Talk:Odeo/Archive 1

The References on this page are all screwed up. I'd fix it, but I'm worried I'd make it worse.

Copyedits
I've done some major copyediting to the article and taken out some copyrighted and POVish text while (hopefully) keeping the facts intact. --NeilN 00:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Neil, these are all the facts and I can put the links in. Is there any copyright violation I am unaware of? Additionally, what are the specific POV objection and I will re-edit.

Thanks!

Crimestoppernyc 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You've undone most of my copyedit and grammar fixes. I urge you to read Manual of Style as the article again reads as if it's in point form.  Sentences are incomplete and tenses are inconsistent.  You have left out the copyright violation however (the PR Newswire text) so thanks for that. --NeilN 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will get the style down better....Thanks! Crimestoppernyc Crimestoppernyc 02:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop The Edit War
JDiamond837 and Crimestoppernyc, do you have any specific objections to going back to this version: ? If so, please list them here. Note that I am a neutral third party just trying to stop the edit war. --NeilN 03:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and this "edit war" must cease. I will accept the version you cited above. It is a compromise for me, however to end this nonsense, we all must give in a bit. Thank you NeilN! Crimestoppernyc 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NeilN, this has gotten out of control. POV, defamation and vicious lies are being spread about elected officials (not substantiated whatsoever). Odeorocks must cease immediately or there will be a subpoena for their IP address to stop them! Thanks, Crimestoppernyc 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NeilN

I was just referring to the counterclaim filed under Index No. 010500-7 in NY State Supreme Court, specifically the Eighth Affirmative Defense. I would be happy to provide the documentation. If crimestopper can post references the case, why can't I? I would gladly agree to removal of all references to the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odeorocks (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if NeilN can't help us mediate, perhaps Dan Hardy can give us a hand. We can give him all of the facts and he can decide the best course of action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odeorocks (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Niel N, This is a legal issue to which diposition of the case shall be severely compromised by releasing facts, innuendos, assertions or allegations against individuals or entities without relevance. Blackmail attempts or threats to discredit or damage an elected officials reputation for the financial benefit of a person or entity is a serious offense punishable under the law. Either Odeorocks ceases personal attacks against individuals to whom they have a deliberate attempt to harm, or Wikipedia, along with Odeorocks, will be held liable for such misleading information. The only individuals who would have access to complete case information would be either the Plaintiff or Defendant of such case. Both parties will be subpoenaed and sanctions placed. If postings continue from Odeorocks, it is clear that they are either Plaintiff or Defendant in case and are using Wikipedia for personal or financial gain in addition to damaging the credibility and reputation of all parties involved. Crimestoppernyc 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Crimestoppernyc has agreed to revert back to the version I suggested above. Odeorocks, do you agree?  If not, please describe your objections.  Also, all parties should read No legal threats --NeilN 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the version posted by JDiamond837. It has no legal references, no opinion, and verifiable facts. Not sure why crimestoppernyc made the threat above (financial benefit on wikipedia???), seems out of place in this community. Fortunately, I can afford a good attorney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odeorocks (talk • contribs) 12:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph will need to be rewritten as it sound too much like a PR release. Crimestoppernyc, do you have any specific objections to this version?  --NeilN 12:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the last paragraph being rewritten. In fact, I wouldn't mind if crimestoppernyc did the edits, as long as it maintains the integrity of wikipedia.

I've added tags to sentences that require references. --NeilN 12:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree to the original version as stated by NeilN. Odeorocks and JDiamond837 is the same person. (Check their synonymous edits) Or are working together. The only way to settle this is to state the facts and be honest. Let us settle this and go back to the original version that NeilN suggests. I agree that the last paragraph is pure PR. As long as the truth of the lawsuit detail are re-inserted with no POV I am ok with the PR that Odeorocks and Jdiamond837 desire. A fair compromise in my onion. CrimestopperNYC Crimestoppernyc 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NeilN's version states SonicMountain is being sued on 15 counts (or something like that) and doesn't answer the question for what??....This is rather ambiguous. I would be ok with sued on 15 counts by its' former CEO (you can leave the name out if you'd like, it isn't important). keep the PR references and I am fine with the article. Odeorocks 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One additional edit to NNeil's text. Sony dropped the lawsuit against the Amergence Group on 9/24/2007. This is factual and needs to be part of the article if the suit is referenced.Odeorocks 22:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Two points:

1. It is right in the link to the NY State Nassau Supreme Court who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant. Certainly Wikipedia users can read it when they click on the link. It is not public record what the 15 counts are, so that would be a violation for anyone to post.

2. Regarding, Sony dropped the lawsuit against the Amergence Group on 9/24/2007. This has never been substantiated anywhere? I have not found a link to this and the lawsuit may still be valid (with prejudice at least). Thank you and I am glad in the spirit of the community you have seen the value of compromise, CrimeStopperny Crimestoppernyc 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OdeoRocks may put the links (I put the the references up)in as he/she deem appropriate....Thanks again! CrimeStopperny Crimestoppernyc 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Response: 1. the posting about the suit is nebulous. What message are you trying to convey by saying they are being sued on 15 counts in NY State Supreme Court? Strikes me as POVish. To make it crystal clear, post the actual facts not just a reference they are being sued.

2. Go to Amergence Group website. Media->Press Releases. Odeorocks 00:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is not a direct link to the Press Release on the Amergence Group website, so I am unable to post the link. I would if I could. maybe crimestoppernyc can help me out. Odeorocks 00:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC) --- Odeorocks, Please stop being so narky and argumentative.

1. I do not have the 15 case counts, that is court documentation. There exists no POV just the fact that SonicMountain/Odeo is being sued. It is a verifiable fact so we all must accept it.

