Talk:Odeo

Talk Page Archive

Archive 1 has been created with a link at above right. Archive 2, when needed in the future, should be a new subpage (same as creating an article) titled "Talk:Odeo/Archive 2" and the link added to the template on this page's code. For further information on archiving see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Why is this unknown Bayarea editor undoing a complete fact that a lawsuit still exists against SonicMountain? If this person would like to have a discussion I am open to reviewing a factual reason here at the Talk section? Thanks, FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on 71.198.197.225, you are the same person who has edited dozens of time. (a simple check within Wikipedia proves that!) You know the Wikipedia standards and rules. Stop acting childish and discuss your edits here in the Talk section! Why are you so afraid now of a verifiable fact? Sign in like everyone else....You are commencing another edit war on the validity of a fact that has been posted in this section for months? Please be an adult and let me and the editors hear your opinion. That is fair and the rule of Wikipedia. Thanks, FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how

On June 14, 2007, Jack Roken, former CEO of Sonic Mountain, filed a legal claim against his former employer in Nassau County, New York. On August 1, 2007, Mr. Roken's Temporary Restraining Order was denied by Justice Stephen A. Bucaria.

and

Since June 14, 2007, Sonicmountain is still being sued by the former SonicMountain CEO in New York Nassau

are substantially different. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, they are different because the TRO was a small portion of the 15 count case! Would you be ok with the following then?

Since June 14, 2007, Jack Roken, former CEO of Sonic Mountain, filed a legal claim of 15 counts against SonicMountain in Nassau County, New York. On August 1, 2007, Mr. Roken's Temporary Restraining Order was denied by Justice Stephen A. Bucaria. They case is still ongoing. Thanks FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Again there must be an edit here........I think it is time we gave Mr. Roken a little less publicity , (though he probably doesn't mind) since he is also mentioned under Evan Williams Wiki post. Thanks, Fat MyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Fatmyronuk (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What about

On June 14, 2007, Jack Roken, former CEO of Sonic Mountain, filed a legal claim of 15 counts against SonicMountain in Nassau County, New York. The case is still ongoing.

Like I said previously, there's no need to detail the legal minutiae. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the second half of this article has little to do with Odeo, the podcasting company, and is almost entirely about Jack Roken's attempts to harm Sonic Mountain by enacting lawsuits and trademark disputes. Suggest to remove this information from the Odeo article entirely as it has little or no relevance to the intended subject matter.--NewMediaResearcher (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Info should be kept to a minimum but a lawsuit against the company by its former CEO might have some notability. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice organization job NewMediaResearcher --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Again it is Odeo's legal trouble that is the point and the "second half" has everything to do with Odeo since they performed no due-dillegence to obtain a trademark, while they tried to pull off an illegal micro cap stock scam with the Amergence Group. (Read about over at podcastingnews. I do not think Mr. Roken is out to harm SonicMountain since the blogs reports he owns the major majority percentage of the company over all the other owners. Stopping a Pump and Dump scam is certainly not doing harm, but saving potential investors from being scamed. Read http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/09/14/odeo-formerly-sonicmountain-acquired-fireant/#comments if you do not understand the purpose. I suggest calling the section Odeo / SonicMountain legal woes. Additionally why don't we put up SM / Odeo's CEO Dick Moore up since he has a bunch of legal woes! Try this one: http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/bccoc2/pubsearch/case_summary.asp?98022193CF10A=CRM&81000920CF10A=CRM&87012358CF10A=CRM&hidCaseNumber=77000998CF10A&77000998CF10A=CRM&91005245CF10A=CRM&91006786CF10A=CRM&91006784CF10A=CRM&91006783CF10A=CRM&91006782CF10A=CRM&91006781CF10A=CRM&91005373CF10A=CRM&76004221CF10A=CRM&83007405CF10A=CRM&91005319CF10A=CRM&02014004CF10A=CRM&txtLastName=MOORE&txtFirstName=RICHARD&txtMiddleInitial=&txtBusinessEntity=&cboCourtType=CF&chkAdvSearch=&hidSearchType=party_public&hidPageNumber=2&hidSendingPage=search_results&hidCourtType=CRM&hidGeneralType=CRM&hidS=party_public&SearchT=&mscssid=&user_type=&hidPageName=http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org:80/bccoc2/pubsearch/public_search.asp?&btnSummary=View Selected Case

