Jasoncobble

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Michaelbusch 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

20th century musical renaissance

Hi Jason. I am sorry that I had to tag 20th century musical renaissance for deletion. It wasn't "encyclopaedic". The article consists of Original Research, which you have done yourself, and your opinions. There are plenty of places for you to publish this but Wikipedia is not for original research or personal opinions. Please understand that this is nothing personal. I hope you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. --DanielRigal 01:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

welcome

• Welcome!

Hello, Jasoncobble, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Return (Beatles tribute band)

• All content on Wikipedia must be verified by reliable sources to establish the factual accuracy of the article and the notability of the article's subject. Repeatedly removing the tags pointing out the problems with this article is not going to change that, and is considered edit warring if done without fixing the underlying problem. Please stop removing the tags unless you locate and link proper sources to the article. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Return (Beatles tribute band), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent articles

Apologies if the plethora of templates seem overwhelming and/or like the world is wearing you down. :) If you have any questions about the maintenance requests, proposed deletion, etc., please do not hesitate to ask here. A dialogue would certainly be helpful toward figuring out how to improve your articles and possibly having them be viable for inclusion. Thanks! --Kinu ^t/_c 03:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Johnson City, Tennessee

Just wondering if you are also the IP address editor 75.139.7.170 that has been adding the same verbiage as User:Jasoncobble and Jason Cobble to the list of notable residents of Johnson City, Tennessee. If so, please take a look at Talk:Johnson City, Tennessee -- Foetusized (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jason Cobble

A tag has been placed on Jason Cobble 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 person or group of people, 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 biographies.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to be patient, tried to explain things to you. My patience is now at an end. Stop spamming Wikipedia, stop edit warring, and stop abusing multiple accounts. Your spammy articles are all headed for the chopping block now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

==

The continued use of sock accounts is not serving any good purpose. The Return might be a valid subject for an article. The problem is/was that the article was a copyright violation. If you try again to write a neutral article and provide reliable sources this could all be behind us. One way to work on an article and get feedback on it before it "goes live" is to work on it in your user space. Click here to get started doing that That would give you a chance to insure it was ready and keep it safe from deletion. I can see from the personal nature of this newest socks comments that you are feeling hurt by the deletion of your articles, but it is not personal. As I've said, I am not even an administrator, I can only observe and report, not actually delete articles, so it should be clear that your articles did indeed have the problems I pointed out, and it is not just a vendetta against you. Please consider what I've said here and try to re-create in user space instead of resorting to socking and vandalism. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not Jason but I appreciate you at least being polite this time, I read your previous statement. This isn't a sock puppet. You guys are so quick to accuse someone of being dishonest, I'm not dishonest. I actually just received a message that my account had been accused of such. They can investigate me and then Wikipedia will verify that I have no affiliation with Jason I'm not a fake user here. I know who he is, I grew up in JC. I'm also a fan of the Return, and I stumbled into this mess myself. I thought someone should speak up, that guy is notable and it should be stated that you and the user foetusized were initially pretty rude about his entry. No vandalism from me either, just editing. I hope Jason will see your statement above, he should have an entry, I'm pretty sure the Return already has one. Grendleish (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Grendleish

• The statement that you "stumbled onto this" without any prompting is, well, highly unlikely at best. WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT it's the same thing. Your vandalism and personal attacks speak louder than your words here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I treated Jason the same way I treated everyone who adds a non-notable person to the list of notable residents of Johnson City, Tennessee. I deleted what doesn't belong there. Unlike the others that I've had to clean up after, Jason responded by starting to edit war, using sock puppet accounts, and generally throwing a hissy fit across several articles. Calling me rude doesn't explain away his bad behavior.
Also, per WP:MUSIC, The Return are probably notable enough for an article, but a member of the band with no music career outside the band is clearly not. If you want to prove that you are not a sock puppet nor a meat puppet, then stop trying to delete/vandalize the record of what has happened, and make a positive contribution, such as an article at The Return (Beatles tribute band) that isn't a bunch of promotional language cut-and-pasted from their web site -- Foetusized (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Enough with unfounded accusations, let's discuss ==