2. As I stated previously, Regarding, Sony dropped the lawsuit against the Amergence Group on 9/24/2007. This has never been substantiated anywhere? It probably does not exist since the lawsuit was most likely never dropped.

We should go back to NeilN's original version so that this "war for no reason" stops. Thanks again! Crimerstopperny Crimestoppernyc 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I re-edited the facts once again. Odeorocks simply may put the reference marks in as he/she deems fit! Thank you CrimestopperNY Crimestoppernyc 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick check proved what I thought was true. The press release was never released to the wire by the Amergence Group. That is why it cannot be found. A typical pump and dump stock scam technique. It would be of benefit to Odeorocks not to try and link to this page. Not my call of course. Crimerstopperny Crimestoppernyc 13:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The verifiable facts state that some named Jack Roken is suing Sonic Mountain on 15 counts. So why does crimestoppernyc not want this in the article? It is also verified that Mr. Roken was their CEO for a time (a recent press release by Cr3.mobi states this), so therefore, the facts are the Ex CEO of SonicMountain is suing them on 15 counts. Also, I looked at the case link and saw that the Plaintiff (Mr Roken) was denied a temporary restraining order. We should include this as well. As crimestoppernyc writes, it is a verifiable fact so we all must except it. I am going to file a Freedom of Information Request to get the details on this the order. It would be good to get those verifiable facts into the article. Mr. Roken is now a consultant for a firm that has a free music downloader (Cr3.mobi) and Lisa Paolino is VP of Marketing. Ms. Paolino is also an elected official. Do we need to include that too? They are verifiable facts.

Take down the entire posting about the Amergence group, if you refuse to include all of the facts. The release is on their website. who cares if it wasn't released to a news wire? crimestoppernyc is drawing conclusions. Also, there is no reference to SonicMountain/Odeo anywhere on the Amergence Group website (except for the press release that says the deal is off!), so what does your claim about "pump and dump" have to do with Odeo? Crimestoppernyc, what is your agenda? What did Odeo do to you? Are you an ex-employee or something? Crimestoppernyc, please state all of the facts, not just the ones YOU deem appropriate. I think I have made more than enough attempts at compromise and crimestoppernyc is continuing his/her "state only some of the facts" agenda. Odeorocks 21:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC) -- If you would like to start a link regarding a former CEO and his new consulting business venture go for it! Of what relevance that is to the ODEO article it is beyond me. Odeorocks please calm down. It is probably best that you take some wonderful Wikipedia advice and "take a break" for a while from this article. I cannot state facts that I do not have? I am only interested in the truth being told! No POV, copyright or completely non-related information is needed. Please takes your vent on someone else? I ask for NeilN to restore some sensibility to this situation. Thank you once again for you input, however lets leave the emotion out of this forum. Crimestopperny Crimestoppernyc 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Odeorocks, links for your reference are needed. Maybe Manual of Style can help you understand how to do so. I am going through it (unfortunately slowly:))and it really is of value. Thanks, Crimestopperny Crimestoppernyc 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, crimestoppersnyc, you continue to cherry pick the facts. Mr Roken is suing SonicMountain and that is a fact. Mr. Roken filed for a temporary restraining order and it was denied. That is a fact. No emotion there and none in the posting above. Just, verifiable facts and questions as to your intentions. I wasn't ranting at all. On the contrary, I am trying to make sure fair, balanced, and accurate articles are on wikipedia. crimestoppersnyc, I ask again....what is your agenda? why won't you agree to my verifiable edits? Do you dispute the facts? No where in your post can you do you state the facts are incorrect. Therefore, they should be included. Seems odd that if sensibility is what you want, you continue to remove verifiable facts. Regarding the court case, my facts are verified at the same URL that yours are verified.Odeorocks 22:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Odeorocks, I am so glad that you have calmed down. Don't you feel better! My agenda is to tell the truth. It is my chosen path in life to be certain that is achieved. Thank you for being understanding and may preace go with you for all of your days! Crimestoppernyc 22:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OH please do fix your references as I asked twice before. Thanks and have a wonderful evening! Sorry about the sp error. I meant to say peace. Crimestoppernyc 22:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure, which references would you like me to fix? there have been so many versions, I can't keep up with who did what.Odeorocks 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC) I added references to some of the articles. Good luck in your travels and may the force be with you as it was with Han Solo on the Millennium Falcon.Odeorocks 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, Sorry OdeoRocks but an e-mail is completely POV and not even close to being a substaintion of a dropped lawsuit. As I stated, I could not find proof and certainly an e-mail from a CEO on a message board is not even a shade close to what could be defined as FACT. (Particularly from that mangement) Good luck in finding what is not POV in this case. They are your references, I would never be so bold to tell you how to fix them. Good Luck and have a great evening. Crimestoppernyc 02:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Odeorocks, can you provide a proper link to the Register article? --NeilN 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am only stating facts. Crimestoppernyc continues to delete facts. The reference is also on the Amergence Group website. Besides, Odeo is no longer involved with the Amergence Group.Odeorocks 02:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) The references were there under my last revision, but now crimestoppernyc has revised three times on top of my revision and I have to go dig for the links. crimestoppernyc has some other agenda. not sure what it is.Odeorocks 02:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

crimestoppernyc, I have given two references regarding the dropping of the Sony lawsuit. The Amergence Group website and another external site. Not sure what else I need to do. You haven't presented a single fact that the lawsuit is still pending. Once you present that info, I will accept your changes. So, get your facts straight and verified, just as I have. External, verifiable sources Odeorocks=2 crimestoppersnyc=0. Odeorocks 02:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NeilN, the proper link is in my latest article posting. I would rather this not even be in the article, but crimestoppersnyc has an agenda and wants it for some reason. I agree to the posting as long as all of the relevant facts are stated. If facts are omitted, then the entire paragraph should be removed.Odeorocks 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NeilN, one other question. at what point does this article get removed for vandalism? crimestoppernyc continues to delete my verified postings and is pursuing a "some of the facts" agenda. he/she demands that the info about the lawsuit be posted, but he/she objects when the Plaintiff is listed. Saying someone is being sued doesn't state all of the facts. He/she wants the posting about the Amergence Group to be included, but objects when verifiable facts are listed stating the lawsuit has been dropped. He/she is clearly trying to frame the article in a way that suits his/her agenda and not objectively. This isn't a difference of opinion. crimestoppersnyc is purposefully omitting facts.Odeorocks 02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah Odeorocks, it is not a fact if you cannot find a source to prove it? Why do you not let go of your negativity and go back to the original as Neil suggested. It is so easy! Why re-list the Plantiff when it is right in the case file? Anyone can read the link. I have mentioned this so many times????