Where do you drwa the line on POV...two could play that stupid game so lets be objective! Thanks FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the last edit is fair and objective lacking POV. Agreed? Otherwise lets put up more truth on Legal problems of other former and current mangement of Odeo and Fireant! Thanks,Fatmyronuk (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The old editor from Bayarea now called NewMediaResearcher should read this regarding POV in terms of Wikipedia: Concern troll A concern troll is a pseudonym created by a user whose point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[9]Fatmyronuk (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record I am waiting for you NewMediaResearcher to try and discuss the POV you keep insulting the encyclopedia with.... Fatmyronuk (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neil 100% that there has been too much redundancy in this Article and the fix he made is fair to all involved. Moreover, it is objective so the encyclopedia reader can make his/or her own mind up!Fatmyronuk (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Reposting NeilN's suggested edit re: trademark dispute section (Discussion thread from 12-24-2007):

How about something like this - As of October 19, 2007 Sonicmountain's United States Patent and Trademark Office application for the wordmark "odeo" has been suspended pending the disposition of a subsequent application by [insert person/company here]. (give reference) --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 04:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

--NewMediaResearcher (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fellow editors, please remember WP:3RR. Discuss your proposed changes concisely here, rather than reverting the article back and forth. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries are no substitution for talk page discussions. Fatmyronuk, if you search on the page for "how about" you'll see the text NewMediaResearcher is referring to. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it neccessary to have the guy Roken up twice? That is all! It seems redundant and POV'ish to me? I would be happy to chat with the other party and compromise. You are right I got sucked into an edit war and I was foolish. Let us wait and see if NewMediaResearcher wants to come to Talk? Thanks Fatmyronuk (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The agreed upon edit posted by NeilN (and reposted above) re: the trademark issue includes the party's name that is creating the dispute. That party is Jack Roken, the former CEO of Sonic Mountain, who is also suing his former company, as listed in the cited sources. If this information is to be included in the Odeo wikipedia article then it should include Roken's name since he is creating the dispute. Frankly, it has little to do with Odeo, and I would suggest to remove it entirely. The trademark issue has not been settled and has little to do with the subject of the article. Again, issues between Roken and his former employer, Sonic Mountain, are not relevant to this article, which is supposed to be about Odeo, the podcasting website and service.--NewMediaResearcher (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not even address the last post by NewMediaResearcher. SonicMountain owns Odeo (thanks to Roken!) And real soon Roken will own the trademark....so leave him up. He is a hero to me and the other bloggers for stopping a micro cap stock scam! SM better register the FireAnt Trademark and domain before they make the same mistake three times in one year. They will need it!Good luck, Fatmyronuk (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen "legal troubles" and "legal issues" too many times from fatmyronuk. FM is implying that Odeo has been charged with a crime and even accuses odeo of committing illegal acts. This is the worst kind of violation of the Wikipedia rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel. How can Wikipedia allow such unverified information to continue to be posted? NeilN, I respectfully submit the FM be barred from posting anything that is not verified by a credible source (no random comments on blogs that are untraceable and most likely posted by Jack Roken). Jack Roken, former CEO is suing Odeo in a CIVIL SUIT and there is nothing criminal about that. The reference to "15 counts" "legal issues" "illegal stock scams" "pump and dump" is unverified nonsense. Fatmyronuk, I call upon you to demonstrate your proof that Odeo committed these legal acts or stand down. Maybe your hero Jack Roken will fly in on his Milennium Falcon with true, verifiable information and save you from yourself. I highly doubt it.Hairdye100 (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The last two section of this article are highly irrelevant to Odeo, the podcasting website and company. To simplify and focus on Odeo's wikipedia entry, only information about Odeo should be presented here. Amergence is not relevant and Mr. Roken's issues are also not relevant to the main Wikipedia entry for Odeo. --NewMediaResearcher (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This should not be revisited! Please do not start an edit War! Neil is watching and that would be ridiculous to commence that nonsense again!Fatmyronuk (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OBTW it was NewMEdiaResearcher who put the information up so nicely organized. Why are we editing oneself? Fatmyronuk (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If consensus can be found to drop the Amergence section I'm fine with it. It has some relevance to Odeo's company history but only marginally. