, or is 3) meta:Spam blacklist possible or plausible in this case since he's using the same links? Reviewing the materials at meta seems to indicate that the blacklist is a last option kind of thing, but I couldn't get a feel for where 'last option' is. Advice? Kuru ^talk 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the domains to the spam blacklist.

Naconkantari 16:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very, very much! This should scale back my edit count a bit.  :) Kuru ^talk 16:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

having trouble on Fill Your Heart talk page. Will Beback, an admin is erasing comments. Bad vibe there.Check it and see. Thanks much.Magdi deville

Hi. Since you closed

]

Why did you delete my messages to other users?

Please don't delete my messages to Mahattan Stone and Co; i would appreciate it if these users actually got to read these messages and decide for themselves whether or not to delete them. How would you like it if someone else removed messages left for you by others before you got a chance to see them?

Becoming an administrator

How do I become an

]

Why are you not allowing me to edit?

I'm trying to update my company profile? User:Atsig411aaron 03:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you have made make the article look like an advertisement or copyright violation. Wikipedia can not accept copyrighted text or images from other websites. Please try to make your edits seem more

Naconkantari 03:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no "point of view" here. It is an article written by our CEO referencing the services we offer, the revenues, employees on staff, company motto, etc? I don't understand? It is all factual info. There are no subjective statements. Our CTO Anders94 updated this in April 2006 and asked me to work on it. User:Atsig411aaron 04:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia
"Avoidance The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks." User:Atsig411aaron 04:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Writing an article about yourself, or something you have a personal interest in, is against wiki policy:
  Wahkeenah 12:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I give up. You guys are crazy. This is not autobiography. An article of revenues, how many employees, background on the founders, public or private, etc is not an autobiography. It's factual info that can only come from an employee. Can an employee of Wikipedia not write about Wikipedia? The founders of Wikipedia? I'll open up a dispute and we'll deal with it that way.

Also from

Naconkantari 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi NK, I noticed that User:Atsig411aaron is having problems with the article about his company. Although a relative to newcomer to WP, I'm interested in expanding stubs into decent articles that meet the requisite policies and guidelines. I don't know yet what can be done in this case, but I'd like to try to help if I can. I'm going to see if I can rewrite some of the questionable material into a more acceptable form over the next few days. Please feel free to review, critique, and delete where necessary. Hopefully this will help the article and maybe Aaron won't feel the need to request mediation again :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity articles are not allowed, as I understand it. The article should be deleted.

Wahkeenah 21:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my userpage. I have requested semiprotection while I am away for a few days. Viridae^Talk 03:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recently noticed that you had done the same for me back in May. Thank you for reverting my userpage, it is very much appreciated! SiameseSoul 19:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Angela Beesley resigns as Wikimedia Foundation trustee	Requiring confirmed email suggested for uploads
Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court	Unblock requests directed to new mailing list
News and Notes: Wiktionary milestone, privacy policy update	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

This user requests his autoblock be undone. Any reason it shouldn't? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple username block. The autoblock may be removed so they may choose another username. Thanks

Naconkantari 04:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm willing to forgive this guy as having a bit of harmless idiocy. Take a look at his talk page, tell me whatb you think. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I'd still leave a 3 to 24 hour block for creating the account in the first place, but you can remove the indef block. Thanks

Naconkantari 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocks are preventative not punative though. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it be left in place. This isn't an isolated occurrence. Mackensen (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He agreed to leaving a block in place [2]

Naconkantari 22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Based on further evidence by Mackensen, the indef block stands.

Naconkantari 22:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Jim Weathers on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jim Weathers. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. (The article has had a colorful history. I'm posting this message to the last two admins to delete it - apparantly it was two different articles.) BigDT 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

administrator. Here's why: I want to become an administrator because I'm thinking I want to delete any candidates for speedy deletion as quick as possible as well as blocking users because of vandalism and username. Could I be an administrator, please? --

]

To become an administrator, please follow the process at

Naconkantari 18:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

ID imposter.