Saying, Amergence Group to be included, but objects when verifiable facts are listed stating the lawsuit has been dropped. Again for the fourth time this is not verifyeable anywhere? the lawsuit stands until you prove otherwise? Play nice OdeoRocks. Fair is Fair! Please, learn to compromise and stop making excuses to exhibit your wayward anger. Life is short. Just let the truth be heard! No POV is necessary in terms of repeated excessive redundancy. Crimestoppernyc 04:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Crimestoppernyc, please do not remove the refs Odeorocks has added --NeilN 04:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I have found independent confirmation that Sony's lawsuit has been dropped. Go here:  and scroll down to the last couple posts. --NeilN 04:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NeilN, thanks for your help. I am ok with your latest edits. Odeorocks 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Me also NeilN, though I doubt validity it is time to move on. thanks, Crimestoppernyc 13:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Odeo and Fireant
Neil, Sorry I am still learning. How would you suggest I describe (sans promo) the new areas Odeo is entering into in the Music biz? How about:

The Odeo brand is now be extended into the Music industry. The introduction of new sites such as Odeotunes.com and Odeoguitar.com are new User generated concepts for the industry.

Is that kosher? Thanks Fatmyronuk (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fatmyronuk" Fatmyronuk (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a rumour that the Fireant acquisition was all fluff for PR purposes. I have no objection to it staying up if a link is shown as an actual legal transaction. I am certain there must exist a court transaction record. I am fine if a credible legal reference is shown. Jenny M. Jenny Midol 22:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have a credible,verified reference that states Fireant was not acquired, so how can you can remove the reference? The current entry is verified by at least two different entities, TechCrunch and NewTeeVee. NewTeeVee even interviewed employees. Jenny Midol, why are you trying to change the entry based on a non verified rumor? That is against the rules of wikipedia. Get a verifiable referenceHairdye100 02:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So show a verifed reference from a legal affidavidt or Agreement of Sale for Proof. The blog posts you mention are pr hype. Show me the money Baby! I cancelled check would do, however good look finding that! Jenny Midol 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For your info hairdye100: Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Spam. So where is your proof! Anyone can call into TechChrunch with PR gossip! Love J. Midol Jenny Midol 03:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, Jenny Midol, you deleted my VERIFIED, REFERENCE based posts. What promotional article? It is merely a fact. Just the same as the legal case that the old CEO filed against his ex employer. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone, but it is a fact, so it is posted. (Lots of rumors out on there about that one, but they are not verified) So, the fireant acquisition is a fact that should also be included. Hairdye100 03:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No go HD100, The Ceo has a legal link! Where is the Agreement of Sale or the M/A paperwork! Was any ever done? Precisly why proof is needed. Rick Arturo, Pres of SonicMountain, claimed in a press release that he had a Binding agreement for acquisition with the Amergence Group! Well it turns out there was never any agreement drawn up in the first place. Just lies and PR Pump and Dump tactics! This made the major blogs also? Care to explain. Once a liar always a liar! Show me proof and I will stop. Someone needs to tell the truth. Ask your CEO about his past and find some more lies there! Just be honest that is all HD100! Jenny Midol 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where you get your info Jenny Midol. I posted verifiable sources. When crimestoppernyc and odeorocks were going back and forth on the last edit war, NeilN stepped in and verified the post. you have decided yourself, with no credible sources or information, that you should delete the post. This is a community and we all should contribute. Why are you now the sole authority? Where is your proof? Where are your credible references? Please present them and I will gladly concur. Hairdye100 04:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: All parties should read WP:3RR. A couple of you are already in violation and could technically have your editing privileges temporarily suspended. Jenny Midol, unless you have sources that refute Hairdye100's referenced content please stop removing it. Has Fireant said something to the contrary? -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  04:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Neil, did you read my last post? Jenny Midol 04:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Repost edited version: I changed HairDye100's edit because it looks like they are blanking and if you they believe there are existing factual and legally verifiable statments of an SonicMountain/odeo/fireant acquisition then you should discuss and layout the proof of the facts here with the other editors (Neil) that edit odeo. Until there is proof there should not be a perpetuation of futher lies by SonicMountain. (Again the Amergence lie of a binding agreement that never existed!) My clerk searched for weeks the NY, Calif. and Federal databases and found not one shred of any legal documentation that an Acquisition took place. The only conclusion is that no paperwork was ever filed? Hence a phony PR Bumph to drive goodwill and or investment. HD100 simply needs to find a real link or perhaps her/his attorney could assist? Jenny Midol 05:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not up to Hairdye100 to provide further proof, it's up to you to provide a source that refutes his assertions. While I agree that a PR release is not a reliable source, TechCrunch has discussed the acquisition and Fireant has not refuted it. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  05:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than getting into a revert war, you probably should have tagged the article and asked a neutral third party to mediate. See  and  for potential tags. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Publicly announced and verified. It is a fact. Call the company yourself and verify. The burden of proof is on you Jenny. I gave you my proof. Let's see yours.Hairdye100 05:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have called the offices repeatly in the past and no one will ever speak to me. Their numbers answer as some law office! I agree with JennyModoal that these guys lie all the time! (And I know for a fact that they lied openly at least once, when I bought Amergence stock because Odeo was announced as an acquisition.) Their president Rick Arturo lied and said it was a Binding Agreement. Well when Amergence was sued, he later blogged it was not binding? I will do an edit that is fair. All the community wants is some proof. I think legally something has to be filed somewhere? There should not be an argument. I wish I did not lose all investment money on the scam perpetrated on me. But these guys should not be allowed to make up whatever they wish? I could post the two items mentioned by Rick Arturo and my stock loss statement. But that will not get me my money back. If one person is not scammed then the post of the truth is worth it! Fireant should be the nervous ones and I hope they did their research on these con men. sincerely, Fatmyronuk Fatmyronuk 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Conflict of interest. Your edits looks ok but why did you remove the references? -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  03:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To Editor....I geuss I am ok with the edits you made...I just do not think it right to link to web sites with no confirmation. If someone can verify the supposed acquisition than I am cool....otherwise calling the office as I read earlier is a waste since no office exists! Lets wait and see if any proof comes to light with further documentation. I still lost a lot of money (to me a young post grad and I do not want to see anyone get hurt if they are lying once again. Thanks, FM Fatmyronuk 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New Content
Neil, Sorry I am still learning. How would you suggest I describe (sans promo) the new areas Odeo is entering into in the Music biz? How about:

