User talk:Bobblehead
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] I love this comment on across wikipedia
User:Mobile 01 wrote:
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."[1]
On the discussion page he has been repeatedly told about not putting POV content on the page and several users including myself, LucaZ and Bobblehead have tried to explain to him about the NPOV policy of wiki articles. User Travb reverted the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company back to his POV version and replaced much ancient content already discussed by other editors. [2]
Please stop your relentless attempt at persecution of myself and users LucaZ and Bobblehead plus numerous anons which you are attacking in your "Personal Page" User:Travb/m. [3]
You also try to imply that Bobblehead is also a sock of mine because he made comment about the americans spelling Tyre as Tire.[4]
Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Grunge music in Seattle's history
Hi, I didn't realize this was such a contenteous issue. I can certainly understand your position, though. I live in Seattle, love my home city, and can't stand grunge music. ( I'm a hip hop fan. ) On the other hand, we're extremely well associated with the trend, and as I said, a Nirvana album was printed on the cover of a NY Times Finance section, so I thought I was doing something positive by pointing these associations out on the Seattle page. I'll defer to your experience here, as you have eons more than I do on Wikipedia. Just please understand I made these changes trying to help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeattleChronic (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Criticism of Quebec society
Hi, Bob,
I've responded to your suggestions at Criticism of Quebec Society or whatever the hell it's called these days. I hope I've been able to clarify that I'm not rejecting your opinions out of hand (I go on about this at some length). I noticed you're from Seattle, so I'll add here that you might expect a little testiness on this issue from a petit gars de Saint-Henri émigré. From Canadians, generally, actually. The only thing that keeps us together is that every part of the country hates some other part, and everybody hates Toronto. John FitzGerald 23:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we're still disagreeing about Quebec, but I would like to thank you for alerting me to the grey areas in WP:NOR. I agree the policy's intentions are good, but as I've said on the talk page there, further specification of what constitutes inappropriate inference is required.
- I have always agreed with the policy in general. For example, i seem to recall Conductive education and related articles being extensively modified by their original poster after I pointed out some NOR-related issues. And I put an NOR tag on an article just the other day.
- Anyway, although progress seems to be glacial, i think the discussion about criticism of Quebec society has helped clarify issues. John FitzGerald 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invitation
Discussion has commenced on the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company article. As you were an editor of that article, I would like to invite you to join in this discussion so as to promote not only an informative and usefull article for wiki, but also one that covers all points of view. Please give us your thoughts and comments for format and content for this article on the discussion page. Thanks.
Mobile 01Talk 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
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.
[edit] Request for Mediation
[edit] Lets try this again
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 Company2.0, 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.
[edit] Talk:Barack Obama
Needs another haircut? --HailFire 11:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scarborough
Thank you for requesting a source over on Scarborough. I've added a reference (and a Refs section, which I'm not entirely pleased with on a dab page, but there you go). Scarborough, North Yorkshire was founded in the tenth century and comfortably predates all of the New World Scarboroughs. Thanks again. — mholland 00:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Mediation
[edit] Sorry
I wasn't aware of that rule, I'll keep it in mind next time. As for the editing, I was just trying to help, but I guess I was hurting more than I was helping. I am pretty sure that Seattle has a Mediterranean climate by definition, because for an oceanic or maritime climate (Cfb or Cwb), there has to be little to no difference between seasons. A Mediterranean climate (Csa or Csb) specifically has a driest month with less than 1/3 of the precipitation of the wettest month, in addition to hot (or warm in Seattle's case), dry summers, and cool, wet winters. As for the temperatures, I've heard a lot of different averages, and it veries from place to place, so those are just the averages I felt were most accurate, though I could be wrong. Anyway, sorry again to case trouble, but thanks for welcoming me nonetheless. GS121389 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Seattle
Hi Bobblehead; I looked at Seattle this morning to see if there was a consensus for the change that I proposed, expecting to make whatever changes to the article that seemed appropriate. I was delighted to see that you had already made the changes. I proofread them and found no errors. Good work! Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] OR
Hi, Bobblehead,
Discussion about OR at talk:Controversy over criticism of Quebec society seems to have died out, unfortunately. However, you have converted me into a devotee of NOR. Although I still think the criteria are too broad, it's obvious there are many articles here which really are original research and consequently unencyclopedic (I was heartened to see that one of the worst transgressors, Canadian English, has been flagged). Anyway, I was just wondering if there are any fields on Wikipedia which you think may require special attention because of the prevalence of OR; I've been thinking of going on a tear among the articles about entertainers, many of which read like press releases (which most probably are). John FitzGerald 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry about that!
