User talk:Mobile 01/Archive03

Firestone

User_talk:Bobblehead/Archive1#Firestone_Edits: Copy of message left for Bobblehead, his reply is below the copy.

Thanks for those fixes, it looks much better the way you formatted it. I keep forgetting that Americans spell Tyre as Tire. I hope the article is more informative now and that all the anti firestone issues are dealt with. I have tried to accomodate all points of view with appropriate links to relevant articles and nuetral POV where appropriate as suggested on the discussion page. Thanks again.

Mobile 01 02:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome on the cleanup edits. That's why Wikipedia is community supported. Some editors do the heavy lifting and then other editors, like myself, come along and do all the format fixing. :) --Bobblehead 02:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Travb the user that started this edit war, Thanking me for my edits.

thanks for your work on the firestone page. Travb (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Bobblehead/Archive1#Firestone_Edits: Copy of message left for Bobblehead, his reply is below the copy.

I tried to do something with that Jingle edit, I still dont think it even belongs on the page but another user keeps putting it back. There is coment on it in the discussion page. Hadnt thought about NPOV for this but your wording is as good as any. Personally I would just delete the whole section.

Mobile 01 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with having the ad jingle in the article, but then, I wouldn't blink an eye if it disappeared. Heh. How's that for not caring? Not really worth arguing over so if the other user wants to keep it, might as well. Anyways, I called my edit NPOV because of the unsupported claims of "catchy jingle", "establish the Firestone name around the world", and "is still remembered today". Generally need something to support these positive claims.--Bobblehead 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firestone Tire and Rubber Company

To be honest with you, the talk page just looks like there's been a break down in relations. At the moment, I'm pretty convinced that re-opening the page would result in more reverting, so I'm not keen to do so. The general accusations - correctly or incorrectly - from both of you about the other breakign policy doesn't fill me with confidence that the reverting which had begun wouldn't continue

So I think this should stay protected for a few more days, please at live the give the discussion page another try! If no developments have occured by, say, Monday then ask for it to be unprotected (though not me as I'm away Sunday-Wednesday). Bear in mind that if you disagree with me, you can make a request at WP:RFP. If any admin reviewing that request wants to unprotect, then that's fine by me. --Robdurbar 23:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solution - Firestone Edit War

The problem is no longer relevant. I have now created a complete backbone to Firestone. A parent Article has been set up called Firestone from this page I have listed all Wiki entries relating to Firestone. Some of these are tyre related, some are people, places and events.

I have created a new article Firestone International which is a copy of the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company in its best state prior to the edit war. Removed from this page are all the negative comments relating to Firestone USA. The article now does what it is meant to do in that it provides information about the company Firestone Internationally. Full company history is provided as well as diversified manufacturing.

The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company becomes a redundant orphan now, however as a specific editor wishes to use this article to further their legal and political agenda, they now have free reign to do as they wish. All Wiki entries priviously redirected to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company are now redirected to Firestone. From that article readers can follow their own path to whatever information they are looking for. Mobile 01 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now been informed that what I did is called a Content Fork, and has been removed by admin. Mobile 01 05:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firestone

Hi, I have redirected Firestone International to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which is an existing article on the topic, thanks/wangi 01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Do not create duplicate articles to push your point of view, Wikipedia must stick to a neutral point of view. Discuss on the articles talk page if you believe the existing article is not neutral. Thanks/wangi 01:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking

Hi, I responded to your question on my talkpage: User talk:Wangi#Firestone. The response the basically the same as my follow admin Woohookitty said.