The Odeo brand is now be extended into the Music industry. The introduction of new sites such as Odeotunes.com and Odeoguitar.com are new User generated concepts for the industry.

Is that kosher? Thanks Fatmyronuk (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fatmyronuk"
 * Ok, why are they "new User generated concepts for the industry"? Who is saying this?  To be honest it sounds very PR'ish.  A simple sentence like "In November 2007 Odeo introduced two websites which blah, blah, blah..." would suffice I think.  It would help if you could provide a reliable third party source that talked about the sites as a reference. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about:

In November 2007, Odeo extended it branded into the music industry with new websites concentrating on ad supported music downloads and musical instrumentation (starting with guitar.) Industry triple threat [Michael Sembello] writer of the #1 hit song "[Maniac]" is now working on content and structure for the sites! 75.196.181.234 14:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Fatmyronuk75.196.181.234 14:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

NeilN...I cannot find your comments here on the Talk forum? May I poceed or can you direct me to your latest comments? Thanks;-) 76.98.32.194 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Fatmyronuk 21:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Two paragraphs up. You don't need my permission to edit the article but I appreciate your willingness to solicit input.  "Industry triple threat" - again, remove the PR.  I strongly suggest you look at articles for other web companies and adopt a similar style. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fatmyronuk...where are your third party references? those URLs above linkk to some other site, not Odeo. fatmyronuk is trying to use Odeo page for non associated sites. That is like saying you have the domain www.cokeguitar.com and you want it associated with the Coca Cola Wiki articleBrokeLivingwGF 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh silly, BrokeLivingwGF...I never finished the post due to the fact that I was awaiting Neil's comments on the post on User:Talk. (So, I never put in the sources of the links) Please chill girlfriend! Furthermore, if I had know someone with the domain cokeguitar.com that would be cybersquatting on Coca Cola and I would never approve of that type of underhand sheniggans by anyone. Peace to you and have a wonderful Christmastime. Furthermore please check in to Discussion on Tuesday so you will not object to a completely factual post about my beloved Odeo then! Love and HAPPY Holidays from FatmyronuK ;-) Fatmyronuk 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