Yeah, just noticed, apologies. We can remove:
- "Don't you mean Eisenmond wrote, Italiavivi? --Bobblehead 00:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Corrected, apologies. Italiavivi 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If you consent, too. Italiavivi 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barack Obama
Hi Bobblehead. You have got me curious. Did the anti-abortion groups get together and chant out the statement about Obama in unison? Just kidding. Keep up the good work here. :-) Steve Dufour 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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 00:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mediation takes place on the discussion page Mediation Discussion
[edit] Request for clarification of 'link spam'
Hello Bobblehead. You reverted an edit of mine adding what I thought were relevant links to the Seattle page, labelling them as "link spam". I put them there because I honestly thought they were relevant--they are sites to which I send friends and family who are visiting town--so I'd be most grateful if you could clarify what distinguishes those links as spam and the others in the same section as appropriate. Thanks - Eldang 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- This makes sense to me now. I appreciate the explanation. Eldang 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
Thanks for the welcome, and I'm sorry about the talk page edit, won't happen again. 777fortytwo 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Appropriate way to provide or link to useful information?
In some articles on public transportation, I recently added some information and links about route planners based on text messaging. Reading the strict policy on external links, I see that some of these additions were in a gray area. It is not my intent to spam but to provide useful information, so please let me know how Wikipedia can provide this information appropriately. Riders of public transportation in particular cities want to know about two types of services, but information is nonexistant on Wikipedia. One type of service is web-based trip planners. The other type of service is similar but based on text messaging from mobile phones. The transit authorities typically provide the web-based service but merely encourage use of the text messaging services of other companies. If a rider of a particular transit authority's buses or trains needs information on the text messaging services, what is an acceptable way for Wikipedia to satisfy their need for such information? --rcauvin
[edit] Wikistalker Alert
Please stop wikistalking me. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billywatson (talk • contribs).
[edit] 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)
- The link you refer to in your revert request points to an old edit and therefor can not be reverted. I have refactored my comments so as to ensure they do not specifically attack anyone and are only comments of my learning experiences on Wikipedia since running into Travb.
- My comments were in direct response to Travb's own comments, it is he that refuses to mediate and offered a lame compromise which in itself was not a compromise at all but an offer for me to agree to leave everything the way he has it. My statements are not personal attacks as at no time do I say I am talking about any editor specifically. I only state what I have learnt from Travb since I became an editor. At no time did I accuse anyone of being a sock puppet, my comment simply says that I know how to recognize one. Travb on the other hand continues to refer to me as a sock even though his case found no such evidence and I was vindicated.
- As far as I can read there are no personal attacks made towards Travb and therfor nothing to appologize for, if you wish to interpret my comments as negative towards Travb, then I suggest that it is only from your experience of seeing how he operates that you would be lead to such an assumption.
Mobile 01Talk 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The RfD for Boston
hello, someone edited the link so that the notice was no visible to ordinary people typing in Boston. This had the effect of removing the notice from view. The RFD was still there, but effectively invisible, since ordinary people would never see it unless they did a diff. What I've done is reverted this edit and made a note on the discussion page about it. Although I may have a difefreing view about what should be done than you do, I feel it is not a good idea to effectively reduce the opportunity of people to comment on the proposal whilst the dicussion is still ongoing. I'll be happy to see the discussion process come to a proper end and a decison reached and implemented, no matter what that particular decision is. As the proposer of the RfD, I thought I should alert you to this, and I hope I have not breached any guidelines in doing the reversion, as it has been my intention to act in good faith here. DDStretch (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] If you don't mind a suggestion...
