User talk:Dao2k

Speedy deletion nomination of Young rhymes

Hello Dao2k,.

November 2014

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Sam Walton (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Young rhymes.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Young rhymes.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:It is part of my youtuve.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:It is part of my youtuve.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:It is part of my youtuve.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:It is part of my youtuve.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Youtube230,jpg.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Youtube230,jpg.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kipper, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Kipper was changed by Dao2k (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.942669 on 2014-12-01T22:26:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Busta, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Busta was changed by Dao2k (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.851097 on 2014-12-01T22:32:22+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dao2k, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Wgolf (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I've submitted an unblock request. Will i get a reply or something after?--Dao2k (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know one admin who has told me what not to do on Wikipedia thank you Crow.

Yungen

Dear Admins

I need to say something the page Yungen (Musical artist) was deleted and the article contained notable info and references. Please could you review the page and see what was written because it does not seem fair that a notable article gets deleted--Dao2k (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

As I said on my talk page, you need to show a long pattern of 100% positive editing before you have a chance at getting unblocked here. I would suggest editing at Simple to start with. Get some existing articles up to Good or Very Good over there. Fix spelling errors... add sources where requested, that kind of thing. Do that until 2016 rolls around, with no socking here, and no self-promotion over there, and you may have a chance to be unblocked. See WP:SO for the details of this "rehab program".
As far as the Yungen article goes, that's a side-effect of being what we call a Long Term Abuser: Any article you create is subject to immediate deletion, regardless of how good it is. That's a price paid, so to speak, for past behavior.
And lastly, building out this page with more biographical info is not helping your case. Self promotion is what got the first articles deleted way back when. The repeated attempts to recreate them is what got you where you are now. Crow^Caw 20:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and Thank You for the knowledge User:Crow. Ill be forever grateful--Dao2k (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Advice on requesting unblock

That article was deleted because, when a blocked user like you keeps making sockpuppet accounts, anything they write can be deleted automatically. That is necessary because otherwise blocking would have no teeth, a blocked editor could simply make an new account and carry on. The idea of automatic deletion is to get them to realise that, if they really want to contribute seriously, their only course is to request an unblock on their original account and accept whatever conditions are stated.

Some people take longer to get that message than others, but if you are really ready to give up the idea of using Wikipedia to write about yourself, you can request an unblock. You say above that you have made one - I don't know where that was, but you should do it here on this talk page, as this is the "master" account.

First, read the WP:Guide to appealing blocks carefully.

Then, copy the following text to the bottom of this user talk page: {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}. Copy it from this page, not from the edit screen. Write your own reason to replace "Insert your reason to be unblocked here". Explain what sort of edits you would make if unblocked.

Another administrator will consider your request. Because you have, to speak frankly, been such a nuisance for so long, and caused so much work cleaning up after you, I think it likely that you may be offered the WP:Standard offer: stay right away from Wikipedia for six months, with no new sockpuppet accounts (which can be checked) to show that you can control yourself, and then a new request will be considered. If, in the meantime, you edit on Simple or other sites, you should be constructive and not continue to post about yourself; how you behave elsewhere will have an influence on the reply to your request here.

You should also read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors about the inadvisability of posting personal data on-line. JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In the last few days you have created at least five new socks, and were still trying to write about yourself here. Your unblock request will need to make clear that you understand why that is not acceptable. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request To Be Unblocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dao2k (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked because i have learned a lesson to not abusively edit pages. As i got older i now know it is not mature to disruptively edit. I have also learned that sock puppeting is wrong and i know it is not acceptable because it is wasting wikipedia admins time and it is also disruptive. I now know that i shouldnt write auto biographies about myself on Wikipedia because i am not notable and i show no significance for an article.This is why i believe i should get unblocked.

Decline reason:

Your last sock was blocked yesterday - you can't seriously claim that you've suddenly grew up overnight. I suggest you to take the standard offer and apply again after at least 6 months without socking. Max Semenik (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chip (rapper)

On article about Chip (rapper) there is a template which says citation needed on the infobox under chip's origin and it is already been cited in the articles written text. Could you please remove this.--Dao2k (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but if you want to take the Standard offer I advise not even trying "remote-control" editing like this. It is not formally forbidden in WP:SO but the spirit of that is that you are showing you can stay right away from Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take the standard offer. I think you may have told me already but what exactly is the standard offer I cannot renember-90.206.227.252 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Standard offer. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You disappoint me

Goodbye. Crow^Caw 22:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

First, you are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests while blocked. Second, you have nothing new to say, and what you've said lacks any credibility. I have revoked Talk page access. You may appeal through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dao2k, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

220 of ^Borg 18:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]