On December 4th SonicMountain/Odeo failed for the second time in six months to attend a scheduled court appearance. Due to this fact the appearance is now schedule for December 10, 2007. This is completely factual. Please feel free to check the website.... Any issues? thanks so much, FatMyronuk Fatmyronuk (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You really are kidding....right? What does a dispute between two parties (the plaintiff, the one that filed the lawsuit, being the EX..emphasis on EX...CEO). The case is has not been decided and extending the date by one week happens all the time. What does changing a court date have to do with a wikipedia article that describes a company? Also, the judge denied Roken's first legal action, a Temporary Restraining Order, so in simple terms, Odeo responded to legal action, responded and WON. BrokeLivingwGF (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! It is called a Lawsuit and it has 15 counts. You are acting so naive...if they won in court why are they scheduled (and missing twice in 3 months?) for a trial conference? I wonder how the Judge feels. Have you ever heard of the three strikes rule? It is a fact they missed (not postponed) their court appearance. Roken is a hero with community on the blogs and I salute him. Read about Roken on the blogs and then I suggest reading of your heroes and felons (homicide nonetheless?) at http://newteevee.com/2007/09/13/sonicmountain-buys-fireant/#comments Dear Brokelivingwgf, their exists only 2 reasons to miss court (and real lawyers do not forget) Delay or are not prepared. I guess we will hear something on Monday.... Have a wonderful first night of Chanukah...I will. Love and peace to all, FatMyronuk Fatmyronuk (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.podcastingnews.com/2007/06/12/odeo-2/, Here is some more uptodat reading for you, Thanks,Fatmyronuk Fatmyronuk (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fatmyronuk, anyone can file a lawsuit. Happens all the time. It a CIVIL (not Criminal) dispute between two parties. By writing 15 Counts, you imply Odeo has been brought up on criminal charges. Maybe Odeo didn't show up because the lawsuit (not criminal case) is such nonsense that even if the judge files for the Plaintiff, they don't really lose anything? Who knows??? The EX CEO filed a lawsuit. Odeo is responding to the lawsuit. BrokeLivingwGF (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy you have calmed down. It seems that legal opinion you received has helped you. I am happy! It really is not worth getting upset over. As a gesture of Good Faith I will wait to post on Monday. Please be respectful of this due to the fact on Monday, I have a feeling you might be upset again after the court appearance by SonicMountain. I do disagree that you are taking lightly the CIVIL lawsuit. The judge deemed it is very serious and not frivolous in nature. Not showing up because something is deemed nonsense is just a recipe for failure. The Ex CEO was the founder and from what I read in the Blogs he has hard grounds for damages to him and others. You are entitled to your opinion. We will certainly see how this unfolds....Love on ya! FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When adding any new content please remember that this article is about Odeo the company and not its current or former employees. Any additions should directly relate to the company.  Thank you. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Hairdye100. Nice to see you back! Unfortunately missing a court appearance is company news. If it were a lawsuit against say, their VP of Marketing, regarding a family court proceeding; I would agree. However they are big boys and the truth will set them free. At least no one is posting on wikipedia what the blogs are saying about their current financial state and the fact they have not paid one thin dime to poor Fireant for the supposed acquisition? At least not yet anyway. Enjoy the festival of lights this evening. I am going to...Love ya FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Podcasting News reports in its Forum that Odeo/SonicMountain is experiencing financial difficulties in addition to their lawsuit problems. http://www.podcastingnews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5066 Love as always FatMyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neil Help...silly me lost the references. I am so sorry :-( Fatmyronuk70.208.142.135 (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you need help with? -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The references were gone? Then they came back. Not sure is it was a glich? thanks anywat.FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't close the ref tag during the your last edit. I fixed it. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  14:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the last post. A entry on a comments page is not reported news. BrokeLivingwGF (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Let us not start an edit war again dear brokelivingwgf. I will post three other souces if required? Thanks FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This entry citing to Podcasting News appears to be to a post planted by a former executive of Sonic Mountain, against whom the company has pressed several claims in litigation and who has been engaging in a pseudonymous campaign against the company for several months. We believe that the citation of a 'self-authenticated' business libel is outside the Wikipedia protocols, and we call upon you to delete the edit or call for the person who posted it to attempt to deny that he is the former executive.Eric Russo (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is Eric Russo? What is this about pray tell? Are u a lawyer Eric? Have you heard of freedom of Speech? Love FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eric Russo does have point. Please make sure provided sources meet reliability guidelines. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NeilN, My last post to the article was erased by an unknown editor. References were posted. Please mediate.Eric Russo (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

- Eric Russo welcome to Wikipedia. You broke every rule in the book with that diatribe. Congrats! That was way too funny! I would check your facts and be mindful of using Wikipedia for links to other sites (though if I were involved with cr3.mobi I would say thanks for the traffic!) However that is not allowed....sorry ;-(...Oh, also no POV, no PR for anyone, no references, no mention of employees (former or current...I would suggest using this forum first..(As I have learned, that you need to use Talk and Neil can moderate.)  Have a great evening Eric! Love you funny folks so much!

One last question? do you work for SonicMountain/Odeo? Because isn't this (by removing the word "former" and changing sides of the lawsuit) the Pot calling the Kettle black?:

"appears to be to a post planted by an executive of Sonic Mountain, against whom their former CEO has pressed several claims in litigation and who has been engaging in a pseudonymous campaign against the company for several months. We believe that the citation of a 'self-authenticated' business libel is outside the Wikipedia protocols, and we call upon you to delete the edit or call for the person who posted it to attempt to deny that he is a current executive"

Silly Rabbit, Love you, FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Eric, This helped me when I was learning! (Not that I am any good at editing on Wikipedia but I like to say I try! :-)

Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Odeo 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 for advertising or promotion. Since 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 to this encyclopedia. Thank you. There's no need to link to every website Odeo may be involved in. See Yahoo for an example. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 01:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC) from FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to add (if no one gets upsets and bites my little head off ;-) SonicMountain is still represented Prose and has failed to appoint an attorney since 6/14/07. Ok people....That is honest and accurate. No Big bad SM execs hopefully will yell at me....Thanks, Love the Fabulous FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully submit a request to remove Fatmyronuk's latest posting. Rather than "undo" his changes, I site the rationale below. NeilN, please review the following and make the final decision.

1. The suggestion that Sonic Mountain has no attorney is belied by the very court file to which the comment cites, and

2. that the December 4 status conference (not a hearing) was adjourned to, and took place on December 10,

3. that the case file to which the comment refers also shows that claims are being made by both Sonic Mountain and Richard Moore against Jack Roken,

4. that there is a difference between "15 counts" and "15 paragraphs"---which examination of the court file would also demonstrate---and if there is to be reference to the lawsuit it should not confound those entirely different concepts to convey a prejudicial meaning

5. that Jack Roken has failed to produce documents demanded in the litigation.Eric Russo (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already reverted the last edit on the basis that it was trivia. Editors, please keep in mind that this is not the place to chronicle the minute details of any legal actions. Rather, please keep focused on the "big picture". Only the outcomes of lawsuits should be reported if they have a significant impact on company history. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, Eric Russo you seem to know a lot! What are you trying to say? Are you a lawyer? You are very angry and should relax. Try Yoga it works for me! I am going to post again later this week. Thanks and keep up the amusing banter! It makes me chuckle!...Love the Fabulous Fat MyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Silly Eric Russo, 1. Nice Lawyerly big word! The Truth Mr. Russo? Who is the attorney for Sonicmountain then? 2. Adjourned? Why then? Because no one showed for SonicMountain I hear. The Truth Mr. Russo? 3. Who has the Case file and who is Richard Moore? The Truth Mr. Russo? Can you handle the truth? 4. 15 counts are all over the Blogosphere? The Truth Mr. Russo? Can you handle the truth? 5. What in the heck does this mean? He is the Plantiff? The Truth Mr. Russo? Can you handle the truth? Wow, that felt knda like geing a lawyer. How cool. Second Life is more fun though for that! Love ya Eric FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Eric, the blogs report you are the new CEO! Congrats. Then it is OK, if I post the 10/19/07 Suspension letter of the SonicMountain trademark application for Odeo then? Coolio? love ya Roose! Fatmyronuk 75.199.95.120 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC) -- Wowee, Eric is this the same Richard Dick Moore that you mention in the lawsuit? He has quite a feloniuos rap sheet huh! Is he your boss? I found this at NEWTeeVee:

Fireant never got the $400,000, just stock that will never be worth a penny! They deserve what they get because they partnered with criminals! Why does no one seem able to admit that Dick Moore is a convicted time serving felon! Lying that he is a good guy does not change the truth of what the animal really is!