Look this is ridiculous. I made comments in defense of someone and had my account blocked temporarily after I was accused of sock or meat puppeteering. I removed condescending comments that were opinions, those comments had no references or citations to prove they were factual, yet I've also been accused of vandalism. Yet the two of you can blaze your opinions all over the place. It seems that perhaps either of you know Jason and dislike him personally and that's why you have made it so difficult for him to post what he wants to. That would be a conflict of interest according to WP terms of use. I sense a double standard anyway; Kenny Chesney? Come on, he was born in Knoxville, raised in Lutrell, attended ETSU briefly and I'm pretty sure he did not even graduate from ETSU. That guy could give a crap about this town. Jason Cobble was born and raised here, many people from Johnson City know who he is, and attended high school with him (as did I); He was voted most talented in his senior class. He and the Return have fans across Asia, Europe and the United States, even fans in Johnson City (including me). They have played hoity toity exclusive celebrity events, and festivals among many other respectable and historical venues. I am also a fan of the Everybodyfields, they're a talented group. But Sam Quinn nor Jill Andrews have made a career outside that band. I am not trying to discount the Everybodyfields at all but for all intents and purposes, The Return (as well as Jason Cobble) has played events to the same capacity as the Everybodyfields. So, who made it a job for either of you to determine who deserves recognition as a resident of Johnson City? Neither of you are administrators, just a plain ole editor like most other Wikipedians. I think that's what bothers me most, is the presumptive arrogance that the two "editors" execute towards other users. If you have the right to be that boisterous, and quicklty accuse opposing viewpoints as being dishonest, then someone else has the right to make note of their own accomplishments. That attitude you've displayed throught this whole mess is a reflection of why people leave here and never look back. Was I prompted to say this? No. Am I Jason Cobble's sockpuppet? No. An Administrator cleared that up, thank you. It's just that I understand that the world extends past the tri-cities. If someone has the heart to include Johnson City in their satisfaction of acheivement, let them claim this place. A lot of people probably wouldn't. Also, I have reviewed this situation myself and did see that another account was created by Jason, but I also noticed an administrator's statement that Jason admitted to owning the other account and that he was not trying to conduct affairs dishonestly, you are insulting and defaming him. I noticed on user talk pages that he was trying to communicate with you and another editor, he was not insulting either of you, it seemed as thought he was looking for feedback or assistance and you jumped his case. I don't even think he was allowed an opportunity to correct the flaws of his entry. You have wrongly accused him of " bad behavior" and being distasteful the same way I was wrongly accused for being a dishonest vandal. I hope you don't treat everyone this way, you jump to conclusions and don't seem to be open to communication. There is clearly a prejudice here. Grendleish (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Grendleish

• Let me also say for the record that I understand that the point of Wikipedia is to be factual and unbiased, therefore if an entry about Jason Cobble is submitted it should not be written and submitted by Jason himself. In fact, that would be a conflict of interest and may come across as a bit tacky. My point is, that based on the standards of other Notable Residents, that guy is qualified as being worthy of an article in the Johnson City section of WP. Grendleish (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Grendleish

This site has rules, and I choose to follow them. Others, not so much. The rules about notability for musicians are clearly laid out at Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, and per the note in italics at the end, Jason Cobble is not notable. His band probably is, but their article was deleted for being cut-and-paste plagiarism as opposed to lack of notability. For the record, I've lived in Johnson City for over three decades and had no idea who Jason Cobble was until he decided to add himself to the Johnson City, Tennessee article, as well as create aggressively promotional articles about himself and his band.
If you decide to make a positive contribution to this project (as opposed to baseless accusations and rants full of falsehoods), I'll be more than willing to communicate. Until then, I'm done your hissy fit -- Foetusized (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I agreed to refrain from commenting any further on this topic, but I see no harm in adding these final thoughts on the matter. An entry about Jason Cobble should be delayed until he completes another project in accordance to the guidelines on articles for individuals. The Return, however, meets at least three of the criteria for music ensembles and I agree that the article should not violate copyrights or be plagiarized. With that said, rules for including an individual in a general list on a page are much less strict and Jason Cobble qualifies to be incorporated in the list of Notable Residents as a member of the Return. I don't necessarily think my opposition should be regarded as a hissy fit, but I will at least admit that I was unknowing of the many complexities and guidelines of Wikipedia articles; Adding his name to the list of noteable residents is what initially pulled me into this whirlwind anyhow, as I wrongly speculated that was source of this conflict.