User talk:Rockdiedout
Welcome![edit]
Hello Rockdiedout! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.
Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Netsnipe ► 07:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
YouTube link on Spider-Man 3[edit]
Seriously, cut it out with the YouTube link to ABC News showing "your friend" doing a 20 second "voxpop review" of Spiderman. The link is inappropriate because it's not being cited as a article reference in order to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. See also Wikipedia:External links. It's also a blatant conflict of interest because the reviewer in question is not notable in the journalistic sense because he isn't a reputable professional reviewer like Ebert & Roeper or those listed at Rotten Tomatoes (which are already linked to in the article). Wikipedia is not for self-indulgent sounding board for you and your friends. Your edit warring is disruptive and if you violate our Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy by using multiple accounts or IP addresses in order to reinsert that YouTube link, I will not hesitate to block you. -- Netsnipe ► 07:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Rockdiedout (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ohnoitsjamie merely gave me one warning before autoblocking me. I had posted a blog on "Political Blog," and he promptly removed it out of spite, most likely because I wrote a sarcastic (although not necessarily offensive) comment on his User Discussion page. Ohnoitsjamie claims that the reason for his removing the link is because it's an external URL and told me to read the Wikipedia rules. I have read the rules and see that external links are permitted, so long as they're not spamming, and are legitimate. I'm a lawyer in the US and I'm beginning to find all this impulsive blocking extremely trying. The blog is notable to me, and one that I read regularly, so I don't see why I have to be blocked over it, even though one user disagrees with me. I should mention that the URL was on the Political Blog entry for months, and no one ever objected to it, even though people were actively editing the page. The author of the blog also works for the Brooklyn Paper Weekly in New York and is well-respected for his work. I find this whole situation disheartening and it's making me reconsider whether or not to even continue editing any Wikipedia articles. I'm sure Ohnoitsjamie had good intentions, but his behavior seems impulsive. Am I incorrect in not believing that political blogs with corresponding Wikipedia entries are the only substantial political blogs out there?
Decline reason:
Feel free to start a discussion on the notability of that rather low content blog on the article's talk page when your block expires. In the meantime, you've ignored at least three specific warnings and re-inserted the link five times, both with this account and with your IP. You have a very recent history of external link problems and combative editing, and seem to have deliberately removed warnings before posting your unblock message, which in itself had false claims; I see no reason to release your block. Kuru talk 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
There were not three specific warnings from Ohnoitsjaime. As I correctly stated, there was only one. It's simply your opinion that the blog is "low content." So there's a requirement of notable blogs that they're high content? A relatively new political blog can't be notable? I removed those warnings several hours after posting my request to be unblocked, which I deemed ample time for administrator review. Why should I have to take something up on the talk page of the political blog entry when it's only a spiteful admin who has problems with it? You yourself are probably also biased and lean towards what Ohnoitsjamie did because he's another admin. False claims? You provide these arguments with no support. I should not have to prove to anyone that the blog is notable or not. No wonder everyone says wikipedia is flawed and not on the same level as legitimate encyclopedias. Rockdiedout 00:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Rockdiedout (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See supra.
Decline reason:
You're welcome to debate the notability of the blog in question after your block is over. However, you have been repeatedly warned about violating our external link guidelines, and edit warring over them, but have not been listening. I suggest you not engage in spurious attacks on other users, as you did above and instead commit to following guidelines more carefully. — Haemo 01:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
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.