Hi, Naconkantari. I suddenly found new Wikipedian's ID that is similar to yours. Could you block User:Naconkantari/ for indefinite? Sorry for bothering you. *~Daniel~* ☎ 01:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this article out from under me while I was checking the guy's notability. I had placed a holdon tag on the article, did you not see that. Herostratus 16:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had been nearly an hour since the tag was added with no reasoning on the talk page. If you want the article undeleted, then I'll be glad to do so.

Naconkantari 16:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you please undelete Great Strides Therapeutic Riding, Inc.? I had edited it to achieve an NPOV and generally make it a more useful article. The organization is a charitable one, not a company. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting my user page. IrishGuy ^talk 01:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you just left a message on this user's talk page for their personal attacks (against me) I'm guessing. This user is actually a sock of

]

You're NPA tagging the wrong person

Check out the history between myself,

]

Edit summary

I have replied to your comment

Myrtone

Thanks

Thanks for being faster than me :-) -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my user page. --NMChico24 03:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up my talk page. -- Jeff3000 03:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage :) --

]

Am I having deja vu?

Just a few days ago, you autoblocked my IP because somebody used it for a reason solved by "Contact an admin...". Today I signed on and what do you know? The same thing! I was wondering why this has been done and if you could remove the block, for I haven't even made any big edits in a matter of weeks. Wiki-hoping you can help! Teh tennisman 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I guess I didn't understand autoblocks. Sorry for the rant :( Teh tennisman 13:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

could you briefly explain why you think this username warrants an indefinite block? I don't see it covered by any of the clauses in the username policy.

Also, could you please put

]

Same question about

]

I'm sorry that I can't find other examples of these usernames used inappropriately, but I have come across names like these that have been used for vandalism. If I can find some examples, I'll add them here. If you feel that I have blocked in error, feel free to unblock the names. Thanks

Naconkantari 18:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your quick and polite response. I've unblocked the two accounts for the time being. The most important thing for username blocks, I think, is that the users get a template message explaining the block -- otherwise the short message "username" that appears on the warning page when they try to edit may be confusing.--

* 18:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar

Hello Naconkantari. I just wanted to drop you a note and ask for your help on the Surrealism Discussion page. I have a feeling that there is one user who is using four different sockpuppet alias names and they are using the discussion page by mocking surrealist artists online (Keith Wigdor, etc). This person keeps going on and on about "Peter-pansurrealism" and there is no such thing as this movement. Its just a trolling attempt at flamebait. I wanted to bring this to your attention, in order to maintain my civilty and Wiki-ettiquite as well, without getting into a never ending dialogue with this user(s?). Their alleged alias names are, Jacques Stenzack, Classic8uranus, Sloppy hairpiece, and Classicsaturn7. Can you please intervene and investigate this user's IP's, just to make sure that its on the up and up. Also, can you please warn them about this constant nonsense regarding, "Peter-pansurrealism", its diverting attention away from the article topics. Thank you.Classicjupiter2 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect my userpage because I'm taking a wikibreak: a weekend getaway to

]

User:ECHELON

Hi, I notice you put an indef blocked template on User:ECHELON's user page. However I don't think this user has been indef blocked - I gave him a 24 hour block and as far as I can tell that's all that's been given. Have I missed something? Thanks, Gwernol 22:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it.

Naconkantari 22:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I would not object to this user being indef blocked, by the way. It does appear to be a vandal-only account and there are a couple of likely sockpuppets floating around out there. Gwernol 22:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I’d like to know just why my article was deleted.

I contributed valid and truthful information to the "Bori" page in reference to the supernatural spirit native to West Africa, a 100% true historical subject – and yet it was deleted. It pertained exactly to the topic "Bori" at hand and in no way strayed from Wikipedia guidelines. True, I did edit it the paragraphs about three times before I was satisfied with the contents and that may have led you to think I was up to no good but I assure you my intentions were and still are good. I really didn't do anything that horrible... and I am at a loss as to why my entire submission is now gone.

There was no vandalism, propaganda, advertising, coarse language, objectionable material or false material of any kind. It was straight from the textbooks knowledge and research without embellishment of any kind condensed into a summarized form, and yet you felt the urge to take it upon yourself to delete it and call me a vandal. What exactly did I vandalize? What exactly did I do wrong?