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%3A%2F%2Fwww.clerk-17th-flcourts.org%3A80%2Fbccoc2%2Fpubsearch%2Fpublic_search.asp%3F&btnSummary=View+Selected+Case

Sorry I could not use the tinyurl. Not allowed as viewed as Spam by Wikipedia! So, does he work for you? Let little old me think of how to post this so it meets standards. Any ideas Eric? Maybe when he does the press release for the re-launch. Inquiring minds need to know, you know....Love ya Eric, It's me FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Break
On December 21st the CrimestopperNYC Blog reports that Odeo has reneged (and failed to make any payments, per their CEO)on a contract with WebScalers LLC, for a meta search application. http://crimestoppernyc.blogspot.com/ FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know who went ballistic with POV last night? They never signed in? How they got a supposed court document and thought they could post it up on Wikipedia is beyond me. I doubt it it was real except fot the times stamp.. I make the non referenceable mistake a lot and Neil is correct in admonishing me since "I should know better". The link Josh067 is a pure fact that I never found (very important from a factual standpoint and it must stay up.  I tied to clean things up and put back Neil's older edit.  I removed some blog posts as references.  No need!  Let me conclude that whoever wrote what they did should practice a bit prior to posting.  Again, I am still learning.   FatmyronulFatmyronuk (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever you are unknown person from the Bayarea, please stop undoing the Federal Government reference at USPTO. THis is an Encyclopedia and there exists no POV with this entry! If you are from SonicMountain it makes sense that you do not with to use this discussion forum. (Probably why you are in so much "hot water" in the first place!) Stop acting childish and present a reason why a fact (verifed by the United States Government) should not be allowed. Otherwise end the Edit War! FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bayarea unkown....Jus tthe facts and leave out the POV and mention of employees former or not. I am certain the foemer CEO has bundle of things he could post also. Do you deny the truth? Sonicmountain is suspended from the trademark thenerever seemed to actually own. Call Evan Williams on that one not discuss speculation on Wikipedia... Leave out your emotional temerity and come to the Talk message board please......Thanks FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I will take the high road here, since this unknown person will not cease and follow any rules! This is the fact that I submit to go up on the Odeo article. Why is this person so afraid of a simple statement of fact.. It is all ove the blogsphere posted by dozens of users anyway? - Since October 19, 2007 Sonicmountain is under suspension from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for attempting to apply for the Trademark/wordmark "Odeo" case number: 77201004 thanks Fatmyronul22:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I quit trying to reason with this person...Neil, your baby...I do protest the POV and use of a former employees name, ecttt.Thanks,FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow...that was interesting. I guess the unknown user was lucky that a legal opinion was given. That unknown person was putting evidence up that could have been used against SonicMountain? Anywho here is what I will post after the editors ok the fact this is just a statement of fact:

- Since October 19, 2007 Sonicmountain is under suspension from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for attempting to apply for the Trademark/wordmark "Odeo" case number: 77201004 - - Thanks, FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What are they under suspension from? -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  00:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They are under suspension (by the USPTO) for their application for the registration of the trademark "Odeo". Per the USPTO, "The applicant's effective filing date is subsequent to the effective filing date of a previous application". Thanks FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

NeilN, the publicly available suspension letter states "''SUSPENSION PROCEDURE: This suspension notice serves to suspend action on the application for the reason(s) specified below. No response is needed.  37.C.F.R.§2.67. The Office will conduct periodic status checks to determine if suspension remains appropriate.

''Action on this application is suspended pending the disposition of

- Application Serial No(s). 77198440 (Jack Roken's Application)

Since applicant's [SonicMountain/Odeo] effective filing date is subsequent to the effective filing date of the above-identified application(s) [Jack Roken's application], " Application 77198440, Jack Roken, the ex CEO's application, was filed a few days prior to Sonic Mountain's application. The remainder of the publicly available letter states that SonicMountain "may submit a request to remove the application from suspension to present arguments related to the potential conflict between the relevant application(s) or other arguments related to the ground for suspension " It would stand to reason that SonicMountain/Odeo will presenting information to lift the suspension, but I don't know.