Abuse report[edit]
Of course, everything is recorded on Wikipedia. Now, I'm sending a mail to your internet provider with links to your schemes. You will have news from them soon. Martial BACQUET 08:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Do whatever you want. I haven't done anything wrong. I'll just explain to my ISP what you've done and I'm sure they'll take my word over yours, which they would only possibly contact me over if you fill the letter with lies or things you don't have proof of. I'll be contacting an actual admin to alert them to your absurdity. Rockdiedout 09:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- This report has been sent to:
HoldCo LLC RRWE 13241 Woodland Park Road Herndon VA 20171 US
Martial BACQUET 09:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Great. I'll ask them to forward me a copy of the letter, so I can use it against you, if need be. Rockdiedout 09:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is a lawer doesn't have anything better to do than harass everyone and make vandalism on Wikipedia? I don't believe you're a lawer, you're just a student and have nothing to do. This is my last message to you, now you will treat with the law and your ISP. And did you know I'm not in US? So I'm not subject to any law from this country. Martial BACQUET 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I'm aware you're in France, and that you have no legitimate proof of my doing anything reprehensible to my ISP, which is why I'm sure they'll dismiss your letter. Rockdiedout 09:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine, maybe some of what I have done has been inappropriate, and I was blocked accordingly. However, this tracking of everything I post--as if you're an admin trying to solve something--is what I have asked you to stop doing multiple times by now. I truly believe that what you're doing, Martial75, is a form of harassment. Even if it probably wouldn't be worth legal action, I don't think it's worth sending a letter to my ISP either. That, to me, is a continuation of the harassment, especially if my ISP contacts me over it and I have to explain myself to them. I should also add that I am new to Wikipedia editing--although I have been an avid reader for several years now--and that I have learned my lesson from being blocked three times now. I admit, having not read the rules--and getting involved in edit wars--was a mistake; however, I also believe that you're taking this too far. I want you to stop tracking everything I do on here, because that should be left to an administrator. 75.50.116.170 10:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi! Next to this message that you have removed from the other talk page, I will give you an answer. I have not yet post my mail to your ISP, but this one is ready to be. I follow your contributions because you have been warned several times and you were continuing to put spam and non-constructive edits. You had also removed your own warnings from your talk page to mislead the others. Following others contributions is not a job exclusively for administrators: anyone can and should do it. So, now, if you stop to remove your warnings and to add spam links, I won't send this mail to your ISP. You are also welcome to contribute on Wikipedia, you did (few) constructive contributions and you're welcome to do it again. But if you continue to erase your warnings or make non-constructive work, I will send it. You have to decide.
- PS: It's important to let your warnings on your talk page to inform the others about your schemes, but I will remove them in few time if you stop. Have a nice day. Bye. Martial BACQUET 11:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Okay, I'll respect your wishes. Rockdiedout 11:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for all the frustration I might have caused you. You win. Can we have a truce? You have proven yourself to be very intelligent and knowledgeable about the Wikipedia rules and information in general. I'm sorry for offending you, and I give you my word that I'll do my best not to spam or interfere with Wikipedia negatively in the future. You should become an administrator, because even though your reverting my personal page has been frustrating to me, you seem to know what you're doing. P.S. I went to France and stayed in Dole for a month when I was 15. It was a nice place, even though I didn't get to see Paris really. Great food and culture. Rockdiedout 11:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accepted ;) Now feel free to edit Wikipedia constructively. You can ask us if you have any question, on our talk page or on our Help Desk. It will be a pleasure to see your contributions, I hope. Bye. Martial BACQUET 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for accepting and for your patience with me. I know that people like you are only making Wikipedia a better, more accurate place. Rockdiedout 11:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Accepted ;) Now feel free to edit Wikipedia constructively. You can ask us if you have any question, on our talk page or on our Help Desk. It will be a pleasure to see your contributions, I hope. Bye. Martial BACQUET 11:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for all the frustration I might have caused you. You win. Can we have a truce? You have proven yourself to be very intelligent and knowledgeable about the Wikipedia rules and information in general. I'm sorry for offending you, and I give you my word that I'll do my best not to spam or interfere with Wikipedia negatively in the future. You should become an administrator, because even though your reverting my personal page has been frustrating to me, you seem to know what you're doing. P.S. I went to France and stayed in Dole for a month when I was 15. It was a nice place, even though I didn't get to see Paris really. Great food and culture. Rockdiedout 11:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Block notice[edit]
Your accounts are now blocked from editing. I trust that you are by now familiar with Wikipedia policies on sockpuppetry and harassment. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)