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Amergence section should be removed. At best, its relevance is extremely marginal. --NewMediaResearcher (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating above...The last two section of this article are highly irrelevant to Odeo, the podcasting website and company. To simplify and focus Odeo's wikipedia article, only information about Odeo should be presented here. Amergence is not relevant and Mr. Roken's issues are also not relevant to the main Wikipedia article for Odeo. I would like to remove the reference to Amergence as it is clutter and not relevant info. Regarding Jack Roken, this section is also not relevant to Odeo. If Mr. Roken wishes to start an article on SonicMountain (the company listed in the legal search TRO request denied) he is free to do so. Please be advised that Fatmyronuk is Jack Roken posting under a sock puppet user name. Wikipedia is not a forum for Mr Roken to harass his former employers and promote his own agenda. --NewMediaResearcher (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the official record NewMediaResearcher, I am not Jack Roken! You could not be more wrong...and he should be notified that you are spreading business libel about him. This is not the forum for that type of behavior. And you cannot just take down content witout a discussion on it here? What part of your admonishment by the editors did you miss? Let the editors decide on your behavioral issues?????Fatmyronuk (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I have a few friends who lost money on the phony Amergence/Odeo press release. They bought Amergence stock. It is very revelant to those folks and they deserve the truth to be told...Thanks NeilFatmyronuk (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Who owns Odeo? SonicMountain. what other relevance is necessary...Thanks againFatmyronuk (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the bit about the trademark dispute as a company not being able to trademark the name of one of its major products seems noteworthy. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. This is a good compromise (the trademark is still pending according to the linked USPTO documentation). --NewMediaResearcher (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute there? So this is a consensus just this...Agreed. Amergence section should be removed. At best, its relevance is extremely marginal. --NewMediaResearcher (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC Come on I gave the following explanation to discuss: Additionally, I have a few friends who lost money on the phony Amergence/Odeo press release. They bought Amergence stock. It is very revelant to those folks and they deserve the truth to be told...Thanks NeilFatmyronuk (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1 vote is not a concensus? Let us put it back in Neil?Fatmyronuk (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neil, I do not wish to put back in the Amergence scandal without your concurrence. Though that type of behavior is typical of how NewMediaResearcher acts. Please let us put it back or lets hear an opinion from her?Fatmyronuk (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. This is a good compromise (the trademark is still pending according to the linked USPTO documentation). Are you kidding I never compromised? The Amergence issue was up for months and now it is gone is not a compromise? I strongly object!!! I will remind all that the truth must be told and hiding it will not make it go away!Fatmyronuk (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Trademark is SUSPENDED for SM/ODEO Dear Newmediaresearcher, not pending, what I read today mid-2009 at best!!!!! Go to the site and get you facts straight and get used to seeing that entry till the new decade arives!Love FatMyronuk00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Job Neil...it draws attention to the fact that Odeo is without a Trademark....a better emphatic heading then Legal. I give up tonight......Let us see if Amergence comes back under a name in the news with SonicMountain....then I will petition to put it back up!Fatmyronuk (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my newmedia researcher put up the Trademark heading...You are on the honest side of things after all! Odeo/SM lawyers will love to see that one! Thanks for being honest and showing all the truth of the matter!Fatmyronuk (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Amergence is a non-issue and is clutter. Mr. Roken's legal case is also irrelevant as the only documentation online, to date, is a judgement denying a TRO in August against SonicMountain, not Odeo. The links provided have no further information and posting this as a "legal issue" is simply not accurate and looks more like a "non-issue" -- this type of information is irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is Odeo the podcasting website and service. The issue of "Trademark" is in progress according to the USPTO filings. The "suspension," according to the USPTO website, is a common practice to review and resolve duplicate filings as Jack Roken filed a trademark application at the USPTO three days before SonicMountain filed their trademark application. Also, the taunting nature of Fatmyronuk's language certainly doesn't indicate an impartial view, which is core to Wikipedia's style guide. --NewMediaResearcher (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Amergence was completely an issue and was a pump and dump attempt. Let's see the announcement of another Pump (press release of an acquisition on Monday), JM! Odeo has no trademark! And the fact that ODEO is being sued in court is going back up! It is relevant and must be told....They are in a major lawsuit and this is not trivial. No duplicate filings just "first come first served". I suggest you read the USPTO Trademark and Revue board site prior to acting so non-chalant. The "suspension" is a major issue for SonicMountain and something they cannot get around for at least TWO MORE YEARS! Furthermore the COO of SonicMountain Eric Rupert is caught cyberstalking Mr. Roken, just as you are guilty of here at Wikipedia and other Internet site....J.M. you are the troll and Sockpuppet (projection on your deranged part that someone else is!) and so is this guy.... You better govern yourselves with caution http://www.digg.com/users/BillyG21 IP adresses can be checked and signing one's name in a slanderous posting is business libel...Plain, simple and big trouble for SM/Odeo!! Too bad you can do no good for SM they need helpFatmyronuk (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, in the spirit of Wikipedia, the further vandalism of existing facts (that were posted for months) on Wikipedia must stop. NMR must begin her edits with the discussion board first. Then we can discuss. IT is pure Vandilism that was employed this evening and should not be tolerated by the Community. "Rearranging deck chairs" to hide the fact she is trying to remove factual content will not be tolerated by me any longer and accusing me of being another identity is purely deranged. I implore NMR not to have a few "cocktails" and then take it out on the Wikipedia community Saturday nights!Fatmyronuk (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