Please stop recreating the content forks, continuing to do so will lead to you being banned. Discuss the issues you have on the article's talk page and acheive consensus for the changes you believe need to be made. If you cannot reach agreement then there are additional avenues that can be used to get more people involved in the discussion and break a deadlock - let me know if you want to know any more about them. Thanks/wangi 11:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contentions

Lengthy, contentious, misleading post returned to sender. —Æ. ✉ 01:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Just for your information, I am not user LucaZ and I dont work by sock puppetry. I live in Australia and have no idea where LucaZ lives. TravB has singled the two of us out and also another user Bobblehead because we are the only 3 who are trying to stop him from completely hijacking the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article and turning it into his own political agenda of anti firestone. He continually quotes from the StopFirestone.com web site and included what he calls referenced material albeit referenced from stopfirestone.com. The other two users and I have been trying to bring this article back to NPOV but user Travb refuses to discuss this. On the dicussion page for this article have been many posts about the Liberian Contovesy and it was decided to move it to its own article and have a small section on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company page explaining what it was about and then pointing the user to the new article. This whole page had finaly been tidied up by the 3 users with proper criticisms section and properly referenced NPOV links and references. User Tarvb then reverted everything back to his own version and then went back into the page history and brought more stuff back that had already been discussed and removed. Both you and the other two admins are being hoodwinked by user Travb into thinking he is a good editor. You only have to check his previous edits to see he is politically motivated in his editing. So before you accuse me or other editors of being sock puppets, or take sides in an edit war that user TravB has started. Find out the facts. This whole edit war thing is TravB's doing. No one on the article was starting an edit war only TravB. He is the only one who wont discuss his edits, he is the only one who continually reverts other peoples work, he is the only one who is trying to turn the article into an ANTI Firestone article. Mobile 01 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

Firestone

Sure I responded. Look here. I am assuming that is you as well since you edited the post that the IP made on my talk page. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article is protected. Editing a page which is a redirect page in such a way as to promote your own version of a protected page pretty much defines a content fork. If we allowed such things, it would make protection completely pointless. And it would probably lead to never ending disputes as people could just continue to create new pages to get around having to discuss things. As I said, this is not difficult. Talk it out. Try to get a compromise with other users. If you feel like other users are not communicating, you can always go through dispute resolution, i.e. a request for comment, mediation, et all. Creating a content fork is not the way to go and you will continue to be reverted. I have no "side" on this issue nor do the other admins taking actions similar to mind. We are here to uphold policy and content forks are definitely not within those policies. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 02:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. :( Well. Maybe take a day or two and think about it. Dispute resolution isn't always fun, but it can be rewarding. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your response on an IP page. I have copied it across below. Mobile 01 06:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest going to Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and working this out with others in this dispute. That page has been protected. It is considered forking to then do what you are trying to do, i.e. create a new page that essentially copies parts of the protected page. You are making a very false assumption. I have no "side" here. I am not one of the "you people" you are referring to. I am trying to uphold policy and that means not allowing content forks, especially from a protected page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop WP:NPA immediately

This is the only warning you will receive. Your continued attacks[1][2][3] after repeated warnings[4][5] will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This recent edit is uncalled for. Travb (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the links you provide above and do not see any personal attacks. I see me explaining my actions to you or other editors and stating my opinions about your edit methods.

Thanks also for deleting your user talk:Travb/m page or having had it deleted by an admin. I am not sure which as there is no edit history any longer. If an admin deleted it then I am grateful to them for seeing what is going on here.

I notice that all your personal attacks on me are slowly being deleted by you from all over wiki where you wrote them. Thanks for that too. Mobile 01^Talk 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the personal attacks from your user page

I removed your personal attacks directed against TravB from your user page. Please see: user page It's in your best interest not to repost them. Cheers. Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 08:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not Appomattox , yet.

Mobile 01, hang in there. I believe Travb has really gone too far now. I'm looking into the matter and requesting AnonEMouse to give me her opinion on his most recent behavior. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some respects, Travb has acted in cooperation with some others I've had trouble with: BenBurch and FAAFA. Travb provided them some extensive coaching on "how to use Wikipolicy like a sword," and the result has been a kudzu-like proliferation of sockpuppet investigations and the like. Dino 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Dean, I have been in trouble enough for supposed WP:NPA violations and I am sure Travb will take offence to your claims he provided training to these other editors. My suggestion to you would be let it go. I'd rather not have the Free Republic issue debated on my talk page. You have won your case and been exonerated just like me. As Morton says below, best let sleeping dogs lie.

