Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 18 April 2007

User:Naconkantari/talk header

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks is now on RfA

See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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.. 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. 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 ), 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. 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 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/Talk:Spam_blacklist#viartis.net.2Fparkinsons.disease.2F I'm probably going to take off the link. ( viartis.net ) —— Eagle101 22:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

banned

Can you please explain why i'm banned from the Misplaced Pages 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 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 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for the revert to my userpage, mate!--JUDE 23:42, 13 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_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 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages policy to remove blocking warnings. Real96 22:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well. When I add what I've previously heard about Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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 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 10:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Misplaced Pages: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. —— Eagle101 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 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I may take it off, depends on the reasoning for requesting it whitelisted. —— Eagle101 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 Misplaced Pages and on Meta in fighting spam. --A. B. 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whitelist

will you please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/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 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me chiming in -- I believe that site was blacklisted in connection with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of General Tojo for names of his 500+ sockpuppets (including XX8 whose only edit was to User talk:XX7).--A. B. 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 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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages 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 . 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. , , , 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 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 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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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 (/_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 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editors_blocked. I thought about Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)