User talk:Daloonik

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Daloonik: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! ~ N. Harmon 17:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Prunetang.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Prunetang.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Baltimore, Ontario on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. JD[^talk|_email] 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fairbank_Memorial_Park

Hi - I've removing this early from the nominations, as there have been evidence of possible vandalism involved. Also, you did not give a reason for nomination. Feel free to relist it and please give a reason for nomination, thank you. RN 23:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalizing Wikipedia

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Fairbank Memorial Park. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. -- SCZenz 06:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Baltimore, Ontario, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- SCZenz 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's my job as an admin. I saw a red flag that you were a possible problem user, investigated your edits, and found that I was right—you had recently vandalized pages. I believe that many of your edits reflect a deliberate effort to disrupt Wikipedia. Examples include irrelevant and inappropriate racial references, factually incorrect and inappropriate references to human genetalia, and mis-naming of a file to use an undescriptive explitive. I will not hesitate to block you if you try to disrupt Wikipedia further. -- SCZenz 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 1 hour for linking to images with inappropriate, undescriptive names that you have uploaded to commons. Please give your images descriptive names in the future. -- SCZenz 20:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(was unblock|wanting to add descriptive names to the images later on ) I've removed your block request. A 1 hour block is justified in this case, wait it out and please, when you come back, edit constructively. Request denied. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daloonik, you will probably get blocked for your latest edits as you were pre-warned, but I am writing this to you anyway, as it may be of use to you once you are re-instated. As I see it you have a choice. You can become a productive contributor to Wikipedia (WP), or you can continue to try to disrupt it. I can see from your photos that you have a talent for photography. That could be very useful for WP, we could really benefit from having your contributions relating to parks and their images. On the other hand, if you decide to carry on the shenanigans, you will be permanently blocked from WP. I sincerely hope you choose the first option - we would all be better for it. Thanks, Crum375 00:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daloonik. No block this time, but you absolutely must not relink to those files until you have renamed them. Redirecting will not work (I had to clean up Image:Fairbank Memorial Park sign.jpg by uploading it to commons myself); you must re-upload the images. Whether you do that or not is up to you, but I reiterate that you must not link to those images under their current names. If you do, you'll be blocked. -- SCZenz 07:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for one week for this edit. You were specifically instructed not to link to inappropriate image names, and you ignored this. You now have a week to reconsider whether you wish to contribute productively to the encyclopedia or not. -- SCZenz 09:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Trying to add helpful content to wikipedia. See my latest edit on [[Glen Cedar Park]] as an example. A week seems overly harsh.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been denied for the following reason(s):

No reason to unblock you, a week seems fine, wait out the block and come back later

Request handled by: Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 14:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this template from your page.

Block extended

For using a sockpuppet (User:Cellpreference) to circumvent your block, I've extended your block by a further week. Proto///type 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|please show the proof that User:Cellpreference is a sock puppet. Indeed; cellpreference has made rather good contributions, IMHO. Note to pilotguy : Please review this. It must be dealt as carefully as choosing one's MOCA (remember, there might be an animal farm that you're flying over). Choosing to keep this two-week block would be like not learning how to recover from a spin, or not knowing when to use the carb heat. Daloonik 15:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock reviewed, request denied. --pgk^(talk) 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock|It's been two weeks. Why am I still blocked?

Your original block was reset and an extra week added on 6th July, two weeks would be 20th July. --pgk^(talk) 17:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random Indefinite Block

unblock| I have been blocked indefinitely by User:MONGO ; the reason cited that this is a "trolling account". I have already been blocked for vandalism and have made nothing but good edits since then. This account was not set up for trolling ; blocking me without warning and indefinitely is both uncalled for and unfair.}} Daloonik 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1], and [2] are but two examples. The first is an attempt to weasel out of a ban and keep that hidden, the second is a blatent personal attack. As we have strict policies against both, what is your rationale? You have also been banned in the past multiple times for various trolling activities. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly why you removed the preceding comment. These two contributions occurred after your past bans. This consistent trolling type of activity is most likely a reason why the admin banned you. I am simply prompting for any sort of rationale on your behalf as to why you made these edits. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. Do not ask again. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 02:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me! I have learned my lesson and have contributed to wikipedia - see my other wikimedia and wikitravel and french wikipedia - i have made good edits!! i would like to have this account back as i like the username. 06:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am unblocking you in the spirit of giving you the rope. What this mneans is that the very first time you do anything even close to the type of edits that led to this block, we will know you were lying and/or lack the self control to edit here, and you will be reblocked without warning, with little to no chance of ever being unblocked again. Or, you will prove that you have in fact matured and are able to edit here without being blatantly disruptive. Welcome back. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see one edit on frwiki since 2009. Wikitravel is not a WMF project, and you've made fewer than 50 edits there. There's not enough material to judge your good faith, and you have a lot of explaining to do concerning the trolling you did in 2006. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]