User talk:Rokemronnie

And on a side note, Dragonfly is, like nearly all administrators, a volunteer, and has no relation to the Wikimedia Foundation. Furthermore, your edits (here specifically) were disruptive and deserving of a block. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to answer some of your other questions. You seem to have come to Wikipedia expecting it to be something like a blog host, and then, when it turned out to be an encyclopedia, you started insulting people. That's not fair; it's like going to a basketball game and then insulting the other players for being terrible people when they won't let you play soccer. So far, you have made zero useful edits, and while we're here to play 'write-an-encyclopedia,' you seem to be looking for a game of 'toss-the-insult.' If you want to play our game, you're welcome here. If you want to play something else, you'll need to find a place where they're playing the game you want to play. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are administrators allowed to block an account without warnings? Yes; see WP:BLOCK for more information.
 * Are administrators legal representatives of the Wikimedia Foundations? No; see WP:ADMIN for more information about administrators and their work.
 * Are administrators immune from criticism? No; WP:ANI is the usual place to report when an administrator breaks the rules.
 * Why shouldn't I be allowed to freely criticize other editors? WP:CIVIL is the relevant guideline; good manners are required.
 * Can a user be blocked for just one legal threat? Yes, and such blocks are actually required; see WP:LEGAL for more details on why Wikipedia won't let you edit until your lawsuit is concluded.
 * Why can't I create an encyclopedia article critical of someone or something? Because that isn't an encyclopedia article, but an essay, and belongs more appropriately on your blog.  See WP:NPOV for more information on this key policy.
 * Are links to car fan sites useful to the encyclopedia? No, see WP:EL and WP:RS for more information about useful sources and non-useful links.

Please explain the edits which got you blocked (see here, which from what I see is basically link-spamming). –MuZemike 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now you're playing the "expert" card. Classic. You ask us what was wrong with your edits to the Norton motorcycle page, I'll tell you: you've never edited that page. This accounts only edits consisted of posting external links to several car pages, and creating a now-deleted inappropriate article at Kim Dabelstein Petersen. Have you perhaps used another account? Your next unblock request had better make some sense, and address the actual reasons for the block instead of attacking others, or you will likely find that your talk page privileges will be revoked as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a great believer in fairness and second chances, and at last we seem to have arrived at somewhat of an understanding, so I'm going to consult with the blocking admin and get back to you. I want to make sure you understand that we are all acting in good faith in the interest of Wikipedia. We deal with an awful lot of people who come here with very real bad intentions, so many of us have learned to be very cautious when dealing with unblock requests. Also, we actually can't unblock you with even a perceived legal threat hanging in the air, but luckily that issue is resolved and we can move on. Hopefully we'll have an up or down answer for you shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think his combative style is sure to be a problem for him in editing Wikipedia, which depends so much on peaceful cooperation. It also troubles me that he still appears not to understand the neutral point of view policy, and thinks that Kim Dabelstein Peterson was a problem because it was critical of a Wikipedia administrator.  But if he doesn't understand the policy and can't play nicely with others, it's inevitable that he'll be re-blocked anyway, and if he wants another try, it seems harmless enough to let him have it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all three of us are basically in agreement, any more instances of treating Wikipedia as a battleground will result in a rapid re-blocking of this account without further warning. This is a much bigger problem than the adding of inappropriate links, but obviously you can consider yourself warned about that as well, welcome back and happy editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess I must run with scissors too. Nothing infantalizing in the remark "can't play nicely with others", is there?
 * Hey, I just unblocked you, so why are you still grousing about it? Just don't engage in the behaviors that led to the block again and everything will be fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:FreddyFlypoggerRF.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:FreddyFlypoggerRF.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 04:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)