Don’t take this as rude, because I'm not trying to be. I just can't grasp the concept of sporadically deleting perfectly normal articles for no good reason. Nevertheless, you've accused me of something I haven't - and wouldn't do. I am a tad confused and I'd like an answer so I'll know better for next time. Frankly, I’d like to know what your reason was for this action. Explain yourself, please. Thanks. :) Closedown 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any

Naconkantari 22:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you're asking if I made the facts up... well there's not much proof I can get you on the exact information other than my word. If you need proof that Bori is a real term for a supernatural entity, see these:

http://www.whiterosesgarden.com/Nature_of_Evil/Demons/DM_world_myths/african_demons.htm

http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Banof_the_Bori-ISBN_071461730X.html?isrc=b-search

There's not much detailed information out there about them on the net, and if there is it most concerns the tribal dance of the Hausa people to appease their reckless nature, and is not about the sprits personally at all, which is what I'm interested in.

It's no big surprise there's not much info about them on the web, considering how foreign this topic is... and that's the reason I wanted to do this. The information I submitted was mainly derived from real solid library rental books of my friend's, and a very good demonology guide. Trust me, I couldn't make something like this up. :)

If this is too much of a problem for you to believe me, then just forget about it and so will I. I'm not about to argue over something so trivial. Thanks for responding so quickly though. :) Closedown 22:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not saying that you're information is incorrect, Wikipedia needs some verifiable sources before including content like yours. If you can find a good source, then feel free to put the information back in, or even ask me to and I'll be glad to. Thanks

Naconkantari 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I'll pass on that. :) I see where you were coming from with your suspicions before on the verifiability of my info, and I do appreciate your offer to help out, but it just seems like a lot of trouble for such a small thing. Also, I'm afraid finding a detailed source on such an obscure topic would be nothing short of impossible. Oh well! I give up. Thanks anyway. Closedown 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the patrolling. I've forgot to log-in so i've put the banner anonimously... --

]

OK.

Naconkantari 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Not "Experimenting"

You have reverted my corrections to "1984 Summer Olympics" with the following phrase: "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed."

However, my offered changes were not an "experiment", but were meant to correct the improper slang phrase, "olympics". "Olympics" is not proper English, but is a slang phrase -- despite its common use in speech. The correct phrase is "Olympic Games". Using "olympics" is similar to using a word such as "fishs" instead of the singular "fish" and its plural "fish". Thank you. Unzicker 23:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit you made, [3], broke a link to an infobox and an image. Terms in an article can't be changed by doing a "Find and Replace". If you have concerns about an article, please discuss them on the article's talk page instead of making potentially destructive edits. Thanks

Naconkantari 23:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

re:Zered Bassett deletion

this guy is certainly in the 'best skateboarder alive' discussion. he has a feature video for zoo york, one of the most popular companies around, as well as huge parts in the City of Killers vid and the Skate Maps series. signed Coleferguson

Thanks for that advice - I actually moved the warning to the IP's talk page. It was an accident, sorry... --

]

Gibraltar

Can I suggest that before engaging in an edit war about the Gibraltar finance centre, you take some time to do background reading on the subject. There is a concerted campaign from Spain to blacken the name of anything in Gibraltar to try and support their three hundred year old sovereignty claim which is rejected totally by the Gibraltarians.

The official description is an International Finance Centre, not a tax haven and not an offshore centre. In the past the campaign to blacken the good name of Gibraltar as a well regulated finance centre has involved false reports in the Spanish media including it in territories engaging in harmful tax practices, contrary to what the OECD says today.

Another dirty tactic is to include links to material dated 2000 which is obsolete today.

Please read the acticle here

Your assistance in removing Spanish vandalism would be appreciated, not reverting it.

--Gibnews 15:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pay too much attention to Gibnews' distraction tactics. He is always complaining about conspirations against Gibraltar by evil spaniards but, as you have seen, the fact is that he removes arbitrarily credited sources as

IMF reports that clearly list Gibraltar as a Tax haven [4] and a offshore centre [5]

.