You can find this letter by going to the www.uspto.gov, searching for odeo and clicking on TDR button once you get to the Application Serial Number page.BrokeLivingwGF (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whom (and as pointed out previous editor comments, that former or current employees have no reason to be discussed here - for legal reasons also!)....it is still a verifiable suspension and it is the US Law. Appeal if they wish, it is their money. It is a fact and in an encyclopedia it (like the legal procedures of the Federal Government) should be noted due to its significance. Thanks, FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a suspension of the Application for the Trademark. The Roken Application is still in progress(because it was first). Current status of Roken application "The mark identified below will be published in the Official Gazette on Nov 27, 2007.  Any party who believes they will be damaged by registration of the mark may oppose its registration by filing an opposition to registration or a request to extend the time to oppose within thirty (30) days from the publication date on this notice.  If no opposition is filed within the time specified by law, the USPTO may issue a Certificate of Registration.  One would think Sonic Mountain/Odeo will oppose the application, but who knows.  Plus, the Certificate of Registration has not been issued to Roken's application, so no one has the trademark.  Looks like there is a long way to go before this will be resolved. So, it is prejudicial to write Since October 19, 2007 Sonicmountain is under suspension from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for attempting to apply for the Trademark without stating all of the relevant facts. As Steven Covey says, seek first to understand, then to be understood. BrokeLivingwGF (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any added text should include what they are suspended from as "under suspension" does not mean anything to the reader and why (i.e., BrokeLivingwGF's point). -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this armchair speculation. Here are the facts! - 1. The application can be granted anytime regardless of the opposition. This is not a court case, but is determined by the USPTO board. It is not a trial! Also, it is not even confirmed that opposition to 77198440 was granted. - 2. The Registration can be granted as early as December 28, 2007! It was published for 30 days since November 27, 2007. - 3. The party SonicMountain is suspended pending the resolution of the previously submitted subsequent application! - Yes, that means that means 77198440 is first (Trademark Law exists as first come first served!-It must be this way since this very POV argument would come up every time someone applies for a trademark!) - 4. Please stop incriminating yourself BrokelivingwGF by naming the person who applied for the trademark. It is very tedious at this juncture. - 5. The truth is SonicMountain should have applied for a trademark first. However if you read the file, even Odeo, Inc could not get the trademark application through. 77198440 were completely successful and got the application through (read Office action). (I would refrain from quoting Stephen Covey since SonicMountain gets a bit stuck on Habit #1: Be Proactive: Principles of Personal Vision) - 6. Yes no one owns the Trademark. And legally anyone could use it (at least this week, till 77198440 may be granted the certificate.) - 7. In no way is it prejudicial to tell the truth! In fact the truth must be told in this instance in particular. SonicMountain must search deep regarding continuing using a trademark that they are suspended from even fighting for, and will be owned by another party who may not allow them to use his/her trademark. That is the Law in the US. Like it or not, it is fair and is completely without prejudice. Pray tell, look at the other side of the argument and accept the fact that SonicMountain made a mistake and should move on! Other folks do! - 8. By not posting the the facts of this suspension, the prejuidice is on the rightful trademark applicant 77198440. - This person gets no slack cut, and they did the legal and correct procedure as reviewed by the USPTO, if we listen to brokelivingwgf! Post the opposition when it is granted. By saying this will be a long drawn out procedure is just a guess! - (Every trademark case gets opposition and it is the resposibilty of the trademark holder to defend their trademark whether opposed or diluted through open market usage! - US Law again!) -   - This is not even a discussion any longer. SonicMountain should try and settle their differences with out their constant legal arm/threats and do the right thing now and then. People may start to like them and from what I read the blogs are not there for them today. Not everyone on this planet wants to argue all of the time...it is the Holiday Season! thnx, FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Neil, could you explain what you mean a wee bit more? thnx, FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So is this OK,

Since October 19, 2007 Sonicmountain has been suspended, on their United States Patent and Trademark Office Application, for the wordmark "odeo" pending the disposition of a subsequent application listed below: - Application Serial No(s). 77198440 reference: http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow?SRCH=Y&isSubmitted=true&details=&SELECT=US+Serial+No&TEXT=77201004 fatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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) -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  04:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK...a compromise finally! thanks for the voice of reason Neil...FatM.Fatmyronuk (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Could brokelivngwgf possibly consolidate references 4-9 down to a max of 2. I will leave off the independently verified verbiage! It is nice to finally get along! Thnx, FatMyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Added the Civil suit info back in! Not sure how that got taken out? Oh Well! goodnight FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi NeilN: Thanks for your level of involvement and for mediating the Odeo Wikipedia entry. In sum: There is more going on here than simply an "edit war" -- there is an attempt to hijack Odeo's Wikipedia entry for personal gain by Mr. Jack Roken, the former CEO of SonicMountain, who is suing his former employer and attempting to claim rights to the "Odeo" trademark. Recently, Mr. Roken tried to link to "odeotunes.com" and "odeoguitar.com", which redirect to CR3.mobi website, Jack Roken's latest venture publicly announced in with a press release. There was a clear attempt to post to this information to the Odeo wikipedia entry.

Going back through the history of the recent Odeo wikipedia entry since July 2007, there is a pattern of POV entries that indicate a clear conflict of interest in using Wikipedia as a public forum, rather than an impartial statement of facts.

I believe the user, "Fatmyronuk" as well as "JennyMidol" and "CrimefigherNYC" (and many more) are, in fact, all directly related to Jack Roken, the former employee and CEO of SonicMountain who was terminated in June 2007 and subsequently filed a failed Temporary Restraining Order on June 14, 2007. The judge's decision in that matter is public record and is available on the web, based on the link provided by Fatmyronuk. In fact, the ONLY document related to the reference posted by FatMyronuk is the Judge's decision dated August 1, 2007. No other decision has been recorded in this case except for a series of hearing dates, none of which produced any rulings or any publicly available documentation.

Again, to summarize, the only legal decision in the case of Jack Roken v. SonicMountain is the Judge's denial of the Temporary Restraining Order dated August 1, 2007. This information came from checking the link referenced on this entry, provided by Fatmyronuk, who is simply attempting to mislead by stating otherwise. If any lawsuit or "civil suit" is to be mentioned, then this information must be included as it is the ONLY action on public record.

This leads me to believe the only person who has an on-going concern with this issue is Jack Roken. Mr. Roken's attempts to defame his former employer by posting misleading statements and personal attacks using a variety of fake user names is commonly known as "trolling" with the added "sockpuppetry" and theatrics in the use of language that indicates a clear personal prejudice and lack of regard for creating an impartial entry on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a place for "statement of facts" that would summarize information that is without an individual POV. So far, the only POV is Jack Roken's/Fatmyronuk/JennyMidol/Crimefigher. In fact, using Fatmyronuk et al's own links to research and examine the facts has produced a very different set of facts than what is being posted on Wikipedia by Fatmyronuk et al.

