User talk:John Daker

My name is John Daker! Feel free to leave me a message here...

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Johndaker.png

A tag has been placed on File:Johndaker.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 04:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1ST WARNING

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Chtak Yuno (talk) 03:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to Meniñ Qazaqstanım, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Please do not make changes to articles based on comedic sources (Borat movies, the Colbert Report, etc.); please base edits on legitimate reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Meniñ Qazaqstanım, you may be blocked from editing. Bihco (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johndaker2.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Johndaker2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Bihco (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Meniñ Qazaqstanım, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bihco (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel 18:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Meniñ Qazaqstanım, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bihco (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing. I am unsure whether the use above of the word "vandalize" is appropriate, but you have been persistently inserting dubious content into articles, without any sources to support your claims, you have repeatedly made edits which have appeared to be designed to promote a point of view, you have been edit warring to attempt to impose your version against the consensus of others, and you have never made any attempt to discuss or explain your editing. Wikipedia does not work by each of us repeatedly changing articles back to the version that we prefer, in the hope that others will eventually give up and let us have our way; it works by discussion, to try to resolve differences and if possible to reach an agreement. If, following such discussion, it is clear that one's view is contrary to the consensus, then one has to gracefully accept the fact, and move on, not persist in trying to impose one's own view. You should also not add content to articles which has been challenged or is likely to be challenged without citing a reliable source to justify the content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

John Daker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should not be blocked... also, I'm not this Ron Daker - there's seriously no relationship

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I should not be blocked... also, I'm not this Ron Daker - there's seriously no relationship |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I should not be blocked... also, I'm not this Ron Daker - there's seriously no relationship |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I should not be blocked... also, I'm not this Ron Daker - there's seriously no relationship |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

John Daker (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]