Tired of the relentless erasing of everything that doesn't fit Gibnews sacred opinions, Burgas00 has opened a RfC on him. Please feel free to read it and, if you agree, endorse it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FGibnews

--Panchurret 23:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a doppelganger account to prevent impersonation of

]

How did you block those impostors? --

tk||cb|em|ea) 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm an administrator. Administrators can block editors, protect and delete pages, and rollback edits with one click. For more information, see

Naconkantari 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

But be specific - what pages do you show besides the block IP screen? --

tk||cb|em|ea) 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

How can that be possible? If you're aware that you can't edit your own user talk page during a range block, then how come you instructed me to place one there? If you're aware that range blocks affect more than one user, then how come deny having made one?--172.147.98.86 23:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny making one. I make rangeblocks when there is severe vandalism coming from AOL. I'm sorry that you are affected by them, but they are needed to protect the encyclopedia. Changes to Mediawiki's blocking software are coming soon to help reduce this problem.

Naconkantari 23:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Why so quick to block/delete?

I posted messages to a few users the other day and you deleted them almost instantly. I think it's a better idea to leave this decision to the intended recepients of the messages. Judging from posts here (such as the first one), you seem overly eager to block users and make unwarranted deletions; in addition you find the slightest excuse to label edits as vandalism.--70.57.110.136 01:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize how serious an issue vandalism is on Wikipedia, however I think more caution should be exercised before deleting things as the encyclopedia is being compromised with every legit edit that is removed.--70.57.110.136 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your messages because they were

Naconkantari 01:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

To the contrary, my messages were actually pleading with the relentless spammer and his sockpuppets to quit spamming. Besides shouldn't it be the owner's sole responsibility to clean up their own talk page? I believe an administrator should be more concerned with cleaning up articles rather than monitoring user pages.--70.57.110.136 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator watches everything that happens on Wikipedia, not only articles.

Naconkantari 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Leaving yet?

So, when exactly *are* you leaving? You've said you were leaving? Why don't you actually do what you say instead of harassing someone for fixing your page. People have been trying to help you, but all you are doing is ignoring their help. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the project, then I suggest that you not come back until you do. Thanks

]

Please see comments here and here. Nobody has helped me at all. Instead they have helped themselves. If you believe that your comments are representative of

]

I monitor edits, yes. I have seen that people have been more than generous in trying to help you and all you have done is criticize whenever they try to help. Your talk page was not viewable by editors, so it was changed so people can see it. Multiple editors have offered you ways to fix this. Please consider what they have said. Thanks

Naconkantari 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Wait Naconkantari, are you leaving or not? --

tk||cb|em|ea) 03:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not leaving anytime soon.

Naconkantari 03:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Tupac Shakur

Please either stop reverting the entry "one of the greatest" and/or discuss on talk. I concur that L2K should not have changed to "the greatest" but "one of" is well cited, accurate, and has been in the article for months. I would also suggest you stop using the rollback button for good faith edits of a long-standing contributor, and use manual reverts with edit summaries. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Naconkantari,

Could I ask you to look at

]

Thanks! Such speedy service! :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 2, Issue 28	10 July 2006	About the Signpost

Reuters tracks evolution of Ken Lay's death on Wikipedia	Creating stable versions using existing software proposed
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, privacy policy update
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Signpost delivered by: RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted your userpage per your request, but cannot delete your talk page, as the history needs to stay intact. Instead, you may blank this page by removing all of the content from it (including this message). Hope this helps, Naconkantari 03:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please point out the policy in this regard. Thank you. Ste4k 05:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's available here.

Naconkantari 15:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Naconkantari. I noticed that recently you removed a speedy tag from this page. In fact, looking at the history, it appears to have been originally tagged for speedy and was then incorrectly removed by someone other than an administrator (i.e. Monicasdude, who was later banned from the deletion process outright, and soon after left Wikipedia). So what I'm getting at is that with those two factors, and since the AFD open against is currently in favor of speedy deletion, I'd like to ask you to reconsider your disqualification of this article from speedy deletion. Thank you for your consideration. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response. :) --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have userboxes in your page...userboxes are useful. So, right now, how old are you (your age, not the online user's age), and where do you live? I live in

]

I really don't like userboxes. I'm not about to give out my age online, but I can tell you that I live in

Naconkantari 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

tk||cb|em|ea) 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Any more information about you (such as what languages do you speak and why you picked this username)? --

tk||cb|em|ea) 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Complaint against you

Just spotted this on RC patrol and thought I'd better inform you about it. See here. Regards, Andeh 19:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, this editor really doesn't like me reverting their vandalism to various RFAs/AFDs.