Regarding the latest Wikipedia edits, Jack Roken attempted to register the Odeo trademark in June 2007 after he was terminated from his position as CEO of SonicMountain (the termination information is contained within the Judge's ruling document dated August 1, 2007). Mr. Roken claimed, in particular, the word "odeo" in its use for podcasting as a blatant attempt to harm his former employer, who had purchased Odeo in May 2007, including the brand, logo and technical assets (the original Odeo trademark application had lapsed in October 2006 and was abandoned by the original owners of the company for reasons unknown).

Furthermore, Jack Roken had registered several "odeo" domain names which he attempted to associate with this wikipedia entry in connection with Jack Roken's new ventures (eg: odeotunes.com, odeoguitar.com) which is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy against self-promotion and conflict of interest. Mr. Roken continues to post false information under several pseudonyms, as a sockpuppet attempt to gain attention and credibility. In the Odeo Wikipedia entry, Mr. Roken or associates of Mr. Roken are posting misleading information about Mr. Roken's legal activities, including his law suit against SonicMountain, and his attempt to claim the "odeo" trademark.

This is seriously in violation of Wikipedia's anti-POV policies and must be dealt with. How are Jack Roken's legal activities relevant to Odeo, the podcasting service and website?

Wikipedia is supposed to remain objective, and not a personal soap box. Most of what is posted by Fatmyronuk -- including all legal & trademark information -- is clearly Jack Roken's POV. Until a final decision has been reached in these legal matters, to claim otherwise is not respecting the impartial nature and intent of Wikipedia and not respecting legal processes, which can take many months or longer. Yes, Jack Roken is suing SonicMountain, the parent company of Odeo. However, the only decision on record by a judge was that Mr. Roken's motion for a TRO was denied on August 1, 2007. There is simply no other documentation publicly available.

To further clarify this point as it relates to the "Trademark application for Odeo" -- SonicMountain's application for the "Odeo" trademark was "suspended" on October 19, 2007 as there is a dispute and review in process. To suspend a trademark application simply means it is "on hold for review and processing" for a variety of reasons. In this case, as stated in the letter linked to by Fatmyronuk, the trademark application is pending review based as their is a conflicting trademark application filed by Jack Roken (which Fatmyronuk vigorously defends in this talk section). If you search for a trademark application for Odeo through USPTO.gov, there are two "live" applications. One by SonicMountain and one by Jack Roken. For Fatmyronuk to apply meaning to the word "suspended" other than "the application is on hold pending review of the dispute between SonicMountain and Jack Roken" is also in direct conflict with the USPTO's own definition of this action. Here is the link that clearly defines this process, as it commonly occurs in trademark applications under dispute:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/trademarks/workflow/oa.htm

Suspension letters

A suspension letter suspends the action on an application. An application may be suspended for a variety of reasons. These include waiting for the disposition of a cited prior pending application to be determined or waiting for an assignment of ownership to be recorded. Applicants do not have to respond to suspension letters.

In sum, the Odeo Wikipedia entry is not a forum for Jack Roken to harass his former employer and post misleading information about his own legal proceedings.

I'm suggesting instead we either remove references to legal and trademark proceedings in Odeo Wikipedia entry as they ONLY relate to Jack Roken's actions or put them in a special labeled section in the Odeo Wikipedia entry (eg: "Jack Roken V. SonicMountain") or in their own separate Wikipedia entry. Only factual statements based on publicly available documents and legal rulings should be permissible. Again, this is not a legal or public forum to share POV.

Otherwise, this particular Wikipedia entry about Odeo, the podcasting website and service, is lacking credibility and seriously fails to comply with Wikipedia standards and guidelines.

NeilN, please advise and thank you for your time volunteering on Wikipedia. I hope this information has been helpful and I look forward to your suggestions in this matter. Your work has helped tremendously in making sense of Odeo's Wikipedia entry. The fact that information based on researching the links provided by Fatmyronuk -- including links to factual legal documents -- are promptly removed by Fatmyronuk is suspect and proves my point.

--NewMediaResearcher (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the lawyerly dissertation, NewMediaResearcher. However, where are the certifiable facts: 1. You state, "CR3.mobi website, Jack Roken's latest venture publicly announced with a press release" the press release you refer to states, " Jack Roken, has been hired as an independent consultant to assist in the beta launch of a new global company cr3.mobi". Please show me where it is confirmed that this is his venture? http://www.cr3.mobi/press.html 2. You state, "Jack Roken had registered several "odeo" domain names ", again can you prove this anywhere? 3. "the original Odeo trademark application had lapsed in October 2006 and was abandoned", then why did Sonicmountain not apply for the trademark till after Roken did? From what I read he had every legal right to the trademark, as did anyone else.

My suggestion is for SonicMountain to start its own Wikipedia entry since they are at best second in line to receive a trademark of Odeo, from what I read on USPTO website. SonicMountain has every legal right to use the Odeo wordmark.(for now anyway) Unfortunately for them, so does everyone else on the planet. And that is their own fault due to their lack of due-diligence. Trying to blame and discredit another party (particularly with not one shred of proof) is slanderous and completely POV. Just the facts from now on please! Thanks, FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an enyclopedia not a PR vehicle for SonicMountain. It is becoming a PR platform for Mr. Roken because unknown bayarea is angry at something? Try and stick to just the facts Mam! Please lay off the Bumphs and PR huh! Thanks and Happy Holidays...FatmyronukFatmyronuk (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to post this that was previously submitted by Neil:

When adding any new content please remember that this article is about Odeo the company and not its current or former employees. Any additions should directly relate to the company. Thank you. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)