User talk:Jacob F. Roecker
I don't need a new user name. Dunderheads, I am Jacob F. Roecker. Annonymity is part of the problem with wikipedia. So, let me contribute to the solution and use my real name.
Jacob F. Roecker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Decline reason:
Wikipedia Stats Table
| Users | 48,314,077 |
| Articles | 6,915,573 |
| Pages | 61,903,204 |
| Files | 930,135 |
Articles for deletion nomination of 9/12 Candidate
[edit]
I have nominated 9/12 Candidate, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/12 Candidate. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Link to 9/12 Candidate
[edit]Jacob, shouldn't you have a link from your user page to the 9/12 Candidate page, since you are the creator? And to your 9/12 Candidates web site? Just wonderin' :) WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of 9/12 Candidate
[edit]A tag has been placed on 9/12 Candidate requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Loonymonkey (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I give up Jacob
[edit]It seems we can't make these people happy. After spending hours reading others complaints about deletions, there's an obvious liberal slant here. WashingtonIsBroke (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of 9/12 Candidate
[edit]I have nominated 9/12 Candidate, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/12 Candidate. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ... discospinster talk 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
July 2009
[edit]
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at 9/12 Candidate. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it—see below.
Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, misleading, or related to a 'real-world' group or organization. Also, usernames may not end with the string "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username. To do so, please follow these directions:
- Add
{{unblock-un|your new username here}}below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can usually still edit your own talk page. - At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
- Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far more easily allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
- Alternatively, you can "abandon" the contributions under this username and create a new account, which is much faster and easier, especially if you have few or no edits.
- Add
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)- Sorry, but you can't have the username "Jacob F. Roecker" unless you are Jacob F. Roecker. And if you are Jacob F. Roecker, you shouldn't really be creating articles on things you're closely created to - doing so is a massive conflict of interest and suggests that you are here merely to provide information on your campaign, rather than to contribute to the project without gaining anything yourself. We are not a soapbox, sorry. You may like to try Conservapedia, who believe that the internet has a liberal bias, and are endeavouring to create a right-wing Christian version. Good luck. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's review. Conflict of interest is resolved through peer editing, which wikipedia provides. It seems that instead of "editing" an article, the site was edited to NOT include the article. I figured a little first hand knowledge about something was a good thing. Oh, wait, I guess letting people edit using faulty references is a better way. Kitchen Table Organizations such as this don't show up on the radar very easily. Who else do you expect to write about what's going on then someone who knows first hand?
Hey, it's your encyclopedia. Let's go after the American Communication Association's article on Communication as well. They've got a vested interest. They openly admit they wrote the article. It's written to make it difficult to expand other aspects of the discipline. So a group of people wrote an article to discuss what they knew. Well, that's what we did. Wherein is the difference? Academia? Is Academia immune? What is really interesting is that I actually agree that 9/12 Candidate as an article may not be notable enough as yet to justify an article. The Category though, for candidates who have identified themselves as 9/12 Candidates, ought to remain. It's a political identity that is shared across a spectrum of candidates. Whether it's worthy of definition or not, the candidates have signed the contract, they identify themselves as 9/12 Candidates. They are even doing commercials for the movement!
The COI reference above says that I should care more about my movement then wikipedia. Well, let's see. I've got a degree in a topic I can't discuss because of the way the article is written (communication). I'm well read on several controversial subjects Islam, Religion, and Mormons. I do not feel compelled to edit these well, groomed articles because they already have enough of a following to negate my contribution. So, caring about wikipedia, where would my contribution best be served? See a need, fill a need. I didn't make the article when I started 9/12 Candidates, I made it after I noticed that several candidates who had signed the contract already had wikipedia articles. Since this was important to THEM, it made sense to mention it on their pages, and therefore create an article.
See a need, fill a need....
Oh, and I am Jacob F. Roecker. This page isn't meant to be an article about myself. That's not why I created my user account using my actual name. I believe that one of Wikipedia's flaws is not really knowing the identities of your editors. This is ME, when I don't want to be "me" I usually edit anonymously.
Thanks for listening. I'm sure my involvement has so seriously tarnished wikipedia's good name that I'll never be allowed to edit again.
The next thing I anticipate is having this page deleted. It seems to me that people who fear the topic of the conversation often exert their power to control it.