Naconkantari 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, well it's been reverted now. I won't interfere any further.--Andeh 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look into this - you seemingly blocked this user, but he's still editing. Luckily, it's not vandalism. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a doppelganger account named

]

• Dear Naconkantari, --
  Michael C. Price
  insists on using unsubstantiated claims without proper references on the article page. Regardless of the nature of his claims, I have requested that he does so, but instead he has produced at best irrelevant quotes from non-peer-reviewed sources. His edit follows:

Though Afshar's work is still the subject of ongoing interpretation and discussion, a significant portion of the scientific community is of the opinion that Afshar's experiment does not refute complementarity.

Some general criticisms are:

Bohr's philosophical views on the

Schrodinger wave equation. Since the latter is obeyed in Afshar's experiment it is not obvious how complementarity can be violated.^[1][2]

The modern understanding of

wavefunction collapse

and the transition from quantum to classical. As such there is no need, in the decoherence view, for an a priori introduction of a classical-quantum divide as enshrined by complementarity. Any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address this issue.

As Michael claims, those statments are supposedly "popular views" that preexisted my experiment, and as such must be present in peer-reviewed publication predating my work. All I have asked him to do is to provide such valid ref.s but he has persistently avoided doing so and instead engaged in personal attacks. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands to be on Wikipeida constatntly, but I don't. This is turning to oneupmanship, and I don't have time for such antcis. Maybe he would heed your request. Thanks!-- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will be discussing this issue with Michael Price on the article talk page, and would highly appreciate if you could monitor our discussion and interject when you deem fit. I'm afraid it might get a little testy, as Michael has been persistent on personal attacks. Thanks very much for your help. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:JoshHolloway, who is he a sock puppet of? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like to use

]

RfC

I noticed (because of vandalism in an RfA by anonymous users) that you had an unapproved RfC open on your actions as an admin. I have taken the liberty of writing a response to it endorsing your actions as an admin. Just thought you might like to know. Viridae^Talk 20:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that - I reported them to

WP:ANI as evading a block and the RfC got deleted. Viridae^Talk 21:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

A talk log.

This is a conversation i had with annother admin, the user you blocked isnt a sock puppet. I ask that you lower the ban period as it was a mistake. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user (block log) asked to be unblocked. The reason given was: have no clue what I did wrong
One or more administrators has reviewed this request and declined to unblock the account.
The reason for declining was: Seems pretty transparent to me, a revert war on a template and you just happen to turn up and join in. No unblock

User violated no rules, he made 1 revert (so no 3RR) yet you refused to unblock him. why? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is he a sock-puppet of? I personaly know this user, also did you do an IP check and a whois to confirm he is a sock puppet? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I had asked him to do that RV so as not to break 3RR and conform to:

Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else

Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think he should be classed as a meat-sock as he isnt new, also it was'nt a debate he was involved it it was a conformity for a template as it used a copyrighted image where as the guideline stated only free images could be used. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 3RR is there to stop it, but i asked annother editor to do a revert so as to also conform to the 3RR policy. I suppose it is a catch-22 situation, but if i had read the gaming article you have just shown me i would not of asked him. Would it be possible to drop the block from indefinitley to maybe 24 hours? As it was a pure mistake (on my behalf) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- End --

I'm taking a wikibreak starting tomorrow because I'm going to

]

Linkspam purge

I see you did a large purge of links to adult-pornstar-mall last day. Personally I don't care about the site as it didn't provide anything new beyond what IMDB, IAFD or AFDB largely provided. However, on trying to edit a copy of other articles I ran into a problem which turned out to be links to the site which you missed (e.g.,

]

