User talk:Jroccolv

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jroccolv! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

April 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Milli Vanilli has been reverted.
Your edit here to Milli Vanilli was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/jodierocco, http://www.facebook.com/lindarocco) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page KRXV do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here to KRXV was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://twitter.com/highwayvibe) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milli Vanilli[edit]

Please review Wikipedia's policies as to what constitutes a reliable source. It is insufficient to merely list a person's name in a citation. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the original singers. A lot of the information on this page is inaccurate and misleading. I will remove the citations but the information needs to be updated to factual information. Jroccolv (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not leave the information in the article without citations. Unfortunately we have no way of confirming your identity. You are welcome to add information that has been published in reliable sources and can consequently be verified. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information that's in the article is unsourced, uncited and false for the most part, so that statement is incorrect. The false information regarding my biographical facts must be changed. There are numerous ways to verify my identity. Other, much larger entities were able to ascertain that. I own the verified Milli Vanilli Facebook page. Facebook was able to easily verify who I am. I also have a verified personal page, again easily verifiable. Withholding and refusing to allow factual, biographical information is against Wiki standards and protocol. Is this your stand? Please advise. --Jroccolv (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is Jodie Rocco writing. Hence the j r o c c o The l v is for Las Vegas where I live. Again, easily verifiable. --Jroccolv (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My stand is that as long as any information you remove is unsourced and any information you insert comes with a reliable source, I don't have an issue with it, but I would suggest you review WP:COI, as it seems evident to me that you have a potential conflict of interest here. I would also strongly encourage you to review Wikipedia:Expert editors in light of what you've just revealed, and understand that, as I said, we do not have any way to confirm your credentials, and even if we did, it would have no impact on the fact that your contributions should be sourced unless one could reasonably compare them with such an assertion as "the sky is blue". Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: You've got messages![edit]

Hello, Jroccolv. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Spudlace. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Milli Vanilli—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Spudlace (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is unacceptable. The person, 'Erik Wietses', has absolutely nothing to do with our group. I am one of the original singers. I was in the studio for months. I worked closely and hand in hand with Frank Farian, FAR studios and all involved in Rosbach. 'Erik Wietses' has nothing whatsoever to do with MILLI VANILLI. This information is FALSE.

My name is JODIE ROCCO. A simple Google search will verify who I am.

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Jroccolv. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Milli Vanilli, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with conflict of interest. It has to do with the truth. There is no truth in items this page is reporting.

In addition, the statement that Rob and Fab formed 'Milli Vanilli' is absurd. The group was formed by Frank Farian long before Rob and Fab were in the picture. I know. I WAS THERE. Jodie Rocco. It's easy to google who I am. I am constantly fighting to make sure the information on our page is TRUE. REAL. ACTUAL and FACTUAL.

The person, 'Erik Wietses', has absolutely nothing to do with our group. I am one of the original singers. I was in the studio for months. I worked closely and hand in hand with Frank Farian, FAR studios and all involved in Rosbach. 'Erik Wietses' has nothing whatsoever to do with MILLI VANILLI. This information is FALSE. This is unacceptable.

My name is JODIE ROCCO. A simple Google search will verify who I am.

Please provide supporting documentation that my assertions are false. My supporting documentation is readily available.

This 'person' Doniago continually disputes my personal, actual and factual statements on Milli Vanilli even though my name is on awards, trophies, in documentaries, and on 46 tracks of numerous releases that have the name 'Milli Vanilli'. If this continues I will seek legal representation to ensure that my name, Jodie Rocco, and my sister's name Linda Rocco are preserved in history. I will NOT allow this egregious false/fake information to be published/distributed. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be accurate, factual, and truthful. Apparently, I was wrong.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--DonIago (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can only sincerely hope that I am a part of this discussion and that I am able to defend/represent myself and my sister Linda. Thank you.

You're welcome to participate in the discussion at the linked page. DonIago (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI, legal threats[edit]

Howdy hello! I'm an administrator, and want to make you aware of two very important things:

We do not tolerate legal threats on our platform. That does not create a collegial environment. Please immediately remove your legal threats, and make it clear you do not intend to seek legal action. If you do wish to seek legal action, please clarify as such; understand however that you will be blocked from editing until the completion of legal proceedings. If you continue to edit without redacting your legal threats, I will assume that you mean those threats to stand and will block you from editing.
You quite clearly have a conflict of interest. That means that you are writing about subjects you are personally related to, close friends with/have a business relationship with. We require that "COI" editors follow a much more stringent set of standards, because Wikipedia is based on transparency. That means you need to state your conflict of interest (you don't have to be specific, merely say that you have one with Milli Vanilli). You also need to refrain from editing the article directly, and instead need to use the talk page of the articles in question to make edit requests. Those requests will then be examined by our editors to ensure they meet our policies.

If you have questions, please let me know. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wikipedia was about facts? I realized only through my daughter in the past two months, who graduated with her Masters at 24 last month, that Wikipedia is NOT considered a reliable source. That is disturbing when it comes to actual and factual information. When anyone can add their names to our group, Milli Vanilli and ascertain falsehoods regarding our group, that is not only concerning but despicable. people that had absolutely nothing at all to do with Milli Vanilli can become an instant member. This is outrageous and absurd.

You are welcome to help correct the record, but you must do so by following our policies. Thus, no legal threats, and you must work within our COI framework. Should you withdraw your legal threats, and promise to abide by our rules, you will be unblocked. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Jroccolv (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)) If I can't validly correct the record without being raked over the coals, then what good is Wikipedia? I have been correctly posting on this page for more than 12 years. Fighting for the truth about our group. I have offered every bit of validation and cite accreditation. There are more cited entries with my name and my sisters name than anyone else. Why am I being targeted? My information is factual and actual. If I tell you something is false or fake, it's not because today is Tuesday and I have a headache. This is a travesty. I have ALWAYS abided by the rules. I am being treated unfairly.[reply]

October 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is OUTRAGEOUS. You are allowing false information to be posted without supporting documentation. I have every right to defend the facts of MY life and my actual and factual information regarding Milli Vanilli. This is a kangaroo court and should be illegal. Shameful to say the least. Jroccolv (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No Legal Threats. Thats non-negotiable. And since you just blew your one shot at retracting it, you'll follow up through email or not at all. And for the record, the threshold for inclusion is and always has been verifiability, not truth, so all this bullshit about false information is just that: Bullshit. Deal with it. Or don't. We don't care.

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.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TomStar81: Just fixed a typo: I think you meaned verifiability, not venerability. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 07:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm in trouble for my words here, I have been asked to come back and adjust what was typed. The first part stands. As for the second part, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if the article is pocketed with misinformation, if it can be verified then it stays. Alternative information can be added to support a different view provided its sourced to reliable sources, otherwise it gets deleted. And since no one owns the articles here and no one can through other people off editing articles here, you'll need to come to peace with the fact that the article is never going to 100% factually correct. Or don't come to peace with it. Either way, this OWN-ish behavior needs to stop. Pitching a hissy fit just because your right and the sources disagree with it, or editing to preserve a certain version, is very off putting, and frankly most of us at the admin level have heard all about it repeatedly. We could cut a record with the constant rotation of excuses from people like you who want this in and that out because this is factual and that isn't, but it would very much so be a broken record. When (but frankly if) you decide to come back here, then you'll need to do so hat in hand as I have done, admit you were in the wrong (as I have done) promise to contribute constructive (as I have done) and then keep that promise. Where we go from this post, I leave to you. — TomStar81 (Talk) 18:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]