Mobile 01^Talk 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, I'm trying to get Travb to end this pursuit and collaborate, as per a note I left on his talk page. I brought it to the attention of an Admin, who was involved in closing the sock puppet case, their initial reaction was to let sleeping dogs lie, but I'm still awaiting her response to a reply I left. Anyhoots, its just disappointing that some people lose sight of the real mission of Wikipedia, while I believe earnestly attempting to protect it from perceived threats. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with the Admin -- let sleeping dogs lie. The case is closed. If there's an attempt to reopen it, well . . . MortonDevonshire Yo · 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville

First, becareful when you try and accuse people of sock puppetry, it tends to cause a lot of problems. Secondly, if you look at CovenantD's contributions you'll see that they tend to contribute to a lot of pages that I don't contribute to, and that they tend to do it at the same time. As for your edit, it was removed because it was determined when the List of Smallville allusions page was deleted, that such allusions, though very interesting to read, are not notable in an encyclopedia and are also original research. If it was something that had "out-of-universe" information then it would be acceptable, but this was highly fanbased. The only people that know/care about his affection for oreos are fans. There is nothing notable about that. This is why it was reverted. As to your Oreo page reference, the page is using it in a different context. The entire section is discussing "Oreos" in popular culture, and the fact that an Oreo was on the show (regardless of its nature) doesn't mean we should explain Oreo's in popular culture for Martian. One page is about Oreos, one page is about Smallville. You cannot just use any popular culture reference from any page, just because that page is exhibiting the exact notion. Maybe we can come up with some way so that you can, but right now, until the entire thing can be reformulated to fit Manuel of Style, we can't. Though, I do have an idea as to how we possibly could. Bignole 13:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. Sometimes "fans" want to include things that are unencyclopedic. Just because you like it and want it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included. Even if 100 people came on and wrote out the plot for the Spider-Man 3 trailer, just because they did that doesn't mean it should be included. The plot of a trailer is unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a fansite. Also, my edit was in combination of what you wanted as well as what Covenant included. I originally removed Cov's edit as well, because it wasn't in the appropriate place. It is the responsibility of the editor supplying the information to correct it, not other editors. I probably should have left an edit summary earlier, but I had been doing a lot of edits pryor and sometimes it just saves time to ignore the summary section the first time. The Oreo information, as it was, should not have been included because of what it was, but I tried my best to write it so that it didn't come off as blatant trivia. As for the Martian Manhunter edits of others. I wasn't trying to deny them their edits, or deny the existence of MM, but you have to realize that you cannot write things in the perspective of already knowing the truth. Like, if we all knew that Lex would be possed by Zod at the end of Season 5, should we constantly write something like "Fine is doing this so that he can have Lex possessed by Zod later in the season" ? Probably not. It's all about the writing, and sometimes myself and other editors don't have the time to sit down and rewrite everything so that it complies with the Manuel of Style for a fictional television series. Bignole 00:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that you and another Anon have decided to "discuss" this deletion thing with Covenant to an almost berating level, at least this was the message I received from the Anon who was basically personally attacking me. Some things cannot be "reworded" or "moved" to fit in an article. Your original "fact" had no bearing on the page because it had no relevance. You were making a note about something that no one else understood because they didn't know where you were getting your information from. Coming out of the blue to say "the Martian Manhunter has a famous addiction for Oreos" is not relevant or encyclopedic in nature. The fact that it is on the Oreo page doesn't matter for the Smallville page. Then Covenant tried to replace it with a better statement and a SOURCE to back it up. Cov just placed it in the wrong place and also, it wasn't relevant, and probably still isn't. Either way, to avoid further problems I merged the two comments into one better comment. That comment wouldn't have come about if I had just "reworded" yours. That comment is attempting to explain YOUR comment by proving that the character's identity was actually revealed in an interview. You need a citation to prove that (which Cov provided), and then YOUR words were used to clarify the situation in the episode. Again, you can look up Wikipedia's policy on this, it is not the responsibility of other editors to FIND YOUR SOURCES, and it is their choice if they wish to just delete YOUR UNSOURCED comments. You needed something to explain why you are even mentioning Martian Manhunter, and to do that you needed a source to prove you were right, hence the reason why we have the option to formerly delete any unsourced comments. Now, I have apologized for not at least explaining that in the "edit summary", but please try not to berate Covenant (or myself) about this if you don't Wiki's policies. Bignole 12:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From User_talk:Athaenara.