It was requested here. I used the

Naconkantari 02:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Gotcha. Didn't know that spam blacklist page existed, so I didn't know to check there for a why. I'll pull out any additional links to a-p-m as I come across them, since I'm doing a slow troll through all the porn star articles to try and ensure they all have info boxes present. As well, I'll place a note on the talk page of the

WikiProject Porn stars page advising that a-p-m has been blocked as spam. Tabercil 02:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

From the block log

22:33, July 13, 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) blocked "152.163.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 15 minutes (vandalism from this AOL range, sorry)

Just a quick question, from a visiting Wiktionary Sysop...aren't you supposed to check the "anonymous users only" box when blocking AOL? --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't, then it was an oversight on my part. The interface changes are rather new and don't work right when tabbing between form fields.

Naconkantari 05:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Soon after your unprotection of the page there is vandalism from the same IP ranges as before.--

]

Block of Chris Boles

The unblocking list has received an e-mail from Phil Thompson, a US serviceman. The IP at his base has been blocked by you. The IP is 153.26.176.34. and it has been used by Chrisboles. Could you please provide further advice? 20:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw it. The user created a page that was speedy deleted per A6. I'm fine with the unblocking.

Naconkantari 20:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for reverting the personal attacks on my user page made by Spyderone so quickly. I guess he got mad about me warning him about vandalism. It happened few days ago but I didn't notice it until looking at the history just now so I just wanted to say it's appreciated it. Thanks again. PerfectStorm ^{(Hello! Hallo! Bonjour! Holla!)} 22:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you had some history with the myg0t article. Unfortunately, no sooner had the DrV succeeded, then another wikipedia admin speedily deleted the article with no CsD. I humbly ask that you discount all the successful AfD after successful DrV's, and make a fair, unbiased, meritocratic judgement on the latest DrV for the article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#myg0t . Also, 100th section! Neat! Anyways, thank you in advance, cacophony 23:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assisting in blocking Satris and reverting my AfD. Rob 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my changes to the OBL entry? Why does this liberal institution known as Wikipedia insist on calling the World's #1 Terrorist a "militant". It's ridiculous. He embodies the terrorist criteria established on this 'encyclopedia'.

BTW - check this out http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78609

I am

. It has come to my attention that I am no longer able to edit my own user page as a result of an autoblock placed by you. I am an AOL user and and my IP is 152.163.100.200. I can edit pretty much any other page, except my user page, which I understood could be edited even if you are blocked. I am asking if you could please remove the block. Thank You in advance. Best Regards, ]

I'll see what I can do. Please see

Naconkantari 18:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

My RfA

Naconkantari, I am begging for your assistance with this user who continues to vandalize the University of California, Riverside article. He has been warned countless, countless times by users and admins, and I noticed that you've already blocked him twice. As soon as his block wore off, he came back and instantly broke 3RR (reported). ...and now he's going on an editing/deleting rampage of the article, and none of his changes are being agreed to at all on TALK by 3 different users!! Is there anything you can do? UCRGrad 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on your reason for blanking Matthvm's user page? I don't understand your edit and I am reluctant to revert under those circumstances. In virtually all cases, blanking a page is vandalism. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

-kersh

He requested that his account and user pages be deleted on the unblock-en mailing list. Account deletions are not possible, so I deleted his userpage and blanked his talk page instead. Hope this helps,

Naconkantari 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

SPAM filter

Hi,

I'm

]

He was advertised a lot of times that he cannot do it. = People was warned him a lot of times, but he didn't change his attitude. Sorry for may poor English.

I'll wait for your link at

Pasqual (ca) · CUT 10:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have let a message at your

Pasqual (ca) · CUT 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Signpost updated for July 17th

Volume 2, Issue 29	17 July 2006	About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia	Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

Single-Page View	RSS WP:SIGN

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

]

Reverting vandalism

The next message has be posted by Pasqual (ca) · CUT 10:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply ]

why did you block me i didn't valdalize anything????????

- Dante, July 18, 2006

Removing RFA !votes

Invalid !votes should be indented with a comment. They shouldn't just be removed. Therefore can you re-add these and comment them as appropriate? Also I was a bit puzzled by your edit summary, "removing AOL vandalism, yet again"- was there some earlier AOL vandalism that I missed?

]