User talk:Nakon

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thank you for updating the mugshot publishing industry page. That's all the user 'mugshots' was trying to accomplish. Would be greatly appreciated if you could remove the ban. Thanks again regardless.

To add a new message, click HERE
Archive one

Why did you delete all of those Hebrew sound samples? If you didn't have anything better to contribute, then why delete them?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please provide more information. Nakon 07:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, only recently did I set up a article for the comedy show, Tosh.O. I was rather concerned on why the article was taken down, and I just wanted to ask why the article was removed from the site.

I removed the article because it did not meet the English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Nakon 03:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reponse to your message, are you referring to the lack of citations required for an authorized article?


In the article "Exclusionism" you write:

"Exclusionist imperative: Seek to exclude irrelevant and superfluous material from all Wikipedia articles. If you do not wish to exclude, modify. Only delete when exclusion would leave nothing substantial."

Don't you mean "Only delete when exclusion would remove nothing substantial?"

Just my thought for the day. :) Skol fir 22:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While browsing over internet we found that our website are listed as spam in[edit]

While browsing over internet we found that our website are listed as spam in

We are legitimate Web Design Web Development company located in india with customer from different sphere and different parts of world. Below are the list of our customer website which are listed as spam kindly consider them for de-listing them from spam list.

Also you check this list at

In case you require more info or any kind of documents to make sure they are genuine and our intensions are legitimate please let us know.

We would really appreciate your support in this matter.

Thanks Rajesh


Hello, just a little note requested by an wikimedia-admin operator: Your access to the IRC channel #wikimedia-adminconnect will be revoked due to you no longer holding administrator access on any Wikimedia wiki. If this is a mistake and you currently do hold these permissions on any wiki and access has been removed feel free to re-request access at operator requests or ask an operator to restore access. Regards, John F. Lewis (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please visit this page if you wish to contribute to a centralized discussion about a Wikimedia genealogy project. Thank you! --Another Believer (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your account will be renamed[edit]

03:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing my block appeal on ENWP[edit]

Greetings, Sorry to do this here, but as you know I cannot edit ENWP to thank you there. I just wanted to say thanks for reviewing my block appeal on ENWP and although I am both frustrated and disappointed in the decision it hardly came a surprise. I did want to clarify a couple things though:

  1. I edit a lot of other projects like Wikia, Commons and Wikiadata from a lot of different sources so I often have to open Wikipedia in edit mode to get stuff. This often triggers the autoblock, causing a significant amount of collateral damage.
  2. This can also trigger the Checkuser if someone else edits from that IP making it look like me. This has happened several times in the past causing others to be accused of being me and blocked.
  3. Some in ENWP are going to continue to find a reason to maintain my block indefinitely. They do not want me editing, do not agree with my block review and I do not feel that some of them are there to contribute.
  4. The checkuser too is a piece of garbage, is prone to error and false positives and I don't trust it any farther than I can throw the person using it, several of which I don't trust in the slightest and aren't there to contribute to building an encyclopedia. They are there to be politicians and build their resume's so they can get jobs at the WMF.

Last couple things:

  1. The "standard offer" is insulting because I never should have been blocked in the first place and the only reason my review was even considered was because I refused to give into bullying and pushed for it until it happened. When I created alternate accounts I was always clear about who I was even when others attempted to prevent me from doing that by creating edit filters tat prevented my username from being used.
  2. I am going to continue making positive contributions one way or another and if I am clearly always going to be degraded, insulted and accused for trying to improve the project that is just how it will be. Take care and thanks again. Reguyla (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to reach out to me here. As you are indeed active on other projects, I can look into modifying your current block so that the autoblock for IP addresses is disabled in order to prevent collateral damage. Unfortunately, I can't comment on the use or accuracy of the checkuser tool as I don't have access to it. Also, the Standard Offer is not strictly limited to 6 months of no activity; some administrators may be convinced to review your block earlier if you continue editing positively on other projects. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Nakon 23:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't hold my breath on any admins unblocking me on EN and I wouldn't worry about the autoblocks. Believe it or not there are more people who would like me to be back editing than those that don't. The problem is the ones that don't are largely an abusive group I have criticized in the past for their conduct. For the very same reasons I have stated they are abusive, many others don't want to touch my block for fear of retaliation. I'm not saying that's true in every case, but I have had several tell me off wiki they wish they could unblock me but that they feared the Arbcom or one of the untouchables would retaliate. They have already shown they won't hesitate to manipulate or ignore policy or flat out lie to get what they want. For what its worth though, my current extension expires in August which is only 4 months, so I can tell my block review wasn't really given much thought or consideration. But then again almost no one is unblocked through UTRS anyway so as I stated before it really didn't surprise me. There really is no review process, the same people who block are the same people who review the blocks and its the same people that review that. So no offense to you, but UTRS is really a sham process much like the Arbitration committee. Honestly its pretty obvious I should just create a new account and start from scratch. That's really what the process favors anyway when you tell someone not to edit for 6+ months but the tool to review socking activity is only good for about 90 days. Its only the honest people who aren't trying to hide like me that get punished. Besides, blocks and ban's should be in place to protect the project and any idiot can see my block has nothing to do with protecting anything except the ego's of a handful of abusive admins and to prevent me from criticizing them. Well that and a punishment to show the community what happens when you criticize admins. Eventhough blocks should not be used as a punishment according to policy (but that doesn't apply, because I am not an admin I guess). Anyway, take care. Reguyla (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings Nakon and sorry to bother you but after giving it some thought I resubmitting my ban request at UTRS again today. No offense to you intended, but based on the response you gave when you denied it, it was evident that it wasn't reviewed by anyone and that it was summarily denied on sight. My current block expires in August 2015 after it was abusively pushed out for the second time. In your response you said try again in 6 months, but August is only 4 months away. So, IMO, if you had or anyone else would have reviewed the case, you would have seen when my block expired and said that instead. I just wanted to let you know that I did it and why. Of course I know it will still be denied but I wanted to try any way and will continue to until the block is lifted as the community requested be done in February and since my account never should have been blocked in the first place. Anyway, everyone knows that the UTRS process is largely a joke but unfortunately its the only process available. Also, I am a bit sorry for the pessimism here but I have seen some admins violate every rule in an effort to keep me from editing because they don't really care about the project and I am sick of being shit on by people who don't care about the rules or policies because they are admins and feel the rules don't apply to them. Anyway, take care and happy editing. Reguyla (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Your tool seems to be with some problems. 333-blue 13:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User rights[edit]

Hi, back at the beginning of 2016 I was banned from the English Wikipedia. At that time my rollback and reviewer privileges were removed by you. Nowhere in the discussion about my ban was that questioned at the time and I didn't think much of it until I noticed this discussion today. I checked and it seems the relevant policy states that user rights of blocked editors should be kept unless the use of those rights had something to do with the ban. Were you aware of this policy and, if so, why did you remove my rollback and reviewer privileges on Wikipedia? The claims against me by ArbCom had nothing whatsoever to do with my use of the rollback or reviewer privileges and I do not believe anyone ever accused me of abusing those privileges. Not that I care if they are restored right now as, should I ever get back on Wikipedia, I doubt I would have much trouble reclaiming those privileges, but I am just curious as to what your reasons were for doing it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]