NeilN: I've reverted to the agreed upon article, which includes the general Odeo description and the "Trademark" section, which you had suggested to remain. Please note: Fatmyronuk's statements continue to entirely advocate Jack Roken's POV in on-going entries that have little or nothing to do with Odeo, the podcasting service. By all indications, these comments and article edits are simply intended to harass Mr. Roken's former company, Sonic Mountain and its employees. This definitely violates Wikipedia's core policies of remaining neutral with statements of fact and not promoting one's personal agenda. More concerning: Fatmyronuk is now issuing threatening statements, specifically "you better govern yourselves with caution" which will need to be flagged as "abusive conduct." Fatmyronuk is also making several wrong assumptions and continuing to post taunts and threats directed at specific individuals. Again, this type of behavior is entirely inappropriate. Please suggest a course of action to remedy this situation. --NewMediaResearcher (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any abusive conduct by me? Just need the truth and again I am not Jack Roken NMR. Saying things were agreed upon and making up that I am another person does not mean it is the truth! Nothing is put up that is not verifiable.... It will stay as it has for months... Please find a more constructive pastime than changing edits already made by you weeks ago?Fatmyronuk (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Jack Roken was never the CEO at Odeo. He was only an investor in the company. No documentation on file anywhere to prove his CEO status.76.98.32.194 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Except on the website itself. I've reverted your edit and added a ref. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, hey it is FatMyronuk. Jack Roken was never legally CEO at SonicMountain. No paperwork exists in the NY County Nassau county records of Incorporation, outlining him as CEO, or anywhere in a legal status on the Web. The link you referred to is already in discussion as a business libel action that was initiated by Odeo/SonicMountain to link him to porn at the Odeo site. He is not an actual member of the ODEO community. The Wikipedia link actually exacerbates the Slander charge against Odeo by Mr. Roken. Please read your link and please remove. If you wish me to leave the link up, then I will put verbiage in that Odeo is without the permission of Mr. Roken illegally using his image to link to pornographic podcasts at the Odeo site controlled by SonicMountain management! Your call? Fatm.Fatmyronuk (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil N, Jack Roken was never legally CEO of SonicMountian, Inc. Here is his own words expressing that he was legally only an lender/shareholder in SonicMountain in defending Cyberstalkers.. What other proof do you need? http://www.digg.com/podcasts/podCast_411_Learn_about_Podcasting_and_Podcasters/425180 Thanks Fatm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatmyronuk (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Fatmyronuk (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone could have posted that comment - it's not acceptable as a reliable source. If you wish, I can provide numerous sources that call Roken the CEO. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

From your source: "A 47 year-old dude from Philadelphia, PA (US) who joined Digg on February 8th, 2008". Definitely NOT a reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, what do you want? a record from the Articles of Incorporation paperwork,? 17:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)17:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I will provide sources that call Roken the CEO. Please don't revert again without providing reliable sources that say otherwise. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

NeilN...this is new Breaking information that was just released last week. Roken was never legally CEO! I do not wish to argue with you because you are a fair guy and do not have the proof yet. I am being told with-in the next twoo weeks there will be reliable legal proof that reverts all Web Links including Roken's own words! Sorry, I do not mean to be a pest but do not yet have the proof on the WEB> FM~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatmyronuk (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, leave it up till I have proof...........Are the four links a little extreme? Thanks FatMFatmyronuk (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. But I thought multiple sources would stand a better chance of convincing you not to revert. Again, this whole Odeo/SonicMountain/Roken matter means nothing to me personally. I only care that what is written in the article can be verified by reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert? You are entitled to your opinion. I will have reliable proof next week.Thanks Neil...FatM17:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatmyronuk (talk • contribs)

Neil, no need to wait till next week; you can have reliable proof right now if you wish? Read the Nassau County Court decision you have as reference 4 on page 3. Roken / Plaintiff has no power to act in any Corporate Capacity. He was CEO by default not by any appointment or agreement. That is as legal as it gets and verifiable to the source. I really do not wish to be a bother to you on this. I know you personally do not care, however the truth is the truth... I will awit your response.....Thanks FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 03:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A very wise women told me once...do not believe everything you read on the web...she was right! Thnx, FMFatmyronuk (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good for finding a reliable source. I've changed the article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Neil....again sorrry to be a pest. Have a nice week.FMFatmyronuk (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil, I am going to link the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board schedule from their Website, so the facts/scheduling of the trial, along with and the impact it will have on Odeo the Podcasting site, can be viewed in Wikipedia for usage as a factual source, can be gained by the community. http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91182099&pty=OPP&eno=2 The trial continues till 4/14/2009. OK, Verifiable right? No POV....Thanks so much Neil, FatMyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostafa

mostafa.123456 149.255.230.63 (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)