User:Ikip/c

This is information which I am debating adding to the Firestone talk page.

I will refine these comments over time, and probably delete many of them.

"L" are places were I need to add comments, names, or edit histories.

Why the Firestone article should be merged into the Bridgestone article

In 1988 Bridgestone bought Firestone, as I wrote in this article:

"L"

(Later deleted by Mobile 01, "L" another "mistake"? "L")

Mobile 01 states herself:

"L"

Every single website that I have found has both the Firestone and Bridgestone label. Type in "Firestone" in Google, the following are the first corporate links:

"L" Bridgestone logo.

The New Zealand Bridgestone webpage "more web pages" lists the Firestone history, as Bridgestone's history:

"L"

One of Mobile 01's arguments that Bridgestone should not be merged with Firestone has been the following:

"L" New Zealand

Another of Mobile 01's arguments:

"L"

When I question these arguments, Mobile 01 calls me "dumb","L" "name","L"

What has happened on the Bridgestone page:

"L" 203 sock.

"L" edit history on Bridgestone.

What has happened on the Firestone page:

"L" edit history on Firestone.

In other words, "L" "users" have repeatedly attempted to delete all connection that Firestone has to Bridgestone.

Why? I am not 100% sure.

My own theory, is that despite Firestone being the same company, the Firestone page has become the wikipage were all criticism of Bridgestone goes. Then editors delete all reference to Firestone in Bridgestone, and then the Bridgestone page has no criticism at all.

Mobile 01 herself has stated that she wants a page with "no criticism", "L", like the Bridgestone employees and Bridgestone sock, "L" first she deleted several well referenced criticisms of Bridgestone. "L" When this failed and was reverted, and when the page was protected, in her own words she orphaned this page "L" and created a "dupe" page/ "L" content fork. "L"

General overview

Going through your edits Mobile 01, I realize my big mistake in the previous Sock puppet case. I should have addressed all of your (Mobile 01's) statements. I see how a casual observer, who has not worked with you (Mobile 01) for the past month, would maybe accept your (Mobile 01) statements on there face.

~~But with just a little investigation and explanation, like:~~

the orphaning of this article, by "dupes" and "content forks"

the NPOV in this article,

the stopfirestone.org argument,

my deletion of your contributions,

my refusing to discuss this page,

me "inviting" user Fair to this page,

the archiving/Deleting of Morton and Mobile 01,

the anon argument, and

the Bridgestone is not Firestone argument
~~...your arguments collapse.~~
~~If my response to your arguments is a "ditrade", as you continue to sat, what are your arguments, poetic prose?~~
Mobile 01, you continue to make questionable statements, when I show these statements are fallacious, there is no pause, Mobile 01, you continue to make even more questionable statements. I have had to spend inordinate amounts of time and space showing the evidence which contradicts your statements.
~~The archiving and deleting argument was an excellent case in point. When user Fair got angry and chastised you, you blamed me for losing user Fair's statements!~~
When I clearly show that you have selective deleted or archived my statements here, relevant statements, you acknowledge in one sentence that you made a "mistake" and without pause, start attacking me again.
You argued several places that I had not responded to your invitation to discuss this page, despite me continuing to discuss this case. But how can I discuss this case when you and Morton continue to archive and delete my comments, some 1 minute old? Again Mobile 01, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that I am not discussing this page, and yet at the same time archive my statements which discuss this page. Who would a Reasonable person feel doesn't want to discuss this page? The person who is asking other wikiusers repeatedly not to archive the talk page comments, or the two wikiusers who selectively delete or archive a person's comments which discuss this page, sometimes only 1 minute old?
~~Let me give you (Mobile 01) some unsolicited advice:~~
First Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a battleground. Months before you came to wikipedia, I have consistently prevailed in edit wars by adding references and "out referencing" a person. Deleting well referenced sections is a losing strategy, and in my opinion, it is against the spirit of wikipedia. I have chastised pretty much everyone on wikipedia for doing it, including Morton and including Fair. Like Bobblehead said to the Bridgestone corporate sock puppet LucaZ:
:LucaZ, while it is generally preferable that articles be written in a NPOV, it is not justification to delete a well sourced section. If you feel that the section is NPOV, you should try to rewrite the section using more neutral manner and/or providing additions from Firestone's POV to counter the POV present within the article.[1]
Second Wikipolicy wars are pointless. They are pointless for two reasons: ::A) they waste everyone's time. Everyone here could be writing an article instead of endlessly wikipolicy warring. ::B) After fighting for months with User:Zer0faults/NuclearUmpf (who also once deleted well referenced material), and several other subsequent edit wars, I can hesitantly say, that I probably know wikipolicy better than yourself, so getting in a wikipolicy war with me is pointless.
In addition, Mobile 01, as your recent "orphan" "dupe" "fork page" strategy showed, after this page was protected, your wikipolicy arguments often blow up in your face, and simply cause everyone else more work.
Let me save you some time. This will avoid you (Mobile 01) launching into a Red herring fallacy of logic, a "you too" argument, arging that I am the one who is creating the battleground on wikipedia. Lets remember the edit history of this page, after months of edit wars with Bridgestone employees, Bridgestone socks, and yourself, deleting well referenced material, I took the step of protecting this page, and instead of discussing these changes on the talk page, you widened the edit war, involving several admins. Travb (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)