Comparing your comment on my talk page to your comment at the move request, maybe in future you should make your public comment a little more like the talk page comment instead of giving the impression that I'm doing something underhanded. I'm getting more than a little tired of people making disparaging public comments about my actions based on assumptions with no basis in reality. Otto4711 00:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chicago & Philadelphia style consensus
Howdy, I'm doing an analysis of the votes on the Chicago and Philadelphia page moves at User:Agne27/City, State convention/Chicago & Philadelphia style "Consensus" with a discussion on the talk page about what this means about the page move process. You did not participate in either move though you have seemed to voice opposition to these types of moves in the past. I would like to confirm if I am correct in my assumption that you would have opposed these moves if you were aware. I would also like your general input on the discussion page about these moves. AgneCheese/Wine 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template talk:Oldafdfull
Dear Bobblehead, please see my comments on Template talk:Oldafdfull#Merge?. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] please don't edit war on Obama
There was neutrally worded, non-inflammatory info regarding his law career that you deleted and replaced with less specific, somewhat inaccurate info. For example, he did continue to work for that firm part time after he became a state senator (but you deleted that...if Obama did it and applied for a job, he could get fired for hiding a job he had). If you are going to change thing, you should discuss it on talk page first as this is a featured article....this was what I was told and was banned for 2 days because of this....please don't do stuff that would cause you to be banned.
As far as the 1 letter typo, look again....that's all I did. Maybe you looked at the entry below that, which was different.Dereks1x 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thought you might be interested in this ongoing discussion with this user. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Where are we?
A lot has transpired on this discussion so far and I am wondering if we are actually getting anywhere with the mediation. Could the mediator give a response of his opinions of just where we are at and what if any decisions/suggestions/agreements have been agreed so far. Thanks. Mobile 01Talk 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ive been busy. I'm more interested in your view about where things are at. -Stevertigo 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe we have decided that the Liberian article ramains seperate and that we do not merge Firestone with Bridgestone. I think we have also covered what is POV and NPOV. I have made some changes to the article last night and today, adding a few images and cleaning up some of the duplicated statements. Please everyone have a look at the current article and offer your opinions. If everyone is happy then we can close this out and let the mediator get on with other issues. Mediation Page Firestone Tire and Rubber Company Mobile 01Talk 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] section removed
In May 2006, the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) released a report detailing the state of human rights on Liberia's rubber plantations. According to the report, Firestone managers in Liberia admitted that the company does not effectively monitor its own policy prohibiting child labor. UNMIL found that several factors contribute to the occurrence of child labor on Firestone plantations: pressure to meet company quotas, incentive to support the family financially, and lack of access to basic education. The report also noted that workers' housing provided by Firestone has not been renovated since the houses were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s [5]
- I removed this section because it has no source, this basically quotes from a document but the link provided does not exist. I have found a copy of the same document on StopFirestone.com, however after reading through it, I can not find the statements that this section uses. The report does however say that the housing is being upgraded at the moment and the Bridgestone web site confirms this. The paragraph already exists within the Liberian article and does not need to be in here as well. The way I had it before was fine as it represented both sides equally. Your version has now shifted weight again by introducing statements that have no source and are therefor POV. Mobile 01Talk 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SSP
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dereks1x. Any comments would be appreciated. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Intentionally or not, you are poisoning the atmosphere. When you attack me in the sockpuppetry case, does that make me want to compromise in articles? It would make most people angry and militant. Consider withdrawing putting a note asking that the matter be dropped and forgotten. In the past, both of us have stopped edit warring and let our level heads prevail. Let's do it this time. Dereks1x 01:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Don't take it personal, Dereks1x, these things happen on Wikipedia. It may be completely coincidental that your edits are similar to the other users and the result of the SSP may completely exonerate you. The best thing you could do at this point is try to keep a level head, work out some compromise wording on the talk pages, and wait for a result. --Bobblehead 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
RFCU done (I got the same advice at AN/I). We'll see, hopefully. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)