User_talk:AnonEMouse#Sockpuppet_Case Erase this message if you see fit. Travb (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, "mobile01" is shameless. I wonder how long until it all catches up with him/her/it. — Æ. ✉ 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following message was left on User_talk:Athaenara by me( Mobile 01^Talk), in reply to abuse and insults aimed at me by herself and Travb.

What is shameless was your inability to remain neutral in this case, thankfully the Admin who has now closed the case and exonerated me did not take your view. You were asked for a third opinion about Myself and User:LucaZ being a sock, you gave your opinion and you were wrong. Your pretentious and misrepresented edits and attacks of my credibility and motives have continued regardless, and you have sided with a notorious disruptor who has been blocked twice for bad behaviour. In future don't attack me with personal insults, regardless of how ammusing you think you are. As it is well known that I am a female and most definately human, to address me as an "It" is both offensive and inflammatory. Unless you wish to find yourself on the other end of one of Travb's famous WP:NPA cases, I would suggest you refrain from stirring the pot any further.

Mobile 01^Talk 08:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Athaenara replaced the insult.

I removed insult once again and asked her not to replace it.

User:Athaenara replaced the insult.

I removed once again, left WP:NPA on her talk page and warned that a formal complaint to Admin would occur should she replace it again.

User:Athaenara reworded the insult, still calls me "Shameless" but has removed the "It" comment.

Mobile 01^Talk 14:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

FYI

User_talk:Essjay#Hello_Essjay Essjay is the cordinator for the mediation. The person you are supposed to ask question too.

Should Terrorific (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) less than 13 edits on wikipedia, Ekun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 3 edits on wiipedia, Leaders100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who never edited the Firestone or Bridgestone page and hasn't edited wikipedia since 12 September 2006, be a part of this mediation?

Can you remove those three inactive and new users from the mediation? I am still confused (baffled) why you added them in the first place. Everyone else has agreed to the mediation.

Where is Japan Project anyway? Why did you choose these three editors?

Thanks Travb (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask that question, you did.[6]

I explained why I chose those specific editors on the mediation page. They have been invited to provide opinion because the Bridgestone page is part of Project Japan. As your issue relates to merging an American Companies 100 year history with a Japanese Companies 80 year History it is important that should you procede and actually merge the two, that Japanese readers understand why the history of the American Firestone Company is now being shown as Japanese History. These 3 editors are experts in their field of Japanese History relating to Industry and as such are in the best position to provide an objective view on the merge you recommend.

Mobile 01^Talk 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I often move comments to the persons talk page to keep the flow of the conversation, or delete the comments if they are already there. User_talk:Travb#FYI. Have a grreeatt weekend. Travb (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company2.0.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Speaking of Firestone

I thought this was appropriate: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Cheers. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation for Firestone

Ive agreed to take on mediation. We can get started now at the mediation talk page, as there are multiple articles involved. Thanks -Ste|vertigo 00:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation takes place on the discussion page Mediation Discussion

Personal attack warning

I suggest you revert this edit and the subsequent ones in which you reformatted your comments and apologize to Travb for the personal attacks. Comments like these are completely unproductive during mediation and continued references to other editors as "vandals" and making unsupported accusations of sock puppetry can result in involuntary wikibreaks. Travb can be a little touchy at times and egging him on isn't going to help anything. Thanks. --Bobblehead 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely inappropriate tampering of discussion

Mobile, you removed some of the comments you made,[7] stating in comment the reason was because I suggested it. I did not, and removing the text as you did gives the reader the impression that my admonishing comments directed at your comments are instead directed at Travb's comments. Please restore them now. Note, if you want to correct yourself in talk pages, a simple ~~strikethrough~~ will suffice to indicate your change.-Ste vertigo 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it was Bobblehead. My Bad.

Mobile 01^Talk 03:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Deadlyrelations.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Deadlyrelations.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Summoning Light.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Summoning Light.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]